Author Institution: The Ohio Historical Society: The American Museum of Natural Histor

Farrand, John, Jr.

Murphy, James L., 1941-

The Ohio Journal of Science

KnowledgeBank at OSU

Copyright © 1979 Ohio Acad. Sci. 0030-0950/79/0001-0022$! .00/0BRIEF NOTEPREHISTORIC OCCURRENCE OF THE IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER{CAMPEPHILUS PRINCIPALS), MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIOJAMES L. MURPHY, The Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, OH 43211JOHN FARRAND, JR., The American Museum of Natural History, Central Park Westat 79th Street, New York, NY 10024OHIO J. SCI. 79(1): 22, 1979The right tarsometatarsus of an ivory-billed woodpecker has been recoveredfrom a Late Prehistoric village site on thewest bank of the Muskingum River nearPhilo, Muskingum County, Ohio. TheFort Ancient component at this site hasbeen radiocarbon-dated at A.D. 1170-1320 (Gartley, Carskadden and Morton1976), and a large osteological sample hasbeen analyzed previously (Shane andBarber 1976). The Campephilus tar-sometatarsus occurs in a second osteo-logical sample being analyzed by thesenior author.Only three Campephilus records areknown from Ohio, all occurring in osteo-logical material retrieved from prehistoricIndian sites of southern Ohio, specifically:a tarsometatarsus from the Cramer site,Ross Co. (McPherson 1951), and atarsometatarsus and premaxilla from theFeurt site, Scioto Co. (Wetmore 1943,McPherson 1950). The Philo II site oc-currence represents a significant exten-sion of the known prehistoric range ofthis extinct woodpecker in Ohio.The Philo II tarsometatarsus (figs. 1-4)is in an excellent state of preservationand is readily recognizable as that of amember of the Order Piciformes by thestriking modification of the trochlea forDigit IV, in which this trochlea is greatlyenlarged and twisted posteriorly (fig. 3).It is clearly that of a woodpecker byvirtue of the fact that the hypotarsus issomewhat flattened and is not as promi-nent or as produced posteriorly as inother families in this order. Size aloneidentifies it as an ivory-bill's metatarsus.The junior author has compared the speci-men directly with Campephilus materialpreserved in the American Museum ofNatural History collections and confirmsthe identification. The specimen hasbeen donated to the American Museumof Natural History (AMNH 11016).Note received 28 July 1977 and in revisedform 22 June 1978 (#77-55).FIGURES 1-4. 1. Anterior, 2. proximal, 3. dis-tal, and 4. posterior views of right tarsometa-tarsus of Campephilus principalis. Length 46.3mm. maximum proximal diameter 10.6 mm;maximum distal diameter 9.1 mm.Some question might be raised as towhether this constitutes an actual rangeextension of the ivory-billed woodpeckeror whether it might not be an instance ofIndian trade. Audubon (1831) notesthat "its rich scalp attached to the uppermandible forms an ornament for the war-Ohio J. Sci. PREHISTORIC CAMPEPHILUS FROM OHIO 23dress of most of our Indians, or for theshot-pouch of our squatters and hunters,by all of whom the bird is shot merely forthis purpose," and that he has seen "en-tire belts of Indian chiefs chiefly orna-mented with the tufts and bills of thisspecies . . ." Likewise, Catesby (1731)reported that "The bills of these birdsare much valued by the Canadian In-dians, who make coronets of 'em fortheir princes and great warriors by fixingthem round a wreath, with their pointsoutward. The Northern Indians havingnone of these birds in their cold countrypurchase them of the Southern people atthe price of two and sometimes threebuckskins a bill."Parmalee (1958) has commented uponthis factor in the distribution of pre-historic ivory-billed woodpecker remainsin Illinois. Although the occurrence ofmandibles, skulls, or wing elements mustbe regarded with caution, it is very prob-able that leg elements such as the tar-sometatarsus may be accepted as evi-dence of the natural occurrence of thebird. It is unlikely that the entire car-cass of such a large bird would be carriedfar from the kill site. Wetmore (1943)reached the same conclusion in regard tothe Scioto County occurrence. The PhiloII specimen extends the known range ofthe ivory-bill some 65 miles to thenortheast of the nearest previously knownoccurrence.LITERATURE CITEDAudubon, J. J. 1831 Ornithological Biog-raphy. Philadelphia, Judah Dobson.Catesby, Mark 1731 The Natural History ofCarolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands.Innys and Manby, London.Gartley, R., J. Carskadden and J. Morton1976 Ceramics from the Philo II Site. Penn.Archaeol. 46: 55-75.McPherson, H. L. 1950 The ivory billedpecker in Ohio. Ohio Indian Relic CollectorsSoc, Bull. No. 24: 12-14.1951 Another ivory-billed woodpeckerrecord. Ohio Archaeol. 1: 39-40.Parmalee, P. W. 1958 Remains of Rare andExtinct Birds from Illinois Indian Sites.Auk 75: 169-76.Shane, O. C , III and M. C. Barber 1976 APreliminary Analysis of Vertebrate FaunalRemains from the Philo II Site, MuskingumCounty, Ohio. Penn. Archaeol. 46: 1-6.Wetmore, Alexander 1943 Evidence of theFormer Occurrence of the Ivory-Billed Wood-pecker in Ohio. Wilson Bull. 55: 55, 1943.

Brief Note  Prehistoric Occurrence of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (Campephilus Principalis), Muskingum County, Ohio

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/22589/1/V079N1_022.pdf

Brief Note Prehistoric Occurrence of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (Campephilus Principalis), Muskingum County, Ohio

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU