Brisson Ornithologie

Phil Davis

05/17/2009 Status of Red-faced Cormorant in the northern Bering Sea v36.doc Page 1 of 43

STATUS AND HISTORY OF THE RED-FACED CORMORANT IN THE NORTHERN BERING SEA REGION [v36]

UNPUBLISHED DRAFT as of 17 May 2009 Phil Davis, 2549 Vale Court, Davidsonville, MD 21035, [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Three recent events alter our understanding of the Red-faced Cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile) in the northern Bering Sea region: (1) between 24-26 May 2002 multiple observers identified, documented, and videotaped an adult, definitive alternate plumage Red-faced Cormorant in the northern Bering Sea offshore at the village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska—the first modern record for the island and the most northerly documented record of the species; (2) I recently determined that a late nineteenth-century, frequently cited, putative Red-faced Cormorant specimen from St. Michael, Alaska on Norton Sound was incorrectly identified; and (3) I conducted a detailed review and analysis of all Northern Bering Sea regional historical Red-faced Cormorant species accounts and related taxonomy references and have compiled detailed annotated timelines, highlighting and questioning dubious issues. This paper provides details of these three events and corrects our understanding of the current and historical status of the subject species in the region. The results of this paper support a change to the AOU Check-List species account by adding a record for St. Lawrence Island, Alaska and by removing the current reference to the species’ status as casual at St. Michael, Alaska. SECTION I—A RED-FACED CORMORANT AT GAMBELL, ST. LA WRENCE ISLAND, ALASKA IN MAY 2002

Between 24-26 May 2002 multiple observers identified, documented, and videotaped an adult, definitive alternate plumage Red-faced Cormorant in the northern Bering Sea offshore at the village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska—the first modern record for the island and the most northerly documented record of the species. Observation

On 24 May 2002 around 21:15 local time (still daylight at Gambell), a group of approximately 20 birders with High Lonesome BirdTours was observing seabirds at the Sevuokuk Mountain “cliffs” at Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska when Barbara Davis (my wife) observed a bird on the water that caught her eye as something noticeably different from anything we had seen earlier . She observed a dark seabird with a large, thick, yellow bill tilted slightly upward; a thick neck; and “bumps” on the head. Her very first impression was something akin to a Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii), but she quickly realized that she was looking at a cormorant. She called our group’s attention to the bird and we immediately located it on the water. What I saw was a dark cormorant, but noticeably larger, with a thicker neck and larger head “tufts,” than the scores of Pelagic Cormorants (Ph. pelagicus) that we had observed since our arrival at Gambell the previous day. I immediately suspected that this was a Red-faced Cormorant. Our group quickly consulted a National Geographic Society Field Guide to the Birds of North America (1999) to assure ourselves that we were indeed observing this species. In addition to reconfirming the red facial skin totally surrounding and in front of the eye as a key field mark, the quick field guide check also reminded me to look for blue at the base of the bill, which was indeed present and noted. Field Notes

The following is a verbatim transcription of my observation field notes written later that evening, only a few hours after observation: 5/24[/2002] 9:15 – 9:40 [pm] • Large cormorant – much larger than nearby Pelagic Cormorants • Yellowish bill • Two “bumps” on the head • Red around the eye • Pale bluish at the base of the bill (seen only in good light) • Black head and body • White patches on the flanks, showing above the water line • Thick neck • Viewed with:

o Swarovski 8.5x42 EL (Barbara) o Swarovski 10x42 EL (Phil) o Swarovski ST80HD w/ 20-60x zoom eyepiece (Phil and Barbara)

• In the water at the base of the cliffs on Gambell (NE [of town]) • Distance to bird estimated ~1/2 mile (~800 meters); [later re-estimated at ~1/4 mile (~400 meters)] • Bird was between the base of the cliffs and us [on the shore] • Sky was clear and sunny • The bird flew to the right, behind the cliff. Large dark body and wings [were noted], in flight away from us. Sketches

Barbara and I made very rudimentary sketches that evening. Barbara’s sketch (Figure 1) better captures the overall shape of the bird. In my rough sketch (Figure 2), I annotated key characteristics and noted the plumage and facial skin colors that I had observed though the scope.

mailto:[email protected]

Phil Davis


Figure 1. Gambell, Alaska Red-faced Cormorant field sketch 24 May 2002, by Barbara Davis.

Figure 2. Gambell, Alaska Red-faced Cormorant field sketch (words reproduced for readability) 24 May 2002, by Phil Davis.

Phil Davis


Experience with this Species

Prior to this sighting, Barbara and I had spent approximately seven weeks on Attu in the western Aleutian Islands during previous years (spring 1998 and autumn 2000) and had observed large numbers of Red-faced Cormorants there. While on Attu in September 2000, we devoted field time to specifically observing Red-faced Cormorants and studying the differences between them and the similar Pelagic Cormorants, noting the lighter colored-bills of the fall Red-faced Cormorants. In May 2001, we also spent about five days on St. Paul Island in the Pribilofs where we again observed many Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants. This spring (2002), Barbara and I were on Gambell serving as birding leaders for a High Lonesome BirdTours group. This was our second year on Gambell, having spent about eight days there the previous spring (May-June 2001) when we observed many Pelagic Cormorants. This particular day, 24 May, was our second full day at Gambell this season. Figure 3 depicts the location of Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, and other northern Bering Sea regional geographic locations referenced in this manuscript.

Figure 3. The northern Bering Sea region, indicating locations mentioned in the manuscript. Map courtesy of Microsoft Encarta.

Annotations by P . Davis.

Phil Davis


Other Observers

Other experienced observers also saw this bird and concurred with the identification. During our 25 minutes of viewing, each observer had an opportunity to leisurely observe the bird through one of the spotting scopes present. The following members of our group had been on St. Paul Island in the Pribilofs only the week before where they saw many Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants: Forrest Davis (Sierra Vista, Arizona—High Lonesome BirdTours owner); David MacKay (Alamos, Sonora, Mexico—High Lonesome BirdTours leader); Gary Crandall (Eagar, Arizona—High Lonesome BirdTours leader); and Jimmy McHaney (Fort Worth, Texas). Other experienced birders in our group included: Bob Spahn (Webster, New York) and Mark Corder (Olathe, Kansas). Mike Mulligan (Calgary, Canada) was leading another group of birders; he and some members of his group quickly came to the cliffs after we radioed news of our cormorant sighting to the other Gambell birders. Mulligan did not take field notes but later recounted to me (pers. comm.) that he recorded Red-faced Cormorant on his day list for 24 May. Subsequent Sightings and Comments

25 May. On this day, at least one of our group’s participants, Bob Spahn, saw the bird flying by the “sea watch” from Northwest Point. Spahn later emailed me (pers. comm.) some retrospective comments. He stated, “I thought the [Red-faced Cormorant] looked significantly bigger and heavier necked in the flyby (as well as on the water), in addition to the pale bill and red face. On the 25th it flew by the seawatch, in close, with a big group of Pelagic Cormorants and looked like a cruiser with a flock of destroyers. The size and thick neck really jumped out.” He also commented, “I'd have estimated the distance at closer to 1/4 than 1/2 mile [400 vs. 800 meters] that first night [24 May].”

26 May. Some of our participants observed the Red-faced Cormorant out in the water at Northwest Point. I saw the bird, but only very briefly and did not take any additional notes.

No other observers reported the bird during the remainder of our stay on Gambell through 7 June 2002. Photographic Documentation

Video footage of the bird was captured by High Lonesome BirdTours participant Bryan Less (Campbell, California), a professional videographer, on May 24 2002 (the first sighting). A scene of 2 minutes and 45 seconds was shot on a Sony camcorder and recorded on a Sony Mini DV Digital Video Cassette. Much of the video was at high zoom (including into the digital zoom range). The conditions were sunny but very windy and the subject bird was somewhat distant. The video and captured still frames show a swimming large dark seabird with a yellowish bill and large white flank patches. Due to the observational conditions (distance and wind), the video footage, in my estimation, does not constitute stand-alone evidence of the bird; but rather only provides some intangible support for this written report. A digitized version of the video footage and some still frame images (captured and processed by PD) were deposited with the University of Alaska Museum. Discussion and Analysis

This section discusses Red-faced Cormorant plumage, age, size, habitat, and distribution characteristics as they relate to this sighting. Plumage and Structure. The Gambell bird had red facial skin completely surrounding the eye and light blue at the base of the bill.

From our distance the bird appeared all dark and I did not note any plumage sheen or iridescence. I also did not discern the iris color nor note any filoplumes. The white flank patches were very large and quite conspicuous. The two head crests were larger than those of the local Pelagic Cormorants. The quick glance at the National Geographic plate at the time of the sighting reminded me to look for the bluish base of the bill to confirm the identification. Looking for this field mark, I watched the bird closely with the scope and twice it turned its head at an angle where the side of its face was illuminated by direct sunlight and I could clearly see light blue at the base of the bill. Not a great deal of blue was visible, but it was clear. At the time, no one remembered to specifically look for a black tip to the bill or dusky culmen on the distant bird, so neither field mark was noted.

Age. The Gambell bird was an adult (ASY) in definitive alternate plumage as determined by the amount, shape, and vividness of the red facial skin, the yellowish bill, blue at the base of the bill, size and shape of the two head crests, and the presence of the large white flank patches.

Sex. Since there is no significant sexual dimorphism in this species, other than perhaps a slight size differences (Causey 2002), we are not able to determine the sex of this bird.

Size. At the time, I noted and verbally commented that the Red-faced Cormorant seemed to approach as much as 50 percent larger than the Pelagic Cormorants. While this estimate may not be highly accurate and is probably overstated, it does indicate a significant size difference between the subject bird and the local Pelagic Cormorants. Other Pelagic Cormorants were visible at further distances from our vantage point during our first sighting on May 24 but none were proximal to the Red-faced Cormorant. In the flyby of 25 May, Spahn observed the Red-faced flying with a flock of Pelagics and noted a very obvious size difference.

Due to subspecies and regional size variations and sexual dimorphism of both Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants, overall size may not be diagnostic; however, the Gambell bird was noticeably larger than the local Pelagic Cormorants.

Whereas size discrimination of these two species can challenge observers (on Attu PD, and the on the Pribilofs G. Bieber, pers. comm.), in this case, the observed size difference between the Red-faced Cormorant and the similar local Pelagic Cormorants was clear and obvious. Causey (2002) also reported that Alaskan waters birds appear to be slightly larger than Asian birds.

Elimination of Similar Taxa. The obvious blue base of the bill, coupled with red completely encircling the eye, the all dark neck and body, and the white flank patches eliminated all other cormorants, world-wide. The characteristics we noted that further eliminate Pelagic Cormorant included the much thicker neck, the large crests, and the heavier and yellow bill.

Comparing the noted large size of the subject bird to the proximal Pelagic Cormorants, however, invokes the question of which subspecies of Pelagic Cormorant is involved. Some authorities have contended that Pelagic and Red-faced Cormorant constitute a superspecies (note in urile AOU 1998) while others maintained that there are no Pelagic Cormorant subspecies with differences in size attributed to clinal variations, (Pyle, in prep—see below) while historically, others have claimed up to three subspecies (Baird et al. 1884). Therefore, size comparisons of Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants will depend upon the geographic mix of birds present.

AOU (1957) and Hobson (1997) described two subspecies, the nominate Ph. p. pelagicus which ranges throughout the Bering Sea region and Ph. p. resplendens, which ranges along the Pacific coast from British Columbia to the south. Hobson (1997) stated, “In Alaskan part of range, P[h]. p. robustus Ridgway, 1884, was previously distinguished from small P[h]. p. pelagicus (Bent 1922), but this subspecies has not subsequently been recognized.” Nelson (2005) stated with regard to Pelagic Cormorant subspecies, “Birds of the Siberian mainland and Wrangel

Phil Davis


Island are larger than Bering Sea birds and have been given sub-specific rank, P[h.] p. aeolus; however, no references were cited, apparently following Johnsgard (1993) who stated that pelagicus, “includes aeolus Swinhoe, of the Siberian mainland and Wrangel Island; reputedly significantly larger than birds from the Bering Sea region (Portenko 1981).” Portenko (1981) maintained that pelagicus “differs noticeably in its smaller size, which is noticeable even when comparing bird skins. It nests on Commander and Aleutian Islands. I am aware of summer specimens from Kad’yak [Kodiak?] Island, but they were probably non-breeding birds.” Of the putative aeolus he stated, “is much larger. In Russian territory it nests on the mainland coast and offshore islands from Vladivostok to Kamchatak, the Chuckshi peninsular and Wrangel Island. The large form certainly inhabits Alaksa, too, since I have a specimen from Norton Sound. Non-breeding birds were collected on Bering Island and Atka.” The epithet, “aeolus” dates back to Swinhoe (1867, 1874) which dealt with classification based on a lost small cormorant specimen from China that was never positively identified.

Pyle (in prep, pers. comm.) takes the following position on Pelegic Cormorant subspecies, “Geographic variation-- Considered monotypic here based on recent evidence (e.g., L.A. Portenko in Johnsgard 1993, Rohwer et al. 2000) that size variation in this species, the sole criteria for previous subspecific recognition, is more complex than previously thought. Breeding birds of Siberia ("P[h]. p. aeolus") may average larger than birds of AK-BC ("pelagicus"), which in turn may average larger than breeding birds of W A-CA ("resplendens") but populations of the Aleutian Is, AK, appear to be smaller than those of other northern populations (being similar in size to southern populations) and general size differences appear to be clinal.

The Pelagic Cormorants of St. Lawrence Island are presumed to be of the more northerly and larger of the two currently recognized subspecies, Ph. p. pelagicus (formerly, Ph. p. robustus), making the apparent size difference between the two species involved in this sighting even more remarkable. The putative larger aeolus form of Pelegic can be eliminated from consideration by the large yellow bill of the Gambell bird and, especially, the blue base of the bill. The relatively large size of the Gambell bird could suggest that it was a male, perhaps from the closer, and probably more expected, [probably] larger Alaskan coastal or Pribilofs populations, rather than from the [probably] smaller western Aleutians Islands or Asian populations.

A hypothetical Aleutian/Bering Sea cormorant species (Siegel-Causey et al. 1991), Kenyon’s Shag (Phalacrocrocorax [Stictocarbo] kenyoni) has never been described exteriorially, however, the large size of the Gambell bird would seem to eliminate the apparently smaller Kenyon’s Shag from consideration. The existence of Kenyon’s Shag, however, is disputed (Johnsgard 1993, Kessel and Gibson 1994, Rohwer et al. 2000); however, Byrd and Williams (2004) reported that in the Near Islands at Karab Cove on Agattu Island on 20 Jul 2003, “At least three individual cormorants matching the description of Kenyon’s Shag (Stictocarbo kenyoni ), either a separate species (Siegel-Causey 1991) or a variant of pelagic cormorant, were observed during the surveys. One of the birds was attending a nest with chicks.” The adult birds reportedly had red bills.

Habitat. AOU (1998) described the habitat of this species to be “Coastal Waters; nests on cliffs or steep slopes.” This is indeed the habitat associated with this observation. The bird was first seen on 24 May in the waters at the base of “the cliffs” at Gambell. These cliffs rise steeply to 187 meters above the Bering Sea at a steep angle and provide nesting areas for various seabird species including Dovekie (Alle alle), Common Murre (Uria aalge), Thick-billed Murre (U. lomvia), Parakeet Auklet (Aethia psittacula), Least Auklet (A. pusilla), Crested Auklet (A. cristatella), Horned Puffin (Fratercula corniculata), and Tufted Puffin (F . cirrhata). Other seabirds observed regularly in the area include Northern Flumar (Fulmarus glacialis), Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle), and Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba ). Figure 4 is a wide-angle video frame taken from our observer’s perspective that shows the cormorant’s location in proximity to the cliffs. Causey (2002) stated, “The Red-faced Cormorant is exclusively marine and ventures onto land only to breed or roost, never intruding more than a few meters from the edge of the sea.” The steep rocky Gambell cliffs, and waters below, on St. Lawrence Island, therefore, are a totally appropriate habitat for this species.

Figure 4. The arrow in this video frame (#2193) shows the approximate location of the cormorant in proximity to the Gambell, Alaska

cliffs on May 24, 2002. Video by Bryan Less, digital frame grab and processing by Phil Davis

Phil Davis


Distribution and Status

This section discusses the environment, range, and distribution of the Red-faced Cormorant species with regard to the Gambell sighting.

Weather. In May 2002, Gambell experienced very strong easterly-component winds during and prior to this observation. Other members of our group had been on the Pribilof Islands the prior week (approximately 17-22 May) and during this entire period they experienced very strong southeasterly winds and recorded many casual records of Alaska mainland species, including the second Pribliof Islands record of Franklin Gull (Larus pipixcan).

Geography. The nearest known Red-faced Cormorant breeding colonies to St. Lawrence Island are found on the Pribiloff Islands group and at Cape Newenham, just off the southwestern Alaska mainland coast. Each is approximately 630 km from St. Lawrence Island. Although the closer Nunivak Island has been cited as a breeding location (Johnsgard 1993), only a single Red-faced Cormorant was observed on a nest in 1978, therefore that location is not a known major nesting place for this species (J. Williams and A. Sowls, pers. comm.). Nunivak Island, however, is located along a line that runs from Cape Newenham to St. Lawrence Island, and is only about one half of the distance, approximately 320 km., from St. Lawrence Island as is Cape Newenham. The presence of the 1978 Nunivak Island bird, however, does indicate at least some small propensity for the species to wander, likely from the Alaskan coast toward the northern/northeastern direction. Locations close to the Alaskan mainland seem more likely as the source of the Gambell bird given that the strong prevailing wind pattern of the previous week might increase the potential for a wind-blown straggler to reach St. Lawrence Island from the southeast; however, this is speculative. The colonies in the Pribilof Island group are also approximately the same distance from St. Lawrence Island as Cape Newenham (approximately 630 km), but they lie to the south-southwest and are situated more orthogonal to the prevailing winds that Gambell was experiencing, seeming to decrease the likelihood as the Pribiloff’s as the source of the Gambell bird, assuming that the Gambell bird was only a recent visitor, which may not be the case.

Timing. We do not know when this bird actually arrived on St. Lawrence Island, however, since the bird was in alternate plumage and given the time of the year (late May), this individual could not be a post-breeding dispersal individual.

Populations and Movement. According to Causey (2002), breeding colonies in the Pribilof Island group appeared to be stable, while populations in the western and central Aleutian Islands seemed to be decreasing. In the Gulf of Alaska, however, the population has been expanding since the 1960s and population increases in the Bristol Bay area could hypothetically contribute to an adjacent western Alaskan coast and northern Bering Sea range expansion. It could be that the Gambell bird was a wandering first-year breeder (an ASY bird) or one blown out to sea from the Cape Newenham breeding colony or nearby feeding areas by the strong southeasterly winds toward St. Lawrence Island. A straggler’s movement, theoretically, could also have been aided by overwintering in leads and polynyas in the Bering Sea ice south of St. Lawrence Island, as had been reported for Pelagic Cormorants by Kessel (1989:73). Previous St. Lawrence Island Records

At the time of our sighting, I was under the impression that the species had been previously reported for the island, but that it was very rare. Several days after our Gambell sightings, another birding tour group leader, Gary Rosenberg (WINGS), arrived on the island. In our discussions, he informed us that our sighting would be the first record of Red-faced Cormorant for Gambell. This prompted me to research previous reports from St. Lawrence Island and the region.

Northern Bering Sea Historical Accounts. The AOU (1998) Check List indicated that the species is rare in winter at St. Michael, Alaska on Norton Sound. In The Birds of North America account, Causey (2002) discussed the historical changes and distribution of the species. He commented, “Range changed somewhat since nineteenth century. Noted from Bering Straits region in 1880s; repeatedly identified as common on St. Matthew and St. Lawrence I., with sporadic observations later (Nelson 1887, Kenyon 1961 [no reference to Ph. urile in the latter; perhaps Kenyon and Brooks 1960? PD]).” Causey continued, “Most twentieth-century authors discount earlier sight records to the far north, citing difficulty in field identification (Palmer 1962, Portenko 1972/1981, Dorst and Mougin 1979, Am. Ornithol. Union (1998); however, prehistorical evidence exists ...”

St. Lawrence Island Fossil History. Sealy, et al. (1971) did not include Red-faced Cormorant on the list of known avifauna of St. Lawrence Island. However, they discussed that “some species that were apparently common even as recently as 1000 years ago are now scarce or absent,” and they listed Ph. urile as one of these species.

Causey (2002) related, “Friedmann (1934) found bones of Red-faced Cormorants in at least eight excavations of kitchen middens, the oldest of them being in the northwestern [i.e., Gambell] and southwestern parts of St. Lawrence Island. The species was evidently more widespread and common than now.” Kessel and Gibson (1994), however, questioned Friedmann’s identification of skeletal cormorant remains. Causey (2002) continued, “Numerous Holocene (<10,000 yr before present) records for Pelagic and Red-faced cormorants throughout Pacific Northwest (Friedmann 1937, Murray 1982, Hobson and Driver 1989), but species discrimination of Pelagic and Red-faced Cormorant bones is problematic, and data may not be accurate. Red-faced Cormorants found on Amchitka I. (central Aleutian Is.) for past 2,600 yr (Siegel-Causey et al. 1991); low-level presence detected on St. Lawrence I. for past 3,600 yr (DC).” Causey elaborated (pers. comm.), “I have identified bones of RFC [Red-faced Cormorant] excavated from early eskimo archeological sites near Gambell, and they are particularly numerous about 4,000 years ago and gradually taper off in abundance for the next 1,500 years (or about 500 BC). They are not found after that ... clearly RFC [Red-faced Cormorant] are not as tolerant of Arctic waters as are Pelagic Cormorants.” One wonders whether the recent warming trends and retreat of the polar ice portend a return of the species to the northern climes.

Regional Sight Records. I researched previous reports of this species from St. Lawrence Island and found that the only published Red-faced Cormorant reports are sight records from Nelson (1877), who described the species as a “more or less common summer resident.” Friedmann (1932) concurred that “Nelson was the only naturalist who has recorded the Red-faced Cormorant from St. Lawrence Island.” Nelson, however, also described the species from other northern locations, which have been discredited by most modern ornithologists, including Bailey (1943, 1948) and Kessel and Gibson (1994). Fay and Cade (1959) included Red-faced Cormorant account in their avifauna of St. Lawrence Island as an “irregular visitant or accidental” citing evidence as both bones and sight records, however, they stated that the species has not been recorded there since Nelson’s (1887) visit. They added, “Our Eskimo informants said that a few cormorants of exceptionally large size (compared to P. pelagicus) have occasionally been seen by them, and these may have been urile.” A complete summary of all regional accounts of this species is presented in Section III of this paper with details presented in Appendix 1.

Phil Davis


Portenko (1972/1981) stated flatly that Nelson erred by including this species in the fauna of St. Lawrence Island by mistaking the Pelagic for the Red-faced Cormorant, and added, “on the whole the Red-faced Cormorant does not penetrate the northern parts of the Bering Sea.”

The current AOU Check-List (1998) stated that the species is casual to St. Michael (on Norton Sound) in winter; however, during my preliminary research I was not able to readily locate any definitive published records from that area (however, see later research presented in Section III). Regardless, St. Michael (63° 29' N) lies south of Gambell (63° 47' N), making this Gambell sighting the more northerly record.

The most northerly Asian record that I was able to locate is an unpublished record from V erkhoturova Island, Karaginski Bay, Russia (59° 37' N) by P . V yatkin (Kamchatka Branch of Pacific Institute of Geography); fide Y . Artukhin (pers. comm.). Causey (pers. comm.) commented, “Russian observations have RFC on Karaginski Island (north of Kamchatka) and possibly as far north as Anadyr (64° 43' N), but this northern most record is dubious as it refers to "cormorants with red faces seen at a great distance." Since any sight reports from Anadyr are at best, undocumented if not dubious, this Gambell sighting therefore constitutes the northern most documented record for the species. I could not indepently locate a source for an Anadyr sight record.

The Alaska Bird Records Committee generally only reviews first or second state records and did not review our Red-faced Cormorant report (Tobish pers. comm.); however, the sighting was published in the North American Birds Spring 2002 Alaskan regional report as an “intriguing” report (Tobish 2002). Gambell Record—Summary

Causey stated (pers. comm.), “There is no doubt in my mind that you saw a Red-faced Cormorant, and you are correct that this will be one of the first documented records from St. Lawrence Island in over a century. Your record on St. Lawrence while only a single bird nonetheless presages a high likelihood that more are nearby, since RFC are not typically solitary birds.”

I performed an extensive review and compiled all published historical and modern casual and extralimital reports of this species, covering both North America (Davis 2005) and Asia. Given this information, I now believe this May 2002 written report constitutes the most northerly record of the species and the only modern record for St. Lawrence Island. St. Lawrence Island is very large, over 160 km long and 15-65 km wide and the area regularly birded around the village of Gambell represents only a very small fraction of the total island area. Other major seabird roosting and nesting sites exist on the island in addition to cliffs near Gambell. Future birders and researchers visiting St. Lawrence Island and other northern Bering Sea locations should be aware of the presence in May 2002 of this Red-faced Cormorant and be alert for and be prepared to document additional sightings of this species. SECTION II—RE-IDENTIFICATION OF THE ST. MICHAEL, NORTON SOUND, ALASKA RED-FACED CORMORANT SPECIMEN

As I researched the status and history of the Red-faced Cormorant on St. Lawrence Island to augment the above St. Lawrence Island record, I became fascinated by the history of this species in the broader northern Bering Sea region and especially by the remarkable historical record from nearby St. Michael, Alaska on Norton Sound. This section of the manuscript deals with locating and re-identifying the 1877 Norton Sound specimen as a Pelagic Cormorant. Current Status of the Red-faced Cormorant at St. Michael

The 7th edition of the AOU Check-List (1998) indicated that the breeding range of the Red-faced Cormorant is limited to the southern Bering Sea but in winter it is “casual” at St. Michael on Norton Sound, Alaska.” Harrison (1985) included St. Michael in his “dispersal” range description and Sibley (2000) indicated an extralimital record (i.e., a green dot) at St. Michael on his range map of the species. Alderfer (2005) also described the species as being casual at Norton Sound. Nelson’s USNM 1877 Specimen

As I further researched the history and distribution of the Red-faced Cormorant, the more quizzically I looked at the status of this species at Norton Sound. Roger Clapp of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), resident at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History Bird Division, searched the USNM (the official abbreviation for referencing specimens) catalog database for me and located only one data record for a Red-faced Cormorant specimen from St. Michael; an 1877 specimen collected by Nelson (USNM 75919). When I learned that the specimen was of a 5 Sep immature male, my suspicions heightened due to the identification challenges between immature Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants. I queried Dan Gibson, Ornithology Collections Manager of the University of Alaska, to determine if this specimen had ever been verified. He indicated that it probably had not and suggested that verification of the identification would be a good idea. Immature Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorant Separation Criteria

Because of the similarity of immatures of these two species (Red-faced and Pelagic), I wondered how this 1877 Norton Sound specimen could be definitively verified or re-identified with certainty. During a research visit to the USNM Bird Division in Washington, DC for this paper, Peter Pyle of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory was present at the same time, conducting research for volume two of the Identification Guide to North American Birds, (in prep), a handbook for identifying specimens in the hand. In this new volume, he treats the cormorant family, Phalacrocoracidae. Consulting with him, he advised me that due to the overlap of the morphometrics between the two species, there seemed to be only two characteristics that were definitive for separating immatures of the species; the exposed culmen measurement (>54mm = Red-faced; <54mm = Pelagic) and the faint gloss color of the back [scapulars per Prys-Jones (pers. comm.)] feathers (violet = Red-faced; green = Pelagic). Re-identification of the Nelson 1877 Specimen

I next sought to apply these tests to the 1877 Nelson specimen. Clapp had informed me that the specimen was mounted and was stored, off-site, in the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum Support Facility at Silver Hill, Maryland. On 19 Aug 2004, I visited the Silver Hill facility accompanied by James Dean, Smithsonian Bird Division Collections Manager and Mary Gustafson, of the USGS Bird Banding Laboratory. We located the subject specimen (USNM 75919) and also found in the same cabinet a second mounted specimen also indicated to be an immature male Red-faced Cormorant, USNM 62531; this one collected by Elliot at St. Paul in the Pribilof Islands on 29 May 1872 (a SY bird approaching one year of age). The two mounted specimens are shown in Figure 5. After verifying that the specimen tags and database entries were consistent, the three of us closely inspected the 1877 Nelson putative Red-faced specimen. All three of us noted that the faint gloss on the

Phil Davis


back was green, not violet, indicating Pelagic. Next, Gustafson, an experienced bird bander, measured the exposed culmen (from the base of the feathering and the upper mandible, diagonally to the pointed tip of the end of the upper mandible). The measurement of the Nelson specimen was 48.5 mm, considerably less than the Pyle 54 mm threshold; a second indication for Pelagic. We also analyzed the other Elliot immature Red-faced mounted specimen that presented a faint purplish gloss on the back and an exposed culmen measurement of 59.5 mm, both features indicative of Red-faced. Finally, the bill of the St. Paul specimen is notable thicker that than that of the Nelson specimen and distinctly shows the classic light color of the base of the lower mandible, a characteristic of Red-faced, whereas the Nelson specimen has a concolorous lower mandible that does not exhibit any lightness, further supporting the identification of the Nelson specimen as a Pelagic Cormorant. Therefore, it appeared that the St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant record is in error.

Figure 5. A comparison of the two Smithsonian Institution mounted immature male cormorant specimens. Right, the Nelson 1877

specimen (USNM 75919), previously cataloged as a Red-faced Cormorant but actually a Pelagic Cormorant; left, a 1872 Pribilof Island Red-faced Cormorant specimen (USNM 62531). Note the light colored lower mandible and the overall thicker bill of the true Red-faced

Cormorant on the left. On the right specimen, note the thinner and concolorus bill, characteristic of the Pelagic Cormorant. The forehead of the Red-faced Cormorant, on the left, appears to be molting from feathered to unfeathered, characteristic of a SY bird; while the forehead of the specimen on the right is fully feathered; however, this is not diagnostic since immature (HY) Red-faced Cormorants

also have feathered foreheads. On prepared specimens, remember that the gular pouch appearance and size can be an artifact of how the skin was prepared and iris colors are artificial.

Photo by Phil Davis SECTION III—HISTORY OF RED-FACED CORMORANT IN THE NORTHERN BERING SEA REGION

Locating and re-identifying the 1877 St. Michael specimen had been fairly straightforward; however, I harbored lingering questions about the provenance of this specimen. For example, what was known about the conditions of its collection, why was this specimen initially misidentified, could the specimen be mislabeled, are there any related publications, why does the AOU Check-List consider the species to be “casual” in St. Michael “in winter,” etc.? These questions led me on an exhaustive search of the literature, archives, databases, catalogs, and cases of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History Division of Birds and the Smithsonian Institution Archives. In this section of the manuscript I present my findings. The issues interrelate, however, I have organized the results of my research to focus on five basic areas; (1) further investigation into the regional publications of Nelson and Turner; (2) a survey and compilation of all subsequent published regional cormorant accounts by authors other than Turner and Nelson; (3) research and investigation into all related regional cormorant specimens; (4) a survey and compilation of the of the Red-faced Cormorant’s related taxonomic history; and (5) a survey and compilation of Red-faced Cormorant related classification studies. I focused my my research scope primarily on the Red-faced and closely allied Pelagic Cormorant; however, Double-crested Cormorant and even the extinct Pallas’s Cormorant became tangentially involved. I also focused geographically on the northern Bering Sea region (western Alaska and the Chukota Peninsula); however, some discussion and analysis carried over into the Pribilof Islands, southern Alaska, and some of Asia. St. Michael

Phil Davis


St. Michael, Alaska is located on the southeast coast of Norton Sound, approximately 78 km southeast of Nome and 37 km north of the mouth of the Yukon River. In 1833 the Russian-American Company built at this location the fortified trading post called "Redoubt St. Michael," the northernmost Russian settlement in Alaska.

In 1865, members of the Scientific Corps of the Western Union Telegraph Expedition arrived at St. Michael to find a possible route for a telegraph line between North America and Russia by way of the Bering Sea. Robert Kennicott was selected as the scientist for this expedition, and with the influence of Spencer Fullerton Baird of the Smithsonian Institution, he took William Healey Dall as his assistant. From St. Michael, the men explored the country in all directions. Kennicott’s notes were never published due to his death; however, specimens are in the USNM. Later, accounts by other expedition members, notably Dall (1869, 1874), were published.

Aboard the schooner Nightingale, Dall explored the coast of Siberia, with stops in Alaska (still Russian territory at that time). In 1866, on a stop at St. Michael (Alaska), Dall was informed that Kennicott had died. In Mid-July 1866, the project was terminated after an Atlantic cable was successfully laid. Set on finishing Kennicott's Yukon River work Dall stayed on the Yukon during the winter until autumn 1868 exploring and studying the Yukon River, the surrounding territory and inhabitants from Nulato to the Bering Sea, especially Norton Sound, undertaking numerous journeys by boat and dog sledge. Because of the cancellation of his own expedition, Dall continued his work at his own expense. When the Russians left Alaska in 1867, after the U.S. purchase of the Alaskan territory, several of the post's traders remained. Turner’s and Nelson’s Published Accounts

Turner and Nelson were the first two naturalists assigned for extended periods to collect specimens for the Smithsonian Institution at St. Michael.

Lucien M. Turner (1848-1909), a member of the Army Signal Service, served as the first weather observer at the Alaskan Army meteorological station at St. Michael from 25 May 1874 to 14 Jul 1877. During his assignment Turner also collected natural history and ethnological specimens locally for the USNM and secured specimens from regional fur traders and natives. Turner returned to Alaska for a second time for the Army, this time in the Aleutians, from 8 May 1878 through 22 Jul 1881.

Naturalist Edward W. Nelson (1855-1934) was assigned next by the Army to replace Turner as the St. Michael weather observer at the suggestion of Spencer Baird, then Director of the U.S. National Museum. Nelson spent four years at St. Michael from 17 Jun 1877 to 21 Jun 1881 and collected over 10,000 natural history and Eskimo ethnological specimens. Nelson made several trips up and down the coast from St. Michael and local traders, such as L. N. McQuesten furnished him with specimens and information (Bishop 1900:19) After Nelson completed his four-year assignment he boarded the Revenue Cutter Corwin in June 1881 as a naturalist and cruised in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas until October. The Corwin had been dispatched to search for the missing U.S. Navy operated, but privately-owned steamer, ship Jeannette and two missing whaling vessels that were earlier lost in the arctic ice. The Jeannette had been attempting to reach the North Pole.

Confusion emanates from the chronological order of Turner’s and Nelson’s field assignments compared to the sequence and publication dates of their related regional works. Nelson published two related manuscripts. A depiction of the relevant timelines is shown in Figure 6. Nelson’s first publications, entitled Birds of Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean , in: Cruise of the Revenue-Steamer Corwin in Alaska and the N.W. Arctic Ocean in 1881, was published in 1883, two years after the cruise. This publication focused primarily, but not exclusively, on the Corwin expedition after he left St. Michael in June 1881, until October of the same year. This work included Nelson’s first published account of the Red-faced Cormorant in the Northern Bering Sea region. Turner preceded Nelson at St. Michael, however, Turner’s publication, Contributions to the Natural History of Alaska: Results of Investigations Made Chiefly in the Yukon District and the Aleutian Islands that included his earlier St. Michael fieldwork was not published until 1886—one year after his 1885 paper on his later observations from the Near Islands of the western Aleutian Islands (with field work conducted from June 1880 through June 1881)—and three years after Nelson’s first paper (1883). Nelson’s second publication (1887), Birds of Alaska, dealt with all of his Alaskan observations, including his earlier observations and collections while assigned at St. Michael from June 1877 to June 1881 (and layovers in the eastern Aleutians in May and June 1877, while en route to St. Michael), as well as his time onboard the Corwin in 1881. This was the third related regional work (two by Nelson and one by Turner) that encompassed St. Michael. Two of these publications, however, were published more than ten years after the field work began which, in some cases, created ambiguity in separating the authors’ direct observations and included attributions from indirect sources. These publication factors certainly contributed to the confusion related to the historical St. Michael cormorant status. Details of the Turner and Nelson publication chronology are presented in Appendix 2.

Phil Davis


1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888

Turner at St. Michael Turner in the Aleutians

Nelson at St. Michael

Corw

in

Nelson1883

Nelson1887

Turner1885

Turner1886

Emphasis on Corwin cruise

Emphasis on St. Michael and regional expeditions

Limited to Near Islands

Covers St. Michael and Aleutian Islands

Henshaw, editor

AOU 1886Check-List 1st ed

Baird 1859; 1869Catalogue of N.A. Birds; Additions to Bird Fauna of N.A

Ridgway 1881Nomenclature

Baird, et al. 1884Water Birds of NA

Graculus violaceusGraculus bicristatus

Phalacrocorax violaceusPhalacrocorax bicristatus

Ph. pelagicusPh. urile

Ph. pelagicusPh. urile

Nelson’s timeline:

Turner’s timeline:

Prevailing N.A.taxonomicstandards:

Prevailing N.A. nomenclature:Pelagic Cormorant:Red-faced Cormorant:

Field Observations Publications

Taxonomy:

Near Is.

Figure 6. Regional timeline of Turner and Nelson and related cormorant taxonomy. Other Regional Cormorant Accounts

The history of confusion between Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants in the Northern Bering Sea region by both pre- and post-Nelson and Turner authors involved a range of issues that faced Nelson and Turner: identification and separation challenges associated with the similar species, especially at distances and from moving ships; reliance on second-hand sight records; manuscript transcription, translation, editing, and production errors —punctuated by lengthy publication delays; and fluctuating taxonomy characterized by frequently changing and overlapping scientific and common names from both the American and European 19th century ornithological leaders.

The inaccurate accounts by Nelson and Turner, and subsequently by Bent and Brooks, were often cited by later authors. Over the past 50 years, however, most modern ornithologists had come to doubt, or outright reject, earlier accounts of northern sightings of the Red-faced Cormorant, suspecting that these were Pelagic Cormorants; noting that the Red-faced Cormorant had never been subsequently observed at the cited northerly locations. Regardless, erroneous regional range descriptions continued to be referenced and propagated by a number of authors.

My objective in this phase was to research and chronicle earlier or later published references to Red-faced Cormorants from St. Michael, Norton Sound, the Northern Bering Sea, or the Arctic regions, or any other publications that dealt with either a Turner or Nelson specimens. Specific questions included, did any other authors find Red-faced Cormorant in the region or did any other authors publish any further details associated with the putative 1877 Red-faced Cormorant specimen? The results of my efforts are presented in Appendix 2 as a compilation and analysis of all relevant regional accounts that dealt with the Red-faced Cormorant, or its close relative, the Pelagic Cormorant.

In summary, no earlier or later regional accounts substantiated the presence of the Red-faced Cormorant in the region, prior to the 2002 record described in Section I of this manuscript. All earlier published sight records from the Bering Straits region appear to be erroneous. Unfortunately, Bent (1922) followed Nelson and this erroneous information continues to be propagated, even to the present day. Regional Cormorant Specimens

Reflecting on all I had learned so far about the relevant regional publications, I felt even more unsettled about this provenance of the subject St. Michael 1877 Red-faced Cormorant specimen. The only published reference I was to identify was in Turner’s 1886 account; however, as noted, his referenced to this species and to a specimen were vague and tentative, at best.

I investigated all available information associated with the USNM cormorant specimens from the region, accessing the USNM manual catalog, the USNM database, and the specimens themselves with their associated specimen tags. My research questions were the following: Could Turner’s published St. Michael reference actually be to some other specimem whether from Turner, Nelson, or any other regional collector? Could Turner’s reference be to some other specimen that has subsequently been transferred, lost, or miscataloged? My research path took me beyond the USNM collection to data from other institutions including the Harvard collection, the British Museum, and even Russian collections.

My efforts identified no specific alternative Red-faced Cormorant specimen from the region; however, a few USNM specimens had been transferred from the USNM back to the collector (Turner) in the late 1880s’ however, there was no supporting evidence to assume that either of these specimens were a Red-faced Cormorant. Details of my research and analysis are presented in Appendix 3.

Nelson never mentioned a Red-faced Cormorant specimen in any of his publications yet plenty of time intervened between his field work up to the manuscript preparation and editing period of both his, and Turner’s, works to make me think that there would have been

Phil Davis


communication and even resultion of such as issue. From his writings, Neslon seemed quite concerned with scientific “credit” and I assume he would have pursued this record had he thought he collected a significant extralimital specimen. Counter to this argument, however, is that Nelson may have “believed” that Red-faced Cormorant was otherwise common in Norton Sound; however, a bone fide specimen should still have been noteworthy. Red-faced Cormorant Systematics History

I was intrigued that Turner and Nelson [Pelagic] specimens from St. Michael had been manually cataloged at the USNM using both the specific epithets violaceus and bicristatus during the period between 1874 and 1881; however, no actual Red-faced Cormorant specimen could be located from either collector or from any other St. Michael collector. This led me to speculate that the source of the putative St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant record could be due to taxonomic confusion at the USNM during this period; or during the subsequent period that these naturalists’ works were being revised and edited. So, what was the status of the taxonomy of these two species during this period at the USNM? The following is what I have been able to construct from my research.

The USNM manual catalog showed that the subject 1877 Nelson specimen was originally cataloged as Graculus bicristatus , the taxonomic caption of Nelson’s first published Red-faced Cormorant account (1883), however, was “Red-faced Cormorant Phalacrocorax bicristatus Pall[as],” based on the 1811 Pallas-described synonym for the species rather than the 1789 Gmelin-described Ph. urile that was later used by Baird and Ridgway in 1884 and adopted by the AOU in 1886 in the 1st edition Check-List. These differences caused me to further investigate and develop a chronological taxonomic history of this species to understand the taxonomy dynamics and to determine if taxonomic issues were related to the misidentification of the subject St. Michael specimen. I present my annotated taxonomic chronology of the Red-faced Cormorant in Appendix 4. I have included taxonomic references that I felt impacted the status of the species in North American, including relevant Asian/European sources, however, I did not included all of the possible existing Asian/European taxonomic Red-faced Cormorant references herein.

Allen (1888) raised a related taxonomic issue associated with the time delay in publishing Turner’s 1886 report. He commented, “Although the report was transmitted for publication in 1882, in nomenclature and other technical points it appears to have brought down to the date of printing (1886) given on the title page, the nomenclature and classification of the A. O. U. Check-List having been adopted for the birds.” Allen’s point was that after Turner submitted his manuscript in 1882, the first edition AOU Check-List was published in 1886, and taxonomic nomenclature changes were made in Turner’s manuscript to conform to the Check-List. Although Turner’s 1886 Red-faced Cormorant species account was based on the then AOU-accepted Ph. urile Gmelin description, I do not know what scientific name Turner may have originally used in the field when he was made aware of the putative Red-faced Cormorant specimen he referenced in his 1886 work. [Turner’s Alaskan journals and papers are not in the Smithsonian Institution archives. PD]

Still concerned about a possible nomenclature mix-up, I constructed a chronology of the competing taxonomic names that were in play for both Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorant during the late 1800s, prior to the establishment of the first official AOU Check-List (1886). My hypothesis was that since Baird (1869) was that the de facto USNM taxonomic standard in 1877-1878 and although the putative St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant specimen was collected and cataloged before the 1st edition AOU Check-List was adopted in 1886, either the in-work Nelson 1887 Red-faced Cormorant account (as edited by Henshaw) or the 1877 USNM specimen(s) were not or were incorrectly converted to the new AOU taxonomic standards, creating a cataloging error.

Tracing this chronology from the perspective of Nelson, I surmised that he would have been unaware of much of the world-wide taxonomic flux since he was rather isolated in Alaska. Letters to Nelson from Baird indicated that Nelson was provided with some reading materials while in St. Michael, but no specific mention was made of taxonomic literature. Baird made only a passing mention that Ridgway was working on a revised USNM catalog [presumably to become Ridgway 1881] to replace the existing Smithsonian standard list [Baird 1859]. Furthermore, since Nelson worked at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. briefly prior to his departure to Alaska, I assumed he would have followed the taxonomy of his colleagues at the USNM, including Baird and Ridgway—of the “American school”—rather than of other European authors focusing on the far east (including Blakiston, Pryer, Swinhoe, Taczanowski, Gray, et al.). Therefore, as Nelson departed for Alaska in 1877, it is likely that he would have associated the Pelagic Cormorant with the prevailing common and scientific names, Violet-Green Cormorant—G. violaceus (Baird 1859 Gray), and the Red-faced Cormorant—G. bicristatus (Baird 1869 Pallas). Figure 7 depicts the relevant North American taxonomic standards and nomenclatures that prevailed during the 1870s and 1880s. As discussed earlier, Nelson did record a few field references to the Violet-Green Cormorant and G. violaceus; however, I could find no references anywhere in Nelson’s Alaska journals or his field catalogs to “Red-faced Cormorant,” “G. bicristatus,” “Ph. bicristatus,” or “Ph. urile.”

Phil Davis


Figure 7. A chronological view of the published taxonomies and descriptions of the era illustrating the dynamics and confusion of the

times, prior to the adoption of the 1st edition of the AOU Check-List in 1885. Notes: [1] source=Stej., 1885; [2] source= Baird, 1884; [3] the date of Pallas’s Zoogr. Ross. As. was changed from 1826 and fixed at 1811 for Vols 1 and 2; see Hemming (1951).

Phil Davis


As discussed, Nelson’s 1877 St. Michael cormorant specimen [USNM 75919] was not identified as to species in his journal. In his field catalog, a 5 Sep 1877 specimen was indicated to be a Gr . violaceus [Pelagic] and when this specimen was cataloged at the USNM, it was also apparently considered to have been a Gr . violaceus. This same specimen number also appeared on Ridgway’s archived measurement lists first as Gr . violacues and then later as Ph. p. robustus [Pelagic]. Therefore, it is clear that a re-identification of the subject cormorant specimen occurred after the specimen was initially cataloged at the USNM. This could have been done by the USNM staff, by Nelson’s during his brief return to Washington, D.C., or sometime after his health caused him to move to the southwest, leaving Henshaw to piece together the pieces of the cormorant puzzle. Given Nelson’s correspondence comment to Ridgway in 1883 about being “all mixed up” as to Cormorant identification, and the lack of comment in his publications of a Red-faced Cormorant, I think it clear that Nelson was not the source of the identification of the subject 1877 specimen as a Red-faced Cormorant. Red-faced Cormorant and the AOU Check-List

I questioned why the most recent AOU Check-Lists (1993, 1998) described the Red-faced Cormorant as “casual” at St. Michael “in winter” when a single 1877 specimen had been collected in either August or September. I created a chronology of the Red-faced Cormorant accounts in the AOU Check-List series and researched the Smithsonian’s AOU Archives for related background information. My results of this investigation are presented in Appendix 6.

It seems clear that the presence of the Red-faced Cormorant at St. Michael was introduced into the AOU Check-List as a result of Bent (1922) who, unfortunately, followed Turner and Nelson. The evolution of the phrasing of the St. Michael status in succeeding editions of the Check-Lists seems to have been the result of editing and logical conclusions, based on the knowledge of the natural history of the species, rather than from directly observed data. Related cormorant species confusion

Significant cormorant questions related to the Double-crested Cormorant rose from both Nelson’s and Turner’s accounts and specimen collections. Turner (1886) recorded that the Double-crested Cormorant bred in small numbers at St. Michael and in large numbers at Besborough [Besboro] Island, near St. Michael and he also referenced a specimen he collected. The specimen was cataloged at the USNM but was later sent to Turner and appears to be no longer extant. Turner (1885) also records this species as being an “abundant” breeder in the Near Islands (apparently in greater numbers than the “numerous” Pelagic Cormorant, but does not mention the Red-faced as having been observed from this same locale. These references raise observer accuracy issues compared to the observations of later naturalists and even compared to the current cormorant population status in these locales. Appendix 7 is dedicated to issues associated with these related Double-crested Cormorant observations. The AOU (1998) does not indicate that this species is now or was ever present in either the Norton Sound or western Aleutian Islands. Analysis and Discussion of the Putative St. Michael Record

Regional accounts by other authors, presented in Appendix 1, did not solve the St. Michael record mystery and, in fact, reinforced my conclusion of ambiguity and errors from the period. I have prepared a detailed compilation and analysis of Nelson and Turner’s publications, which is presented in Appendix 2. My analysis of the manual and database catalogs and inspection of any candidate cormorant specimens that could have possibly been the Turner-referenced St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant specimens, detailed in Appendix 3, did not produce any alternative specimen that might have been mislabeled or otherwise misidentified; however, a few potential specimen candidates have apparently been de-accessioned from the collection or are otherwise no longer extant. However, I suspect that had any of these specimens been the source of a bone fide St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant record, a better documentation trail would exist. The dynamics of the systematics of the times and Asian-American errors introduced by Gray, recounted in Appendicies 4 and 5, tell a story that support an environment of confusion. Based on this analysis, I believe that all of Nelson and Turner’s references to the Red-faced Cormorant in Norton Sound, the Bering Straits, and further north should be considered to be erroneous and incorrect. The reasons for this belief include the following:

Identification challenges. This paper did not delve deeply into the issue of the difficulty of regional cormorant field identification, especially with immatures, and considering the limitations of the time (early optics, photography limitations, lack of detailed field guides, etc.) Davis (2005) recently summarized this aspect. Noteably, many Pelagic Cormorants in alternate plumage do show yellow on the distal portion of their bills and, of course, red faces; however, not as extensive as that of the Red-faced Cormorant. Size has been shown to be potentially confusing, depending on locales and taxa of proximal Pelagic Cormorants.

Publication Issues. The lengthy delays associated with the publication of Nelson and Turner regional reports (in some cases, more than ten years) raised questions of reporting and editing accuracy and the affects of a changing cormorant taxonomic baseline. The publication order and scope of the Nelson and Turner documents raised questions on the geographic and timeframe overlap of reports by the observers. In the case of Nelson, questions are raised over what notes he used to produce his manuscripts and the possibility of introduced errors introduced by his long-distance relationship with his editors and printers.

Lack of Specifics. Even though Nelson has been credited with the St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant, he never mentioned this species in any of his publications, nor did he reference this species in his journals or field catalogs—apparently, the identification of a specimen of this species should have be attributed to the cataloger of Nelson’s specimens at the USNM in 1878. Turner’s only reference to a St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant was a scant, passive mention, with a personal disclaimer that he, himself, did not observe the species in the region.

Admitted short-comings. Both Nelson and Turner expressed various direct and indirect caveats about their inability to identify cormorants in the region. Nelson made a very telling comment in a post script in an April 1883 letter to Ridgway wherein he stated, “I am all mixed up as to the specific identify of the Alaskan Cormorants. Can you straighten the puzzle for me?” Also, the editor of Nelson’s 1887 work, Henshaw, even later demonstrated an inability to deal with cormorant identification in a later publication.

Reports muddled by second-hand accounts. Both Nelson and Turner included non-direct observations from other parties in their manuscripts, clouding the question of which were first-hand versus second-hand observations.

Ornithological imprecision. Both Nelson and Turner introduced other ornithological identification and taxonomic questions in their publications, dealing with both other cormorants as well as other species. Red-faced Cormorants typically received a much more summary level of treatment that Pelagic Cormorants, even at locations where they were stated to be present in numbers. Nelson also raised a number of ornithological issues dealing with identification and taxonomy among his peers that questioned and challenged.

Phil Davis


Inaccurate field cataloging and records. Nelson’s journals did not contain much relevant background or descriptive information to support most of his cormorant specimens and questions arose from some of the information that was recorded. Nelson’s field catalog and general record keeping was not precise and raised questions and issues from his USNM sponsors.

Taxonomy fluctuations. All of these questions and issues surfaced during a highly dynamic period in cormorant taxonomy that caused the USNM to revise its classification nomenclature and revision of author manuscripts that were in the process of editing—all opening the door to the introduction of errors. Curiously, a reference by Nelson’s (1887) editor in another publication in 1900-1901 continued to use an outdated genus for the cormorants. Historical Regional Summary

After all of my research and analysis, I still cannot positively determine whether Nelson himself was responsible for his incorrect cormorant identifications and range determinations or whether these errors were introduced into the final editing and publication of his notes by Henshaw. I suspect the largely the former, perhaps exacerbated by the later. Incorrect range descriptions occurred in Nelson’s first publication (1881) and it is not apparent that Henshaw played a part in the editing of that manuscript. Regardless of the source of the errors, Nelson’s published accounts of the range of the Red-faced Cormorant in the regional were clearly inaccurate.

However suspect were Nelson’s and Turner’s published sight records, the 1877 St. Michael “record” seems to have survived to the present and apparently was never questioned or challenged. This record was quite significant since no other Red-faced Cormorant specimen had ever been taken from farther north than the Priblof Island group, over 630 km to the south. This Norton Sound “record” continued to be referenced in many published works, up to and including the present, including in the current AOU Check-List (1998) and even the popular Sibley (2000) and the new Alderfer (2006).

The decades of the 1870s and 1880s were highly dynamic in terms of ornithological taxonomy and nomenclature, and I believe that the delays and chronological transposition of the publishing of these works significantly contributed to confusion over the status of these two cormorant species. Between the two Nelson publications (1883 and 1887), the 1st edition of the AOU Check-List (1886) was published, significantly altering and standardizing the prevailing taxonomic nomenclature of the two confusion species, the Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants. The later Nelson account (1887) from his St. Michael assignment (1877-1881) was still in editing and review when the AOU settled on its initial 1886 taxonomy and apparently Nelson’s 1887 Alaska “bird report” was never correctly converted to the new taxonomy standards, probably due to Nelson’s health situation, which necessitated that a new editor (Henshaw) complete the work Nelson began.

In an archived letter to Nelson, dated 12 Apr 1980, Baird stated that Nelson’s “zoological collections contain, I believe, nothing special or particularly noteworthy at the present time.” Given this comment, I am somewhat doubtful that a Red-faced Cormorant from St. Michael (which should have been notable) was ever identified by Nelson, lending credence to the explanation that the subject specimen was originally entered into the USNM catalog as “Violet-green” (Pelagic) Cormorant (G. violaceus).

Clearly confusion existed and a mistake was made somewhere. How exactly the subject specimen came to be re-cataloged as a Red-faced Cormorant (Ph. urile) remains a mystery, since are no known associated re-cataloging notations. According to James Dean, re-identifying specimens was generally a routine task and except for any annotations on the specimen tag, there would normally not be any paper trail.

I feel confident that a conversion or omission error occurred either within Nelson’s 1887 publication or with the specimen (collected in 1877, cataloged in 1878, and referred to by Turner in 1885); however, I am unable to reconstruct the specific sequence of events that occurred during this period. It is most likely that the 1877 Norton Sound specimen was never identified in the field as a Red-faced, but rather, as a Pelagic that fell victim to Nelson’s lack of recorded field details, taxonomic dynamics, misidentification or reclassification after receipt at the USNM, or during the Henshaw editing process. Conversely, there just is absolutely no support for the opposite case; i.e., a positively identified immature fall Red-faced Cormorant collected at St. Michael, with a clear link to the only publication reference, namely Turner (1885). SECTION IV—CONCLUSION

Considering all of the evidence, it seems clear that the Nelson 1877 specimen, for whatever reasons, has been widely but incorrectly cited in the literature (including in the prevailing 1998 AOU Check-List) as a Red-faced Cormorant instead of a Pelagic Cormorant. Therefore, I suggest that the 1877 St. Michael record be deleted from the next AOU Check-List and a 2002 St. Lawrence Island record be added.

In terms of directions for future research, a comprehensive cormorant survey of the several seabird nesting colonies around St. Lawrence Island should be conducted to detect the presence of Red-faced Cormorants. Also, researchers and birders in western Alaska should be alert to the possibily of this species and be prepared to document any sightings with detailed field notes or photographic evidence. As also suggested in other papers, a comprehensive analysis of Pelagic and Red-faced Cormorants should be conducted to determine subspecies or geographic morphometric variations. Finally, modern DNA analyses should be applied to both living populations, as well as museum specimens to sort out taxonomic issues.

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 1 –REGIONAL CORMORANT REFERENCES

I compiled the following annotated chronology from all published regional cormorant species references that deal with noteable or questionable distribution and identification matters. Field Reports

Chronological events may either refer to the date of the field work or the publication date, as noted.

1839. During 1839 (per Kondratyev, et al. 2000), Belcher visited Sitka and was reported to have been presented with a specimen of Ph. perspicillatus [=the extinct Pallas’s Cormorant] by the Russian Governor of Sitka, Koupreanoff. Gould (in Hinds 1844), The zoology of the voyage of the H.M.S. Sulphur , included only a single cormorant species account for Ph. perspicillatus Pall. The account stated, “Our collection of Birds [sic] received some valuable additions at Sitka [Alaska] from the liberality of Governor Koupreanoff, and amongst them was the present cormorant … [These] very interesting birds … have been deposited in our public collections [=the British Museum] …” Presumedly, Koupreanoff collected this bird earlier in the Komandorskiye [Commander] Islands, despite Gould’s indication that the range of the species is “Russian America.”. A synonym of this species, provided in Gould’s account, included “Pelecanus Urile (Gen. Hist. Vol. x. p. 426 ? [sic]”. The text stated, “Nearly allied to, if not identical with, but differs from the Pelecanus Urile of Latham in its much larger size, and in the ornamental plumes being dispersed over the face and sides of the neck, instead of the front of the latter only.” Plate 32, accompanying Gould’s species account, is a portrait of Pallas’s Cormorant. The Latham (1785) reference is to “Latham’s slip of the pen” as described by Stejneger (year) wherein Stejneger concludes that Latham erroneously penned that the orbit ring of Pallas’s Cormorant was red instead of correctly white and this was an intial source of confusion in the saga of Bering Sea cormorant identification and systematics (also see Davis 2005).

In response to a query from me about a possible Red-faced Cormorant specimen referenced in Gray (1844), Dr. Robert Prys-Jones of the British Museum (pers comm.) provided additional information:

“We hold 2 cormorants collected by Belcher supposedly on the "north-west coast of America" (no dates given), but as noted by Sharpe (1906) on p. 309 of his huge chapter on birds in volume 2 of "The history of the collections ....", no exact localities for Belcher's specimens were preserved. Each of the cormorant specimens has no data other than the briefest details of generalised locality (which may well be incorrect - Belcher's ship traveled very widely on the voyage in question) and collector on a single label attached after arrival in the then British Museum.

“At the time Gray (1844) was writing, and indeed for a considerable period thereafter, cormorant taxonomy and nomenclature was highly confused (e.g. see Stejneger 1885, Bull. U.S. Nat Mus. 29, pp 181 et seq.). The specimen you reference from p. 184 of his work is in fact a Spectacled Cormorant Phalacrocorax perspicillatus (BMNH reg. no. 1842.12.21.4) - the specimen was labeled Phalacrocorax urile when it arrived in the museum and the register noted "in very bad state", words reproduced by Gray in his commentary. As noted in Cat. Birds BM, vol. 26 (1898), p. 358, the original description of "Pelecanus urile" by Gmelin is ambiguous as to what it refers, although this work appears to overlook the clarifications provided by Stejneger (1885).

A second British Museum cormorant specimen was described by Prys-Jones (pers comm.): “The other specimen is mentioned by Gray (1844, p. 186) under "The Violet Shag Phalacrocorax violaceus ", a name which has now fallen out of use as not determinable. The specimen (BMNH reg. no. 1843.7.22.78) is referred to P . pelagicus in Cat. Birds BM, vol. 26, p. 362 (1898) and is currently stored among our P . pelagicus.” Subsequent inspection and measurement of this specimen by the British Museum staff confirmed that this latter specimen is indeed a pelagicus . See Appendix 3 for a summary of all relevant specimens, including these British specimens.

1842. Zagoskin (1847/1967: page 289-290, note 34 for page 99) described, among the birds he found around Fort St. Michael and on the southern shores of Norton Sound circa 1842, the “pelagic shag”—“uril in the original translation” according to the editor, Michael. Michael also commented, “The pelagic shag is probably of the Bering Sea variety, Phalacrocorax pelagicus .” Zagoskin was not a professional naturalist; however, V oznesensky taught him the basic of natural history collection and specimen preparation a few years earlier in Alaska.” Zagoskin commented (page 182), “My enthusiasm was unequal to my time and lack of knowledge: A rich field is left for the zoologist in this area. A description of the collections together with the native names for the specimens is listed in a special appendix. However, Michael added a footnote commenting that the referenced appendix was “not published in this [1967] edition because of the sometimes irreconcilable differences in Russian 19th-century classifications and those of the 20th century.”

1843. The first North American Red-faced Cormorants were collected in 1843 [one reference to “1943” was a typographical error as noted by Kessel and Gibson 1964] by the Russian explorer, Voznesensky [various spellings] who collected five specimens that were deposited in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences [“ZIN”] in St. Petersburg (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959). The first North American specimen was taken at Kodiak on 11 Feb 1943; three additional specimens were collected from the Aleutians and the Pribilof Islands. Apparently, little or nothing was known in the West about these specimens and the explorations. Expedition leader L.A. Zagoskin first published an account of his travels in Russia in 1847 and 1848; however, an English version (Michael 1967) was translated from a 1956 Russian edition. I have provided additional details on the relevant Russian specimens in Appendix 3.

1844. Gray (1844) in his List of the Specimens of Birds in the Collection of the British Museum reported that specimens of both the “Red-faced Shag Phalacrocorax urile” and the “Violet Shag Phalacrocorax violaceus ” were presented by Capt. Sir E. Belcher from “North-West Coast of America? [sic].” Gray also commented that the British Museum Red-faced Shag specimen was “In very bad state.” This Red-faced specimen reference, however, is incorrect (see Appendix Appendix 3, Specimens, for additional recent information from the British Museum.)

1857. The earliest published account of the Red-faced Cormorant in North America may have been recorded by Coinde (1860) in his Notice sur la faune ornithologique de l'île de Saint Paul wherein he described observing a cormorant species in 1857 (Preble and McAtee 1923). Coinde believed he was only the second naturalist to visit this island. However, his brief, non-detailed description of one cormorant species was of “Carbo pelagicus , Pallas.” Coinde commented that the Aleuts call this species Ouril, but suspects that they called all cormorants by this name. He also commented that he believed that this species was local to the Sea of Kamchatka but also commented that he believed that other species of Cormorant were also found on the island. There is a general reference to specimens, but it was unclear if any cormorants were taken back to Russia. I believe that Coinde’s reference is, at best, ambiguous.

1874-1877 . Turner’s field work at St. Michael. (See Appendix 2 for details.)

Phil Davis


1874. Dall (1874) indicated that the Red-faced Cormorant (Gr. bicristatus) is resident in the Aleutian and Pribyloff [sic] Islands and recorded that two specimens taken at Amchitka on 27 Jul 1873.

1877. Tacznanowski (1877) reported that Dybowski [in 1865?] collected three specimens of G. bicristatus from Abrek Bay [Vladivostok]. Given Taczanowski’s synonyms and the location, these would be Pelagic Cormorants. [Find Dybrowski J.O. 1876:203]

1877-1881 . Nelson’s field work at St. Michael and on the cruise of the Corwin. (See Appendix 1 for details.) 1878. Nordenskiold (1886) published his general account of his “V oyage of the V ega” which skirted the northern coast of Russia. The

ship became ice-bound in September 1878 until July of the following year. The expedition encountered cormorants around Wrangel and Herald Islands. The expediation naturalist, Palmén (1887), discussed the history of the cormorants in this northern Siberian region in his Bidrag till kännedomen om Sibiriska Ishafskustens fogelfauna enligt Vega-expeditionens iakttagelser och samlingar bearbetade [A contribution to knowledge about the bird fauna of the Siberian Pacific coast according to the observations and collections of the V ega Expedition]. Nelson refered to this reference in his 1887 work and taxonomic issues made this a source of additional regional cormorant confusion. See Appendix 8 for a complete translation of Palmén’s cormorant species accounts from Swedish to English.

1883. Taczanowski (1883) in his Liste Supplémentaire des oiseaux recueillis par le Dr . Dybowski au Kamchatka et aux Iles Comandores was analyzed and discussed in detail by Stejneger (1885). Taczanowski stated that the two species, as described by Pallas, were so different that they should have never been confused by modern ornithologists. He sanctioned Swinhoe’s (1874) treatment of the two species which formed the basis for later writers on Japanese ornithology. Taczanowski also presented a table comparing characteristics of the two species. However, Taczanowski confused matters by quoting pelagicus Pall as a synonym of bicristatus Pall and in a comparative table he erroneously described some of the soft parts and transposed both captions and column headings in a table of measurements (Stejneger 1895). This account, unfortunately, propagated additional misinformation in Eurasia.

1885. Matschie and Ziemer (1885), in a review of Nelson (1883) stated that Nordenskjöld found this species at North Cape [Cape Schmidt], propagating Nelson’s apparent erroneous interpretation of Nordenskjöld and propagating this misinformation into the German language.

1886. AOU (1886) 1st edition Check-List was published. (See Appendix 6) 1895. AOU (1895) 2nd edition Check-List was published. (See Appendix 6) 1899. Palmer (1899) in his Birds of the Pribilof Islands stated that the Red-faced Cormorant (Ph. urile) was the only species of

cormorant found on the islands, adding, “But there would seem to be no reason why one or more of the various species of cormorants found in the Bering Sea should not wander occasionally within our limits.” Palmer also commented, “They are far less abundant now than formerly.” It is not clear why Palmer did not follow Baird, et al. (1884) who stated, “[Red-faced Cormorant] is also said to be abundant at St. George Island … where Captain Smith obtained several examples.”

1899. In his “Birds of the Yukon region, with notes on other species,” Bishop (in: Osgood 1900) commented, “It was of course impossible to obtain specimens of waterfowl seen from the decks of steamers; therefore when specific identification was not positive I have referred genera seen to the species which previous observers—especially E.W. Nelson and William Palmer—have found most common in the waters visited.” On the return from Yukon, the party spent a month, from late August to late September, 1899, at St. Michael collecting on the coast and tundra. The only cormorants chronicled from other than the Aleutians and St. George was a Ph. pelagicus robustus, Violet-green Cormorant.” Bishop wrote, “We saw a single cormorant at Whale Island September 8; and one—possibly the same bird—was seen by Osgood several times at St. Michael.”

1900. McGregor (1902: 139) in A List of Birds Collected in Norton Sound, Alaska reported observing the Violet-green Cormorant (Ph. pelagicus robustus ) from Whale Island and refers all he saw as this species. He added, “They were seen in abundance only on Beseboro Island, although a small colony may have nested on Egg Island. A sprinkling of cormorants nested among the gulls and murres on the bold head of Cape Denbigh and single birds were seen at various localities along the coast. No specimens were taken.”

1900. Macoun (1900) in his Catalogue of Canadian Birds included species accounts for the Alaska presence of Pelagic (Ph. pelagicus), Violet-green (Ph. p. robustus), and Red-faced (Ph. urile) Cormorants; however, the species accounts consisted only of direct quotes from Nelson and Turner.

1904. Schalow (1904) commented (in German) in his Die Vögel der Arktis that extraordinary confusion (despite the exhaustive investigation by Stejneger 1885) had prevailed with the synonymy of the Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants in the Bering Sea and Arctic regions, between Alaska and the Chukota Peninsula and much remained to be cleared up. He also commented, specifically referring to Nelson, that from the Northeastern Palearctic region, much data was based on sight records, the data points were few, no specimens were collected, and the synonymy was confusing and often wrongly interpreted; all contributing to an entangled view of the two species in the region.

1909. In an update to the 1900 Catalogue of Canadian Birds, Macoun and Macoun (1909) updated the cormorant accounts, but still largely based them on Turner and Nelson.

1910. AOU (1910) 3rd editon Check-List was published. (See Appendix 6) 1911. Thayer and Bangs (1914) in their Notes on the Birds and Mammals of the Arctic Coast of East Siberia described the presence of

large numbers of Pelagic Cormorant on the Arctic Siberian coast from 30 Aug to 5 Sep 1911 and specifically stated, “No other cormorant was seen on the Arctic Siberian coast.”

1913. Even though he landed at St. Lawrence Island in early June, Brooks (1915) in his Birds from east Siberia and Arctic Alaska did not note the Red-faced Cormorant (Ph. urile) there. At Kamchatka, he recorded the species as only “positively identified” at Avatcha Bay on 10 May 1913 and “only a few were seen” at Cape Shipunski where a male was taken on 25 May 1913. Since Red-faced Cormorant is not found on the mainland of Kamchatka, I checked the database of the sponsoring collection expedition organization, the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ), and found two related specimens in the collection database. Specimen MCZ 66771 was collected on the referenced date (23 May 1913) by Books at this location but is now cataloged as a female (versus male) Ph. pelagicus. (Another later specimen, MCZ 66773, is cataloged from the same location, but is shown as having been collected by Dixon and Lane as an adult Ph. urile male on 23 May 1913.)

1914. Hersey (1917) made several short stops at St. Michael as chronicled in his Birds of Alaska and Siberia, while on a mission to collect data for A. C. Bent. This expedition, during the summer of 1914 made stops at “practically every village between the mouth of the Yukon River and Barrow, as well as several islands in [the] Bering Sea and four points on the Siberian coast.” Hersey (1917a) included a species account for Ph. p. pelagicus. In this account, Hersey states, “This is the most common member of the family in the northern parts of the Bering Sea and is the only one I positively identified.” However, he also honestly commented, “About St. Paul Island many cormorants were flying about which may have been urile, but they kept a distance and I failed to satisfactorily identify them.” With regard to Pelagic Cormorant subspecies, he commented, “A cormorant which I thought might be robustus, if that form is really distinct from pelagicus , was shot at Unalaska …”

1915. After his cruise, Hersey arranged to spend the summer season, from 29 May until 8 Sep 1915, at St. Michael. He was the first naturalist to dedicate any extended time to observing birds at this location since Nelson departed in 1877. Hersey (1917a) commented on the local

Phil Davis


cormorants; “Mr. Nelson states that a few Violet-green [= Pelagic] Cormorants nest near St. Michael but they are never very numerous. No cormorant, of any kind, was seen during my stay there and I doubt if any now breed there.” [Is it remotely possible that cormorant colonies—of various species—refered to by Turner and Nelson were decimated, probably by hunting, in the intervening period? PD]

1915. Hanna (1916) noted that the previously recorded Violet-green Cormorant (Ph. p. robustus) “is common about the Pribilof Islands in winter and is recognized as different from the Red-faced by the natives who term it ‘sea shag.’”

1920. Hartert (1920) in Die Vögel der paläarktischen fauna described the range of the Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorants but commented that the extent of the northern range of the Pelagic is unknown and [correctly PD] opined that it was probably this species of cormorant that the V ega Expedition observed on the Chukota Arctic coast and Wrangel Island.

1922. Bent (1922) described the range description of the Red-faced Cormorant to include the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas, and which was subsequently widely referenced by other authors. However, within this species account Bent provided no specific references for his claim of records from Norton Sound and the Diomede Islands. I retrieved his original papers from the Smithsonian Institution Archives and found that he made a number of handwritten distribution research notes under the caption “Ranges to the Diomede Isls. & Siberian coast of Bering Strait.” These references included “Turner 1886—taken St. Michael”; “Nelson [1887]—Br. [breeds] Cape Vancouver, Cape Romanzoff, Nelson I.”; and “Nelson [1883]—“Br. Siberia No[rth] Cape.” Bent also commented on the history of field identification problems; he added, “Much confusion seems to have existed, among the earlier writers on the birds of the Bering Sea, as to the species of cormorants noted in this region, but between pelagicus and urile there seems to be sufficient difference to distinguish these two species at all ages.” Ironically, Bent provided the firm impression that all issues and confusion between Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorant dealing with both nomenclature and identification had now been resolved. However, Bent’s account was prepared with data from the earlier “era of confusion” and he continued to propagate Nelson’s erroneous information on the status of this species in the northern Bering Sea region (and also in Asia, which will be treated in a subsequent paper PD). Willett (1923:26-27) criticized other Bent cormorant accounts, challenging Bent’s claim that the White-faced [Double-crested] Cormorant (Ph. auritus cincinatus) nested along the southeastern Alaskan coast and challenged Bent’s inclusion of Brant’s Cormorant (Ph. penicillatus) as an Alaska breeder based on a single record.

1923. Preble & McAtee (1923) noted “[The red-faced cormorant] was probably first noted from the Pribilofs by Coinde (1860, p. 401). Owing to this bird having been confused with P[h]. p[h]. robustus [Pelagic] in many cases there are numerous notes of occurrence at various seasons which cannot with safety be used for either. In the present account, therefore, all doubtful notes have been ignored.” As discussed earlier, I agree that Coinde’s reference is ambiguous, at best.

1931. AOU (1931) 4th edition Check-List was published. (See Appendix 6.) 1934a. In his “Bird bones from Eskimo ruins on St. Lawrence Island, Bering Sea,” Friedmann stated the following in his Red-faced

Cormorant [Ph. urile] account (separate from his Pelagic Cormorant account), “Hitherto this cormorant has been known from St. Lawrence Island only on the basis of Nelson’s statement that it is a “… more of less common summer resident” there. No specimens have been taken in the flesh as far as I know. However, bones attributed to this species are included in the results of 8 diggings, but only in cuttings of ancient sites. It may well be that the species was formerly more abundant to account for its change in status.” Friedmann continued, “The fact that the species is represented at both ends of the island (Gambell and Kialegak) indicates that it was widespread in its local range. If it were present in only one place, it might have been assumed that its hypothecated decrease might have been due to the decimation of the sole colony on the island.” Kessel and Gibson (1994) opined that, “Identity of bones from middens on St. Lawrence Island ascribed to the Red-faced Cormorant by Friedmann (1934) is open to question.” [This same comment applies to all Friedmann references published over the next few years, shown below.]

1934b. In his Bird Bones from Alaska, Friedmann (1934) published that Mr. H. B. Collins Jr. had collected Red-faced Cormorant bones from “diggings of prehistoric, but probably not very ancient. Eskimo ruins at Cape Denbeigh,” Norton Sound. No other cormorant species were reported. This report seemingly was ignored by all later authors. In a paper that corrects other erroneous Alaskan cormorant archeological records, Olson (2005) commented that Friedmann was “probably out of his element in dealing with osteology, however, as in looking over this material through the years I have found numerous rather strinking errors in identification.”

1935a. Friedmann (1935a) in his Avian bones from prehistoric ruins on Kodiak Island, Alaska , stated the following in his Pelagic Cormorant species account, “The bones of this species show great variation in size; if only the two extremes were present, one might think them different species.” He adds, “On the basis of geography these specimens should be of the typical race, Ph. p. pelagicus.”

1935. In another publication, Birds of Kodiak Island, Alaska, Friedmann (1935b) referred to two eggs collected by Bretherton on Kodiak Island on 19 Jun 1894 as the only record of the species on the island. However, he added that eggs of several species are not diagnostic and that unaccompanied by specimens of the birds, identification cannot be taken as definitive. Friedmann added, “Bretherton writes that the red-faced cormorant is a ‘common but not plentiful’ resident on the island [but] the question remains as to whether he knew this species accurately.” Friedmann specifically places Ph. urile in a category of Kodiak avifauna suspicious species. In this paper, Friedmann referenced the Russo-American Telegraph Expedition and Bishoff’s 1868-69 collection that was send to Baird [add to chronology?]; why he did not know about the earlier Red-faced Cormorant specimens is a mystery, especially since Baird’s report on that that species (1869) was published by the same Chicago Academy of Sciences.

1943. Bailey (1943) questioned Nelson’s 1887 account that the species “is found on the cliffs on both shores of the Bering Strait and on the islands in the middle of the pass” and that “it is a more or less common resident.” Bailey noted that Nelson did not state that he [Nelson] had seen specimens. Furthermore, Bailey added that he, himself, did not see this species and he failed to find specific records from the Bering Strait area.

1948. In a later account, Bailey (1948) took an ever stronger position; “The occurrence of this species in the Bering Strait area is questionable; at least I have no record of specimens taken. Nelson is the only one to mention it from the region …”

1950. Cade, T.J. (1950) discussed the Red-faced Cormorant status at St. Lawrence Island and commented, "One record: Nelson (1887), but apparently not substantiated by a specimen (Bailey, 1948)."

1951. Dement’ev and Gladkov (1951/1966) did not describe the Red-faced Cormorant species at the more northerly latitudes. 1953. Kenyon and Brooks (1960) stated that on April 25, 1953 Brooks found cormorants present on Little Diomede Island in the

Bering Strait, which he “believed” were of two species, one larger than the other; however, when Kenyon returned in 1958, only Pelagic Cormorants were found.

1957. AOU (1957) 5th edition Check-List was published. (See Appendix 6) 1959. Fay and Cade (1959) included a Red-faced Cormorant account in their monograph, The Avifauna of St. Lawrence Island,

Alaska. They included this species in their tabulation of “irregular visitants and accidentals” citing evidence as both bones and sight records. Their Ph. urile account stated, “The red-faced cormorant has not been recorded from St. Lawrence Island since Nelson’s (1887) visit, but Friedmann (1834[b]) says that bones of this species were common in the middens. Our Eskimo informants said that a few cormorants of exceptionally large size (compared to P. pelagicus) have occasionally been seen by them, and these may have been urile.”

Phil Davis


1959. Gabrielson and Lincoln (1959) cited the AOU (1931) 4th edition Check-List breeding range as extending to North Cape [Cape Schmidt], Siberia and mentioned Nelson’s (1887) reports from St. Matthew, St. Lawrence, St. Michael, and Nelson Islands, but added, “no naturalist since his time has found them breeding north of the Pribilof Islands, and only a few stragglers from north of that point have been recorded.” I could find no references to any additional “straggler” reports, from north of the Pribilofs, that Gabrielson and Lincoln might have referenced. Gabrielson and Lincoln, however, specifically mentioned Turner’s 1886 report of a single specimen taken from St. Michael but then they noted that Turner failed to find the Red-faced Cormorant anywhere in the Aleutians, during his assignment there, casting doubts on Turner’s identification capabilities regarding this genus. Gabrielson and Lincoln also commented that Clark (1910) mentioned observing the species only near “Agattu” and that Bent did not record seeing it in the Aleutians, while writing about the species extensively based on the Walrus Island colony in the Pribiliof Island group. Gabrielson and Lincoln opined, “It seems highly improbable that these men would have missed the species if it had been present in the Aleutians in anything like its present abundance. The more reasonable assumption is that the bird has increased in the intervening years, as it is now a widespread breeding species in that island chain.” Gabrielson and Lincoln commented, “Baird (1869) recorded it from St. George Island, and since then every ornithologist who has visited the Pribilofs has commented on these …” I have come to the conclusion, also shared by Kessel and Gibson (1994) that the absence of Aleutian Island reports in of this species by these authors were more than likely due to identification or taxonomic challenges, rather than the actual presence or absence of the species.

1962. Palmer (1962) published that the range of the species included the northern shore of the Chukotka Peninsula and “possibly” the northwestern shores of Alaska, erroneously following Nelson.

1972. Portenko (1972/1981) believed that Brooks’ 1953 size differences could be attributed to two subspecies of Pelagic Cormorant. Portenko also noted, “I did not come across this species either on the shores of Anadyr Bay on the Chuckchi coast, or even on Wrangel Island …” However, he added, “I cannot exclude for certain the red-faced cormorant in the far northern areas. E.W. Nelson (1887, p. 66) erred by including this species in the fauna of St. Lawrence Island and extending its boundary to the coasts of Bering Strait.”

1978. Kessel and Gibson (1978) did not include Red-faced Cormorant north of southcoastal Alaska with regard to current status and distribution.

1983. The AOU (1983) 6th edition Check-List was published. (See Appendix 6) 1985. Harrison (1985) included St. Michael in his “dispersal” range description of the Red-faced Cormorant, undoubtedly from the

AOU (1983) 6th edition Check-List. 1998. The current 7th edition of the AOU Check-List (1998) indicated that the breeding range of the Red-faced Cormorant is limited to

the southern Bering Sea but in winter it is “casual” at St. Michael on Norton Sound, Alaska.” (See the AOU Check-List discussion in Section III for a summary of the earlier AOU check-lists accounts.)

2000. Sibley (2000) indicated an extralimital record (i.e., a green dot) at St. Michael on his range map of this species, apparently based on the AOU (1998) Check-List.

2005. Nelson (2005) did not describe the Red-faced Cormorant range to include any areas further north than Nunivak Island; however, not all species accounts attempt to include casual or extralimital records. Nelson noted the similarity to the Pelagic Cormorant and commented that museum identification of skins are sometimes confused. With respect to the Pelagic Cormorant, Nelson (2005) commented, “Birds of Siberian mainland and Wrangel Island are larger than Bering Sea birds and have been given sub-specific rank, P[h]. p. aeolus.”

2006. Alderfer (2005) described the species as casual at Norton Sound, apparently based on the AOU (1998) Check-List.

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 2—NELSON’S AND TURNER’S REGIONAL PUBLICATIONS

I found that the historical status of the Red-faced Cormorant in the northern Bering Sea region was rife with confusion and errors. I first attempted to locate specific published references to the subject St. Michael specimen. Subsequently, I constructed the following complete regional publication chronology. In which I have highlighted relevant issues and problems: Nelson’s and Turner’s Publications

Nelson 1880. In a brief three and one-half page article entitled, “An Afternoon in the Vicinity of St. Michael’s, Alaska” in the Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, Nelson (1880) describes a day’s kayak outing in the middle of August 1878 to some small rocky, outlying islands in the bay in the vicinity of St. Michaels where “Puffins and other Sea Birds [sic] congregate, and some of the former breed.” On one of the islands upon which he landed, he commented, “Here there among [the Horned Puffins] could be distinguished a Tufted Puffin, while on the more elevated projections and spurs on the face of the island were perched about a dozen Violet-green Cormorants (Graculus violaceus ).” He then described flushing a flock of puffins and gulls which circled around and then “took refuge on the open water to seaward, where they were preceded by the cormorants, which I have invariably found very shy in this vicinity.” No mention is made of the Red-faced Cormorant; however, this narrative was particular to just one particular afternoon.

Nelson 1883. In his 1883 publication, Birds of Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean , Nelson stated, “The observations on which the present paper is based were made both during the [Corwin] cruise just detailed, and in addition are the results of observations made by myself during over four years’ residence at Saint Michaels, and explorations carried on in various directions from that point. In addition, I have used information obtained from various reports which have been issued regarding the region in question, so far as the limited time at my disposal would allow.” Nelson continued, “Exceptional favorable opportunities of the writer in the unknown region of the Bering Sea and the adjoining portion of the Arctic Ocean to the north have been detailed in the present paper, with such other information as could be obtained from other sources …” Later, Nelson added, “The principle sources from which information has been derived, in addition to my own observations, have been Dall and Bannister’s list of birds in the “Transactions of the Chicago Academy of Science” for 1869, and Dr. Coues’s Ornithology of the Pribylov [sic] Islands in Elliott’s “Condition of Affairs in Alaska,” Treasury Department, 1874.” These comments are significant since they indicated an integration of Nelson’s direct observations with indirect reports of other observers.

Nelson returned from Alaska in late 1881 to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., however, within a few months he had contracted tuberculosis and was forced to move to the southeastern region of the United States. He finished his Corwin manuscript away from the Smithsonian.

Nelson went on to become the President of the AOU (1908-1910) and publish many works on the birds of the southeastern U.S. and Mexico; however, his first published work from Alaska (1883) raised a number of questions by his contemporaries. In the early issues of The Auk, a series of lively “point-counter point” letters were exchanged between naturalists who challenged some contents of Nelson’s 1883 Corwin work (Coues 1884, Nelson 1884, Herman 1884, Stejneger 1884, Murdoch 1885, Nelson 1885). Some of these peer issues dealt with printing and production problems, however, others were substantive. None of these issues, however, dealt specifically with cormorants. For example, Nelson published that Dall had obtained a specimen of Anthus pratensis (Meadow Pipit) in St. Michael. Palmén (1887) challenged this claim and Stejneger (1888) confirmed that the specimen in question was actually an A. cervinus (Red-throated Pipit). The putative A. pratensis has never been recorded (even to date) in Alaska.

In his 1883 Pelagic Cormorant species account Nelson commented, “A species of Cormorant, either this or the following [Red-faced] was seen at Herald Island [Russia], and again one or two individuals near Wrangel Island [also Russia] and on the American shore in the vicinity of Cape Beaufort, on July 27; but as they were shy at all these locations no specimens were secured, and it was impossible to ascertain definitely to which species they should be referred.” In this manuscript, Nelson cited Nordenskjöld’s work (1889/1881) The voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe and recounted, “Nordenskjöld records the capture of several of these birds [Red-faced Cormorant] at North Cape [on the Chukotka Peninsula—now named Mys (Cape) Schmidt], Siberia, where they were nesting upon the cliffs in large numbers at the time of the V ega’s visit there on September 17, 1879.”

Nelson apparently presumed from either Nordenskjöld’s (1889/1881) brief written description and accompanying illustration or from Palmén’s (1887) account (see Appendix 8 for a Swedish-to- English translation) that “the cormorant” (identified as Graculus bicristatus ) was the Red-faced, but the Nordenskjöld drawing, reproduced here as Figure 8, clearly favored a Pelagic Cormorant [PD]. Nelson (1883) continued, “It was, perhaps, this species [Red-faced] in place of the Violet-Green [Pelagic] Cormorant which was noted by us to the north of this cape [Schmidt] about Wrangel and Herald Islands, as well as at Cape Beaufort on the north shore of Alaska and one or two other points along the Arctic shore of this territory.” Note Nelson’s use of the tentative qualifier, “perhaps.” In the Cruise of the Cruise of the Corwin, Muir (1917) listed bird species that were “observed by Nelson” on Wrangel Island, including the Red-faced Cormorant; however, Muir indicated that his list was taken from Nelson (1883). Even though his 1883 work was primarily oriented to his 1881 Corwin expedition, Nelson did regress. For example, in his Red-faced Cormorant account, he discussed the abundance of the species in the vicinity of Unalaska Island in September 1881 (on his return to the states) and he also stated that this species was rather common there in the spring of 1877 (while initially en route to St. Michael).

Phil Davis


Figure 8. The “Cormorant from Irkaipi” from Nordenskjöld (1889/1881). Irkiapi is now known as Rykapiy which is at Mys (Cape)

Schmidt (formerly North Cape), on the northern shore of the Chukota Peninsula on the Chukchi Sea (south of Wrangel Island). This bird sketched by M. Westergren and labeled as Graculus bicristatus was apparently seen and on 12 Sep 1879 [fide?], so because of the

date, it must be an adult in late alternate/early basic plumage. It would not be a juvenile or even a SY bird due to the flank patches and crests. The all dark distal and middle portion of the bill, straight bill (not concave), small crests, thin neck, and feathered forehead

indicate a Pelagic Cormorant. The depiction of the facial skin may be somewhat equivocal, but it does not strongly favor Red-faced.

In his review of Nelson’s 1883 work, Coues (1884) opened with the statement, “The late Mr. G. R. Gray, who had a habit of literal exactitude in handling the names of birds, might have reaped a fine crop of new generic and specific terms from this treatise, in which many of the scientific designations are misprinted, not all of these being accounted for in the list of errata …” At the top of an Errata sheet for this publication, Nelson explained, “Owing to the absence of the author [forced by his illness], and the haste with which this paper has been put through the press, the writer had no opportunity to correct the proofs, and in consequence a number of typographical errors are present—the most important of which are detailed in the following list.” [There was only one obvious and hence, non-consequential, typographical error associated with the cormorants. PD]

In a rebuttal, Nelson (1884) accepted “… responsibility for all statement of fact contained in the paper, [however] I cannot consent to be held accountable for errors of omission and commission in the way of proof-reading and typographical execution. My absence from Washington [due to his health] while this report was in press is regretted by no one so much as myself, but was unavoidable.”

Coues (1884) continued, “The interesting notes are chiefly those of a field naturalist, the technicalities of the subject being at a minimum. The determination of the species, we presume, and the terminology employed, rest upon excellent authority.”

Along similar lines, Banks (1988) later noted, “A record of [Southern Fulmar—Fulmarus glacialoides] from Kotezbue Sound, (Nelson 1883), listed as Priocella tenuirostris, was shown to be based on a misidentification of Puffinus tenuirostris (Stejneger 1884), then called the Slender-billed Shearwater. This error resulted more from confusion of the names than from actual misidentification (Nelson 1887:63).”

Since Nelson’s 1883 paper was prepared after he left St. Michael in 1877, he would [or should] have been aware of any St. Michael cormorant specimens that either he or Turner would have collected between Turner’s arrival in 1874 and Nelson departure in 1881, however the 1883 paper contains no mention of such a specimen. In contrast, Nelson’s 1883 paper does go into detail on the status of the Pelagic Cormorant about St. Michael. Indeed, Nelson’s only reference to the presence of the Red-faced Cormorant species in the region is an almost passing literary reference; “These birds appear to be a fitting accompaniment to the bleak, barren coast found so frequently along the northern shores of Bering Sea.” The nature and support of Nelson’s comments seem to lack authority.

Turner 1885. Turner arrived at his assignment at St. Michael in June 1874 and remained until he was replaced by Nelson in June 1877 and then later served in the Aleutians Islands. In his earlier paper, Notes on the Birds of the Nearer [sic] Islands, Alaska, Turner (1885) stated, “The following list of birds consists of species actually collected, or else identified beyond the possibility of error, with the addition, for the sake of completeness, of a few species not observed by the writer, but obtained or observed by Prof. W.H. Dall, and recorded in his valuable “Notes of the Avifauna of the Aleutian Islands, especially those West of Unalashka [sic] (San Francisco, March 14, 1874) .” Thusly, Turner, as did Nelson, allowed integration of his direct observations and collections with those of other indirect sources. In his 1885 Red-faced Cormorant account, Turner stated, “… the Russian speaking population, together with the natives, have each singular ideas of color, so that any attempt to obtain information of birds, by describing their colors, is very unsatisfactory and frequently exasperating.” This comment followed a related remark in his Pelagic Cormorant account where he referenced the natives of Attu describing an extirpated taxon which Turner takes to have been Ph. perspicillatus [Pallas’s Cormorant]. In this reference Turner stated, “They [the natives] describe it [perspicillatus] as being twice as large as the red-faced cormorant …” however, in his Red-faced Cormorant account, Turner did not mention that he even found Red-faced Cormorants in the Near Islands; however, he reported Double-crested Cormorants from the Near Islands, as well as earlier from Norton Sound. A compilation and analysis of these Double-crested Cormorant reports is presented in Appendix 7.

Turner 1886. In his Alaskan regional Red-faced Cormorant account, Turner (1886) stated the only known reference that can be linked to a St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant specimen record. He said, “A single specimen of this Cormorant was obtained at Saint Michael. I did not to a certainty observe it in any other locality, though it is known to occur in numbers in other parts of the territory.” In the front-matter of his

Phil Davis


manuscript, Turner stated, “The report is intended to give only such notes as were made by myself in the field, and only in such instances as are necessary to substantiate my own observations have I made any citations from other works on the subjects under consideration.” Later he reiterated, “The notes on the birds are, except in few instances, the results of my own observations in the field.” So, in a second publication, Turner again, allowed indirect sourced to beome mingled with his own direct observations.

Turner’s reference to the Red-faced Cormorant specimen is expressed in the third person, in contrast to his usual first person voice; and without elaboration of how or from whom the specimen was obtained, as was more usual in his manuscript. Turner’s choice of words is also curious in that he says that specimen “was obtained” as opposed to “was collected” (staying in the third person), implying it was obtained from someone else. His words would seem to support the hypothesis that Turner did not himself collect nor directly receive this specimen. In addition to specifically crediting natives that provided him specimens, in his species accounts, in his acknowledgements, Turner expresses his deep obligations; “To Messrs. J.N. McQuestion [sic - McQuesten], A. Mayo, and J. Harper, of the upper Yukon District, I am deeply indebted for many specimens of birds which I would not otherwise have obtained.” These traders, however, apparently worked further up the Yukon River and likely were not responsible for any cormorant specimens.

Turner’s third-person specimen reference therefore seems likely to refer to the subject Nelson specimen since no other St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant specimen is cataloged in the USNM (Clapp, Dean, pers comm.), the appropriate collection at the time, given the Baird and USNM affiliation of Turner and Nelson. Turner’s account, however, was remarkably devoid of details; he identified no collection date for the specimen, no reference to the collector (whether it was he or someone else), nor any indication of the age of the bird (adult or immature). Furthermore, his general account of the species was stark in terms of information compared to the other species in his report. For example, in his Pelagic Cormorant account he discussed the arrival date of the species in Norton Sound, the habitat, etc. Allen (1888) reviewed Turner’s report and commented, “Mr. Turner’s annotations are not to any large extent technical, relating mostly to distribution and habitats, with occasionally description of bill, feet, iris, etc. from fresh specimens, and of plumage, with frequently explanations and comment on the native names, and notes on the uses of the birds made by the natives.” Turner’s Red-faced Cormorant, however, does not live up to even those expectations.

I also detected skepticism in Turner’s comment about “not being to observe the species in any other locality” given Nelson’s statement (1887), published a year later but certainly drafted much earlier, that the species was “common about the cliffs at the head of Norton Sound, and is seen at long intervals near St. Michael …” In his Pelagic Cormorant account, Turner (1886) also stated, “When passing along the shores of Bristol Bay I observed numerous Cormorants, which I also referred to the present form [Pelagic].” Overall, Turner seemed, at best, tentative with his cormorant identifications. As with Nelson, Turner’s comments on Red-faced Cormorant also lack authority.

We also know that Turner left St. Michael on 14 July 1877, approximately one month after Nelson, his replacement, arrived on 17 June 1877 which dissociates Turner with later candidate collection dates of the putative USNM St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant specimen. Therefore, Turner himself apparently did not collect any Red-faced Cormorant specimens from St. Michael.

Nelson 1887. In his 1887 work, Birds of Alaska, Nelson did not mention any Red-faced Cormorant specimen. However, he provided the following Red-faced Cormorant information (by sight records) from his local field work and regional excursions; “Upon Saint Matthew’s and Saint Lawrence Islands, as well as upon the cliffs or both shores of Bering Straits and the islands in the middle of the pass, this cormorant is more or less common summer resident. It is rather common at long intervals near Saint Michaels, and nests on Cape Vancouver, Nelson Island, and Cape Romanzoff.” He concluded his Red-faced Cormorant account with, “Unfortunately, my opportunities for studying the species of this genus [Phalacrocorax] in Bering Sea were very limited, but I may note here that these birds offer an inviting field of investigation for such naturalists as may visit the Territory in the future.” His last sentence is very telling since subsequent naturalists did visit these more northerly locations and none were to ever describe the species from any of those locales. Not all of Nelson’s Red-faced Cormorant information was incorrect; his accounts included observations and information about the species from the Pribilof Islands, where the species was clearly present. Nelson’s Journals, Field Catalogs, and Correspondence

Still not content to accept at face value Turner’s non-specific, sketchy 1886 published reference to Nelson’s apparent specimen and its subsequent re-identification, I researched the Smithsonian Institution Archives to attempt to locate and verify Turner’s and Nelson’s original field documentation. I found no relevant Turner notes in the USNM archives.

Nelson’s Alaska Journals. I located Nelson’s original Alaska journals and eagerly turned to the page where the entry should appear for 5 Sep 1877, the date the subject USNM specimen was indicated to have been collected. I was disappointed, however, to find that after Nelson’s journal heading entry for the month of “September 1877,” there was nothing but a series of blank pages until a 24 Sep entry, which was a very unremarkable “nothing of note” type of comment. Backing up into August, I did find a possibly relevant entry for 11 Aug 1877. Nelson wrote, “A juvie cormorant was brought me [sic] yesterday and I made the attempt to make a water color sketch of it and succeeded beyond my hopes. I decided to color the bill, head of all the waterbirds of interest might secure [sic]. And colored the bills of two species of mormon [the then current genus of puffins] found here.” I thoroughly searched the Smithsonian Archives documentation index and inspected all labeled cormorant and “unidentified bird” drawings, hoping to locate Nelson’s sketch, but to no avail. The Division of Birds also had no record of this sketch.

I scanned all of Nelson’s 1877 journal entries and found no other earlier or later references to cormorants. Therefore, this 11 Aug entry was the first (and only) recorded reference to any cormorant since Nelson arrived at St. Michael in June 1877. Therefore, I suspected that this 11 Aug reference related to the subject USNM specimen. There is nothing, however, in Nelson’s original journal to suggest the species of this cormorant specimen, but he also did not note anything to indicate that the specimen might be remarkable.

Scanning all of Nelson’s Alaska journals from the years after 1877, I found only a few references to any cormorants beyond the 11 Aug 1877 entry previously discussed. On 10-11 Jul 1881, while on the Corwin, Nelson casually listed, as one of the species seen off of Cape Nome, the “Violet-Green [Pelagic] Cormorant.” His entry for 30 Aug 1881 from Plover Bay mentioned, “… a number of Violet-green Cormorant.” On 30 Sep 1881, Nelson recorded, “A few pair of Graculus violaceous [i.e., Violet-Green Cormorant] … were also seen upon the cliffs after I landed [on Herald Island].”

Nelson’s Alaska Birds Field Catalogs. In the Division of Birds, Dean provided me access to Nelson’s Alaska birds catalog entitled, “E.W. Nelson Alaska Collection – Birds Skins and Eggs – 1877-1881.” In this catalog, I found no cormorant entry for 11 Aug 1877; however, there was an entry for 5 Sep 1877 which Nelson cataloged with field number 481, as Gr . violaceus, female. I noted that the entries in Nelson’s field catalog were not entered sequentially; the field numbers appeared to be pre-numbered, however the dates of the specimens were frequently out of sequence, often by many months, and dates were apparently written in later in blocks (by the use of brackets). Also, some dates had been scratched out and changed, often by just one day. The period of 10-11 Aug 1877 (one of the candidate dates for acquisition of the Red-faced Cormorant specimen) included, in addition to specimens from St. Michael, the entry of a number of specimens from Pikmiktalik by “Alexia,” apparently a local hunter/collector. According to the field catalog, this seemed have been a busy and confusing time. During the other candidate

Phil Davis


period, 5 Sep, Nelson entered ten specimens, all grouped together with a date written-in by use of a bracket (perhaps after the fact?). During neither of these two candidate periods did Nelson reference any cormorants in his field catalog. In addition to Nelson’s primary skins catalog, I also checked his supplemental lists for eggs and skeletons, without finding reference to any cormorant species. Nelson’s field catalog was very inconsistent; some entries did not include dates and some dates were recorded only to the month. The correlation between his field catalog and the USNM catalog shows a number of discrepancies; for example, many specimens sent to the USNM did not include Nelson’s field numbers which makes cross-referencing difficult. From Nelson’s correspondence, I now know that his field catalog was not provided to the USNM until later, well after his specimens had been shipped back to the USNM and cataloged. Nelson’s Correspondence

Baird. In the Smithsonian Archives I located a series of letters from Baird to Nelson while the later was stationed at St. Michael. In a 26 Dec 1878 letter, Baird acknowledged receipt of 17 boxes of specimens that Nelson shipped in July of that year. This shipment would have contained any Aug/Sep 1877 cormorant specimen(s). Baird also acknowledged that Nelson had requested that his collection be put in proper condition and saved for his return. Baird further stated, “We have selected a series of the birds for mounting in view of their being so many excellent skins and having a good taxidermist on hand.” I searched the Smithsonian Archives of Baird’s incoming correspondence, hoping to locate Nelson’s July 1878 letter and any other information that might have accompanied this shipment of specimens (including birds and presumably other natural history and ethnological specimens); however, my Archives search did not yield any results. [Try the SI registrar! PCD]

Interestingly, in a subsequent letter to Nelson, dated 12 Apr 1880, Baird admonished Nelson, “As with the previous sendings, I was much troubled by the absence of any indication of localities, dates, and attendant circumstances. I wish it were possible for you to send these, however briefly, with the specimens. If by accident your notebooks should be lost, the scientific value of the collection would be greatly lessened. Could you now copy off, in brief, these data and send them along with the specimens! The original books I think you should keep with you for your own reference.” I noticed, however, that Nelson did not begin listing and annotating field collection specimen numbers in his journals [vice his field catalogs] until into his 1881 cruise on the Corwin and then only a few such specimen field number were noted.

Ridgway. In a letter from Nelson (writing from Santa Fe, New Mexico) to Ridgway, dated 1 Apr 1883, buried at the end of a series of post script notes, Nelson commented, “I am all mixed up as to the specific identify of the Alaskan Cormorants. Can you straighten the puzzle for me?” This is an extremely telling comment. I searched all relevant leads in the Smithsonian archives but was not able to locate any indication of the specifics from Ridgway that triggered Nelson’s response. Letters received by Nelson from his Alaska assignment are in the Smithsonian Archives; however, letters Nelson received after moving to the southwestern US are not included.

In a later letter to Ridgway dated 1 Nov 1883 (also written from New Mexico), Nelson discussed his collection. He told Ridgway that he hoped to return to DC for a short time and asked Ridgway to “delay overhauling his collection.” Nelson also requested a list of skins taken from his collection, with numbers, to “check them off in my original catalogue,” confirming that Nelson still had his original collection catalog in his possession in 1883 in New Mexico. Nelson stated that he (Nelson) will send Ridgway his catalogue from which Ridgway “can secure all the necessary data.” Nelson also commented that his “bird report” [i.e., Nelson 1887] is ready for press and mentioned that Baird offered to publish it at the USNM, but Nelson wanted it to contain illustrations that Ridgway proposed and Nelson was waiting to find out if this would be accommodated. (The US Army Signal Service subsequently published Nelson’s report in 1887.) Nelson also mentioned in this same letter that his “Cruise of the Corwin” report (1883) had been published and he added that his manuscript had been “fearfully mutilated by the printer” and he stated that he had never seen the proofs.

In another letter to Ridgway, dated 31 Jan(?) 1884 from Tucson, Arizona, there was no specific cormorant discussion; however, Nelson commented on the use of subspecies names in the in-preparation AOU Check-List, and he voiced concern over taxonomical naming priorities that involved him. He also mentioned that his bird report will be ready “soon” (even though the report was not finally published until 1887!). Related Nelson Publication Information

Henshaw. Henry Wetherbee Henshaw was a Smithsonian ornithologist and friend of Nelson’s. Allen (1889) reviewed Nelson’s 1887 work and stated that Nelson’s manuscript was “well advanced toward completion, but the final touches, and the revision its long-delayed publication has occasioned, had to be made by another hand. This revision and the editorial supervision fortunately fell to Mr. H. W. Henshaw, who appears to have given very careful attention to the final preparation and publication of the work.” However, in Henshaw’s obituary, penned by Nelson (1932), Nelson commented, in contrast, that he appreciated Henshaw’s time “expended in the long task of editing the unfinished report on my Alaska work,” indicating that the task of editing Nelson’s 1887 work was not a simple task. I suspect that Nelson’s characterization of this editing effort as a “long task” was probably more accurate than just applying some “final touches,” as Allen indicated; Nelson would have known this better than Allen. The Allen reference to “the revision” certainly refers the task of conforming the manuscript to the 1886 adopted AOU 1st edition Check List.

Questions arise from the sequence and relationship between Nelson’s 1883 (Corwin) and 1887 (St. Michael) works. Since Nelson traveled to some of the same places (St. Lawrence Island, Norton Sound, etc.) during both periods perhaps his references became mixed or transcription and editing errors were introduced through his long-distance editor relationship with Henshaw? Kessel and Gibson (1994) noted the similarity of the description of the range of Pelagic Cormorant in Nelson’s 1883 work to the description of the range of Red-faced in his 1887 publication, suspecting an editing error.

Later in life, Henshaw moved to Hawaii and penned (Henshaw 1901) “Occurrence of Tringa maculate and Other American Birds in Hawaii,” demonstrating that a greater number of American littoral species find their way annually to the Hawaiian Islands. In this note, he included the following species account, “Graculus, sp? A cormorant made its appearance the last week in November [1900] in Hilo Harbor, where, apparently it has established headquarters, wandering from here along the coast to the south for several miles. Mr. Pratt, who has seen and shot cormorants in California many times, is my informant, and he has seen the individual in question several times at close range. It is, of course, impossible to conjecture the species[!].” So, in 1901, it appears that Henshaw seemed to believe that it was not possible to separate immature cormorants. It is also curious that Henshaw (or the Auk editor?) still used the genus Graculus for cormorants in 1901, long after the 1886 publication of the 1st edition of the AOU Check-List which standardized on Phalacrocorax (see the taxonomic history section of this manuscript). Unexplainably, this 1901 Henshaw reference was also published after Nelson 1887, which Henshaw edited, wherein he used Phalacrocorax [PD]. In his later book on the Birds of the Hawaiian Islands, Henshaw (1902:112) elaborates, “Late in November of 1900 two cormorants made their appearance in Hilo Bay and remained till into the spring of 1901, One of them was shot, but what became of the other is unknown. It is

Phil Davis


possible that they wereof the present species [Pelagic] , or they may have been one of the other west coast forms that changed to find their way here in the company with the flocks of ducks that each fall wing their way to the islands for the purpose of wintering.”

Given the shifting taxonomy and nomenclature during this period (see the taxonomy section) and the lack of cormorant species specificity in Nelson’s journal, it is entirely possible that Henshaw became confused during editing. Furthermore, the long period of time between the completion of Nelson’s field notes in 1881 and the publication of this 1887 work, and the lack of proximity between Henshaw (in Washington, DC) and Nelson (in the Southwest) likely impacted Nelson’s ability to accurately contrinute to or proof Henshaw’s edited manuscript.

At the Smithsonian Institution Archives I hoped to locate Nelson or Henshaw manuscript drafts or publication notes (if extant) to compare to Henshaw’s final publication of the Nelson 1887 work to ascertain if errors could be attributed to field identification or rather to the editing and production processes. However, the available archives did not shed any further light on my Red-faced Cormorant species account questions or on how Nelson operated long-distance with Henshaw. I could locate no correspondence in the Smithsonian archives between Nelson and Henshaw.

After I reviewed all of Nelson’s Alaska journals and correspondence, I remained very curious as to exactly how the 1887 manuscript was prepared. I could not find in Nelson’s journals any of the descriptive comments that appeared later in his publications (such as, “common about the mouth of Norton Sound,” etc.). Apparently such descriptions were developed by Nelson either during his short stay in Washington after his return to Alaska, while in residence in the Southwest, or in communication with Henshaw as the latter prepared and edited Nelson’s manuscript.

Fitzhugh. Interestingly, Fitzhugh (1983) grappled with this same question, namely the process Nelson used to prepare his ethnology work (Nelson 1899), The Eskimo about the Bering Strait . In his introduction to the 1983 edition, Fitzhugh stated, “… the actual procedure used by Nelson in writing his monograph, is not described in his introduction. After completion of his fieldwork all of his collection notes and other ethnographic documents were transferred to the Smithsonian where they resided in the National Museum. His natural history collections were transferred in similar fashion, together with notes, to the departments caring for these materials. However, Nelson must have retained his diary and perhaps other records which enabled him to include considerable amounts of ethnographic detail in his Corwin [1883] and natural history [1887] reports. When he began to work seriously on his linguistic texts and the dictionary, records pertaining to this work were sent to him in the Southwest. Nevertheless, the absence among Smithsonian records of more extensive documentation of his ethnographic observations remains a mystery. It seems conceivable that Nelson, who through familiarity gained from four years of fieldwork, could have prepared his artifact descriptions from annotations made in his artifact log, which often explain the use of an article in considerable detail. However, his other descriptions of Eskimo culture would have required more extensive notes, and Nelson's diary is the probable source of this information. His monograph frequently comments on events that occurred while he was writing his daily accounts in Eskimo houses he was visiting. Unfortunately this important document is not among Nelson's records at the Smithsonian. One hopes that his diary may someday become known because it undoubtedly contains important unpublished information. It is also possible that Nelson destroyed records after the publication of his report, just as he ordered the destruction of the manuscript from which this volume [Nelson 1899] was prepared.”

Fitzhugh commented on the “meager logistical and personal commentary” found in Nelson (1899), and he stated, “we are fortunate to have a few notes in other published works … including Nelson 1882, 1883, 1884, 1887, VanStone 1978). But as Nelson never wrote a biographical account of his Alaska work and as his diary from this period has never been located, details about his life and travels, and data or experiences he considered scientifically unimportant, are not available. Nelson’s writing is modest, and his reserve is such that personal observations are rarely found in his published work.”

Fitzhugh continued, “During the course of his stay in Alaska, Nelson regularly sent shipments of artifacts to Washington on the annual supply steamer. By the time his fieldwork was completed these collections numbered about ten thousand specimens [including non-bird specimens PD]. Nelson returned to Washington, D. C., in the fall of 1881 to begin the description and publication of his collections. However, he had barely become settled when his health collapsed and he was forced to depart for the drier climate of the Southwest, there to remain many years with relatives while his condition slowly improved. During the next decade, working from notes and records, he completed an ornithological report on the Corwin cruise [1883] and a report on Alaskan natural history [1887] …”

Fitzhugh noted that, at least in regard to Nelson’s ethnology collection; “To these [specimens] may be added collections obtained before 1877 by W. H. Dall, Robert Kennicott, and Lucien Turner from Norton Sound and the Yukon-Kuskokwim region. … While Nelson occasionally drew upon these data [from other collections] for illustration or comparison, his report is presented as a description of his own field observations and collections rather than as an interpretive or generalizing work.”

It is not clear if Nelson segregated his bird specimens from others as clearly as Fitzhugh states that he did for his ethology specimens. Also, the reference to a dairy is quizzical since Nelson’s journal, included in the Smithsonian Archives collection does contain notes of his bird observations and collections as well as his ethnology activities. Clearly Fitzhugh would have known this. Does Fitzhugh believe that there is another log, “his diary” that is separate from his journals, and his birds field catalog? [I’ve written to Fitzhugh–waiting for a response.]

Dall. [Check SI Archives for Dall – Nelson correspondence]

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 3—REGIONAL CORMORANT SPECIMENS

I had learned from Nelson’s journals and field catalogs that he had arrived at St. Michael in mid-June 1877 but that he had collected a number of bird specimens in May and early June 1877 in the eastern Aleutians and other islands on his journey to St. Michael. Nelson’s first batch of eastern Aleutian Islands and St. Michael specimens were shipped back to the USNM on the returing supply ship from St. Michael in July 1877, along with Turner’s last shipment of St. Michael specimens. I had also learned that Nelson’s 11 Aug (or 5 Sep—see Appendix 3) 1877 [putative Red-faced] cormorant specimen, referenced in his journal (and his field catalog) was shipped back to the USNM with his second specimen shipment the following summer, in July 1878.

My still unanswered questions were: (1) are there any other Nelson St. Michael cormorant specimens that could have been confused or mistaken for a Red-faced Cormorant; (2) are there any Turner St. Michael specimens that could be his referenced Red-faced Cormorant; (3) are there any St. Michael specimens from any other collector that could be a Red-faced?

Applying a technique I had learned earlier from Clapp, I accessed the original USNM manual catalog and compared it to the current USNM database to see if any other information from the manual catalog could provide additional clues to circumstances associated with these specimens. Inspection of the USNM manual catalog revealed that the first shipment of specimens (Nelson’s first and Turner’s last from St. Michael) were cataloged at the USNM on 15 Nov 1877 [Nelson AND Turner?] and that Nelson’s second shipment of bird specimens was cataloged between 29 Oct and 5 Nov 1878.

I found that seven hundred and thirteen (713) USNM skin specimen accession numbers (between 75368 and 76080) had been assigned, which was consistent with the known size of Nelson July 1878 shipment from St. Michael. (In Nelson’s field catalog, eight hundred and thirty-four (834) specimens were indicated, but this number also included some eggs, nests, skeletons, and a few alcoholic specimens, which follow a different cataloging schema). In the USNM manual catalog, I found that actually three cormorants were sequentially cataloged in Nelson’s St. Michael 1878 shipment. Nelson’s St. Michael Field Catalog and Field Collection Numbers

Apparently the Nelson specimen collection was arranged in taxonomical order and then manually cataloged after receipt at the USNM. Hoping to learn something from his field numbers, I checked the date sequence of his collection numbers and found that his numbers were apparently not assigned sequentially in the field. For example, Nelson #544 (USNM 75918) was indicated as having been collected on 28 Sep 1877, while the preceding number in the sequence, Nelson #543 was indicated as having been collected later on 09 Oct 1877. Additional spot checks confirmed that there was no apparent correlation between Nelson’s numbers and the collection dates, implying that the Nelson collection was not consecutively numbered in the field, suggesting that the specimens were numbered later, perhaps as they were prepared for shipment to the Smithsonian.

Checking Nelson’s field catalog, field numbers did run consecutively, however, collection dates were not consecutive. His field number #1 specimen was a bird collected on 17 May 1877 from Sanak Island in the Aleutians, while en route to St. Michael. His first St. Michael specimen is indicated as #42 [#47?] collected on either 21 or 22 May; however, we know from his own account that Nelson did not reach St. Michael until 17 Jun. So, from the very beginning questions appear over Nelson cataloging and specimen management techniques. Nelson’s 1877 St. Michael Cormorant Specimens

I reviewed the USNM manual catalog entries dealing with Nelson’s specimens that were shipped from St. Michael to the USNM. Nelson’s first shipment of specimens returned on the supply ship that brought him to St. Michael and took specimens from his arrival period at St. Michael and from the Aleutian Islands, where he stopped on this way to St. Michael. Inspection of the catalog revealed that Nelson’s next shipment of specimens, for the following year, was cataloged between 29 Oct and 5 Nov 1878. Seven hundred and thirteen (713) specimens were cataloged and USNM accession numbers were assigned between 75368 and 76080. I found that three cormorants were sequentially cataloged from Nelson’s St. Michael 1877-1878 shipment.

USNM 75919 . This is the 09 Sep 1877 USNM database putative Red-faced Cormorant specimen that we examined and measured at the Silver Hill facility and found to be a Pelagic (as described in Section II). The manual catalog indicated that this specimen was manually cataloged on 30 Oct 1878, as Nelson collection number 481, a juvenile male from St. Michael, AK as a species of Graculus violaceous (!), the then-current USNM scientific name for Violet-green (i.e., Pelagic) Cormorant. An annotation in a different pen showed the specimen to have been mounted. However, when we inspected the specimen, we found that the USNM specimen tag, tacked to the bottom of the mounting stand; the computer tag, pinned to the specimen; and the current USNM database all indicated the USNM 75919 species to be Phalacrocorax urile (i.e., Red-faced). The database also indicated that the specimen had been mounted. Nelson’s field catalog showed this specimen also as a male, unaged Gr . violaceus collected on 09 Sep 1877. The situation with Nelson’s journal as it relates to this specimen was discussed in Section II—in summary, there was no 05 Sep cormorant entry, the closest candidate being a juvenile cormorant, sp. received by Nelson on 11 Aug 1877. The only published reference that could apply is Turner (1885), but this is dubious. I later found this USNM specimen number on Ridgway’s measurement list for Ph. pelagicus robustus.

USNM 75918 . The USNM manual catalog entry directly preceding the 5 Sep 1877 Nelson USNM 75919 putative Red-faced Cormorant, was specimen USNM 75918, entered as a Graculus bicristatus (!) juvenile male collected at St. Michael by Nelson (#544 of his collection) on 29 Sep [28 Sep in his field catalog PD] 1877. As with USNM 75919, this specimen was indicated to have been mounted. So, quite interestingly, two birds—indicated to be of two separate species; G. violaceus (USNM 75919) and G. bicristatus (USNM 75918)—were apparently both collected by Nelson in September 1877 at St. Michael and were cataloged at the museum on 30 October 1878. It therefore seemed likely that somehow these two specimens may have been confused or swapped and by locating the USNM 75918 G. bicristatus specimen (the then-current nomenclature at the USNM for Red-faced Cormorant), perhaps the mystery of the Norton Sound record could be easily solved! Clapp checked the USNM database and found that USNM 75918 was now indicated as a male Pelagic Cormorant (Ph. pelagicus), collected on 28 Sep 1877, and was preserved as a whole skin, even though the manual catalog indicated that this specimen was originally mounted. According to Clapp (pers. comm.) specimens are frequently unmounted and this should not be of concern. (Even though these Nelson cormorant specimens were manually entered into the USNM catalog on 30 Oct 1878, we don’t know if the St. Michael cormorants were mounted at this time or somewhat later. A separate colored pen and a different handwriting were used to annotate in the manual catalog to indicate that the specimens had been mounted.) I searched the Bird Division cases and found the USNM 75918 skin and verified that the tag information was consistent with the current museum database, except the tag indicated identification as a male Ph. pelagicus pelagicus . This a new tag and not an original Nelson tag. I inspected this specimen and found this immature cormorant to have a concolorous bill, a faint green sheen to the back, and a feathered forehead.

Phil Davis


Clapp measured the exposed culmen as 50.9 mm. All of these characteristics support its identification as Pelagic Cormorant. In Nelson’s field catalog, this specimen (Nelson #544) was entered as a male, un-aged Gr . violaceus. In reviewing Ridgway’s notes from the Smithsonian Archives, I found this specimen number on his list of measurements for Ph. p. robustus. I found no entry in Nelson’s journal to correspond to this specimen. Therefore, both of these Nelson’s September 1877 St. Michael, Alaska immature cormorant specimens, regardless of how they were manually cataloged, were both Pelagic Cormorants.

USNM 75917. A third Nelson cormorant specimen was also indicated to have been collected at St. Michael during this period. This was USNM 75917, a juvenile Double-crested Cormorant, cataloged as Graculus “cincinnatus ,” juv, St. Michael, AK. This is a quite quizzical specimen. I have addressed it further in Appendix 6.

USNM 18595 . In the USNM database, another Nelson cormorant specimen is recorded. It is a USNM 18595, an alcoholic specimen collected on Unalaska by Nelson in 1877 (no specific date) and is shown as an unsexed Ph. pelagicus, preserved as a partial sternum skeleton. The skeleton was manually cataloged on 01 Apr 1890 and the data fields are consistent with the database. Apparently the reason that this 1877 specimen was cataloged as Ph. pelagicus was that (per Dean) the specimen most likely first went to the Smithsonian’s, now defunct, Division of Anatomy and by the time the specimen was transferred to the Division of Birds, in 1890, the first edition of the AOU Check-List had been adopted and Ph. pelagicus was the taxonomic standard for Pelagic Cormorant. No Nelson journal or field catalog entries correlate to this specimen, however, this timeframe would have been May-June 1877 while he was in the Eastern Aleutians en route to St. Michael. Other Nelson Cormorant Specimens

I wondered if any other St. Michael juvenile cormorant specimens or any cormorants collected earlier or later by Nelson or Turner might have been misidentified or miscataloged. I expanded my search criteria and found the following Nelson St. Michael cormorant specimens:

USNM 78827 . This specimen was manually cataloged on 07 Nov 1879 as USNM 78827 (Nelson #998) as a Graculus bicristatus (the then-current USNM nomenclature for Red-faced Cormorant) juvenile male collected at Kegiktowik [originally Kigiktauik (Fitzhugh in Nelson 1983/1899); formerly near St. Michael (Hersey 1917)] in October 1878 (no day noted). I located the specimen and noted that the nomenclature on the original Nelson tag had been changed several times, in different pens, from violaceus to Ph. p. robustus and then to Ph. pelagicus (i.e., Pelagic) by Ridgway. There is a corresponding USNM database entry for this specimen that indicated a juvenile [sic] male pelagicus whole skin collected in Oct 1978 at Kegikowik by Nelson (#998). The original tag did show that this was Nelson’s #998 male specimen; however, no date or location was written on the tag. This immature bird showed a concolorous bill, mostly green back sheen with a small amount of purple, a feathered forehead, and Clapp measured the exposed culmen as 48.3 mm. In Nelson’s field catalog, this specimen was also shown as a Gr . violaceus. No Nelson journal entry could be found to correlate to this specimen. The preponderance of evidence indicates Pelagic for this specimen. This appears to certainly be a re-cataloged duplicate with USNM 96829, below.

USNM 96829 . Dean located another Kegiktowik cormorant specimen entry in the USNM manual catalog. This one was cataloged as an unaged male Ph. violaceus collected in Oct 1879 and manually cataloged on 04 Jul 1884. By this point in time (Oct 1880), the USNM had converted to Phalacrocorax for the cormorant genus nomenclature. No entry was found in the USNM database nor was any relevant Nelson field catalog or journal entries located, hence no Nelson field number appears. Dean presumes that this specimen was either transferred or destroyed and the manual catalog was simply not updated. In a later check of the manual catalog, I saw that this was entered as Nelson specimen #998 as Ph. bicristatus, seeming to confirm that it is a duplicative entry with USNM 78827, above; although cataloged this second time as a Ph. violaceus, reinforcing the finding of Pelagic for this single specimen with two USNM accession numbers.

USNM 81229 . Another Nelson cormorant specimen was cataloged on 25 Oct 1880 as USNM 81229 as a female juvenile Ph. violaceus collected at St. Michael on 15 Oct 1879. I located this specimen in the cabinets and it showed a concolorous bill, green sheen on the back, feathered forehead, and the exposed culmen measured 42.1 mm; again, indicative of Pelagic. The specimen tag included a number “646” which represented Ridgway’s species number for Ph. violaceus, the Violet-green Cormorant. The database showed this as the expected current identification of ph. pelagicus . In the Nelson field catalog, an entry correlated to this specimen and indicated Nelson field number 1547. This specimen was also listed in the Ridgway (1883) catalog for the London “fisheries exhibition” but was shown in this catalog as an undated juvenile, collected by Nelson at St. Michael’s, Alaska.

USNM 96828 . This specimen was manually cataloged on 04 Jul 1884 as a male juvenile Gr . violaceus collected by Nelson at St. Michael on 08 Nov 1879, with Nelson field number 1558. There was no database entry for this specimen, again indicating that the specimen was likely either transferred or destroyed. Nelson’s field catalog correlated to the USNM manual catalog entry; however, as expected from the lack of database entry, I could not locate the specimen in the USNM cases.

USNM 96826 . Ogilvie-Grant (1898), in the British Museum Catalog of Birds, lists two specimens of Ph. pelagicus collected by Nelson at St. Michael on 02 Oct (no year provided), both juveniles, one a male, the other unsexed. Both were shown to be skins in the Salvin-Godwin Collection. A query to the British Museum provided a response by Dr. Robert Prys-Jones [Head of the Bird Group]. One specimen (item “q” in the citation) was BM number 1888.10.10.3995, an unsexed immature collected on 02 Oct 1880. Dr. Prys-Jones continued, “It has 2 labels: 1) A Henshaw label on which is written place, date, age etc and Phalacrocorax violaceus , with the latter word crossed out and “robustus” penciled in – probably done at the time the specimen was registered in the BM, as it is also shown as P . robustus in our register. On the back of the label is “E.W. Nelson (96826)”; 2) A BM label on which it is recorded as P . pelagicus pelagicus.” A check of the USNM manual catalog correlates to the BM information, expect the collection date is only indicated to the month of October rather than the date of 02 Oct. This specimen was manually cataloged at the USNM on 04 Jul 1884 and the Nelson field catalog number of 1899 was indicated. The Nelson field catalog shows that this specimen (Nelson #1899) as an unsexed juvenile G. violaceus collected on “Oct 2 (?)” [sic] 1880 at St. Michael. Since this specimen was de-accessioned, there is no corresponding database entry. [Check Nelson’s journal again to ensure there is no corresponding entry.]

USNM 96827 . A similar situation exists with this specimen. It was also shown in Ogilvie-Grant as also having been collected on 02 Oct, however, the specimen was sexed as a male, also an immature. According to Prys-Jones, this is BM specimen 1888.10.10.3996 (item “r” in the citation). On this specimen, Prys-Jones’ commented, “[This] is an immature male collected on 12 Oct 1879 (note that Cat. BBM has date wrong). It also has 2 labels: 1) A U.S. National Expeditions label with place, date, Nelson’s name, sex/age etc and Phalacrocorax pelagicus – on the reverse is the number 96827 and “violaceus” has been penciled in – it is also shown as P . violaceus in our register; 2) A BM label, on which it is recorded as Phalacrocorax p. resplendens .” He continued, “As [this] specimen has no Henshaw label, it may possibly not have come to S[alvin]-G[odman] via him.” This specimen was cataloged at the USNM on 04 Jul 1884 as a juvenile male Ph. violaceus, collected on 12 Oct 1879 with Nelson field number 1523. Since the specimen was deaccessioned, it has no corresponding database entry.

Nelson Specimens – Summary. From the analysis, it appears that no other known Nelson cormorant specimen could have been the source of the Turner cited St. Michael Red-faced record.

Phil Davis


Turner’s Cormorant Specimens

I checked the USNM manual catalog and database for any cormorant specimens collected by Turner, just to rule out that his third-person reference (Turner 1886) could have been for a specimen that he, himself, might have collected. No Turner specimens could be located in either the USNM manual catalog, the current USNM database catalog, or in the cases that could be the referenced Red-faced Cormorant from St. Michael, Alaska. Turner apparently collected a total of six cormorants from Alaska. Two (USNM 78973 and 78974) were juveniles collected on Alaska Island in the Aleutians on 20 Aug 1879. The remaining four cormorants were collected in St. Michael area and are detailed, below, in terms of identification and taxonomy.

USNM 67851 . USNM 67851 was an un-aged female Graculus violaceus collected by Turner (field # 23) at St. Michael on 20 Jun 1874 (the manual catalog and database showed the date as 21 Jun) and cataloged during Oct 1874. The manual catalog showed the entry as Graculus violaeus with a question mark annotated in a different pen. The catalog entry included the following measurements and comments, “28.60+38.00+10.50+5.50+2.30+2.50+2.04, iris greenish, feet & bill black, gorget black w red warts." The USNM database showed this specimen as a whole skin, however, I could not locate it in the USNM cases. A review of Ridgway’s archives notes for Water Birds of North America (1884) showed that he measured this as a Ph. violaceus specimen. The available evidence provided no reason to think that this might be that of a Red-faced Cormorant.

USNM 78973 . I found this specimen [why didn’t I find it on 8/17/2007? – recheck {to do}] in the USNM Ph. pelagicus cases, with the tag indicating original classification as Ph. robustus, juv, no location [verify tag {to do}], no date, L.M. Turner #198. Physical inspection of this bird showed a dark bill, almost no back sheen – except for just a few green feathers, an unfeathered forehead, and an exposed culmen that Clapp measured as 47.1 mm; all indicating Pelagic. The USNM database showed this specimen as an unsexed immature Ph. pelagicus whole skin collected by Turner on 20 Aug 1879; no location was entered in the database. The manual catalog indicated that this was originally cataloged as Graculus bicristatus , collected at Alaska [?] Island, AK and was cataloged on 8 Nov 1879. The back of the specimen tag indicated the Pelagic subspecies, robustus. In 1879, Turner had long departed from St. Michael and was collecting in the Aleutian Islands. There is currently only one “Alaska Island” in the U.S. Geological Service’s Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database, but it is on the North Slope and was not named until 1912; the “Alaska Island” indicated for this specimen was obviously in the Aleutians, probably near Unalaska Island. Therefore, this is clearly not a St. Michael’s Red-faced Cormorant specimen. Why this specimen was originally cataloged as Gr . bicristatus is curious. [Presumable either Turner, in the field, or the USNM staff, thought it originally to be an immature Red-faced?]

USNM 78974 . The USNM manual catalog shows a second specimen, USNM 78974, with entries similar to the previous USNM 78973, above; however, this specimen was not located in the cases. The USNM database indicated that this specimen is of an unsexed immature Ph. pelagicus, collected on 20 Aug 1879, prepared as a whole skin. No location, or even a state, was recorded in the database for this specimen, however, the manual catalog showed the location to be, again, Alaska Island for this second G. bicristatus specimen that was manually cataloged on 08 Nov 1879. No Turner field number was shown in any of the data sources.

USNM 73146 . This cormorant specimen is indicated in the USNM manual catalog as a Double-crested Cormorant from Beseboro Island, near St. Michaels. This specimen is discussed in Appendix 6.

USNM 73147 . Ridgway (1883) cited this specimen in his measurement section and indicated that it was collected on 22 Sep 1876 by Turner. The USNM manual catalog showed that this specimen was cataloged as a G. bicristatus female juvenile, collected at St. Michael using Turner field number 1277. The USNM database showed that this specimen is now identified as a Ph. pelagicus and was preserved as a whole skin. Despite several searches, this specimen was not located in the Birds Division cases; nor was the specimen indicated to have been later sent to Turner in Nov 1877, as with of his other specimens. Dean’s review of the database indicated (pers. comm.) that the specimen was present in the 1978-1979 timeframe and it is doubtful that such an old specimen would have been transferred in the past 25 years or so. Additionally, some database change was made to the electronic record in March 2002, but it is not known what the change was or if it even involved the specimen in hand.

USNM 73148 . The USNM manual catalog showed another Turner cormorant from St. Michael; a juvenile male Gr . bicristatus collected on 19 Sep 1876 (Turner field number 1276). The manual catalog indicated that this specimen was sent to Turner on 14 Nov 1877 and apparently was never returned (as was a common practice, according to Dean). There is no other data for this specimen; no database record exists and the specimen was not located in the cases. Specimens Cited by Ridgway

Baird (1884), in Water Birds of North America stated that 15 specimens of Red-faced Cormorant were measured. In the Smithsonian Archives, I located Ridgway’s Phalacrocoracidae family notes and draft manuscripts for the 1884 Birds of America accounts. In Ridgway’s archived compiled specimen measurements, there was a specimen entry, without measurements, which was subsequently crossed out. The original line read, “N648” in the specimen number column (where USNM numbers appear) and indicated an unsexed adult from St. Michael, AK” but did not include a date. The notation “N648” appears to be similar to other catalog species number references, but in this instance, the number N648 does not appear to map to an applicable Baird/Ridgway species number [the current species checklist number 648 represented the Spectacled Cormorant—Ph. perspicillatus] nor could I correlate this to a Nelson field catalog number; not all Nelson field catalog numbers can be accounted for in his field catlog or the USNM manual ledgers. [Try again – check the Nelson field catalog again]. Other St. Michael Cormorant Specimens

The USNM database, cases, manual catalog, and archives, as well as all relevant publications, were reviewed in an attempt to locate any specimen that could possibly have been confused as the St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant referenced by Turner (1886). Four St. Michael specimens, including Nelson’s USNM 75918 and 75919, apparently were all considered by Ridgway as Ph. pelagicus robustus in the final treatment for the 1884 manuscript. Ridgway’s archives notes for Water Birds of North America (1884) showed that he measured another Ph. violaceus specimen that was collected at St. Michael; USNM 46487, see below.

USNM 46487 . The manual catalog showed that USNM 46487 was an unsexed Graculus violaceus collected at St. Michael by C. Pease on 15 Jul 1866. USNM 46487 is also listed in Ridgway’s “Catalogue of the Aquatic and Fish-eating Birds exhibited by the USNM” for the Great International Fisheries Exhibition in London in 1883. In this catalog, the specimen is listed as an unsexed adult Ph. violaceus “Violet-Green Cormorant” collected on 15 Jun [sic] (vice Jul) at the same location and by the same collector. I was unable to locate these specimens in the cases, however. This specimen represents the only St. Michael non-Turner, non-Nelson cormorant and therefore is not the source of the putative 1877 Red-faced Cormorant specimen record.

Phil Davis


British Specimens

Salvin-Godman Collection. In his autobiographical notes, Henshaw (1919-1920) discussed his collection of specimens: “In 1885 my entire private collection of birds and eggs [over 13,000 specimens] was acquired by the British Museum [purchased by Dr. Godman], where it now is. Its value had been greatly enhanced by the addition of the Merriam collection … and the Nelson collection, consisting largely of a series of the Alaskan birds gathered by him while at Saint Michaels.” Sharpe (1906) commented, “An act of courtesy on the part of the authorities of the United States National Museum deserves grateful recognition. Professor Ridgway was permitted to devote his time to the identification of the specimens with Mr. Henshaw, so that the collection when it arrived was found to be not only completely and neatly labeled, but the names attached to the specimens represented the most recent conclusions of American naturalists.” Turner (1932) commented in his Henshaw obituary commented on the extent of the collection, “Included with Henshaw's specimens were the private collection of Dr. C. Hart Merriam and the collection of birds I had made in Alaska except the limited number reserved for the National Museum.” Several specimens of Red-faced Cormorant were cited as being in the collections of the British Museum of Natural History (BMNH).

Ogilvie-Grant in Sharpe (1898) in his Catalogue of the Plataleæ, Herodoiones, Steganopodes, Pygopodes, Alc æ, and Impennes in the collection of the British Museum also listed include two adult female Red-faced Cormorant specimens collected by Elliot from St. Paul Island and one immature male by Dall from Amchitka that were shown to be in the Salvin-Godman Collection. Ogilvie-Grant (1898:362) referenced the two Nelson Pelagic Cormorants skins collected by Nelson at St. Michael on “2 Oct” [year not specified]; one immature male and one unsexed immature that were discussed above (USNM 96826 and 96828) which correspond to BMHN 1888.10.10.3996 and 1888.10.10.3995. In response to my query about the Salvin-Godwin Collection being primarily a South American collection, Prys-Jones (pers. comm.) replied, “The huge Salvin-Godman collection extends far more widely than just South America and contains many Nelson specimens. Largely, but possibly not entirely (see below), this is because they acquired H.W. Henshaw’s large collection of North American birds. Sharpe (1906, p. 430), in his history of the BM bird collections, has a short entry for E.W. Nelson, as follows: “A very celebrated American field-naturalist, who has done most excellent collecting work in Alaska (cf. “Cruise of the Corwin”), and especially in Mexico for the U.S. Biological Survey. Many specimens from his Alaska expedition were in the Henshaw collection.”

BMNH 1842.12.21.4 . Pry-Jones commented (pers. comm.), “At the time Gray (1844) was writing, and indeed for a considerable period thereafter, cormorant taxonomy and nomenclature was highly confused (e.g. see Stejneger 1885, Bull. U.S. Nat Mus. 29, pp 181 et seq.). The specimen you reference from p. 184 of his work is is in fact a Spectacled Cormorant Phalacrocorax perspicillatus (BMNH reg. no. 1842.12.21.4) - the specimen was labelled Phalacrocorax urile when it arrived in the museum and the register noted "in very bad state", words reproduced by Gray in his commentary. As noted in Cat. Birds BM, vol. 26 (1898), p. 358, the original description of "Pelecanus urile" by Gmelin is ambiguous as to what it refers, although this work appears to overlook the clarifications provided by Stejneger (1885).

BMNH 1843.7.22.78 . Regarding this specimen, Pry-Jones added (pers. comm.), “The other specimen is mentioned by Gray (1844, p. 186) under "The Violet Shag Phalacrocorax violaceus ", a name which has now fallen out of use as not determinable. The specimen (BMNH reg. no. 1843.7.22.78) is referred to P . pelagicus in Cat. Birds BM, vol. 26, p. 362 (1898) and is currently stored among our P . pelagicus. However, having taken a look at it, the thickness of the beak strikes me as more reminiscent of P . urile. I am not well-versed on the identification of these two taxa in their various plumages, but it does not appear to be straightforward. If you are interested in pursuing this further, we could take a couple of digital photographs of this specimen and forward them to you for consideration.”

Belcher’s Specimens. As mentioned above, Gray (1844) reported that a specimen of the “Red-faced Shag” (Ph. urile) was presented to the British Museum by Capt. Sir E. Belcher from “North-West Coast of America? [sic].” Gray added that the specimen was “in very bad state.” In his synonyms of the Red-faced Shag, however, Gray included both of Pallas’s descriptions of his Ph. pelagicus and his Ph. bicristatus (See Stejneger 1885 for elaboration on this issue). I made an enquiry about the status of the specimen to the British Museum and Dr. Robert Prys-Jones of the Department of Zoology, The [British] Natural History Museum replied (pers comm.) with the following: “We hold 2 cormorants collected by Belcher supposedly on the "north-west coast of America" (no dates given), but as noted by Sharpe (1906) on p. 309 of his huge chapter on birds in volume 2 of "The history of the collections ....", no exact localities for Belcher's specimens were preserved. Each of the cormorant specimens has no data other than the briefest details of generalised locality (which may well be incorrect - Belcher's ship travelled very widely on the voyage in question) and collector on a single label attached after arrival in the then British Museum.” Russian Specimens

I found details on the early Russian specimens, taken by I.G. V oznesenskiy [one of various spellings PD], in a letter in the Smithsonian Archives from E.N. Pavlovski (ZIN Director) to Gabrielson, dated 19 Aug 1950. The first North American Red-faced Cormorant specimen was ZIN 9053, a juvenile female taken from Kodiak Island on 4 Feb 1843. The three specimens from the Northern Bering Sea region were; ZIN 9049 and 9052, two adult males from St. George Island collected on 20 Jun 1843; and ZIN 8990 one adult male taken at St. Paul on 30 Jun 1843. [Gabrielson and Lincoln reported only one specimen from St. George; however, the Pavlovski letter and attached specimen listing indicated that two similar species were taken from this location on the same date. PD]

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 4—A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF RELEV ANT CORMORANT TAXONOMY

I was intrigued that Turner and Nelson specimens from St. Michael had been manually cataloged at the USNM using both the specific epithets violaceus and bicristatus during the period between 1874 and 1881; however, no Red-faced Cormorant specimen could be located from either collector or from any other St. Michael collector. This led me to speculate that the source of the putative St. Michael Red-faced Cormorant record was due to taxonomic confusion at the USNM during this period; or during the subsequent period that these naturalists’ works were being revised and edited. My research question was what was the status of the taxonomy of these two species during this period at the USNM? The following is a summary of the relevant taxonomic history follows as it relates to North American and Arctic ornithology—I have not included citations that are primarily of Asian interest.

1735. Linnaeus (1735) in Systema Naturae first described cormorants in the genus Graculus. 1785. Pennant (1785) in his Arctic Zoology described the Red-faced Cormorant and the Violet [i.e., Pelagic] Cormorant. 1785. Latham (1785) in A general synopsis of birds described the Red-faced Shag and the Violet Shag. 1789. Gmelin (1789) in the 13th edition of Systema Naturae described Pelacanus urile [i.e., Red-faced Cormorant] and Pelacanus

violaceus [i.e., Pelagic Cormorant]. 1811. Pallas (1811) in Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica described Phalacrocorax bicristatus [i.e., Red-faced] and Ph. pelagicus [Pelagic]. 1826. Stephens (1826) in Shaw’s General Zoology apparently correctly described the two species as Ph. pelagicus—Violet Cormorant

and Ph. urile—Red-faced Cormorant, despite Pennant’s white—red “slip of the pen” (described in Stejneger 1885). Ironically, Stephens stated of the Violet Cormorant [=Pelagic] that “little is known of this bird, save the account in the Arctic Zoology [Pennant 1795?]” and hardly any description, while the Red-faced Cormorant received a considerably longer description.

1832. Kittlitz (1832) … XXXXX Kittlitz first used the description Carbo (pelecanus) … so … [translation – and font issues] 1841. Gray (1841) in A List of the Genera of Birds commented, “Much of the confused labyrinth of useless names is derived from

authors who have published systems f Ornithology not being content with giving names to their own divisions, but proposing, without reason, new generic terms in place of those already in use. It will be seen that care has been taken to employ in every instance the oldest name given to each group, and at the same time to point out their synonyms; to both of these I have endeavoured, in all cases, to attach the date of their publication, so as to fix the right of priority to the several authors, as well as to exemplify those names which are coequal with the name employed. And as much complaint has been made of the growing evil of genera-making, by means of which the original describer of a species loses the honour of having first detected it, in the cases which are now considered admissible for generic distinction, the author of the modern genera taking the credit of the specific as well as of the generic names, I have proposed to obviate this cause of complaint by putting the name of the original describer of the species in brackets after the specific name, as may be seen on any page of the work.” In his account of subfamily III., Pelecanninae, Gray attempted to revert to the oldest names for each group and to call out earlier synonyms. He noted that Graucalus was the oldest name for the cormorants however, “[it] should be altered to a new generic name, as this word was previously employed by Linnaeus. [for passerines PD]. In his synonymy, Phalacrocorax—Brisson was shown as the next oldest name.

1844. Gray (1844) in his List of the Specimens of Birds in the Collection of the British Museum reported that specimens of both the “Red-faced Shag Phalacrocorax urile” and the “Violet Shag Phalacrocorax violaceus ” were presented by Capt. Sir E. Belcher from “North-West Coast of America? [sic].” In his synonyms of the Red-faced Shag, however, Gray included both of Pallas’s descriptions – Ph. pelagicus and Ph. bicristatus (See Stejneger 1885 for elaboration on this issue). [These Belcher specimens are discussed in Appendix 3 on Specimens.]

1845. Gray (1845) in The Genera of Birds described the Pelagic Cormorant as G. violaceus (Gmel.) and the Red-faced Cormorant as G. urile (Gmel.), reverting his description of this genus from Phalacrocorax (in Gray 1844) to Graculus. Regarding the genus, Graculus Linn., Gray stated, “This division was originally proposed by Linneaus (S.N.) in 1735, under the above appellation. In 1760, Brision used Phalacrocorax; Lacepede, between 1800 and 1801, employed Carbo; and in 1811, Illiger proposed Halieus, All these were founded on the same set of birds.” With respect to the Red-faced Cormorant, Gray (1845) included Pallas’s description of Ph. perspicillatus as a questionable synonym along with the earlier mentioned Pallas synonyms of Ph. pelagicus and Ph. bicristatus. This apparent early confusion was detailed in Stejneger (1885) and summarized in Davis (2005) and has not been repeated herein.

1847. Temminck and Schlegel (1847) in: Siebold’s Fauna Japonica included adult and juvenile portraits and described what is now the Pelagic Cormorant as “Le Cormoran Double Huppe”, Carbo bicristatus , injecting the English-equivalent name “Double-crested Cormorant” and the species epithet “bicristatus” into the emerging and often confusing taxonomic literature. This work was the first material written in a Western language on Japanese fauna and it introduced Japanese fauna to the West on a wide scale. In their account, the authors noted that this species [Pelagic Cormorant] was described by Pallas (1811) and could also be either the “Violet Cormorant” of Pennant (1785), the Pelacanus violaceus of Gmelin (1789), or the Carbo bilophus of Brandt.

1850. Reichenbach (1850) … XXX [ I need a copy of this – SI libraries] 1858. Baird (1858 – also republished in various formats in 1859 and 1860) in his Birds report in V olume IX of the “railroad” report

[later reprinted as Baird (1860) Birds of North America—see Stone (1919)], which served at the North American ornithological baseline of the time, noted that his genera followed Bonaparte but in his description of G. violaceus, Gray [i.e., Pelagic Cormorant], Baird (1858: 882) commented that “Bonaparte makes bicristatus Pall. to be the same as … [G. violaceus, Violet-Green Cormorant], whereas Gray puts bicristatus Pall. as a synonym of Ph. urile Gmelin.” Baird (1858:877) also commented in his Graculus perspicillatus (i.e., the extinct Pallas’s Cormorant), “There appears to be some doubt whether this may not be the Red-faced Cormorant of Pennant and Latham (“Pel. urile, Gmelin.”) Gray puts it under P . urile, with a question, and Bonnaparte at one time also considered it to be that species, but finally concluded it was distinct.” [This refers to the Pennant “slip of the pen error that recorded the orbital area of the Red-faced Cormorant erroneously as white rather than red. See Stejneger 1885 for an analysis.] Although Red-faced Cormorant had not officially been added yet to Baird’s list (since it still had not been recorded in North America, this discussion set the stage for the later adoption of the species as G. bicristatus, based on Gray which introduced to America the confusion between Pelagic and Red-faced Cormorant.

1859. In his Catalog of North American Birds Baird’s (1859) did not include the Red-faced Cormorant since it had not yet been added to the list of North American avifauna by American ornithologists. Only the Pelagic Cormorant was included as the “Violet Green Cormorant,” Graculus violaceus (Gray). This publication was based on his earlier (Baird 1858) North American ornithological baseline, “Report on North American Birds, in V ol IX, of the Reports of the Pacific Railroad Survey (1958), which was developed to “facilitate the labeling of birds and eggs in the Museum … and to serve as a check list of the species.”

1860. Coinde (1860) apparently first described (via the “European school” of ornithology) either the Red-faced or the Pelagic Cormorant in North America in the Pribilof Islands as Carbo peligicus . A summary of his account was presented in the timeline section.

Phil Davis


However, his unique appellation, “Carbo pelagicus” could be either of or a mixture of Pallas’s (1811) Ph. pelagicus and/or Temminck & Schlegel’s (1849) Carbo bicristatus ; both of which pertain to the Pelagic Cormorant.

1866. The 1860 Smithsonian (specific author unattributed, but certainly Baird) in the Smithsonian Collections “Arrangement of Families of Birds.” Adopted provisionally by the Smithsonian Institution, established Graculidae as the family for the Cormorants.

1869. Dall & Bannister (1869) first described Gr . bicristatus Pallas [no common name was used, but this is what we now call the Red-faced Cormorant] for the “American school” of ornithology in A list of the birds of Alaska. The earliest cataloged USNM specimens of this species were a skin and a skeleton collected in 1869 by F. Bishoff from Kodiak Island, Alaska. In a note which followed the accounts of Gr . dilophus Gray and Gr . violaceus Gray, Dall restated a comment from Baird, “I quote both this name and the preceding with some doubt.” [verify and comment]

1869. Baird (1869) in his On additions to the bird-fauna of North America tentatively sanctioned the Dall and Bannister (1869) description of their cormorant "Gr . bicristatus Pallas; and added the common name Crested Cormorant. Baird wrote "Hab., Kadiak [sic]. This species is somewhat like the bird from the coast of the United States known as Graculus violaceus , but is considerably larger, and well marked by the naked skin completely encircling the bill, and by the wattles on the side of the lower jaw. The two crests on the top of the head, one behind the other, I have not seen in any specimen of the so-called violaceus, and I have no doubt that the two are distinct. I cannot make this specimen agree with any description before me, although in general features it combines the characters of Phalacrocorax bicristatus and pelagicus , as given by Pallas; and I am unable, with the materials before me, to come to a definite determination as to the name. I for the present use that of bicristatus, leaving it to further investigation to decide how many species really occur in the North Pacific, and which is the true violaceus, a name which has priority of date." The bird is very different from P. perspicillatus [the extinct Pallas’s Cormorant], which, though having a similar kind of crest, is yet much larger, and otherwise differently marked. This position of Baird’s set the stage for Nelson and Turner to consider the Red-faced Cormorant as Gr . bicristatus during their field work at St. Michael.

1871. Gray (1871) in his Hand-List of Genera and Species of Birds, distinguishing those contained in the British Museum, provided ranges and synonymy for both the Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorant. Gray erred by including bairdi, the southern California Pacific Coast form of Pelagic Cormorant in his synonyms of bicristatus, thereby fueling the cormorant confusion as taxonomic analysis flowed from the European into American schools of ornithology.

1872. Coues (1872) in his Key to North American Birds [1st edition] included Graculus bicristatus; Red-faced Cormorant with the description; “Kadiak, Alaska; described from the single recognized specimen No. 52512, Mus. Smiths. Inst., the same noticed by Baird, Trans. Chicago Acada. i, 321p, pl. 33, believed to represent the Phalacrocorax bicristatus of Pallas, Zoog. R.-A., ii, 183. Probably the "red-faced cormorant," Pelacanus urile of Pennant, Latham and Gmelin, but as this point cannot be decided [see Stejneger 1895 for his elaboration of this confusion]. I accept Baird's identification ... bicristatus.”

1872. In his Zur Ornithologie Nordwest-Amerikas , Finsch (1872, in German) described Graculus violaceus [Pelagic Cormorant] and compared it to the Red-faced Cormorant. He stated that the Pelagic seemed different from Graculus bicristatus [Baird] and that Baird's illustration agreed completely with Brandt’s Carbo bicristatus and Pallas' Phalacrocorox bicristatus and that the same bird was obvious. He added, however, that Kittlitz mentioned a cormorant, which he observed frequently on Sitka under this name, casting some doubt on Kittlitz [who was in error, since Red-faced was not known from the Sitka area. PD].

1873. Next, Coues (1873) in A Check List of North American Birds), followed his 1872 Key and added the Red-faced Cormorant as “Graculus bicristatus (Pall.) [Baird].”

1874. In Swinhoe’s (1874), Birds from Hakodadi [Hokkaido] he described Ph. bicristatus as the “Resplendent Shag” Phalacrocorax pelagicus (Pall.) [i.e., Pelagic Cormorant]. In the species account, he commented, Phalacrocorax.aeolus , Swinh. Ibis, 1867, p. 395. Two immature birds without date-one marked a female, the other unmarked. These [two] specimens (one an immature and the other a female), which look very like the figure of the young Carbo bicristatus in the “Fauna Japonica” (t. lxxxiv. B), I recognize, by their straight cylindrical bills and the proportions of their wing-quills, to belong to the allied form, my [Phalacrocorax] aeolus, which Pallas long ago separated as G[r]. pelagicus (Zoogr. Rosso-Asiat. tom. ii. p. 303). In Chefoo [China] I met with the species in breeding-plumage, and could then easily distinguish the birds by their bare face-skin being rubropapillose , as Pallas describes it. But perhaps a more telling character is the proportions of the quills in the one species as compared with those in the other. P . pelagicus has the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th primary quills equal and longest; while in P . bicristatus the 3rd alone is the longest. In P . bicristatus too, the face-skin is smooth and yellowish, and the bill is slightly inclined to turn up. P. tenuirostris, Temm., from Japan, given in Mr. G. R. Gray's' Hand-List,' (1871) is probably synonymous with Pallas's P. pelagicus, which, strangely enough, Mr. G. R. Gray identifies with the better-known P . bicrstatus, Pallas.

1874. Dall (1874) published his observations made in the western Aleutians during 1873 in his Notes on the avifauna of the Aleutian Islands, especially those west of Unalaska . In this work, Dall described Gr . bicristatus, Pallas with the common name of "Shag" [i.e., Red-faced Cormorant] and he described as Gr . Bairdii, Gruber, with the common name of “Lesser Cormorant.” [i.e., Pelagic Cormorant]. [Gr . bardii was a description that was used for a time for the smaller race of Pelagic Cormorants on the western coast of the lower 48 states; later known as Ph. pelagicus resplendens .] Dall commented, “I have preferred, for the sake of uniformity in my papers on Alaskan birds to retain a nomenclature which, though more widely recognized than any other in America, is rapidly becoming obsolete, and which I would not be understood as accepting in its present condition. I trust eventually to review the whole subject in one comprehensive memoir, when I shall be able to have access to all the later literature of the birds of the more northerly regions of the world, which is not now the case; and then I hope to reconcile the discrepancies, and correct the errors of nomenclature, which I have made use of for the present.” I am unclear as to why Dall thought the nomenclature he used in this paper was more uniform and more widely recognized. These are the only references I was able to find to common names of “Shag” and “Lesser Cormorant” to Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorant, respectively. The specific name bardii, however, was used as by some authors for the putative subspecies taxon of Pelagic Cormorant that was found along the Pacific Coast of North America.

1875. Coues (1875) in his Ornithology of the Pribilof Islands described “Gr . Bicristatus; (Pall.) Gray” as the Red-faced Cormorant. He commented “The cormorant, which swarms on the Prybilov [sic] Islands, appears to be unquestionably the bird of Pallas, which is most probably the red-faced cormorant, P. urile, of earlier authors. In adult plumage it is readily recognized by the naked red skin which entirely surrounds the base of the bill, somewhat carunulate, and the blue base of the under mandible, as well as by other points noticed in the later treatises above quoted. In the great confusion subsisting among authors respecting the North Pacific cormorants, we do not venture to cite several names more or less probably synonymous.”

1877. Sharpe (1877) in his British Museum Catalogue of the Passiformes , described the genus Graculus, Koch, in conjunction with passerines and why the genus name Graculus could not be continued, due to taxonomic priorities. However, it would take three years for this to be adopted by the American school of ornithology (See Ridgway, 1880, below).

1880. Ridgway (1880a) in his Revisions to the nomenclature of certain North American birds commented in his Phalacrocorax dilophus account; “In regard to the generic name of the Cormorants, it appears that we will have to use Phalacrocorax, Briss., instead of

Phil Davis


Graculus, the latter properly applied, having for its type the Coreus graculus , Linn., = Graculus pyrrhocorax , Scop. Ridgway included a reference to a footnote in Sharpe (1877:146) for this change. At this point, Ridgway, and the “American school,” reverted to the earlier, and higher priority, genus name Phalacrocorax.

1880. Ridgway (1880b) in A Catalogue of the birds of North America applied the new nomenclatural name and described the Red-faced Cormorant as Phalcrocorax bicristatus , Pallas, equating it to the earlier Graculus bicristatus , Pallas, Baird (1869).

1880. Blakiston & Pryer (1880) in their Catalogue of the birds of Japan associated Ph. pelagicus Pall., with the common name “Resplendent Shag” and Ph. bicristatus Pall. with the common name of “Double-crested Cormorant”(!). following Swinhoe (1874). The authors only note on the latter stated “Figured in the Fauna Japonica .” In the introduction to this paper, the authors stated, “The arrangement of this catalog is that of Dr. Carl Claus in his Grundzuge der Zoologie , a perhaps rather unusual classification; but the best ornithological authorities so differ on this matter, that it is of little consequence what system is followed.” Since the true Double-crested Cormorant (Ph. auritus) is not known in Japan, this work is probably responsible for later confusion where bicristatus was erroneously applied to one or both of the “two crested” cormorants, Pelagic and Red-faced.

1881. Ridgway (1881) again published the genus Phalacrocorax in his Nomenclature of North American Birds chiefly contained in the United States National Museum wherein he described the Violet Green [Pelagic] Cormorant as “Ph. violaceus (Gmel.) Ridgw.” and the Red-faced Cormorant as “Ph. bicristatus Pall.” However, Ridgway seemed to have erred in his attribution of the Pelagic Cormorant since Gmelin never described this species (see Stejneger 1885). Ridgway’s catalog became the new standard for the USNM in the summer and fall of 1881.

1881. I found a note in Gabrielson’s archives, typed, but undated, and entitled, “List of birds noticed at Plover Bay, eastern Siberia, August 21 to 25, 1881; noted “by John Murdock.” [Check published direct reference – get copy of Ray 1885] This list includes the entry, “Phalacrocorax dilophus?; very plenty [no specimens taken].” As the question mark indicates, this is clearly an erroneous reference to the true Double-crested Cormorant and probably actually referred to the Pelagic Cormorant.

1882. Coues (1882) adopted Ridgway’s nomenclature in The Coues Check List of North American Birds, second edition . In this work, Coues converted to the genus Phalacrocorax for all cormorants, commenting that the word phalacrocorax comes Latin, for “bald” “raven” and stated that it often called the “sea crow,” and that “cormorant” and its Romance language variations are derived from the Latin, corvus marinus . He added; “The cormorants are all given as Graculus in [Gray’s] original [1841] edition. But this was according to a way which G. R. Gray had of determining the types of genera, which has been found not available. Graculus signifies that the bird is so like a crow in color; cf. English ‘sea crow,’ above” In this edition of his Check List, Coues uses Gr . Bicristatus for the Red-faced and Gr . violaceus for Pelagic.

1882. Blakiston and Pryer (1882) in Birds of Japan, within the Ph. carbo [Great Cormorant] account, the authors wrote, "Ridgway's ‘Bulletin of the USNM’ includes six species of cormorant found on the Pacific Coast, and calls bicristatus of Pallas the Red-faced Cormorant. In their work, however, they described the same Phalacracorax bicristatus , Pall. as the “Double-crested Cormorant—Figured in the 'Fauna Japonica,' with the bare skin of the face yellow [presumably based on a non-breeding bird].” They indicated that this species had been recorded from Hakodate and near Yokohama. They also commented, “For distinctive differences between this and pelagicus , see Mr. Swinhoe's remarks, 'Ibis,' 1874, p. 164.”

1884. Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway (1884) published Water Birds of North America again changed the Ridgway 1881 species names of the two cormorants. The Violet-green Cormorant was changed from Ph. violaceus to Ph. pelagicus and the Red-faced Cormorant was changed from Ph. bicristatus to Ph. urile to conform to adopted taxonomic naming conventions of availability and earlier priorities.

1885. Seebohm (1885) penned On the Cormorants of Japan and China and discussed some of the taxonomic synonyms of the Red-faced Cormorant. He stated, “… Swinhoe … in 1871 called … [“Carbo bicristatus” (Temminck and Schlegel)] Graculus bicristatus , after having in 1867 described it as new under the name of Phalacrocorax æolus ; but in 1874 he identified this supposed new species as Ph. pelagicus.”

1885. Stejneger (1885) in his Ornithological Explorations from the Commander Islands and Kamchatka , presented a detailed treatment that illuminated the original 18th and early 19th century historical confusion surrounding the Red-faced Cormorant from both an identification and taxonomic standpoint from its discovery in Kamchatka and the Kurils in the early 1700s and its descriptions by Latham, Pennant, Gmelin, and Pallas, through literature published in 1877 by Taczanowksi. Stejneger stated, “The name of the present species [Red-faced Cormorant] has been involved in great uncertainty and confusion. Some authors have called it Ph. violaceus (Gmel.), and name which, by the American ornithologists, almost unanimously has been referred to what Pallas called Ph. pelagicus. The latter have mostly used the appellation bicristatus Pall., which, on the other hand, by the authors of Fauna Japonica and many of their followers has been misapplied to pelagicus , while urile Gmel. was doubtfully referred to the present species or to perspicillatus Pallas, or to both.” Stejneger clearly and concisely described the differences in appearance between the two species for both adults and juveniles. Stejneger’s analysis was published, however, just before the adoption of the 1st edition of the AOU Check-List (1886), and regrettably, his work did not deal with either the Turner (1886) or the later Nelson (1887) publications.

1886. With the publication of the first edition of the AOU (1886) 1st edition Check-List, the cormorant nomenclature issues were thought to have been finally resolved and standardized with the use of Pelagic Cormorant—Ph. pelagicus (Pallas) and Red-faced Cormorant—Ph. urile (Gmelin). The AOU Committee on Classification and Nomenclature followed Ridgway’s (1881) Nomenclature of North American Birds by using Ph. bicristatus Pall for Red-faced Cormorant (species #648) and Ph. violaceus (Gmel) Ridgw for Violet-green Cormorant (species #647); however, this [bicristatus] appears to have been a minor error, since Gmelin never described the Pelagic Cormorant (PD, see Stejneger 1885).

1890. Seebohm (1890) in The birds of the Japanese empire included illustrations of both of these species and commented in the Ph. Pelagicus (“Resplendent Shag”) account that Temminck and Schlegel in Fauna Japonica misnamed this [i.e., Pelagic Cormorant] species as “Carbo bicristatus .” Seebohm also described ph. bicristatus with the common name “Bare-faced Shag.” On the subject of taxonomy Seebohm wrote; “Further, by making the list of suborders, orders, and subclasses complete, it has given me an opportunity of correcting some inaccuracies in my former work. … I have not occupied the space devoted to each species with useless synonymy or with long descriptions." In a review of this work, Stejneger (1891) commented, “The Shags of the species ""pelagicus"" and ""bicristatus"" seem to be as much of a stumbling block as ever, in spite of all the reviewer has written and painted about them. The head on p. 211 looks much more like a different species than a bicristatus, and unless the drawing is very inaccurate the specimen from which it is taken is something else."

1891. Schalow (1891) in J. F. von Brandt: Ueber die Vogelfauna der Aleuten, Kurilen und der russisch-amerikanichen Colonien , finished Brandt’s work that was left after his death. Schalow erred and described three species instead of two. He equated his Carbo bicristatus to the Ph. urile of Gmelin, which we now consider to be the Red-faced Cormorant. Schalow’s equated his Carbo urile to Pallas’s Ph. pelagicus, our Pelagic Cormorant. However, his third species, Carbo violaceus was based on Gmelin’s Pelecanus violaceus and was redundant with his Carbo urile (i.e., Pelagic Cormorant). Interestingly, the copy of this reference I accessed from the Smithsonian Libraries had penciled-in notes [this being from the post-AOU Check-List era and probably in either the handwriting of Ridgway, Baird or Stejneger] that indicated Schalow’s Carbo

Phil Davis


bicristatus to be equivalent to Ph. urile and Schalow’s Carbo urile to be equivalent to Ph. pelagicus, reversed from the truth. [verify this translation!]

1898. Ogilvie-Grant in Sharpe (1898) in his Catalogue of the Plataleæ, Herodoiones, Steganopodes, Pygopodes, Alc æ, and Impennes in the collection of the British Museum provided extensive and well-documented synonomy of both the Phalacrocorax genus and of both the Ph. bicristatus and Ph. pelagicus species. In his genus synonomy, he indicated the nature of the characteristics that were historically used to redefine the cormorants into various genera and in his species synonymy, he provided the geographic location of cited specimens. He specifically commented on Ph. bicristatus; "It is impossible to say with certainty what bird Pennant intended to describe under the name Ph. violaceus, but he most probably referred to the present species [Ph. bicristatus]. P . urile, Gmel. is partly founded on descriptions which can only apply to P. perspicillatus [the now extinct Pallas’s Cormorant], and cannot be used. I have therefore made use of the next oldest name, P . bicristatus, Pall." Specimens Ogilvie-Grant listed include two from Elliot and one from Dall that were then shown to be in the Salvin-Godman Collection (See the Appendix 3 on Specimens for additional information). In his review of this work, Allen (1899) summarized the situation, “Phalacrocorax urile (Gm.) becomes P. bicristatus Pallas on the ground apparently that urile was originally composite [presumably due of the confusion over the color of the Pennant-described orbital ring as clarified by Stejneger 1885]. In his review of this work, Allen (1899) commented that this was the most complete treatise since the time of Linneaus. However, Ogilvie-Grant used as his starting point for this work that took over 25 years to prepare, the twelfth edition (1766) of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae , instead to the early tenth edition (1758) that has evolved as the starting point for most other binomial classification systems, hence the reason for some discrepancies in taxonomic nomenclature with the AOU Check-List and the “American school;” specifically ignoring Brisson’s genera; but basically, Ogilvie-Grant got it right.

1899. Ogilvie-Grant (1899) in Sharpe et al. British Museum Catalogue of Birds described Ph. bicristatus; Kuril Islands, Kamchatka, Commander Islands, St. Paul Is, and Constantine Harbor (Amchitka Island), AK. Allen (1899) in his review of the British Museum Catalogue of Birds, noted that “Ph. urile (Gm.) becomes Ph. bicristatus Pallas, on the ground apparently that urile was originally composite.”

1903. Coues (1903) in the 5th edition to his Key to North American Birds largely conformed his taxonomy to the then current AOU Check-List, as of 1900 when he finished his manuscript; however, he did make exceptions where he disagreed with the AOU. Contra to the AOU, he continued the use of Ph. bicristatus for the Red-faced Cormorant with the comment, “This is the Red-faced Cormorant of Pennant, but Pelacanus urile Gm. Is not exclusively pertinent, and the name had better be avoided. I therefore make no change from the former editions of the Key.” With regard to the Pelagic Cormorant, described as Ph. pelagicus, Coues stated, “Ph. violaceus ... I have abandoned the name, in the uncertainty attaching to Pelecanus violaceus of the early authors ..."

1922. Bent (1922) in his Life Histories also eluded to earlier taxonomy and nomenclature issues that historically confused the status of the two similar species, Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorant. Bent’s account used the then-accepted 3rd edition AOU Check-List (1910) nomenclature for the species (Ph. urile), however, he commented, “Although the common name of this [Red-faced] species is aptly descriptive, it might also be well applied to other cormorants; I have always thought the old name bicristatus peculiarly fitting for the red-faced cormorant, for its two conspicuous crests, one on the crown, and one on the occiput, make it more strikingly double-crested than [Ph.] dilophus or [Ph.] auritus, as it [Double-crested Cormorant] is now called.”

In his review of Bent’s work, Swarth (1923) explained departures from the nomenclature of the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list, in a statement, "now that a new check list is in preparation, it seems best to adopt the names that will probably appear in the new check list, so far as they are now understood by the author." “To the reviewer this seems a most unfortunate course for the author to have taken. Many bird species are here treated under names that are absolutely unfamiliar to most of his readers. And what reasons are there for him to adopt such changes? What assurance is there that these changes will appear in the new check list? In most eases they arise from excessive splitting of genera, carried to extreme lengths in the last few years. There are many ornithologists who deprecate such splitting, with the frequently resultant monotypic genera; who devoutly hope that most of the changes endorsed by Mr. Bent will not appear in the new check list; and who are anxious to do everything possible to prevent such appearances. In the meantime, before the new check list appears, surely it is better to stick to the names in the old one, especially so in the case of a publication like the one here reviewed.”

1927. Coues (1927) in the 6th edition to his Key to North American Birds largely conformed his nomenclature to the current version of the AOU Check-List. [Find this and check it.] [except for RFCO! … comment …]

1994. Kessel and Gibson (1994) in A Century of Avifaunal Change in Alaska comment that, “Historically, there has been considerable confusion about the distribution and abundance of the several cormorant species in Alaska, apparently in part because of the identification errors … and perhaps because of nomenclatural confusion.” They noted that an 1843 Red-faced Cormorant species was collected at Kodiak and resides in a St. Petersburg at the Russian Zoological Museum [ZIAN]; however, “for a complex of reasons … this information on the eastern extent of this bird’s distribution in the North Pacific was not reflected in an AOU Check-list until 140 years later, in 1983.”

Confusion was also caused by Nelson (1887:66), who outlined for the Red-faced Cormorant a wide distribution in the central and northern Bering Sea, including St. Matthew and St. Lawrence islands and both sides of the Bering Strait, an outline that reads remarkably like his earlier description (Nelson 1883:103) of the Pelagic Cormorant's range. Is this an error introduced during editing by H. W. Henshaw, after Nelson's retirement? Identity of bones from middens on St. Lawrence Island, ascribed to the Red-faced Cormorant by Friedmann (1934), is open to question.”

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 5 – A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF RELEV ANT CORMORANT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES

In addition to visual identification challenges and issues, historical cormorant taxonomy confusion also stemmed from various authors attempts to classify cormorants using other characteristics, including sometimes errononeously treating adults and immatures as separate species [citation?]. [more?] Nelson (2005) stated, “Cormorants and shags pose by far the most complicated problem within the Order [Pelicanformes]. They have variously been allocated between one and nine genera and 26-40 species. Species are treated binomially in many works and trinominally in others.” “Since Murphy’s (1936) pioneering work, Siegel-Causey’s (1988) osteological evaluation is accepted by some as the basis for a possible revision of the group; it provdes new insight into the higer-Order relationship, though some systematists may be unhappy with its large number of species and may query the methodology.” “The most significant issue concerns the number of sub-families and genera.” Siegel-Causey (1988) summarized, “Since the very first attempts to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Class Aves, there has been little controversy over which taxa comprised the Phalacrocoracidae. More pertinent at the time was determining the relationships of the family within Pelecaniformes, and that of the order to the rest of the birds.” Since these classification issues directly contributed to the cormorant confusion of the late 1800s. I have summarized the relevant studies and publications on this topic, including up to the present, since this topic and the relationship of the cormorants is still in flux. Much of this summary information was compiled from Siegel-Causey (1988), Johnsgard (1993), or Nelson (2005), as indicated. [Q: WHAT W AS KNOWN / WHAT W AS THE STATUS IN THE LATE 1800s?]

1894. Coues (1894) 4th edition XXXXXX 1898. In his taxonomic treatment of the cormorants, Ogilvie-Grant (1898) recognized only a single genus Phalacrocorax, and his

linear sequence of the 36 species was seemingly one of convenience, based on the construction of his identification key. 1899. “The first wordwide treatment was by Sharpe (1899), who, without indicating methodlogy or characters use, placed all forms

[except for two]… into Phalacrocorax. [Siegel-Causey 1988] 1931. In addition to Phalacrocorax, Peters (1931) accepted Nannopterum as a monotypic genus for the flightIess cormorant, and

generically separated four species of very small, short-bilIed cormorants as Halietor. Although accepting a considerable number of now-discarded subspecies, he admitted a total of only 30 species in the entire family. [Johnsgard 1993]. Siegel-Causey (1988) stated, “Peters (1931) followed a traditional linear arrangement of species placed into two genera (Phalacrocorax, Halietor) but without justification or methodology.”

1934. Wetmore (1934) produced what Siegel-Causey (1988) called “the most widely accepted phylogeny” and “little effort was expended by systematists before or after this to determine relationships with the cormorants.”

1974. Van Tets (1974) dealt with the origin of shags and cormorants and proposed that urile and pelagicus (“Red-faced Shag” and “Pelagic Shag” respectively) be placed, zoogeographically, into the genus Leucocarbo and furthermore, into a sub-genus, Sticocarbo . Siegel-Causey (1988) stated, “van Tets (1976) considered all extant species.” “He apprortioned all members of this family into two genera (Phalacrocorax, Leuocarbo) with three subgenera in the former, and two in the latter genus.”

1976. Van Tets (1976a) provided what might well be regarded as the first biologically meaningful classification of the cormorants as part of a zoogeographic analysis of the family's probable origins. Van Tets subdivided the family into two approximately equal genera, Phalacrocorax ("cormorants") and Leucocarbo ("shags"), with a total of 34 extant species exclusive of the extinct Pallas' cormorant, which he didn't take into account. Van Tets offered a number of morphological and biological criteria for his generic separation. He furthermore divided each of these two genera into a total of five subgenera, the shags consisting of two subgenera (Leucocarbo and Stictocarbo), and the cormorants consisting of three (Phalacrocorax, Hypoleucus , and Microcarbo, with the last-named subgenus corresponding to Peters's genus Halietor. [Johnsgard 1993].

1979. "Dorst and Mougin (1979) in Mayr and Cottrell Check-list of Birds of the World opine that Ph. urile (Gmelin); [none]; P. urile and pelagicus “form a superspecies.” The revision of the Phalacrocoracidae by Dorst and Mougin (1979) may be thought of as a compressed variation on that proposed by van Tets. These authors reduced van Tets's proposed genus Leucocarbo to a subgenus and accepted only 29 species, all within Phalacrocorax. [Johnsgard 1993]. Siegel-Causey (1988) stated, “Most recently, Dorst and Mougin (1979), following Peters (1931), lumped all extant species into a single genus Phalacrocorax. Assessments of possible specific and superspecific affinities were given by footnote but without justification.

1988. The classification of the Phalacrocoracidae by Siegel-Causey (1988) was based on a cladistic analysis using quantitative osteological characters. His resulting proposed classìfication accepts 37 species and bears a considerable number of similaritìes to that of van Tets. However, instead of dividing the family into two genera, he accepts two subfamilies, the overall composìtions of which are very similar, and also recognízes a total of nine genera. In several cases these genera correspond to the subgenera of van Tets, but the large subgenus Leucocarbo as proposed by van Tets was subdivided by Siegel-Causey into five genera. [Johnsgard 1993].

Siegel-Causey (1988) oesteological evaluation, using 137 oestelogical characteristics, proposed to divide the Phalacrocoracidae into two sub-families, the “true” cormorants (Phalacrocoracinae) and the shags (Leucocarracidae). He proposed two sub-families, nine genra, and at least 35 species. Under this scheme, Red-faced and Pelagic Cormorant were placed into Strictocarbo , the “cliff shags.”

1990. Sibley and Monroe's recent (1990) taxononomy of the cormorants accepted 38 species, all of which they likewise included within the single genus Phalacrocorax. Sibley and Monroe further reported that Sibley's DNA hybridization results do not support a "diversity of relationships" such as the two subfamilies and nine genera proposed by Siegel-Causey, although they did adopt his suggested sequence of species. [Johnsgard 1993].

1993. Johnsgard (1993) “adopted the proposed seqential classification and most of the species limits of siegel-Causey (1988). However, instead of accepting all nine of his genera I [Johnsgard] have followed va Tets (1976a) in recognizing only two, in the belief that Siegel-Causey’s subfamilies can be reduced to genera, and his genera similarly reduced to subgenera, without obscuring any of his proposed relationships.”

2000. Kennedy et al. (2000) stated the following:

Until more taxa are sampled and a fully robust phylogeny is obtained, a conservative approach accepting a single genus, Phalacrocorax, for the shags and cormorants is recommended.” The authors continued, “Until a more robust and complete phylogeny

Phil Davis


is available the use of the single genus, Phalacrocorax, appears sensible, as criteria for delimiting genera would be difficult to diagnose.

The group of Brandt’s Cormorant and the Red-faced and Pelagic Shags, for example, is unexpectedly well supported. Grouping Brandt’s Cormorant and the Red-faced and Pelagic Shags makes biogeographic sense, given that these species all inhabit the north Pacific coasts of North America and Asia. Whereas the Pelagic Shag inhabits most of this range, the Red-faced Shag is restricted to Alaska and north of Japan and the Brandt’s Cormorant is restricted to the North American coast (see Johnsgard, 1993). Brandt’s Cormorant and the Pelagic Shag overlap in their ranges, but avoids competition for nest sites, as Brandt’s Cormorants nest on the ground and Pelagic Shags nest on cliffs. Similarly, although their preferred prey species also overlap, the Brandt’s Cormorant and Pelagic Shag decrease the effect of competition by utilizing different foraging microhabitats (Johnsgard, 1993). If cliff nesting evolved independently in several lineages (alternatively cliff nesting may have evolved once and subsequently changed to other forms of nesting), the shift to cliff nesting may constrain or force certain morphological and behavioral changes. Thus, those characters that have been used to group the cliff shags may represent adaptations to cliff dwelling rather than common ancestry. Alternatively, if cliff nesting evolved just once, the characters used to group the cliff shags may have evolved just once, but subsequently been changed in several lineages.

This debate places two types of data in opposition to one another. Morphological evidence supports the monophyly of the pelecaniforms (Cracraft, 1985), whereas molecular evidence questions the monophyly of the group (Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990; Hedges and Sibley, 1994; Siegel-Causey, 1997). Similarly, two types of data support different taxonomic arrangements within the cormorants and shags (Phalacrocoracidae). The two most important recent classifications for the shags and cormorants (see Johnsgard, 1993) are the morphological taxonomy of Siegel-Causey (1988) and the behavioral taxonomy of van Tets (1976). Although these two taxonomies generally agree with one another, they also disagree on the placement of several taxa.

The sister taxa status of the Pelagic and Red-faced Shags (P[h]. pelagicus and P[h]. urile) is strongly supported by our data (split A, Fig. 4; 96–100% bootstrap support). There is also strong support for grouping Brandt’s Cormorant with the Pelagic and Red-faced Shags.

The authors stated, in summary, “Marine Cormorants. As noted previously, in our analyses there is strong support for placing Brandt’s

Cormorant as sister taxon to the Pelagic and Red-faced Shags (split F). All three species are distributed along the Pacific Coast of North America, with the distribution of the Pelagic Shag overlapping with those of both the Red-faced Shag and the Brandt’s Cormorant (Johnsgard, 1993).”

2005. Nelson (2005) retained all cormorants and shags in Phalacrocorax, following Marchant and Higgins (1990) and del Hoyo et al. (1992).

Further Notes on Cormorant Genus Taxonomy. A source of confusion over the genus names used for the cormorants over the

years had to do with authors efforts to split the cormorants into separate families. Genera names used over the years included Graculus, Linneaus (1735); Pelecanus, P . [?], Linneaus; Phalacrocorax, Brisson (1760) (nee, Moehr. 1752) and Reichenb, 1853; Hydrocorax, Viell. 1816 (nee Brisson 1760); Carbonarius, Rafing. 1815; Gulosus, Mont. 1813. (Pelecanus carbo, Linn.). Ogilvie-Grant (1898) in his Catalog … of the British Museum provided this history of the genus:

The following works refer to the anatomy and osteology etc. of various species of Phalacrocorax : —Brandt, Mém. Ac. St. Pétersb, (6) v. pt. ii. pp. 82, 93, 127, 175, pls, ii., iii. (1839) [osteology of P . carbo and P . pygmæus]; Hunter, Ess. Obs, Nat. Hist. ii. p. 327 (1861) [anatomy and osteology, notes on P . carbo]; Parker, P . Z. S. 1863, p. 517 [vertebra, of P. carbo]; Huxley, P . Z. S. 1867, p. 439 figs. [skull]; Eyton, Osteol. Av, p. 218, pl 5 L (1867); Nitzsch, Pteryl., Engl. ed. p: 149 (1867); Selenka, Bronn's Thier-reichs, Vög. pl. viii. figs. 5, 6 (1869); Garrod, P . Z. S. 1873, p. 467 [both carotids present], p. 637, fig. 4 [muscles of P . carbo]; Gulliver, P . Z. S. 1875, p.488 [red blood-corpuscles in P. carbo]; Garrod, P . Z. S. 1875, p. 343 [plantar tendons, P . carbo]; 1876, pp. 335,337, 339, 340, 345 [notes on anatomy]; Forbes, P . Z. S. 1877, p. 307 [Bursa Fabricii in P . carbo and P. vigua]; Mivart, Tr. Z. S. x. pt. vii. pp. 315-378, pls. lvii., lx, fig. 6, lxi. figs. 1-5 (1878) [axial skeleton]; Ewart, J. Linn. Soc. xv, p. 455 (1881) [shape of nostril in P . carbo]; Shufeldt, Science, ii. pp. 640-642, 822, figs. 1-3 (1883), iii. p. 143 (1884) [osteology of P . bicristatus]; Jeffries, Science, ii. p.739 (1883) [corrections], iii. p. 59 (1884); id. Auk, i. p. 196 (1881) [occipital style]; Gill, Science, iii. p. 404 (1884); Coues, Key N. Am. B. 2nd ed. pp.723-725, figs. 502, 504, 505 (1884) [osteology of P . bicristatus; Olphe-Gall. Ibis, 1885, p. 234 [nostrils not connected with pharynx]; Beddard, P . Z. S. 1885, p. 843 [visceral anatomy of P . carbo]; id., P . Z. S. 1892, p. 295 [osteology of P . graculus]; Shufeldt, Ibis, 1894, p. 365 [leg-bone, P . bicristatus]; Lucas, Auk, xiii, p. 172 (1896); xiv. p. 87 (1897) [skull of young in Phalacrocorax]; Anthony, Auk, xiv. p. 205 (1897) [nostril in young of Phalacrocorax].”

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 6—CHRONOLOGY OF RED-FACED CORMORANT IN THE AOU CHECK-LIST SERIES I constructed the following chronology of the Red-faced Cormorant range as described by the AOU Check-List series. Pre-AOU Checklist. Wetmore and Miller (1926) summarized the early situation, succinctly; “… before the first edition of the A.O.U.

‘Check-List’ was issued in 1886 three individual lists that summarized the bird life of the area that we assume to be North American had been in current use. Baird in 1858 published such a list, in quartro form, following it with an octavo edition in more convenient size in 1859. Coues published a check-list in 1873 as a synopsis of his ‘Key to North American Birds,’ and issued a revised edition in 1882 to bring the matter down to date. In the meanwhile Ridgway in 1881 had issued his ‘Nomenclature of North American Birds.’

1st edition (1886). Northern Bering Sea locations were not mentioned in the range description of the Red-faced Cormorant. 2nd edition (1895). As with the 1st edition, northern Bering Sea locations were not mentioned in the Red-faced Cormorant range

description. 3rd edition (1910). With this edition, the range description was augmented to include “… islands of the Bering Sea to Bering Strait,”

apparently from Nelson (1883, 1887). 4th edition (1931). With the publication of the 4th edition of the AOU Check List (1931) the range description of the Red-faced

Cormorant changed notably from the previous edition. The new range description became, “Breeds in the Bering Sea region, … to North Cape, Siberia” and it also added, “Casual at St. Michael, Alaska, and the Diomede Islands.” Although the AOU Committee on Classification and Nomenclature of North American Birds did not maintain a detailed chronological file of historical check list changes and supporting references for this period (R. Clapp, pers. comm.), it was clear that the 4th edition changes were directly due to the publication of Bent’s (1922) account of the species, which was, in turn, based primarily on Turner (1886) and Nelson (1883, 1887).

5th edition (1957). With this edition, the range description became “Casual near St. Michael, Alaska.” In the AOU’s archived files dealing with the preparation of the 5th edition checklist, I located a Red-faced Cormorant species account mark-up sheet that bore Chandler Robbins’ handwritten name on a typed account review page that was probably prepared by the committee secretary, Ira Gabrelson. Notes on this sheet flagged the following breeding range reference; “the coast of northeastern Siberia as far north as North Cape [Cape Schmidt] – Bent” with a footnote [#2] that stated, “records not found in file.” Regarding the winter range, another note flagged the statement, “Casual at the Diomede Islands” with a footnote [#4]: “Nelson (1887) states that it breeds at Cape Romanzof, Cape Vancouver, and Nelson Island, and that it is ‘rather common about the cliffs at the head of Norton Sound’ and ‘a more or less common summer resident upon St. Matthews and St. Lawrence Islands’, but I find no recent records for any of these places.” Another comment, apparently in Robbins’ handwriting, encircled footnote #4 and stated, “omitted as uncertain.” In his review of the Red-faced Cormorant species account, A.H. Miller suggested that the portion of the range description “Causal at St. Michael, Alaska” be clarified to ensure that it was not implied that this species breed at this location. He also questioned whether the species was found at that location only in the winter by annotating “in winter.” These notes apparently shaped the changes from the 4th edition Check-List to the 5th edition.

6th edition (1983). While Miller’s “winter” question apparently did not prompt a change in the 5th edition of the Check-List, a notable change occurred in the 6th edition when the range description appeared as, “Winters generally throughout the breeding range, occurring casually north to St. Michael in Norton Sound, Alaska …” Given that the only known putative record was the August/September 1877 Nelson specimen, the change from “casual” to “casual in winter” seems to have been not warranted given the body of knowledge at the time. It is not clear to whom this change was directly attributed or why.

7th edition (1998). The range description remained the same as in the 6th edition.

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 7 – REGIONAL DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT ISSUES

In the course of my Red-faced Cormorant research, I read several remarkable references to Double-crested Cormorant specimens from the Bering Sea region, including Norton Sound, the western Aleutian Islands, and Asia. I have summarized and commented on those references, below. Related Accounts

1874. [Reread this!!!] In Swinhoe’s (1874), Birds from Hakodadi [Hokkaido] he described ph. bicristatus [???] as the “Resplendent Shag” Phalacrocorax pelagicus (Pall.) [i.e., Pelagic Cormorant]. In the species account, he commented,

Phalacrocorax aeolus , Swinh. Ibis, 1867, p. 395. Two immature birds without date-one marked a female, the other unmarked. These

[two] specimens (one an immature and the other a female), which look very like the figure of the young Carbo bicristatus in the “Fauna Japonica” (t. lxxxiv. B), I recognize, by their straight cylindrical bills and the proportions of their wing-quills, to belong to the allied form, my [Phalacrocorax] aeolus, which Pallas long ago separated as G. pelagicus (Zoogr. Rosso-Asiat. tom. ii. p. 303). In Chefoo [China] I met with the species in breeding-plumage, and could then easily distinguish the birds by their bare face-skin being rubropapillose , as Pallas describes it. But perhaps a more telling character is the proportions of the quills in the one species as compared with those in the other. P . pelagicus has the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th primary quills equal and longest; while in P . bicristatus the 3rd alone is the longest. In P[h]. bicristatus too, the face-skin is smooth and yellowish, and the bill is slightly inclined to turn up. P[h]. tenuirostris, Temm. [COMMON NAME], from Japan, given in Mr. G. R. Gray's' Hand-List,' is probably synonymous with Pallas's P[h]. pelagicus, which, strangely enough, Mr. G. R. Gray identifies with the better-known P[h]. bicrstatus, Pallas.

[PCD Comment ???] 1874. Dall (1874) wrote, “We noted that on those islands, such as Attu and Atka, where the Arctic fox and other land animals have

been introduced by the Russians, that the birds preferred to build on islets and rocks off shore, or not accessible from the beaches. But on those islands where there are no such animals, the habits of the same species are quite different. They build, without fear, on the banks and hillsides of the main island, and are not found on the rocky islets at all. This indicates not only a change in habits brought about within historic times, by the struggle for existence, but also, that the progeny of individuals probably continue to reside on the same islands as their progenitors.”

1880. Blakiston & Pryer (1880) in their Catalogue of the birds of Japan associated Ph. pelagicus Pall., with the common name

“Resplendent Shag” and Ph. bicristatus Pall. with the common name of “Double-crested Cormorant”(!). following Swinhoe (1874). The authors only note on the latter stated “Figured in the Fauna Japonica .” In the introduction to this paper, the authors stated, “The arrangement of this catalog is that of Dr. Carl Claus in his Grundzuge der Zoologie , a perhaps rather unusual classification; but the best ornithological authorities so differ on this matter, that it is of little consequence what system is followed.” Since the true Double-crested Cormorant (Ph. auritus) is not known in Japan, this work is probably responsible for later confusion where bicristatus was erroneously applied to one or both of the “two crested” cormorants, Pelagic and Red-faced.

1885. Quizzically, however, Turner (1885) described another cormorant species, “Ph. dilophus cincinnatus [sic] (Brandt) Ridgw.” [Double-

crested Cormorant], as an abundant resident breeder in the Near Islands; however, as noted, he made no mention of the Red-faced Cormorant from these same islands (!); the opposite of what would have been expected given today’s knowledge. Even more curiously, in his 1886 work, Turner stated that the “White Crested Cormorant” Ph. dilophus cincinatus (Brandt); “is a visitor to St. Michael by the tenth of June. It does not occur in great numbers in that vicinity; only a few breed here. At Besborough [sic – now Beseboro] Island, some forty miles north of Saint Michael’s [sic], this bird breeds in abundance on the walls of that almost inaccessible island. A young bird of this species was obtained October 2, 1876.” [Check USNM numbers PCD] Gabrielson and Lincoln (1959) stated, “… an undated immature bird [was] collected at St. Michael by E.W. Nelson.” No other naturalist, however, ever described the Double-crested Cormorant from Norton Sound. [For further information, see Appendix 3 on specimens.]

[However, Double-crested Cormorants are tree or ground nesters and are not known to breed on cliffs! (Hatch and Weseloh 1999) PD

-- contra --- Murie (1959) describes the nesting adaptability of this species. It appears that the introduction of the blue fox and persecution of the species by hunters in the 18th and 19th century may have alterned this species nesting behavior and populations. PD]

One must question, therefore, the identifications of Turner (1885), who did not list this species in the western Aleutians-its present

center of abundance-in 1880-1881, but who reported Double-crested Cormorants to be abundant breeders there. (Like the Double-crested Cormorant, of course, Red-faced and Pelagic cormorants are also double-crested.) Since no specimens were collected and no subsequent observers have reported the Double-crested Cormorant in the western Aleutians, early reports of them there (Turner 1885, Clark 1910) appear to be erroneous identifications.

1886. Turner (1886) also reported Double-crested Cormorants breeding abundantly on Besbora Island, Norton Sound, northeastern

Bering Sea, although neither Dall and Bannister (1869) nor Nelson (1883, 1887) reported this species anywhere in the Bering Sea. Nelson (1883) reported Pelagic Cormorants nesting in large numbers toward the head of Norton Sound, however. Pelagic Cormorants currently breed on Besboro Island (Sowls et al. 1978), and Double-crested Cormorants are not known farther north than Cape Peirce and Nunivak Island.

1887. Confusion was also caused by Nelson (1887:66), who outlined for the Red-faced Cormorant a wide distribution in the central

and northern Bering Sea, including St. Matthew and St. Lawrence islands and both sides of the Bering Strait, an outline that reads remarkably like his earlier description (Nelson 1883: 103) of the Pelagic Cormorant's range. Is this an error introduced during editing by H. W. Henshaw, after Nelson's retirement? Identity of bones from middens on St. Lawrence Island, ascribed to the Red-faced Cormorant by Friedmann (1934), is open to question. Notably, neither Nelson’s manuscript nor journals mentioned anything about Turner’s Double-crested Cormorants that were “reportedly” abundant at nearby Beseboro Island in Norton Sound.

Phil Davis


1910. Clark (1910) in his Birds of the 1906 Albatross Cruise reported in his Ph. auritus cincinatus (Brandt) account—“White-crested

Cormorant that he found them at Atka, Attu, and Agattu.” This is another of the curious Double-crested Cormorant reports which is almost tempting to be considered as taxonomy confusion with the With regard to taxonomy, in the front of his report, Clark states, “I have adhered to the classification give in the American Ornithologists’ Union check list, in spite of the fact that I consider it decidedly out of date, for the reason that, as an arrangement familiar to them will have, in so far as they are concerned, certain advantages and will be much more convenient to use.” Presumably, what Clark referred to was the subject of taxonomic reordering and the following of authors who based their taxonomies on anatomical attributes, which the AOU did not implement until the 4th edition of the Check-List in 1931 [See Wetmore and Miller (1926) for concise summary of this situation].

1950. Fifty years later, in the 1930s, Murie (1959) also found them throughout the Aleutians. 1994. Kessel and Gibson (1994) The authors also highlighted that a number of naturalists from the Russians in 1843 through Murie

(1959) found this species throughout the Aleutians, however, Turner (1885) did not list them in the western Aleutians—it’s present center of abundance—in the 1880-1881, but who reported Double-crested Cormorants to be abundant breeders there. (Like the Double-crested Cormorant, of course, the Red-faced and Pelagic cormorants are also double-crested.)

“Since no specimens were collected and no subsequent observers have reported the Double-crested Cormorant in the western Aleutians, early reports of them there (Turner 1885, Clark 1910) appear to be erroneous identifications. Turner (1886) also reported Double-crested Cormorants breeding abundantly on Besboro Island, Norton Sound, northeastern Bering Sea, although neither Dall and Bannister (1869) nor Nelson (1883, 1887) reported this species anywhere in the Bering Sea. Nelson (1883) reported Pelagic Cormorants nesting in large numbers toward the head of Norton Sound, however. Pelagic Cormorants currently breed on Besboro Island (Sowls et al. 1978), and Double-crested Cormorants are not known farther north than Cape Pierce and Nunivak Island. Related Specimens

USNM 73146 . In his 1886 work, Turner stated, “Ph. dilophus cincinatus is a visitor to St. Michael by the tenth of June. It does not occur in great numbers in that vicinity; only a few breed here. At Besborough [Besboro] Island, some forty miles north of Saint Michaels, this bird breeds in abundance on the walls of that almost inaccessible island. A young bird of this species was obtained October 2, 1876.” There is a USNM manual catalog entry for a juvenile female Ph. dilophus collected by Turner on 01 Oct [vs. 02 Oct] 1876 at St. Michael (Turner field number 1278), preserved as whole skin. This specimen was manually cataloged on 12 Nov 1877. An annotation in the USNM manual catalog stated that this specimen was sent to Turner, only two days later, on 14 Nov 1877 and is no longer in the USNM collection. Quizzically, Turner (1885) also described Ph. dilophus cincinnatus [sic] (Brandt) Ridgw. [Double-crested Cormorant] as an abundant resident breeder in the Near Islands, where he similarly described Ph. pelagicus as a numerous, resident breeder. Regardless of confusion over the status of the Double-crested Cormorant at St. Michael and in the Near Islands, it is clear that this specimen is not of a St. Michael’s Red-faced Cormorant.

USNM 75917. A third Nelson cormorant specimen was also indicated to have been collected at St. Michael during this period. This

was USNM 75917, a juvenile Double-crested Cormorant, cataloged as Graculus “cincinnatus ,” juv, St. Michael, AK, no collection date, no Nelson catalog number, but cataloged on 30 Oct 1878. Notwithstanding Turner’s (1886) account that the species “breeds in abundance” on the walls [Double-crested Cormorant is, of course, a tree and ground nester PD] of Besboro Island (near St. Michael), a Double-crested Cormorant from St. Michael’s would be as significant as the Red-faced Cormorant. I located this specimen in the Bird Division cases and it is a juvenile Double-crested, with a large, orange gular patch, now tagged as Ph. dilophus cincinnatus . There are some unintelligible markings on the back side of the tag, including a number “643” which likely represents Ridgway’s species number (643 = Ph. dilophus) rather than a Nelson field catalog number. Given that this specimen has no collection date and no Nelson collection number, my assumption was that Nelson may have collected it in the Aleutian Islands in 1877 on his way to St. Michael and when he arrived at St. Michael it was grouped with his other local specimens and then sent back to the USNM with his first shipment of specimens in 1878. However, I later discovered that Nelson’s first batch of shipments from the Aleutians and St. Michael went back on the same supply ship in 1877. Therefore, I cannot explain the circumstances of this specimen. There were no Nelson journal or field catalog entries that related to this specimen. The USNM database showed this as unsexed immature Ph. autitus preserved as a whole skin. This is a quite quizzical specimen.

Phil Davis


APPENDIX 8—PALMÉN (1887) TRANSLATION

The following species accounts were translated from Swedish to English by Dr. Sven Laurin in Oct 2006. This same passage was referenced by Portenko (1981) [reread], in Russian and subsequently translated to English. The two translations …. [make some qualitative comment].

A contribution to knowledge about the

bird fauna of the Siberian Pacific coast according to the

observations and collections of the Vega Expedition

reported

by J.A. Palmén.

[Phalacrocorax pelagicus and Phalacrocorax urile species accounts, pp. 412 – 414]

65. Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pall. Stejn.

Tschuktsch.: ijurgui.

Ph. pelaqicus Pall., Zoogr. ross, as .. II, 1811, s. 303, Tab. LXXVI. Graculus violaceus Gray, Gen. of Birds, l 845. Carbo bicristatus Temm. & Sehl, Fauna jap., 1849, p. 130, pl. 84 [nec Pall., qui = urile (Gm.) se. Stejn.]. Ph. pelaqicus Stejneger, Results of Om. Expl., p. 187-191 ( synonyms and criticism ).

Cormorants were first observed by the expedition on 12-18 September 1878 at the Tschuktsch- [Chukota] coast. “At the steep north

side of the Irkipij precipice there were so many cormorants that the rock could be called a real bird-cliff” (Nordensk., V egas färd, I, p. 436; a drawing of the bird on p. 437 under the name of Graculus bicristatus Pallas). A specimen preserved in alcohol is mentioned but was not possible to find on returning home. At Cape Onman cormorants were again noted on September 26. According to information from the Tschuktschi of the winter station the ”ijurgui” will breed in summer on the precipices of Cape Jinretlen together with gulls; no specimens were obtained this fall, only four birds, looking like cormorants were noted on October 25 flying eastward from the ship. In the spring of 1879 lieutenant Nordqvist found a fresh head of a cormorant on the ice (n:r 234, skel.). The naked skin around and under the eyes, at the angle of the mouth [?] and at the base of the lower jaw as well as at the lower jaw angle [I don´t quite understand the description here] was covered with red warts (Pallas' pelaqicus: loris palpebrisque nudis, rubropapillosis; see Stejnegers pl. VIII, fig. 1). Otherwise the head and the remaining part of the neck was black with greenish sheen; the bill was brown-black, less dark at the base, especially the lower jaw. The next day, June 1, two specimens were shot at the open channel in the ice, one of them was brought home (Riksm., n:r 16,359, ♂). [Label for Riksmuseum, the Swedish national museum of natural history, in Stockholm]. They were noted in fresh condition to have head and bill similar to the specimen found the day before; feet black, claws too, just at the base dark brown-grey. The crests of feathers on the head thin, the one on the forehead has up to 26 mm feathers and the one in the back of the neck 26 -29 mm feathers. The attire is black with a blue-green metal sheen of the head; neck blue-violet, breast and body have a green sheen, least on the wings. On both sides of the neck and on the sides of the back there are scattered long and thin, white feathers; on the sides of the legs a white spot is formed by long feathers with sparse, hair-like fanstrålar [quills?] (I don´t know the exact translation, it means the subunits of the feather, barbs?) ). Wings and the 12 tail-feathers brown-black. – Their stomachs were filled with fragments of Hyas aranea . No more [cormorants] were seen before we left, but immediately thereafter, on July 19, a flock of cormorants were seen sitting on ice, and similarly also on July 20 at East Cape (Nordqvist).

to forehead

to corner of mouth

N:r 234, 31 5, ad.... --- --- 51.5 80 14 12.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- " 16,359, 16, ad. --- 273 52 75 12.5 12 8 145 51 95 12 75 32 9 16, ad. 782 284 51 80 --- 13 11 189 50 109 15 --- 39 12.5

Bill

Outer toe w

ith claw

Tarsus

Length

Wing

length

width at forehead

height at forehead

height at angle of lower jaw

Tail

Posterior claw

Posterior toe

Second toe

Outer claw

As far as the literature can be reviewed (considering the confusion with the following species (the confusion is caused by the long-time incorrect name of “bicristatus” by Pallas)), the above mentioned species [viz. “pelagicus”] seems to range in the northern Pacific from China and Japan and from California up to Bering strait (Cassin) and some distance into the Arctic ocean. Nelson believes this to be the species he observed outside Cape Serdzekamen, possibly also at the Herald Island and two specimens close to Wrangel´s Island. On the American side the species is

Phil Davis


found at St. Michael and in the Yukon inlet [estuary?] and also in other locations in the Norton Sound; this species was presumably observed by Nelson in the Arctic Ocean at Cape Beaufort (69º 5'). (Also at Port Clarence the expedition saw small flocks of cormorants on July 24 during a journey to the inlet of the stream Imaurak, also on July 26 on the split-up rocky coast of the bay. However, no specimen was shot. According to Ridgway and Stejneger this species is represented in Alaska by the special form robustus Rdgw.)

66. Phalacrocorax urile Gmel. Stejn. bicristatus Pall. ). ( see Stejneger Results of Orn. Expl. pp. 181-187.)

During the stay of the expedition at Bering island cormorants were seen on the rocks in the fjär [I don´t have a translation of fjär, but this means the parts of the estuary that are submerged when the tide is in, and otherwise constitute beach or marsh]; two specimens shot by lieutenant Palander (number 552, 553, skin [or hide]). N:r 552. Around the mouth-angles, the base of the lower jaw and on the angle of the lower jaw the naked skin is blue-gray and next to the feathers margined with a yellow-red granular [or knotty] band; the naked skin around the base of the upper jaw and around the eyes is yellow-red; lower jaw in the middle grey-brown, otherwise the bill is black. Feet and claws black. – The neck variably bluish-black, the arm- wing- and shoulder feathers have a violet metal sheen. Tail black. The feathers on the head are at most 12 to 15 mm except on the crown where they make a crest of 32 mm, and in the nape one of 40 mm length. N:r 553 (juvenile) has traces of metal sheen on the head and the neck, the whole attire brown-black; crests not developed. Upper bill black except at the base where it is blue-grey; lower bill black at the tip, else blue-grey and blue-yellow. Behind the angles of the mouth the border of the feathers runs fairly straight down, without creating a corner directed forwards (Nordqvist).

forehead

angle of mouth

at the base

behind the nail

N:r 552, ad. ......... 740 280 48 66 13 14 10 (155+) 50 100 80 35 " 553, jun. ......... 784 280 54.5 76 12 13 9 200 54 102 79 30

Bill

Mid toe

Posterior toe

Tail

Tarsus

Outer toe

length from width at base

height

Length

Wing

This species apparently has not yet been found in the Arctic ocean but is common on the coasts of Bering sea from the Pribilof islands to the Aleutian islands, is found on the American side, on Kodiak (Dall) and Sitka (Kittl.) as well as on the Asian side on Bering island at Arjikamen and on Copper island (Stejneger); maybe on both sides it ranges even farther southwards.

Phil Davis


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to specifically acknowledge the assistance of Roger Clapp (U. S. Geological Survey, Smithsonian Institution) for his help with the Smithsonian Institution database and research issues. Also, special thanks to James Dean (Smithsonian Institution, Birds Division) and Mary Gustafson (U. S. Geological Survey, Bird Banding Laboratory) for their help with USNM specimen at the Silver Hill facility. Brain Less’s support with his video tape is especially appreciated. Another special acknowledgement is in order for Dr. Sven Laurin who kindly translated for me Palmén’s 1887 Vega expedition cormorant accounts from Swedish to English. The following people are also to be acknowledged and thanked for information and assistance with my research: Ellen Alers (Smithsonian Institution Archives), Claudia Angle (U. S. Geological Survey, Smithsonian Institution), Yuri Artukhin (Kamchatka Branch of Pacific Institute of Geography, Far East Department of Russian Academy of Sciences), Gavin Bieber, V ernon Byrd (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service), Douglas Causey (Harvard University/University of Alaska), Gary Crandall (High Lonesome BirdTours), Forrest Davis (High Lonesome BirdTours), Lynda Garrett (U. S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center), Daniel D. Gibson (University of Alaska), David McKay (High Lonesome BirdTours), Leslie Overstreet (Cullman Library - Smithsonian), Dr Robert Prys-Jones (Head, Bird Group, Department of Zoology, The [British] Natural History Museum), Peter Pyle (Point Reyes Bird Observatory), Chandler Robbins (USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center), Gary Rosenberg (WINGS), Dr. Courtney Shaw (Smithsonian Libraries), Jevgeni Shergalin, Bob Spahn, Art Sowls (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service), Jeff Williams (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service), and Daria Wingreen-Mason (Cullman Library – Smithsonian). Finally, I want to extend special thanks to my wife, Barbara Davis, for first spotting the Gambell bird and for her considerable patience during this project.

Phil Davis


LITERATURE CITED Alderfer, J. 2005. National Geographic Complete Birds of North America. National Geographic Society. Washington, DC. Allen, J. A. 1888. Turner’s Report of his Ornithological Observations in Alaska. Auk 5(4): 409-410. Allen, J. A. 1889. Nelson’s Report upon the Natural History Collections made in Alaska. Auk 6(1): 61-63. Allen, J. A. 1899. [Review of] V olume XXVI of the British Museum Catalogue of Birds. Auk 16(2):198-203. Allen, J. A. 1904. Coues's 'Key to North American Birds,' Fifth Edition. Auk 21(2):292-296. American Ornithologist’s Union [AOU]. 1886. Check-List of North American Birds, 1st edition, American Ornithologist’s Union, Washington,

DC. American Ornithologist’s Union [AOU]. 1895. Check-List of North American Birds, 2nd edition, American Ornithologist’s Union, Washington,

DC. American Ornithologist’s Union [AOU]. 1910. Check-List of North American Birds, 3rd edition, American Ornithologist’s Union, Washington,

DC. American Ornithologist’s Union [AOU]. 1931. Check-List of North American Birds, 4th edition, American Ornithologist’s Union, Washington,




DC. Bailey, A. M. 1943. The birds of Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska. Proc. Colorado Mus. Nat. Hist. 18: 1–113. Bailey, A. M. 1948. Birds of arctic Alaska. Colorado Mus. Nat. Hist., Popular Series no. 8. Baird, S.F. and G.N. Lawrence. 1858. Reports of explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad

from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. Birds, Vol 9., A.O.P . Nicholson, Washington, DC. 1005 pp. United States. House. 33rd Congress, 2d session. House. Ex.Doc.No.91. Reports Of Explorations And Surveys, To Ascertain The Most Practicable And Economical Route For A Railroad From The Mississippi River To The Pacific Ocean. Made Under Direction Of The Secretary Of War, In 1853-56... Volume IX. A.O.P . Nicholson. Washington, DC. 1858. Subtitle: General report upon the zoology of the several Pacific Railroad routes.

Baird, S.F. 1859. Catalogue of North American Birds, chiefly in the museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Washington. Baird, S.F. 1869. "On additions to the bird-fauna of North America, made by the Scientific Corps of the Russo-American Telegraph Expedition;

Tr. Chic. Acad., I, p. 321-322, pl 33. Baird, S.F., Brewster, T.M., and Ridgway, R. 1884. The water birds of North America. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston. Banks, R. 1988. Supposed Northern Records of the Southern Fulmar. Western Birds 19(3):121-124. Bent, A. C. 1922. Life histories of North American petrels and pelicans and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 121: 269–327. Bishop, L. B. 1900. Results of a biological reconnaissance of the Yukon River region. Birds of the Yukon region, with notes on other species. N.

Amer. Fauna No. 19:47-96. Blakiston, T.W. 1884. Amended list of the birds of Japan, Author, London. pp 60. Blakiston, T.W. and H. Pryer. 1878. A catalogue of the birds of Japan. Ibis 4th series 2: 209-249. Blakiston, T.W. and H. Pryer. 1880. Catalogue of the birds of Japan. Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 8:187-188. Blakiston, T. W. and Pryer, H. 1882 Birds of Japan. Trans. Asiatic Soc. Japan. 10(1): 84-186. Bonaparte, C.L. 1855. Conspectus generum avium (Consp. Gen. Av.). Bonaparte, C.L. 1856. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaire des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences [Paris] (Compt. Rend.). Brisson, M. J. 1760. Ornithologia, sive synopsis methodica sistens avium divisionem in ordines... Ornithologie ou méthode contenant la division

des Oiseaux en orders, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés. A laquelle on a joint une description exacte de chaque especes.... Chez C.J.B. Bauche, Paris.

Byrd, G.V . and J.C. Williams. 2004. Cormorant surveys in the Near Island Group, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, in July 2003 with notes on other species. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Rep. AMNWR 04.

Cade, T.J. (1950) The character and status of the avifauna of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Unpubl. ms. [cited in Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959]. Causey, D. 2002. Red-Faced Cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile). In The Birds of North America, No. 617 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Birds of

North American, Inc. Philadelphia, PA. Clark, A. H. 1910. The birds collected and observed during the cruise of the U.S. Fish Steamer “Albatross” in the North Pacific Ocean and in the

Bering Sea, Okhotsk, Japan and eastern seas, from April to December 1906. Proc. U.S. Nat’l. Mus. 8:25-74. Coinde, J.P . 1860. Notice sur la faune ornithologique de l'île de Saint Paul, suivie de l'énumération de quelques espèces d'insectes (Coléoptères)

des Aléoutiennes et du Kamtschatka. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Applique. p. 401. Coues, E. 1872. Key to North American birds; containing a concise account of every species of living and fossil bird at present known from the

continent north of the Mexican and United States boundary. Salem, [Mass.], Naturalists' agency. Coues, E. 1873. A check list of North American birds. Salem, [Mass.], Naturalists' agency. Coues, E. 1875. Ornithology of the Pribilof Islands. Appendix in A report upon the condition of affairs in the territory of Alaska (H. W. Elliott,

Ed.). U.S. Treas. Dep. Rep., Washington, D.C. Coues, E. 1882. The Coues check list of North American birds. Second edition, revised to date, and entirely rewritten, under direction of the

author, with a dictionary of the etymology, orthography, and orthoepy of the scientific names, the concordance of previous lists, and a catalogue of his ornithological publications. Boston, Estes and Lauriat.

Coues, E. 1884. Nelson’s Birds of Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Auk 1(1):76-81. Coues 1887. Key to North American birds. Containing a concise account of every species of living and fossil bird at present know from the

continent north of the Mexican and United States boundary, inclusive of Greenland and lower California, with which are incorporated general ornithology: an outline of the structure and classification of birds; and field ornithology: A manual of collecting, preparing, and preserving birds. The third edition, exhibiting the new nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union, and including descriptions of additional species, etc. Boston. Estes and Lauriat.

Phil Davis


Coues 1890. Key to North American birds. Containing a concise account of every species of living and fossil bird at present know from the continent north of the Mexican and United States boundary, inclusive of Greenland and lower California, with which are incorporated general ornithology: an outline of the structure and classification of birds; and field ornithology: A manual of collecting, preparing, and preserving birds. The fourth edition, exhibiting the new nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union, and including descriptions of additional species. Boston. Estes and Lauriat.

Coues, E.C. 1872. Key to North American birds: Containing a concise account of every species of living and fossl bird at present know from the continent north of the Mexican and United States boundary . Salem, MA. Naturalist’s Agency.[… but immediately supplanted by the 1873 edition] [1st ed]; pg 304

Coues, E.C. 1873 [1874?]. A check list of North American birds. Salem [Mass.] Naturalists' Agency, 1873 [i.e. 1874] Coues, E.C. 1875. in Elliott; "Ornithology of the Pribilof Islands in A report on the condition of affairs in the territory of Alaska, p. 192 [or 102?] Coues. E.C. 1882. The Coues Check List of North American birds. Second edition. Revised to date, and entirely rewritten, under direction of the

author, with a dictionary of the etymology, orthography, and orthoepy of the scientific names, the concordance of previous lists, and a catalog of his ornithological publications. Boston. Estes and Lauriat.

Coues, E.C. 1884. Key to North American birds. Containing a concise account of every species of living and fossil bird at present know from the continent north of the Mexican and United States boundary, inclusive of Greenland. Second edition, revised to date and entirely rewritten: with which are incorporated general ornithology: an outline of the structure and classification of birds; and field ornithology: A manual of collecting, preparing, and preserving birds. Boston. Estes and Lauriat.

Coues, E.C. 1887. Key to North American birds. Containing a concise account of every species of living and fossil bird at present know from the continent north of the Mexican and United States boundary, inclusive of Greenland and lower California, with which are incorporated general ornithology: an outline of the structure and classification of birds; and field ornithology: A manual of collecting, preparing, and preserving birds. The third edition, exhibiting the new nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union, and including descriptions of additional species, etc. Boston. Estes and Lauriat.

Coues, E.C. 1890. Key to North American birds. Containing a concise account of every species of living and fossil bird at present know from the continent north of the Mexican and United States boundary, inclusive of Greenland and lower California, with which are incorporated general ornithology: an outline of the structure and classification of birds; and field ornithology: A manual of collecting, preparing, and preserving birds. The fourth edition, exhibiting the new nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union, and including descriptions of additional species. Boston. Estes and Lauriat.

Dall, W. H. 1873. Notes on the avifauna of the Aleutian Islands, from Unalaska eastward. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., 5:25-35. Dall, W.H. 1874. Notes on the avifauna of the Aleutian Islands, especially those west of Unalaska. Proc. California Acad. Sci. 5: 270-281. Dall, W.H. and H.M. Bannister. 1869. List of the birds of Alaska, with biographical notes. Trans. Chicago Acad. Sci. 1, part 2:267-310. Davis, P . 2005. Identification and Natural History of the Red-faced Cormorant. Birding 37(6):638-648. Dement’ev, G. P ., and Gladkov, N. A. (eds.). 1951. Birds of the Soviet Union, vol 1. Translated from Russian in 1966 by A. Birron and Z. S.

Cole. Israel Progr. for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. (Originally published as Ptitsy Sovetskogo Soyuza. Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo, “Sovetskaya Nauka” Moskva.)

Dorst, J., and Mougin, J.-L. 1979. Order Pelecaniformes. Pp 155-193. in Check-list of birds of the world. V ol 1, 2nd ed. (E. Mayr and G.W. Cottrell, eds.). Mus. Comp. Zool. Cambridge, MA.

Fay, F . H., and Cade, T. J. 1959. An ecological analysis of the avifauna of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 63:73–150. Finsch, O. 1872. Abhandl. Nat. V et. Brem. III, p. 86. Fitzhugh (1983) in: Nelson, E.W. 1899 (1983). The Eskimo about the Bering Strait. Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American

Ethnology 1896 – 97. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press. (reprint of 1899 edition, with an introduction by W.W. Fitzhugh).

Friedmann, H. 1932. The birds of St. Lawrence Island, Bering Sea. U.S. Nat. Hist. Mus. Proc. 80(12):1-31. Friedmann, H. 1934a. Bird bones from Eskimo ruins on St. Lawrence Island. J. Washington Acad. Sci. 24:83-96. Friedmann, H. 1934b. Bird bones from old Eskimo ruins in Alaska. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 24(5): 230–237. Friedmann, H. 1934a. Bird bones from Eskimo ruins on St. Lawrence Island, Bering Sea. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 24: 83–96. Friedmann, H.1935a. Avian bones from prehistoric ruins on Kodiak Island, Alaska. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 25(1): 44–51. Friedmann, H.1935b. The birds of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci. 5: 13–54. Friedmann, H.1937. Bird bones from archeological sites in Alaska. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 27: 431–438. Friedmann, H.1941. Bird bones from Eskimo ruins at Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 31: 404–409. Gabrielson, I. N., and Lincoln, F. C. 1959. Birds of Alaska. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, PA, and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Gmelin, J. F., 1788. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae 13th edition. George Emanuel Beer, Leipzig, 4120 pp. Gould, J. 1844. Birds in: The Zoology of the Voyage of the H.M.S. Sulphur under the command of Captain Sir Edward Belcher, R.N., C.B.,

F.R.G.S., etc. during the years 1836-42 (Hinds, ed.). V ol I. Smith, Elder and Co, London. Gray , G.R. 1841. A list of the genera of birds with their synonyma and an indication of the typical species of each genus, 2nd ed. p. 101. Gray, G.R. 1845[a?]. Genera of Birds. British Museum, London. Gray, G.R. 1845[b?]. “The Genera of Birds comprising their genetic characteristics, a notice of the habits of each genus, and an extensive list of

species referenced to their several genera”, iii. Gray, G.R. 1855. Catalogue of the genera and subgenera of birds contained in the British Museum. London. Gray, G.R. 1871. Hand-list of genera and species of Birds, distinguishing those contained in the British Museum. 1869-71. London. 3 pt. 8vo. Hanna, G.D. 1916. Records of birds new to the Pribilof Islands including two new to North America. Auk 33(4): 400-403. Harrison, P . 1985. Seabirds: an identification guide (revised). Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. Hartert, E. 1912. Die Vögel der paläarktischen fauna. Systematische ubersicht der in Europa, Nord-Asien und der Mittelmeerregion

vorkommenden Vogel. Band 2. Friedlnder & Sohn, Berlin. Hartlaub, G. 1883. Beitrag zur Ornithologie von Alaska. Nach den Sammlungen und Noten von Dr. Arthur Krause und Dr. Aurel Krause. Jour. f.

Ornith., 31:257-286. Hatch, J. J., and D. V . Weseloh. 1999. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). In The Birds of North America, No. 441 (A. Poole

and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Hellmayr, C. E., and Conover, B. 1948a. Catalogue of birds of the Americas, part I, no. 2. Zool. Ser. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. 13 (publ. 615). Hemming, F . 1951. Date of publication of Pallas's “Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica”. Ibis 93:316-321.

Phil Davis


Henshaw, H.W. 1902. Birds of the Hawaiian Island being a complete list of the birds of the Hawaiian possessions with notes on their habitats. Thos. G. Thrum. Honolulu.

Henshaw, H.W. 1919-1920. Autobiographical Notes. The Condor [1919] 21(3):102-107, 21(4):165-171, 21(5):171-181, 21(6):217-222, [1920] 22(1):3-10, 22(2):55-60, 22(3):95-101.

Herman, S. 1884. Notes on Lanius Cristatus and L. Borealis, of Nelson's Birds of Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Auk 1(3):291-292. Hersey, F. Seymour. 1917. The present abundance of birds in the vicinity of Fort St. Michael, Alaska. Auk 34(2):147-159. Hobson, K. A. 1997. Pelagic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus ). In The birds of North America, no. 287 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Acad.

Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, PA, and Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, D.C. Hobson, K. A., and Driver, J. C. 1989. Archaeological evidence for use of the Strait of Georgia by marine birds. Ecology and status of marine and

shoreline birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia (K. V ermeer and R. W. Butler, eds.). Spec. Publ. Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa. Johnsgard, P . A. 1993. Cormorants, darters and pelicans of the world. Smithson. Inst. Press, Washington D.C. Kennedy, M., et al. 2000. The Phylogenetic Relationships of the Shags and Cormorants: Can Sequence Data Resolve a Disagreement between

Behavior and Morphology? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 17(3):345–359. Kenyon, K. W. 1961. Birds of Amchitka Island, Alaska. Auk 78: 305–326. Kenyon, K.W., and Brooks, J.W. 1960. Birds of Little Diomede Island, Alaska. Condor 62(6):457-463. Kessel, B. 1989. Birds of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. University of Alaska Press. Kessel, B., and Gibson, D. D. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds. Studies in Avian Biology 1:14. Kessel, B., and Gibson, D. D. 1994. A century of avifaunal change in Alaska. Pages 4-13 in J. R. Jehl, Jr ., and N. K. Johnson, editors. A century

of avifaunal change in western North America. Cooper Ornithological Society Studies in Avian Biology 15. 348 pp. Kittlitz, F.H. von 1832. Kupfertafeln zur Naturgeschichte der Vögel: 1. 1-8.— Frankfurt am Main. Kittlitz, F.H. von 1858. Denkwurdigkeiten einer reise nach dem russischen Amerika, nach Mikronesien und durch Kamtschatka. Justus Perthes,

Gotha. 2 vols. Kondratyek, Alexander Ya, et al. (eds). 2000. Seabirds of the Russian Far East. Canadian Wildlife Service. Special Publication. Ottawa, Ontario. Latham, J. 1785. A General Synopsis of Birds, B.White, London. Latham, J. 1790. Index ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiæ; complectens avium divisionem in classes, ordines, genera, species, ipsarumque

varietates: adjectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, & c.: 1. i-xviii, 1-500.— London. Lawrence, G.N. 1858. In Birds (B. F. Baird, J. Cassin, and G. N. Lawrence, Eds.). U.S. War Dept. Rept. Explor. Surv. R. R. Pac. 9(2). Linnaeus C. 1735. Systema Naturae, sive Regna tria Naturae systematice proposita per Classes, Ordines, Genera, & Species . Macoun, J. 1900. Catalogue of Canadian birds. Part 1. Water birds, gallinaceous birds, and pigeons. Geological Survey of Canada. 218 pp Macoun, J., and J.M. Macoun. 1909. Catalogue of Canadian birds. Geological Survey Branch, Canada Department of Mines, Ottawa. 761 pp. Michael, H. (Ed.). 1967. Lieutenant Zagoskin's Travels in Russian America 1842-1844: the First Ethnographic and Geographic Investigations in

the Yukon and Kuskokwim Valleys of Alaska. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [First published in Russia 1847 and 1848. This volume was translated into English from a 1956 Russian edition]

Murdoch, J. 1885. Notes to some species of birds attributed to Point Barrow, Alaska. Auk 2(2): 200-201. Muir, J. 1917. The cruise of the Corwin. Houghton, Mifflin Co., Boston. 303 pp. Murray, R. A. 1982. Analysis of artifacts from four Duke Point area sites near Nanaimo, B.C. Natl. Mus. Man. Merc. Ser. Archaeolog. Surv. Can.

Pap. no. 113. National Geographic Society. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 3rd edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. Nelson, E. W. 1880. An Afternoon in the Vicinity of St. Michael’s, Alaska. Bulletin of the Nuttal Ornithological Club 5:33-36. Cambridge, Mass. Nelson, E. W. 1883. Birds of the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Pp. 55–118 in Cruise of the Revenue-Steamer, Corwin, in Alaska and the N.

W. Arctic Ocean in 1881. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Nelson, E.W. 1884. The Ornithological Report in the “Cruise of the Corwin.” Auk 1(2):202-203. Nelson, E.W. 1885. Counter-“Notes on some species of birds attributed to Point Barrow, Alaska.” Auk 2(3):239-241. Nelson, E. W. 1887. Birds of Alaska with a partial bibliography of Alaskan ornithology. Pp. 19–226 in Report upon natural history collections

made in Alaska between the years 1877 and 1881 (H. W. Henshaw, ed.). Signal Service, U. S. Army, Arctic Ser. Publ. 3. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Nelson, E. W. 1932. Henry Wetherbee Henshaw—Naturalist. Auk 49(4):399-427. Nordenskjöld, A. E. 1886. The voyage of the V ega round Asia and Europe. Revised translation by A. Leslie. Macmillan and Co. London.

(Originally published in Swedish in 1879, first English edition translated by A. Leslie in 1881: The V oyage of the V ega round Asia and Europe; with a historical review of previous journeys along the north coast of the old world. London, Macmillan).

Ogilvie-Grant, W.R. 1898. in Sharpe Catalogue of the Plataleæ, Herodoiones, Steganopodes, Pygopodes, Alcæ, and Impennes in the collection of the British Museum [British Museum Catalogue of Birds], V ol XXVI, p. 358-360, part.

Ogilvie-Grant, W.R. 1899. in Sharpe et al."; British Museum Catalog of Birds. V ol XXVI. p. 358; Ogilvie-Grant, W.R. 1912. Further notes on the birds of the island of Formosa. Ibis (9)6(24):643-657. Olson, Storrs L. 2005. Correction of Erroneous Records of Cormorants from Archeological Sites in Alaska. The Condor 107(4):93-934. Palmén, J.A. 1887. Bidrag till kännedomen om sibiriska ishafskustens fogelfauna enligt V ega-expeditionens iakttagelser och samlingar. In:

Nordenskiöld, A.E., ed. V ega-expeditionens vetenskapliga iakttagelser. Vol. 5. Stockholm: Beijers förlag. 241 – 511. Pennant, T. 1785. Arctic zoology. V ol. 2., Class 2. Birds. Henry Hughs, London, England, UK. 586 pp., index, maps, and 163 pp. supplement. Pallas, P . S. 1811. Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica, sistens omnium Animalium in extenso Imperis Rossico et adjacentibu maribu, &c. Palmer, R. S. 1962. Handbook of North American birds. V ol. 1: loons through flamingos. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Portenko, L.A. 1981. Birds of the Chukchi Peninsula and Wrangel Island – V olume I. (Translated from Russian) Smithsonian Institution and the

National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 446pp. Amerind Publishing Company, New Dehli, India. (Original work published in 1972; Acad. Sci. USSR, Zool. Instit. Sci. Publishers, Leningrad.)

Preble & McAtee (1923) noted ; A biological survey of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska North American Fauna, 46, p. 1-255; Pyle, P ., and Howell, S. Identification Guide to North American Birds, Part 2. (in prep). Ridgway, R. 1880a. Revisions to the nomenclature of certain North American birds [March] Ridgway, R. 1880b. A Catalogue of the birds of North America. Procs. U.S. Nat. Mus., III (Aug 24-Sep 4, 1880) 163-246. Ridgway, R. 1881. Nomenclature of North American Birds chiefly contained in the United States National Museum. Government Printing Office.

Washington, D.C. Ridgway, R. 1881. Nomenclature of North American Birds chiefly contained in the United States National Museum . xxx.

Phil Davis


Rohwer, S., Filardi, C. E., Bostwick K. S., and Peterson A. T. 2000. A critical evaluation of Kenyon’s Shag (Phalacrocorax [Stictocarbo] kenyoni). Auk 117: 308–320.

Sealy, S. G., Fay, F. H., Bédard, J., and Udvardy, M. D. F. 1971. New records and zoogeographical notes on the birds of St. Lawrence Island, Bering Sea. Condor 73:322–336.

Seebohm, H. 1885. On the Cormorants of Japan and China. Ibis p.271. Seebohm, H. 1890. The birds of the Japanese empire. London: R. H. Porter. Schalow, H. J. F . 1891. J. F . Brandt: Uber die V ogelfauna der Aleuten, Kurilen und der russisch-amerikanischen Colonien Nach und

derhinterlassenen Notizen herausgegeben. Jour. fur Orn, 34(19): p. 265 Schalow, H. 1904. Fauna Arctica. Zusammenstellung der arktischen Tierformen. mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Spitzbergen - Gebietes auf

Grund der Ergebnisse der Deutschen Expedition in das Nördliche Eismeer im Jahre 1898.Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen herausgegeben von Dr. Fritz Römer und Dr. Fritz Schaudinn Band IV , Lieferung I. Die Vögel der Arktis. Gustav Fischer. Jena.

Sharpe, R. B. 1877. Catalogue of the Passiformes, or perching birds, in the collection of the Brit. Mus. p. xi (index). XXX. Sharpe, R. B. 1906. Birds, in: The History of the Collections Contained in the Natural History Departments of the British Museum. V ol. 2, pp.

79-115. British Museum, London. Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knoph, New York. Siegel-Causey, D., Lefévre, C., and Savinetskii, A. B. 1991. Historical biodiversity of cormorants and shags from Amchitka I., Alaska. Condor

93: 840–852. Stejneger, L. 1884. Analecta Ornithologica. Auk 1(2):166-173. Stejneger, L. 1885. Results of ornithological explorations in the Commander Islands and in Kamschatka. Bulletin of U.S. National Museum,

volume 29 Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Stejneger, L. 1888. Palmén’ s Contributions to the Knowledge of the Bird Fauna of the Siberian Coasts of the Arctic Sea . The Auk 5(3):306-311. Stejneger, L. 1891. Seebohm's Birds of the Japanese Empire. The Auk 8(1):99-101. Stone, W. 1919. Editions of Baird, Cassin and Lawrence’s ‘Birds of North America.’ The Auk 36(3):428-430. Swarth, H.S. 1923. Publications reviewed: Bent's Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans. Condor 25(1):35. Swinhoe, R. 1861. Jottings on Birds from My Amoy Journal. Swinhoe, R. 1863. "Catalogue of the birds of China, with remarks principally on their geographical distribution." Proceedings of the Zoological

Society of London (1863): 259-339. Swinhoe, R. 1863. The ornithology of Formosa, or Taiwan. Ibis 5 (1863): 198-219, 250-311, 377-435. Swinhoe, R. 1867. ??. Swinhoe, R. 1871. "A revised catalogue of the birds of China and its islands, with descriptions of new species, references to former notes, and

occasional remarks." Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (May 1871): 337-423. Swinhoe, R. 1874. Birds from Hokodadi, Ibis 1874: 150-166. Taczanowski, L., 1876. [Translate – German] V erzeichniss der Vögel, welche durch die Herren Dr. Dybowski und Godlewski im südlichen

Ussuri-Lande, und namentlich an den Küsten des Japanischen Meeres unter 43° n. Br. gesammelt und beobachtet worden sind. Journal of Ornithology 24(2):189-203.

Taczanowski, W. 1877. Die Systematik der Tiere. ?? Taczanowski, W. 1877. Faune de la Sibérie Orientale . Bull. Soc. Zool., France 1(2): 157-183. [11(2)?] [missing] Taczanowski, W. 1877. Revue critique de la faune ornithologique de la Sibérie Orientale (5th article). Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 11(2):40-52. Taczanowski, W. 1883. Liste Supplémentaire des oiseaux recueillis par le dr . Dybowski au Kamchatka et aux Iles Comandores. Bulletin de la

Societe Zoologique De France. p. 341. 342 Taczanowski, W. 1893. Fauna ornithologique de la Siberie Orientale. Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersborg 39 :685-1278. Temminck, C.J. and H. Schlegel. 1850. Fauna Japonica. Aves: 1-141.— Lugduni Batavorum. ?? in Siebold, Fauna Japonica: Mammalia &

Reptilia, Aves, Pisces & Crustacea 1832-50. Thayer, J.E., and Bangs, O. 1914. Notes on the Birds and Mammals of the Arctic Coast of East Siberia. Birds. Proceedings of the New England

Zoological Club. Tobish, T.G. 2002. Alaska region. North American Birds 56:343–345. Turner, L. M. 1883. Notes of the birds of the Nearer Islands, Alaska. Auk 2(2):154-159. Turner, L. M. 1886. Birds, Part V . Pp. in Contributions to the natural history of Alaska Results of Investigations Made Chiefly in the Yukon

District and the Aleutian Islands; Conducted under the Auspices of the Signal Service, United States Army, Extending from May 1874, to August 1881, no. II. Arctic Series, Signal Service, U.S. Army. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Van Tets, G. F . 1974. Australasia and the origin of shags and cormorants, Phalacrocoracidae. Pp. 121-124, in: Proc. 16th Inter. Ornith. Congr., Canberra, Australia, 1974.

Wetmore, A., and Miller, D. 1926. The Revised Classification for the Fourth Edition of the A.O.U. Check-list. The Auk 43(3):337-346. Whitely, H. 1867. Notes on Birds collected near Hakodadi. Ibis, p. 211. Willett, G. 1923. Comments on two recent numbers of Bent’s Life Histories of North American bird. Condor 25(2):25-27. Zagoskin, L.A. 1847/1967. Lieutenant Zagoskin’s Travels in Russian American, 1842-1844. Edited by H.N. Michael. The Arctic Institute of

North America. University of Toronto Press.

Documents

Brisson Ornithologie