Talk:Passenger Pigeon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Passenger Pigeon is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
Passenger Pigeon is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Quarter Million In Single Day?

Do we have any citations for the line about the fact that the last 250,000 pidgeons were killed in a single day? I just don't see how its possible to kill ALL birds in a flock in one day.68.124.183.219 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the story about the boy who shot the last passenger pigeon seems a myth to me. -- SG

[edit] Name

Does anyone know (and care to infrom us) why exactly it is called the Passenger Pigeon? -- Steve

As migratory birds of passage. Wetman 18:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aren't migratory and passage redundant together? Are other pigeons migratory? Also, not all migratory birds are called "Passenger". Why then the Passenger Pigeon? Hackwrench 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I had heard that they mated in flight, hence the male was a "passenger". Is this true ? StuRat 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Birds are technically unable to mate and at the same time keep their balance in flight (because they have to twist their tails to one side. Except the hihi which likes it the missionary way, but they still do that on the ground, which is a major drawback if cats are around). Dysmorodrepanis 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deforestation Led To Great Numbers?

I read (somewhere) that the passenger pigeons only grew to such enormous numbers after white men came to North America and began cutting down the forests (something about better breeding grounds.) I don't know the details, does anyone? Zoe

It was in the few scattered remains of the forests that the very last flocks were exterminated. Ecologically, the replacement of forest by agriculture is loosely akin to extending prairie at the expense of forest. Wetman 18:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have not heard that before, but I have never looked into the passenger pigeon in any detail. On the face of things, though, the suggestion has plausibility, at least if one reasons by analogy with some Australia birds (with which I am more familiar) that have become very much more numerous since European settlement: the galah, the budgie, several other parrot-family birds, the silver gull, and the magpie are examples. I think some of the inland pigeons are too, but I'd have to check that. Budgies form huge flocks - though doubtless much smaller than those of the passenger pigeon. The causes of the Oz increases are (a) increase in grass & croplands instead of forest, (b) availability of permanent water in the red centre, (c) human interference with predator species such as the peregrine falcon. Still, broadly speaking, the increases in the Australian species I've mentioned are a matter of degree: they were all very common birds before the Europeans arrived, and the main effect seems to have been an increase in their range, rather than of their density within an existing range. Tannin
Re: Zoe -The Passenger Pigeon declined rapidly when European settlers cut down the majestic old-growth stands of oak trees that covered much of the eastern U.S.: it did not grow to enormous numbers when they were cut, it precipitated their decline. Acorns provided an important staple of the Passenger Pigeon's diet, and the oak trees gave them nesting places for their colonies. The loss of acorns as forage food also drove their extinction, not just hunting for food. Any Passenger Pigeon article is incomplete without detailing thier relationship with American oak forests. --208.31.88.136 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Zoe - In Chapter 10 of Charles C. Mann's 1491, he puts forward arguments that the Passenger Pigeon was not so common in Pre-Columbian times. The reasoning seems to be that when the Indian population plummetted in the wake of imported diseases, the pigeons had less competition for their food and underwent a population boom. Mann also argues that there would have been an increase in forest/wilderness from the 16th to early 19th centuries due to Indian population decline. Large scale European expansion into the interior only really occurred after this period and coincided with Passenger Pigeon decline. Rwestera 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Is there some good reason why passenger pigeon is capitalized here? Vague Rant 07:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, bird species are always capitalised on Wikipedia, with a lower case redirect. This a long standing convention and is in line with much current practice, especially, but not exclusively, outside N America. There are probably about 2000 bird species' articles on Wikipedia, all are capitalised. jimfbleak 14:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clone the poor thing already!

Couldn't someone take a feather from the stuffed bird, extract the DNA, and clone it? Wouldn't that be monumental? Wadsworth 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Feathers are like hair, composed of dead cells. In spite of fictional treatments, material from hair or feathers can't be cloned due to the actual nature of cloning. More likely if some bones that still have marrow could be found, or if the specimens still have muscle material. Realize though that cloning technology still hasn't reached the point of resurecting a whole bird or mammal from such specialized DNA. CFLeon 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Shoot! I wish they could...:( --Mitternacht90 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Not the least problem is how to get any cloned DNA inside an egg... Dysmorodrepanis 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

well w'ell have to wait until weve mastered cloning.....or....TIME TRAVEL!!!Yah Har!!!Joxernolan 01:22 21 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.234.149 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help please

i have a question how did the arival of the europeans efect the poupltion of passengers pigions in canda???????????? -- (from Jake)

Europeans shot them all, so I suppose that had some effect on their extinction. :-) StuRat 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not what the article says; read it a little more carefully. The Passenger Pigeon was no more numerous than other North American birds until the coming of the Europeans, who brought new diseases with them that decimated some Native American populations. Because the Native Americans who controlled their numbers through hunting were suddenly less numerous in some areas, the Pigeon population exploded. The vast numbers encouraged expansive hunting, which evolved into commercial hunting, which led to the decline and extinction of the species. Jake's question was "how did the arival of the europeans efect the poupltion" (sic), and the answer is the arrival of the Europeans affected the population by reducing human predation leading to a population explosion, not that "they shot them all". The extinction was a result of commercial overhunting, not a result of the arrival of the Europeans. 12.22.250.4 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I really find the statement "The species had not been common in the Pre-Columbian period, until the devastation of the American Indian population by European diseases" doesn't belong in this article, It's kind of confusing to say the least and I suspect it's just an attempt to inject the plight of the American Indian in an article about Passenger pigeons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.19 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology

Well, there are some refs (and more will be upcoming maybe) on prehistoric PP finds, BUT this begs a major question: what happened to the roosts? I mean, they must have been massive! Does anybody known of any research regarding former roost sites? All that I know is that prehistoric finds (subfossils and fossils) of PPs are so rare it's really shocking. There must be entire mounds of bones around - but where? Us this species something that had a fringe existence until humans (Native Americans in this case) started to modify the landscape, providing it with habitat? When did it evolve its unique lifestyle? Questions over questions - for such an emblematic bird, astoundingly little certain is known about its life history! Dysmorodrepanis 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population

If there was a population of 5 billion, and a flock of 2 billion, was almost half of the population really in one flock? Philc TECI 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think that's a bit hard to swallow. AOB 14:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One book had a quite precise figure of 2,230,272,000 birds for said flock. I've no idea how reliable this is considered nowadays. The breeding range appears quite small compared to the total population, so the idea of a single flock having a great portion of the total population doesn't seem completely implausible. One has to wonder the accuracy of 19th century estimates of such magnitude, however. I've seen the total population given as high as 9,000 million, but more commonly at 3,000 to 5,000 million. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it just me or does anyone else find the name of the parasites on the CO-EXTINCTION area to be really fake

"Columbicola extinctus" LOL extinctus sounds like made up latin and if it isn't made up it would have had to already been extinct before scientists discovered it in order for it to be named that, which just doesnt seem very logical to me

without citations i think it should be deleted [unsigned]

Does this count as a good citation? SeanAhern 16:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the IP was talking about the name of the speices -- and to that, all I can say is that, you know, English is partly and inheriotr of Latin, so just because a word looks and awful lot like the English equivalent doesn't mean it's made-up. \sim Lenoxus " * " 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"extinctus" isn't made-up Latin: the English "extinct" comes directly from Latin "extinctus", explaining the similarity. it sounds odd for it to have already been extinct before its discovery but i'm guessing that's how it happened; they maybe deduced its existence from its relationship with the pigeon (as it were) – tomasz. 20:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the name is very correct! And citations of articles which include the name are correctly cited in the article. Peter Maas\talk 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size, mass, coloration

Why is there nothing in the entry about the average size of the Passenger Pigeon, its wingspan, observed colorations, etc? There's nothing in the article, at this time, that explains what distinguished them from the modern common pigeons we're familiar with, other than that they were hunted to extinction. I've heard that they were much larger birds, but there's nothing in this entry that verifies or refutes that, and I'm really very surprised because those seem like they should be basic starter facts for an article like this. -- Lara

Well there's a good chance citations of this nature don't exist, it didn't go extinct in 1996, 'recently extinct' is a broad term after all. So there wasn't really ever extreamly detailed studise
There is voluminous information on the Passenger Pigeon in the ornithological literature, including measurements from specimens--somebody just needs to add it. This has been on my "to do" list for a while, just like a lot of things. I'll try to make some additions in the next few days, but that should not stop anyone else with access to good information! --Cotinis 14:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has any DNA been recovered?

Just wondering. Esn 07:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See above secion. \sim Lenoxus " * " 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With all the Stuffed birds still around I belive there must be DNA. I really think the problem is the number of birds it would take to form a colony (many thousands)capable of surviving. In the late 19th century Passenger Pigeon were protected in most places but flocks with thousands of birds still died out because many for than that are needed to survive in a colony. Besides I can't imagine our sky's today filled with endless flocks of 100's of millons of birds. What with air travel, and I couldn't imagine the health problem the droppings of a 100 millon birds would cause. Also there is no habitat for a millon bird colony anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.19 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

In reading the article I was struck by how the lead never gave any reasons for the decline. I embarked on some minor edits and ended up doing quite a large reorganization - and reading many of the references. Hope it is to the liking of the regular editors of this page.

[edit] Newcastle Disease Link

I found a reference to Newcastle disease and passenger pigeons on two pages at nationalzoo.si.edu, but no direct link. I have inserted a small parag on this; it would be nice if someone can verify / expand on it.

[edit] Last Sighting Edit

There is a commented out part in the middle of the article on the last sightings in Arkansas and louisiana. I think these add some drama to the article. I found the source of the Dury quote and inserted it. Perhaps the other two could also be sourced, and at least referred to in a more compact way. mukerjee (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rarity before 1492

Footnote added on 2 August 2007, with reference is:

"Prior to 1492, this was a rare species." Mann, Charles C. [2005-08-12]. "The Artificial Wilderness", 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 315–8. ISBN 1-4000-4006-X.

I don't doubt the validity of the reference to the statement, but the validity of the statement itself. There has been a fair amount written about the abundance of the Passenger Pigeon in the very early colonial period, which was really before the massive die-off of Native American populations, I believe. Peter Matthiessen, in Wildlife in America (1987 Viking edition), page 56, says that Jacques Cartier (voyages to New World 1534-1542) had been "struck by its abundance" and that Champlain "slaughtered quantities on the coastal islands in his early trips to New France" (circa 1613). In particular, the early observations of Cartier do not square with the bird being rare before 1492--it was only about 40 years after Columbus that he found the bird abundant. I just don't think it is plausible that the bird went from "rare" to abundant in 40 years. Furthermore, I believe Native American populations were fine at that point. The devastating smallpox epidemics occurred starting in 1520 in Mexico and not until 1617 in northeastern North America. (This review of Mann's book talks about a big epidemic in 1620 in Massachussetts.)

I believe, too, that the bones of Passenger Pigeons are fairly common in archeological sites going back way before European colonization, indicating that the bird was abundant and exploited. (A rare species does not get hunted much--it is not worth the trouble.) I'll have to try to find that reference. (Yes, I see references on the Internet stating that Passenger Pigeon remains are not common in midden sites--such as the review of Mann's book above, but other references say that they are, such as this one describing sites in North Carolina.)

I've not read Mann's book, and I'm sure he has many good points about ecological effects of Native American populations. I agree wholeheartedly that Native Americans must have have huge ecological effects in the Pre-Columbian era. For instance, it is believed American Bison moved east in the 17th and 18th centuries concurrent with the die-off of Native Americans in the east, and I'm sure Mann talks about that. However, I think the statement that the Passenger Pigeon was "rare" before 1492 is, basically, incorrect. --Cotinis 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Mann says:
Given passenger pigeons' Brobdignagian appetites for mast and maize, one would expect that Indians would also have hunted them and wanted to keep down their numbers. Thus their bones should be plentiful at archaeological sites. Instead, [Thomas W.] Neumann told me, "they almost aren't there — it looks like people just didn't eat them." Pigeons, roosting en masse, were easy to harvest, as the Seneca hunt [in 1782] showed. "If they are so easy to hunt, and you expect people to minimize labor and maximize return, you should have archaeological sites just filled with these things. Well, you don't." To Neumann, the conclusion was obvious: passenger pigeons were not as numerous before Columbus. "What happened was that the impact of European contact altered the ecological dynamics in such a way that the passenger pigeon took off." The avian throngs Audubon saw wee "outbreak populations — always a symptom of an extraordinarily disrupted ecological system."
Intrigued by Neumann's arguments, William I. Woods, [no relation to me] the Cahokia researcher, and Bernd Herrmann, an environmental historian at the University of Göttingen, surveyed six archaeological studies of diets at Cahokia and places nearby. All were not far from the site of the huge pigeon roost that Audubon visited. The studies examined household food trash and found tht traces of passenger pigeon were rare. Given that Cahokians consumed "almost every other animal protein source," Herrmann and Woods wrote, "one must conclude that the passenger pigeon was simply not available for exploitation in significant numbers."
Some archaeologists have criticized these conclusions on the grounds that passenger pigeon bones would not be likely to be preserved. If so, their absence would reveal nothing about whether Indians ate the species. But all six Cahokia projects found plenty of bird bones, and even some tiny bones from fish; one turned up 9,053 bones from 72 bird species. "They found a few passenger pigeon bones, but only a few," Woods told me. "Now, these were hungry people who were very interested in acquiring protein. The simplest explanation for the lack of passenger pigeons bones is a lack of passenger pigeons. Prior to 1492, this was a rare species."
Maybe there was regional variation, with the birds more common in the northeast than in the more-densely populated area around Cahokia? And Cahokia was abandoned in the fourteenth century, so the story may be more complicated.
The North Carolina webpage seems unclear. Under Zooarchaeological Remains, it says,
"Thirty-nine taxa of birds have been identified in collections from North Carolina archaeological sites. Many of these were of economic importance. Among these are ... the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), all species that could be obtained in large numbers."
But under Chronological Patterning, it says
"We have no identified remains of birds from contexts older than the Middle Woodland period, and we have only four taxa that have been identified in Middle Woodland contexts: ... passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo).
We have relatively few birds identified from Mississippian contexts. The identified taxa include the turkey, but surprisingly not migratory waterfowl or the passenger pigeon. Birds are also poorly represented in Protohistoric and Contact period sites from the Piedmont region. One species of duck (the lesser scaup [Aytha affinis]), the passenger pigeon, turkey, flicker (Colaptes auratus), and cardinal (Richmondena cardinalis) have been identified from late sites in the Piedmont." —wwoods 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, lots of fascinating research. Sorry if I was a bit unclear in my comments above. I'll see if I can dig up some more accounts of the early colonial period. I recall seeing one that mentioned they were a staple food of the first European colonists, but I'm not sure of the exact time period. I guess my main quibble is the term "rare". I don't have any problem with the idea that the bird became more abundant with the post-Columbian ecological changes, but the earliest European accounts from the northeast mention them as common. (The upper Midwest was not explored by Europeans for some time, so I guess there are no accounts from say, the 16th century for that area.) The archeology, I think, is tricky to interpret and not that consistent, as your thorough research shows. I'll add a note here if I find anything significant. --Cotinis 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stool pigeon

This item in the "Popular culture" section is suspect:

The term "stool pigeon" was first coined when passenger pigeons were captured, had their eyelids sewn shut, and were tied to stools. The birds sitting on the stools would be used as live decoys so pigeon hunters would have an easier shot at their quarry. Today, it is a term used for an unscrupulous person giving information about someone's misbehavior or illegal activity.

The citation given does include this info, but only as one of several possible etymologies, and there is the subtle implication is that this particular one is spurious. Should this item be deleted, or should all of the other given etymologies be added? As it is, it's essentially a misquotation of the cited source because it includes only one of several unconfirmed definitions, yet presents it as truth and disregards the other possibilities. 12.22.250.4 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)