Category: Meeting Minutes

This meeting and presentation took place entirely online via Zoom.

At 7:00 pm, Past President Ken Chaya called the Society meeting to order.

Ken made the following announcements:

• He welcomed all to the meeting.
• He welcomed the new members to the Linnaean Society:
  • Amy Chai
  • Catherine Crean
  • Jordan Douglas
  • Sheila Martin
  • Maria Mercurio
  • Judith Schechter
  • Laurel Nadler
  • Benjamin Smith
  • Jeffrey Train
  • Joe Zimmerman
• He invited all who are not members to join, explaining that membership information and directions for joining are on the Society’s website.
• The Tuesday morning spring migration walks in Central Park have begun. In addition to the Central Park walks, there are many other scheduled field trips. Ken invited everyone to visit the Society’s website for the listings and registration.
• The Great Gull Island birdathon is being held on May 10-11. It is a fundraiser event run by the Society in support of the study and protection of nesting Roseate and Common Tern colonies on this very special island. Information about participation in the birdathon is on the Society’s website.

At 7:03 pm, Ken turned to the lecture program and introduced the night’s speaker, Dr. Anurag Agrawal, James Perkins Professor of Environmental Studies at Cornell University in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the Department of Entomology.

Lecture: “Convergence and Divergence in the Diversity of Insects Feeding on a Toxic Plant,” presented by Dr. Anurag Agrawal

Tonight’s lecture was a captivating presentation on milkweeds, monarch butterflies, and the conservation of this iconic butterfly species.

Starting with a description of the monarch butterfly, Dr. Agrawal explained that like all members of the Lepidoptera (an order of winged insects that includes butterflies and moths), it goes through a two-stage transformation from the caterpillar stage (a “feeding machine”) to the butterfly stage (the adult, more mobile, mating phase). In addition, the vast majority of the monarch species undertake an extraordinary migratory journey from central Mexico to the northeast United States and southeast Canada, and back again. (Some population pockets elsewhere do not migrate). Using a circular graphical representation, Dr. Agrawal described the annual cycle of the monarch’s migration. As we are currently in April, he started with that point on the wheel. The monarchs have left their overwintering sites and are reaching the southern United States, where they mate and the females lay eggs, starting the first generation. Each generation goes through four life stages: 1) egg, 2) larva (caterpillar), 3) pupa (chrysalis), and 4) adult (butterfly). The butterflies of this first generation will continue to fly north, mating and laying eggs from which the next (second) generation begins. This process repeats for a total of three to four generations. With the exception of the final generation, the adult butterflies live for about one month. As the fall season approaches, the final generation, receiving environmental cues of shorter daylight, cooler nights, and dried milkweed leaves, will go into reproductive diapause. Their wings and wing muscles will be smaller than those of the previous generations, their reproductive organs will not develop, and their flight direction will turn south. Travelling at a rate of 30 to 50 miles per day over distances of 1,500 to 3,000 miles, they will reach their overwintering sites in forested mountains around 30 miles from Mexico City. They will spend the next eight months, fairly dormant, perched primarily on oyamel fir trees, at an elevation of 10,000 feet. Warmer temperatures and lengthening daylight cue them to begin their journey north, starting the cycle over again with a new first generation.

Dr. Agrawal explained that the only host plants of the monarchs are the milkweeds (genus Asclepias), and that milkweed and monarchs have coevolved. Milkweed has developed defenses with physical barriers such as trichomes (leaf hairs) that help protect the leaves from being eaten, and chemical toxins such as cardiac glycosides that are present in the latex of the plants. Monarchs have coevolved with genetics and strategies to overcome the physical barriers of the plant and to survive the toxic effects of the cardiac glycosides. Dr. Agrawal showed a photo of a monarch larva excavating a milkweed leaf to form a trichome-free area for feeding, and photos of examples of toxic-free zones where monarch larvae had chewed leaf veins, thereby stopping the toxic latex flow. That’s not to say that all monarch larvae survive this tactic—30 to 40% are poisoned and die—but the remaining ones not only survive the poison, they pack it away into their bodies and ultimately into their wings as a defense against their own predators. He gave the example of the Blue Jay, a bird that learns that eating a monarch will result in vomiting soon after—12 minutes, in fact—as reproducibly demonstrated in experiments by Lincoln Brower, a researcher well known for his work on monarch butterflies and his “barfing Blue Jays.” During the Q&A session we learned that there are other birds, however, that have adapted to successfully eat monarch butterflies, one being the Black-headed Grosbeak.

Dr. Agrawal devoted the final section of his talk to the conservation of monarch butterflies. He stated outright, “Folks, any way you slice it, monarch butterflies are declining,” and then he presented a chart showing census data of wintering monarchs in Mexico from the early 1990s to the present. The trend tracks downward until around 2015, after which it levels off, suggesting, at least for now, a stabilization of the population. Nevertheless, population decline is concerning, and understanding the reasons for the decline are critical to protecting the monarchs. Dr. Agrawal provided five lessons from his ongoing research and evaluation of the scientific literature:

1. The importance of butterfly loss (disjunction) during the migration from the northern breeding regions to the overwintering ones is not fully understood. Habitat loss, lack of nectar plants, and lethal collisions with vehicles are among some of the possible factors.
2. The monarch butterfly population fluctuates broadly and appears to be strongly influenced by regional climate from year-to-year.
3. Parasites and predators play a large role in monarch populations and have links to their decline.
4. Sublethal effects of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides are impacting monarch populations.
5. Planting native milkweeds has positive benefits, but data analysis has shown that milkweed availability is not a limiting factor, and this approach will not solve monarch population decline.

He emphasized that the decline of monarch butterflies is part of a much larger problem that is impacting many long distance migrating species.

Dr. Agrawal concluded by acknowledging the generous publicly-funded support that he has received through the National Science Foundation over the past twenty years. He noted that the National Science Foundation has been a critical fuel for the greatness of American science, and he hopes that it will continue.

At 7:51 pm, Vice President of Programming Karen Becker thanked Dr. Agrawal for an utterly fascinating talk. She then hosted the Q&A session, which covered many subjects, ranging from how the monarchs navigate to considerations about conservation, and more.

At the conclusion of the Q&A, Karen Becker thanked Dr. Agrawal again, and Ken Chaya returned to thank Dr. Agrawal for a wonderful talk. At 8:21 pm the meeting was adjourned.

Dr. Agrawal’s presentation and the Q&A session have been recorded in their entirety, along with Past President Ken Chaya’s opening meeting remarks. The recording is available for viewing on the Linnaean Society of New York website under the dropdown menu: Programs/Watch/ and on the Society’s YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/@linnaeanny/videos

Respectfully submitted by Lisa Kroop, Recording Secretary

This meeting and presentation took place entirely online via Zoom. 

At 7:00 pm, President Debbie Mullins called the Society meeting to order. 

President Mullins made the following announcements:

She welcomed all to the first membership meeting of 2025.

She announced that the 147^th annual meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 11, at the Liederkranz Club on East 87^thStreet. The Eisenmann Medal, the Society’s highest honor, will be presented to Dr. Brian Watts, and he will give the keynote address, Eagles of the Chesapeake.

President Mullins noted that the annual meeting is only open to dues-paying members. Those who have forgotten to pay their fall dues can pay now and will be able to attend the meeting. She also encouraged non-members to join the Society, and come to the meeting, and remarked that the annual meetings are fun. The membership application is on the Linnaean website at linnaeannewyork.org under Members/Join.

There will be a raffle and a silent auction to defray the costs of the meeting. Donations are welcome, either objects, or volunteering to lead an activity such as a guided bird walk.

President Mullins provided an update on the New York State Horseshoe Crab Protection Act. Unfortunately, Governor Hochul vetoed the legislation over concerns about harming the commercial fishing industry in New York. The State Department of Environmental Conservation will continue to monitor and manage the horseshoe crab to protect the species. 

President Mullins welcomed the following new Linnaean Society members:

• Michelle Davis
• Victoria Embuscado
• Edward Gaillard
• Madeeha Hanif
• Brad Wells
• Robert Young
• Richard Zeman

At 7:02 pm, President Mullins turned to the lecture program and introduced the speaker, Dr. Liz Derryberry, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 

Lecture: “Non-parallel Behavioral Responses to Soundscape Perturbations during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” presented by Dr. Liz Derryberry

Dr. Derryberry did her doctoral work at Duke University on the cultural evolution of songs in White-crowned Sparrows, and she has continued to study this species for the past 25 years. In today’s lecture she described many attributes of the White-crowned Sparrow, including characteristics of its song, how it is a complex behavior (a phenotype), that both males and occasionally females sing, and that males sing for two main reasons: 1) to establish and protect territory; and 2) to attract females as potential mates. She also contrasted the singing of urban populations with rural ones, and described how background noise affects the way birds sing.

Dr. Derryberry explained how birdsong can provide quantitative data to address research questions, including two of particular interest to her: 1) how does the environment affect the evolution of song, and, 2) what are the functional consequences of song evolution? Today’s lecture focused on a subset of these questions by considering the anthropogenic effect of the COVID-19 shutdown on the song of the White-crowned Sparrow. 

Following is Dr. Derryberry’s abstract of her talk:

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented environmental perturbations—sometimes referred to collectively as the Anthropause—that have progressed rapidly and over broad spatial extents, affording novel quasi-experimental opportunities to measure outcomes of human-environment interactions. Here we evaluate the resilience of a common songbird to noise pollution by comparing soundscapes and songs across the San Francisco Bay Area prior to, during, and after the spring of 2020 statewide shutdown. Restrictions on human movement during the shutdown reduced noise pollution, relaxing auditory pressures on animals that communicate via sound. Birds quickly responded by producing wider bandwidth songs at lower amplitudes, effectively increasing signal efficacy and salience. In contrast, behavioral responses have lagged behind increasing noise levels as restrictions on human movement have loosened over time. Although song amplitude eventually returned to pre-pandemic levels, paralleling noise levels, birds have continued to produce wide bandwidth songs, with consequences for signal masking in noise. These findings illustrate that behavioral traits are slower to change in response to newly adverse conditions, indicating non-parallel responses to noise pollution removal and re-introduction.

At 7:43 pm, Vice President Doug Futuyma thanked Dr. Derryberry, saying that the White-crowned Sparrow is a fascinating species that has been studied a lot, and that Dr. Derryberry has made it even more so. He then hosted the Q&A session.

At the conclusion of the Q&A, Vice President Futuyma thanked Dr. Derryberry again, and at 8:13 pm the meeting was adjourned.

The presentation has been recorded in its entirety, including the Q&A session and the president’s opening remarks. The recording is available for viewing on the Linnaean Society of New York website under the dropdown menu: Programs/Watch/ and on the Society’s YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/@linnaeanny/videos

Respectfully submitted by Lisa Kroop, Recording Secretary

This meeting and presentation took place entirely online via Zoom.

At 7:00 pm, President Debbie Mullins called the Society meeting to order.

President Mullins made the following announcements:

The Christmas Bird Count begins this weekend; the Brooklyn count is Saturday and the New York County count is Sunday. Registration is required; the form to register can be found on the New York City Bird Alliance website. For counties outside of New York City, information can be found on the New York State Ornithological Association website, nysoa.org.

Governor Hochul still has not signed the New York State Horseshoe Crab Protection Act, and there are only a few days left to do so. The bill puts forth measures to help protect horseshoe crabs, whose numbers have dropped to unhealthy levels. President Mullins noted that New Jersey and Connecticut already have legislation in place. She encouraged people to contact Governor Hochul tonight by email using this address: correspondence.office@exec.ny.gov.

Field trips will resume in January, and more volunteers are needed to serve as registrars to manage the trips. Please send an email to trips@linnaeannewyork.org if you would like to volunteer to become a trip registrar.

President Mullins welcomed the following new Linnaean Society members:

• Signe Hammer
• Stephen Kelly
• Mary Kentros
• Steven Kessler
• Anne Swaim
• Shaul Yahil

President Mullins invited non-member attendees to join the Society. The membership application is on the Society website.

At 7:04 pm, President Mullins turned to the lecture program and introduced the speaker, Dr. Christina P. Riehl, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University. Dr. Riehl is a fellow of the American Ornithological Society, and editor-in-chief of the journal Ornithology.

Lecture: “Cheaters and Collaborators: The Evolution of Cooperative Breeding in a Tropical Bird,” presented by Dr. Christina P. Riehl

The tropical bird referenced in Dr. Riehl’s lecture title is the Greater Ani, a Central and South American species in the cuckoo family that Dr. Riehl has been studying for nearly twenty years. She shared her fascination with these birds, giving an in-depth discussion of where and how they live and their behavior, and described her research on their unusual breeding system and its evolution.

Dr. Riehl does field work in central Panama in the middle of the Panama Canal, at Barro Colorado Island. It is a tropical habitat, and the Greater Ani live there year-round. During breeding season, to protect their nests from depredation, the birds nest in the emergent vegetation along the shoreline, or in tree branches that hang over the water’s edge. Access for observation, banding and DNA sampling is by motorboat, and remote monitoring by camera.

Dr. Riehl described the breeding strategies of the Greater Ani. They are communal nesters like the other species of their genus, but unlike them, the Greater Ani seem to be obligate cooperative breeders (they must nest with more than one pair): in all the years that Dr. Riehl has been observing the Greater Ani, she has never found a nest with a lone pair. And, echoing a strategy that cuckoos are well-known for, Greater Ani are also parasitic breeders.

Greater Ani Communal and Cooperative Nesting

Both males and females from at least two breeding pairs contribute to building a single nest. The females lay their eggs in the same nest, and all parents share the parental care. Females cannot recognize which eggs are theirs, nor which chicks. Some nesting groups also include a non-breeding helper that assists in raising the young (often an offspring from the previous year of one of the breeding pairs); this behavior is referred to as cooperative breeding rather than communal breeding. Cooperative breeders are rare in North America, but one example is the Florida Scrub Jay.

Why did this system of communal/cooperative breeding evolve? Why not breed as monogamous pairs with biparental care as most birds do? Dr. Riehl identified some of the costs of cooperative breeding. One has to do with the female competitive behavior shown by females during the initial part of the egg laying phase: until a female has laid her own egg, she will eject any egg that she finds in the nest. Once she starts laying eggs, she stops pushing any eggs out of the nest, likely because she would risk destroying her own. This behavior also likely limits the upper number of breeding pairs sharing a nest: when more females are present, more eggs get ejected; in that case, what normally happens is that either the nest is abandoned, or some of the pairs leave the group. Dr. Riehl looked at data to see if there was something that would predict which female would lay first, and which would lay last, but found no clue. Eventually, however, in the course of several breeding cycles, each female got to be the first one to lay its egg; thus the cost of losing eggs was equally shared across the breeding group.

One of the benefits to nesting in groups is that it provides protection of the eggs from predators. For the Greater Ani, predators are monkeys and snakes, and the anis will mob them to keep them away from the nest. Furthermore, the loss of eggs due to nest predation is substantially greater than the losses due to competitive egg-tossing out of the nest by the females. It would seem that larger numbers of nesting pairs would be more effective against predators, and Dr. Riehl shared graphical data which seemed to support that assumption. But further evaluation led her to a different conclusion: it turns out that weather patterns also have an impact on the success rate of reproduction that can cancel out the benefits of large nesting group size. During years with wet conditions during the breeding season, the nests with larger numbers of pair groups do indeed do better than smaller groups; however, Dr. Riehl noticed that during cycles of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, which result in a dry period in Panama and hence not much food, the anis do poorly, and the groups with many nesting pairs do far worse than two-pair groups. Hence the costs and benefits of the size of the group vary over time depending on the weather patterns, and the reproductive difference between two-pair and three-pair groups averages out over time.

Conspecific Brood Parasitism

Until recently not recognized, Greater Anis also breed by conspecific brood parasitism, meaning a female will lay her egg in the nest of another of her own species. At first, when Dr. Riehl came upon an egg with a genotype that didn’t match any of the females in the group, she assumed it was a genotyping error; but at some point, her team began to observe that females who were not part of the social group would approach a nest, and be chased off. This seemed to suggest the possibility of parasitic eggs (eggs laid by a Greater Ani outsider, not of the same social group), which they ultimately concluded was the case.

Dr. Riehl noted that the prevailing hypothesis for how this communal breeding system evolved was through conspecific brood parasitism behavior, and she is interested in understanding the costs and benefits of parasitism. By observing the Greater Ani nests, Dr. Riehl’s team followed the changes in the appearance of the eggs during incubation, and watched to see if the nesting birds could recognize a parasitic egg, particularly when it was laid at the wrong time (because in that situation the egg would likely look different than those of the host clutch). A female would often would eject the parasitic egg. Parasitic eggs that do manage to be incubated with the host eggs still have a low hatching success. Why, then, do females act as parasitic layers? Because Dr. Riehl has been collecting data for so many years, she was able to analyze around 2,000 eggs collected over a ten year period, and identified 65 parasitic eggs whose mothers she could track. Of those, 55 were laid by females who were part of social groups. She concluded that they had begun the breeding season as cooperators, but if their nest was depredated while they were still laying, a minority of them would parasitically place their eggs in another Greater Ani social group’s nest.

Dr. Riehl concluded her talk by encouraging those in the audience who might go birding in the tropics to look out for anis, identify which are Smooth-billed, Grooved-billed and Greater, watch their very interesting communal behavior, and look under their nests to see if there are piles of rejected eggs.

At 7:51 pm, Vice President Doug Futuyma told Dr. Riehl how much he enjoyed her fascinating talk. He then hosted the Q&A session, which covered more details about the Greater Ani, including their lineage and connections to other cuckoos.

At the conclusion of the Q&A, Vice President Futuyma thanked Dr. Riehl for a marvelous talk about a fascinating species and a fascinating life history, and at 8:15 pm the meeting was adjourned.

A recording of this meeting in its entirety can be found on the Linnaean Society of New York website.

Respectfully submitted by Lisa Kroop, Recording Secretary

This meeting and presentation took place entirely online via Zoom.

At 7:00 pm, President Debbie Mullins called the Society meeting to order.

President Mullins made the following announcements:

The Linnaean field trip schedule is on the Society’s website, with trips through August of 2025. While non-members are welcome to join the Society’s trips, registration priority is given to Linnaean members.

President Mullins encouraged non-members to join the Society.

Membership renewal dues have still not been received from quite a few members. President Mullins reminded the remaining members to submit their dues as soon as possible.

In October, the board of directors voted to eliminate the Society’s requirement for sponsorship for new members.

At the November board meeting, board members expressed approval for dropping the requirement that new members be voted in by the board and the membership. Members are encouraged to share their opinions about dropping the voting requirement by emailing President Mullins at president@linnaeannewyork.org.

The board hopes that eliminating sponsorship and voting approval of new members will send a clear signal that all who have an interest in birds and natural history are welcome to become members of the Society.

Registration for the upcoming 125^th annual Christmas Bird Count for the New Jersey, Lower Hudson count circle (which includes Manhattan) is open on the NYC Bird Alliance (formerly NYC Audubon) website. The CBC date is December 15^th.

Society members had been asked to vote online on two motions in advance of this meeting:

Motion 1: Request to approve the minutes of the October, 2024, regular members meeting. The minutes were approved by a vote of 103 in favor, six abstaining, and none opposed.

Motion 2: Request to approve the membership applications of sixteen new members. The new memberships were approved with 146 in favor, one abstaining, and none opposed. President Mullins warmly welcomed the following new members:

• Melissa Breyer, Active
• Cheryl Craddock, Active
• Michelle, D’Mello, Active
• Rosemary Feal, Associate
• George Gianakos, Active
• Craig Himmelwright, Associate
• Richard Lufrano, Active
• David Minoli, Active
• Sahar Sehgaal, Active
• Anna Taam, Active
• Adrianne Waite, Associate
• Julia Deng, Active
• Lisa Wolfe, Active
• Thomas Freedman, Active
• Sarah Kimball Stephenson, Active
• Erasmus van Niekerk, Associate

At 7:05 pm, President Mullins turned to the lecture program and introduced the speaker, Dr. Kelly Zamudio, professor in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas, Austin, and an endowed fellow of the Doherty Regents Chair in Molecular Biology.

Lecture: “Diversification and Conservation of Neotropical Amphibians,” presented by Dr. Kelly Zamudio

Dr. Zamudio’s presentation covered three topics related to diversification and conservation of neotropical amphibians: 1) sexual selection and mating systems; 2) ecology and evolution of infectious diseases; and 3) rediscovery of lost frogs.

Sexual selection and mating systems

Dr. Zamudio gave a historical perspective and detailed description of the diversity of frogs’ reproductive modes, an area of study that her lab is interested in. She explained that for decades, accepted dogma was that frogs evolved from aquatic to terrestrial breeding in order to achieve higher reproduction fitness by avoiding predation, since it is safer for eggs to develop out of the water. She cited a 2013 publication that systematically reviewed frog reproductive modes, showing how they were evolving. The paper concluded that selective pressure from predation was causing reproductive phenotypes to evolve.

Dr. Zamudio and her colleagues believed that sexual selection might also play a role. They therefore conducted a study to investigate whether sexual selection might be driving the changes in reproductive modes. They concluded that sexual selection played a role, in addition to predation, and published a paper, “Polyandry, Predation, and the Evolution of Frog Reproductive Modes.”

Dr. Zamudio postulates that a lot of the diversity in frog reproductive modes is highly underestimated, and that more can be learned from individual species-specific details. She then gave examples of two recent studies: 1) “Male-male Competition and Repeated Evolution of Terrestrial Breeding in Atlantic Coastal Forest Frogs” by her graduate student, Fabio de Sa, et al., which determined the changes in the degree of dimorphism caused by several switches between stream breeding and terrestrial breeding over evolutionary time; and 2) “Show Me You Care: Female Mate Choice Based on Egg Attendance Rather than Male or Territorial Traits,” by Anyelet Valencia-Aguilar, whose work on glass frogs in the southwestern Amazon focused on parental care and reproductive success.

Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases

There is a worldwide pandemic affecting frogs from the fungal pathogen, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). Bd has played a role in the decline of 501 species of amphibians in the past 50 years, with the extinction of 90 species, and a 90% population reduction in another 124 species. Dr. Zamudio showed charts to illustrate global locations, timeframes, extents of loss, and phylogeny, indicating that East Asia is the source for the Bd lineages. Dr. Zamudio has been doing a number of studies focusing on the genetics and genomics of the infection process. She described one study of Eastern spotted salamanders. While Bd has spread worldwide, the salamander-specific fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) has not yet reached the Americas. Dr. Zamudio’s student, Ana Longo, conducted laboratory studies to investigate the consequences of co-infections of Bd and Bsal on host survival, and found the lowest survival rate when the salamanders were doubly infected by both Bd and Bsal (2019 paper: “Double-trouble: Co-infections of Chytrid Fungi Will Severely Impact Widely Distributed Newts”).

Rediscovery of Lost Frogs Using Environmental DNA

Half of the amphibian species in Brazil are distributed in the Atlantic coastal forest, an area now fragmented and around 16% of its original size. Species populations have declined, been extirpated, and become extinct. Potentially, though, some of the species that aren’t being seen might still be around. Dr. Zamudio’s group visited several locations in the Atlantic coastal forest, and used environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques to look for traces of “lost” frogs. Their work with eDNA analysis identified seven frog species: four were species with declining populations, two were species that had locally disappeared but were found elsewhere, and one was a species that had been considered extinct. These findings provide another piece of data towards understanding what species are still present and deserving of further conservation action.

At 7:57 pm, Linnaean member Jim Muchmore thanked Dr. Zamudio for a fascinating lecture. He then hosted the Q&A session.

At the conclusion of the Q&A, Jim Muchmore thanked Dr. Zamudio again, and at 8:15 pm the meeting was adjourned.

A recording of this meeting in its entirety can be found on the Linnaean Society of New York website.

Respectfully submitted by Lisa Kroop, Recording Secretary

This meeting and presentation took place entirely online via Zoom.

At 7:00 p.m., President Debbie Mullins called the Society meeting to order and welcomed the attendees to this first meeting of the Linnaean Society’s new program year.

The annual Linnaean homecoming picnic is being held on Sunday, September 22, at Central Park’s Summit Rock, with a rain date of September 29. President Mullins encouraged members and their guests to come. In addition, there will be a bird walk for beginners that morning in the North Woods of Central Park. RSVP is through the Linnaean website.

President Mullins announced that next month, at the October board meeting, the board of directors will vote to eliminate the sponsorship requirement for prospective members. The board has come to the opinion that this requirement can be a barrier for people who want to join, and may be giving a false impression that the Society is not open to all applicants. It is hoped that removing the sponsorship requirement will send a strong signal that the Society welcomes everyone with an interest in birds and natural history to become a Linnaean member.

Society members had been asked to vote online on two motions in advance of this meeting:

Motion 1: Request to approve the minutes of the May, 2024 regular meeting. The minutes were approved by a vote of 100 in favor, 5 abstaining, and none opposed.

Motion 2: Request to approve the membership applications of fifteen new members. The vote was unanimous with 105 in favor, none opposed, and none abstaining. President Mullins warmly welcomed the following new members:

• James Jackson, Active Membership, Sponsored by Brian Whipple
• Emily Tenenbaum, Active Membership, Sponsored by Kristin Ellington
• Andrea Trigueros, Active Membership, Sponsored by Junko Suzuki
• Thierry Breyette, Active Membership, Sponsored by Richard Davis
• Ruby Grewal, Supporting Membership, Sponsored by David Spawn
• Ann Wenzel, Active Membership, Sponsored by Kristin Ellington
• Catherine (Kitty) Stanton, Active Membership, Sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper
• Stephen Ogunbiyi, Associate Membership, Sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper
• Catherine Payson, Active Membership, Sponsored by Amanda Bielskas
• Christie Tashjian, Active Membership, Sponsored by Mary Normandia
• Val Coleman, Active Membership, Sponsored by Samari Weinberg
• Xiao Li, Active Membership, Sponsored by Bonnie Eissner
• Emily Jones, Active Membership, Sponsored by Amanda Bielskas
• Katharine Cobb, Supporting Membership, Sponsored by Suzanne Zywicki
• Ronit (Row) Wrubel, Active Membership, Sponsored by Amanda Bielskas

President Mullins again welcomed all the new members to the Linnaean Society, and expressed the hope that they will participate on some field trips and programs, get involved in the work of the Society, and come to the homecoming picnic to be greeted in person.

President Mullins reminded all renewing members to pay their membership dues for the upcoming year. Instructions were emailed to all members on September 6, 2024.

At 7:04 p.m., President Mullins turned to the lecture program and introduced the speaker, Dr. Brooke Bateman, Senior Director of Climate and Community Science at the National Audubon Society. Dr. Bateman collaborates with scientists, volunteers, and Audubon’s Climate Initiative team to develop research on climate and bird conservation, including the National Audubon 2019 report, “Survival by Degrees: 389 Bird Species on the Brink.” She is the science director of Climate Watch, and works with community volunteers to study how climate change affects birds in North America. Dr. Bateman shared some of her work at Audubon, connecting studies of biodiversity and climate change science to on-the-ground conservation, public engagement, and policy action.

Lecture: “Birds Tell Us: Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Science to on the Ground Conservation, Public Engagement, and Policy Actions” presented by Dr. Brooke Bateman

Dr. Bateman began her talk by invoking Rachel Carson, and her influential book, “Silent Spring,” which brought to national awareness the deleterious changes to living things up and down the food chain from the scaled-up use of pesticides and other industrial chemicals in our environment. The impact of Rachel Carson’s book sparked the environmental movement, and actions to protect the environment ensued.

Dr. Bateman then pivoted to today, and the observation that we are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis. She showed a graph from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) showing the percent of extinctions for vertebrate categories from the years 1500 to 2018, and the acceleration of extinctions across the animal world since 1900. Birds were one of the groups, and the 2019 report that North America has lost 2.9 billion—one in four birds—since 1970 highlights the crisis. Dr. Bateman gave some examples of birds lost since 1970—2.5 billion migratory birds; 2-in-5 Baltimore Orioles, 170 million eastern forest birds, 6-in-10 Wood Thrushes—and then asked, “So, what are the reasons?” She presented a slide that showed annual fatalities in North America from cats (2.6 billion), windows (624 million), vehicles (214 million), and industrial collisions (64 million), but the overriding reasons for bird population loss are habitat loss and degradation, and, more recently, climate change.

The National Audubon Society has a commitment to change the trend of declining bird populations. Scientific studies, climate science, community science, public engagement and action are all part of Audubon’s approach to achieving that aim, and Dr. Bateman described some of these programs:

• A recent Audubon study (“Unraveling a Century of Global Change Impacts on Winter Bird Distributions in the Eastern United States”) highlighted the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss using Christmas Bird Count data going back nearly a century. Dr. Bateman showed graphics from this study demonstrating how land use changes and climate change have impacted bird species populations.
• A 2019 development project, “Survival by Degrees: 389 Bird Species on the Brink,” is a modeling tool linking climate science with public engagement, based on present and future climate conditions, human land use, habitat types and locations, and surface water data. It is on the National Audubon website, and is an interactive program that allows the public to see how bird species populations may respond to climate change for different warming scenarios: 1.5°C, 2.0°C, and 3.0°C (global average temperature above the pre-industrial level). The tool shows ranges on both a national and local scale for each season. Dr. Bateman explained the rationale for selecting 1.5°C, 2.0°C, and 3.0°C by showing a chart with warming projections for the year 2100 assuming different policies and actions, and pledges and targets, and gave as context the fact that the world was at 1.2°C in 2022. Audubon’s conclusions from this project included: 1) two-thirds of North American bird species are at risk of extinction from climate change; 2) if climate change can be stabilized to below 2°C, 76% of North American bird species at risk will have an improved chance for survival; 3) under the 3°C scenario, 98% of the coterminous United States could be affected by one or more climate-related threats and 305 bird species will face three or more threats, while at 1.5°C, 34 bird species will face three or more climate-related threats; and, 4) every bird species will experience some kind of impact from climate change.

Dr. Bateman described some of the National Audubon Society’s approaches to action on climate change that connect science to community engagement and policy action:

• Publishing scientific papers, thereby communicating science studies and conclusions that are peer-reviewed for credibility.
• Communicating to the general public—for example, an article, “Birds Can’t Fight Climate Change. We Can.,” in the Audubon Climate Change magazine.
• Development of the National Audubon website for the public to explore, get information about birds, climate change, and learn about issues.
• Localizing information, addressing changes on a local scale—for example, a scientific paper about how US National Wildlife Refuges are likely to see species changes due to climate change.
• Bringing findings to legislators, and engage them—for example, demonstrating the “Surviving by Degrees” tool to federal and state policymakers and showing them results—that is, the consequences of potential climate change in their own ZIP Codes.
• Distributing an award-winning Audubon climate action guide that can be used by community volunteers and leaders.
• Publicizing climate change through art—for example, the Audubon Mural Project, which commissions artists to paint murals portraying bird species threatened by climate change on walls, doors, and other surfaces around throughout New York City.
• Communicating to large audiences, on television, in national and regional newspapers, and on social media.
• Engaging community advocates, especially Audubon chapters, nature centers, and other partners.

Dr. Bateman next turned to the topic of clean energy, giving some examples of the ways National Audubon has been helping guide policies for addressing climate change and helping birds:

• In Washington state, with Audubon Washington: contributed to historic clean energy legislation that requires all electricity to come from carbon-free sources by 2045.
• In Arkansas, National Audubon advocated for the Solar Access Act of 2019, which triples the size limit of solar installations for commercial net metering customers; permits rooftop solar customers to sell power back to the grid; and allows 3^rd party ownership (leasing).
• In Alabama, thanks in part to efforts by Audubon members across the state, the South Carolina legislature unanimously passed the Energy Freedom Act, which expands net metering, encourages large scale and community solar projects, and enhances energy choice.
• National Audubon developed a clean energy policy report, “Birds and Transmission: Building the Grid Birds Need,” that identified the locations where transmission grids are likely to expand and where they are currently being planned, so that Audubon can promote bird-friendly decisions at the project level. Dr. Bateman described an example, the SunZia Transmission Project, one of the largest clean energy infrastructure projects in American history, spanning 500 miles between central New Mexico and south central Arizona. Audubon collaborated with the project to address bird-related protections in the design considerations for routing, siting of towers, installation, and tower design.

Natural climate solutions are another focus of National Audubon as it tackles biodiversity loss and climate change. They indicate paths for both climate adaptation and climate mitigation. Natural climate solutions include protection, restoration, and improved land management actions that increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse gas emissions in landscapes and wetlands across the globe. Dr. Bateman explained the considerations that go into these solutions and gave examples of this approach, making mention of an Audubon report, “Audubon’s Natural Climate Solutions Report: Maintaining and Restoring Natural Habitats to Help Mitigate Climate Change.” This report presents a path forward to simultaneously understanding what areas can support birds and where to stabilize climate change.

Dr. Bateman concluded her presentation by emphasizing the importance of taking national science knowledge and bringing it to the local level, so that it connects with people and engages them, promoting an understanding of climate change and showing how to focus efforts moving forward. Her final slide and comments again quoted Rachel Carson: “The human race is challenged more than ever before to demonstrate our mastery, not over nature but of ourselves.”

At 8:00 p.m., Past President Rochelle Thomas thanked Dr. Bateman for a great talk. She then hosted the Q&A session.

At the conclusion of the Q&A, Past President Rochelle Thomas thanked Dr. Bateman again for a great presentation, and at 8:17 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.

A recording of this meeting in its entirety can be found on the Linnaean Society of New York website.

Respectfully submitted by Lisa Kroop, Recording Secretary

This meeting and presentation took place entirely online via Zoom.

At 7:00 p.m., President Debbie Mullins called the Society meeting to order.

President Mullins welcomed the attendees. She noted that this is the last general meeting and lecture program before summer break. The next season’s first meeting and lecture will be on September 10, 2024.

President Mullins observed that some great birds were being seen on the Society’s Tuesday morning migration walks in Central Park. The remaining two walks of the season are May 20 and May 28. The walks are open to the public but in order to manage headcount, registration is required via the Society website.

The Society’s conservation committee in conjunction with the Central Park Conservancy has arranged a service project to assist Conservancy staff with cleanup work in the Hernshead and Triplets Bridge areas of the park. It is scheduled for Saturday, June 1, at 10:00 a.m. To participate, register on the Conservancy website via the link provided in President Mullins’ email notice of the May, 2024, meeting.

Society members had been asked to vote online on two motions in advance of this meeting:

Motion 1: Request to approve the minutes of the April, 2024, general meeting. The minutes were approved by a vote of 127 in favor, two abstaining, and none opposed.

Motion 2: Request to approve the membership applications of twelve new members. The applications were approved by a vote of 127 in favor, one opposed, and one abstaining. President Mullins warmly welcomed the following new members:

• Jenny Landsman, Active Membership, Sponsored by Amanda Bielskas
• Daniel Landsman, Active Membership, Sponsored by Amanda Bielskas
• Gail Dinter-Gottlieb, Active Membership, Sponsored by Lisa Curtiss
• Norman Krausse, Active Membership, Sponsored by Carine Mitchell
• Elaine Lavin, Active Membership, Sponsored by Kristin Ellington
• Carol Mager, Active Membership, Sponsored by Jane Ellison
• Bonnie Eissner, Active Membership, Sponsored by Mindy Kaufman
• Jane Hoffer, Active Membership, Sponsored by Joyce Wright
• Lisa Borg, Active Membership, Sponsored by Amanda Bielskas
• Janay Wong, Active Membership, Sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
• Marcia Numan Klug, Active Membership, Sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
• Elijah Shiffer, From Associate to Active, Sponsored by Debbie Mullins

Speaking to the audience at large, President Mullins encouraged those who aren’t members of the Linnaean Society to join, saying that it is open to all. She described the process for joining, noting that details can be found on the Society’s website.

At 7:08 p.m., President Mullins turned to the lecture program and introduced the speaker, Dr. Gail L. Patricelli, professor at the University of California, Davis, in the Department of Evolution and Ecology, and chair of the Animal Behavior Graduate Group. Dr. Patricelli is an animal behaviorist, with research focusing on behavioral ecology, bioacoustics, and conservation of birds. Her research includes study of animal signals and other breeding behaviors and how they are influenced by their environments. Dr. Patricelli’s presentation to the Society focused in particular on her research into the courtship behaviors of the Greater Sage-Grouse and the ways these studies inform approaches to conservation.

Lecture: “Robots, Telemetry, & the Sex Lives of Wild Birds: Using Technology to Study Courtship and Conservation,” presented by Dr. Gail L. Patricelli

Dr. Patricelli began by discussing courtship behavior in terms of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, showing examples of various species’ adaptations to avoid predators. She then observed how the theory falls short for dramatically showy animals like peafowl, thus leading to Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, which helps to explain the evolution of traits that improve competitiveness for mates. Much of Dr. Patricelli’s scientific work has focused on seeking an understanding of the traits associated with sexual selection; this presentation described some of that work, as well as its role in conservation efforts to protect, in particular, the Greater Sage-Grouse.

 Throughout the animal kingdom, the mechanisms of sexual selection include more than the visual. As Dr. Patricelli noted, “Courtship is often more like a negotiation than an advertisement.” There are multiple components to successful mating, and research to tease them out is difficult. It requires detailed measuring of subtle male and female behaviors, identifying social context, and implementing experimentally controlled interactions, among other things, to characterize the elements that contribute to optimal behavior for courtship success. Dr. Patricelli’s field work has used robotic models of female birds in the design of her experiments. She described her PhD studies of the courting behavior of Satin Bowerbirds, for which she designed a robotic female bowerbird and controlled its behavior. After measuring the responsiveness of the male, she concluded that the male’s ability to respond to female signals and cues were as important as his ability to sing, dance, and make an attractive nest.

Dr. Patricelli’s more recent studies on courtship interactions have moved beyond single breeding pairs. They involve the Greater Sage-Grouse, a lek-breeding species, thus adding additional dimensions and complexities. Dr. Patricelli described the dynamics of the lek – how for a few months in late winter to early spring, males and females gather on the lek, where males perform strutting displays that females evaluate in order to decide on a mate. Her descriptions were illustrated with photos of the lek at her research location in Lander, Wyoming, and video of the lek at 32-times speed with real-time audio, and real-time and slow-motion video of an up-close male doing his strutting display.

To study the mating behaviors of Greater Sage-Grouse on the lek, robotic females were designed in order to capture the data needed to identify the attributes that influence mate selection and successful mating. The robotic females were taxidermy birds with robotic internals, including a camera in the breast to record interactions. One of the first experiments was designed to test the hypothesis that successful males will wait until a female is close to him before expending the high energy needed to perform a display of high quality to win her over, rather than doing a large number of lower quality displays. The robot was remotely guided along a G-scale model train track. Dr. Patricelli played the video of the first attempt of the experiment, which didn’t go as expected; but as Dr. Patricelli said, “It was totally worth it for the video.” Yes it was! The male went nuts at the sight of the fake female and toppled her off the tracks, and we got to see it all. Lesson learned. In revised experiments the robot’s direction was reversed really fast if the male was getting too interested. And later work included a new design of robots, no longer tethered to tracks.

In addition to robots, data was collected from video cameras and digital audio arrays around the lek in order to record mating success, strut rates, and vocal quality. This tremendous amount of data was analyzed, as were data collected in more recent, differently designed experiments. Dr. Patricelli shared the following conclusions: 1) females will move out of the territory of an overly forward male; 2) males adjust their display effort in response to female presence (or absence) and proximity; the more responsive males (a social skill) can increase their display quantity without a decline in quality, and are more successful; 3) on average, both successful and unsuccessful males respond to female signals and cues and increase courtship effort during interactions with interested females; and 4) unsuccessful males bias their display efforts toward interested females while successful males perform their displays in approximately equal proportion between interested and uninterested females; unsuccessful and successful males may have different tactics in response to female signals.

Dr. Patricelli concluded that by measuring courtship tactics relative to fitness results in a more complete picture of how sexual selection affects displays, and may favor skills in responding to the social context, female behavior, and the events on the lek. Finally, the studies suggest that acquisition and allocation of energy is consequential to courtship success, with males making adjustments to optimize their efforts to achieve the most matings.

Studying Greater Sage-Grouse courtship behavior also contributes towards applied work on conservation efforts for both the sage-grouse and the habitat at large. Diet quality and foraging behavior affect the energy-intensive needs for courtship and mating success. Successful courting males maintain stable body mass through the duration of the mating season while unsuccessful males’ body fat dwindles. Why might that be? And are there connections that can be drawn to ecological concerns for other species and for land management policies? Dr. Patricelli and collaborators have been looking into the effects of different species of sagebrush, their chemical compositions, and their comparative toxicities and nutritional values for Greater Sage-Grouse, as well as the way the sage-grouse select and feed on them and navigate within and between remnant patches of sagebrush that have been separated by cheatgrass as a result of numerous and more intense wildfires. The data from these studies are in the process of being analyzed. One of the early interesting results on a California population group of sage-grouse seems to indicate that successful mating males select sagebrush species and proportions that are different from selections made by unsuccessful males. This might have implications for habitat restoration: it was found that successful males don’t seem to eat basin big sagebrush, the species widely used for restoration of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

Dr. Patricelli noted that the Greater Sage-Grouse has served as an important model system for studying and understanding evolutionary and behavioral biology for a very long time. Once consisting of more than 16 million birds, their population has declined to an estimated 200,000 to 500,000, and although the species has been the focus of conservation efforts, the population has continued to decline. Findings from these and continuing studies can provide information and analysis beneficial to wildlife and land management for both the Greater Sage-Grouse and other species that share the same habitat.

At 8:00 p.m., Vice President Doug Futuyma thanked Professor Patricelli for an absolutely wonderful lecture. He then hosted the Q&A session.

At the conclusion of the Q&A, Vice President Futuyma thanked Professor Patricelli again for a fascinating lecture. He closed the meeting with a reminder that this is the last meeting of the season and that the next meeting and lecture will be in September. He invited the audience to go to the Linnaean Society website to see the upcoming schedule of speakers.

At 8:20 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.

A recording of this meeting and lecture can be viewed in its entirety on the Linnaean Society of New York website.

Respectfully submitted by Lisa Kroop, Recording Secretary

This meeting and presentation took place entirely online via Zoom.

At 7:00 p.m., President Debbie Mullins called the Society meeting to order.

President Mullins welcomed the attendees and remarked that spring migration was well underway, with participants in that morning’s LSNY Central Park walk having seen close to 50 species, including four warbler species. She noted that the Tuesday walks will continue through the end of May and invited all to come out and join them.

President Mullins also noted the hazards that migrating birds encounter navigating through the city, and, in particular, the confusion and collisions with buildings and windows caused by bright lights. She highlighted the legislation that is coming up for a vote this summer in the New York City Council to require that non-essential lights be turned off during periods of peak migration, and said that the Linnaean Society will be working to support this effort.

The upcoming spring Birdathon, which is a fundraiser run by the Linnaean Society for the Great Gull Island Project, will be held May 11 and 12. Details regarding participation will be emailed soon.

Society members had been asked to vote online on two motions in advance of this meeting:

Motion 1: Request to approve the minutes of the February, 2024, general meeting. The minutes were approved by a vote of 129 in favor, 2 abstaining, and none opposed.

Motion 2: Request to approve the membership applications of seven new members. The vote was unanimous with 131 in favor and none opposed. President Mullins warmly welcomed the following new members:

• Caroline Wolff, Active Membership, Sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
• Joan Felder, Active Membership, Sponsored by Ken Chaya
• Alison Wylegala, Active Membership, Sponsored by Elizabeth Keim and Erika Piik
• Guy Percival, Active Membership, Sponsored by Lisa Kroop
• Jennifer Percival, Active Membership, Sponsored by Lisa Kroop
• Lisa Detert, Active Membership, Sponsored by Karen Becker
• Alexia Fishwick, Supporting Membership, Sponsored by Michelle Zorzi

Speaking to the audience at large, President Mullins encouraged those who aren’t members of the Linnaean Society to join, saying that it is open to all. She described the process for joining, noting that details can be found on the Society’s website.

At 7:10 p.m., President Mullins turned to the lecture program and introduced the speaker, Dr. Ben Winger, assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Michigan and curator of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Division of Birds. Dr. Winger is an ornithologist, with research focusing on the ecology, behavior, and evolution of birds; his presentation, “The Evolution of Seasonal  Migration in Birds,” highlighted some of that work.

Lecture: “The Evolution of Seasonal Migration in Birds,” presented by Dr. Ben Winger
Referencing the morning’s LSNY Central Park walk with spring migration being upon us, and the fairly predictable schedule of bird species’ arrivals, Dr. Winger invoked the Yellow-rumped Warbler and the Blackburnian Warbler, species familiar to those who bird here in the spring, as the starting point for a discussion of bird migration and his research on understanding how and why bird migration has evolved.

He began with a discussion of the evolutionary history of bird migration, and how that history has been pieced together. He first described the remarkable long-distance migration of the Blackpoll Warbler from the boreal forests of northern North America, over the Atlantic Ocean and ending in South America. He highlighted how much the habitats at the ends of the journey differ from each other; however, the Blackpoll Warbler is equally comfortable in both, demonstrating that biogeography plays a role in migration. But where were these birds’ ancestral homes? How did their migratory patterns evolve? Did they shift their breeding range north from an ancestral southern range (out-of-the tropics hypothesis), or did they shift  their wintering range south (the temperate home hypothesis)? Because the bird fossil record is weak and difficult to interpret, Dr. Winger used a phylogenetic analysis of 120 species of New World emberizoids (warblers, sparrows, blackbirds, orioles, cardinals, buntings, and tanagers) that migrate seasonally between the Nearctic/temperate zones and the Neotropical region to evaluate these hypotheses. His phylogenetic model provided an indication of geographic ranges through historical time by calculating probabilities of ancestral breeding and wintering ranges being in the tropics versus the Nearctic/temperate zones. His results showed that wintering range shifts out of the temperate zone to the south were a more prevalent pattern of migration evolution than breeding range shifts out of the tropics to the north which were rare.

Dr. Winger then moved on to the consideration of why birds migrate and proposed exploring a more general explanation for the evolution of bird migration – one that doesn’t rely on where birds ancestrally originated. Instead, he suggested looking at the movements of birds, distinguishing between the mechanisms of dispersal and migration, and the effects of seasonality. Dispersal is a one-way movement, usually of a short distance. An example is the distance between where a bird is hatched and where it raises its own young. With each dispersal there is an encounter with seasonality, and with changes in seasonality from one dispersal to  the next, the bird needs to adapt, or it dies. Thus migration is one possible adaptive response to seasonality. As a population adapts to seasonality, migration can evolve. Rather than escaping from the tropics, Dr. Winger explained, migration has evolved as a response to increasing seasonality across space and time. But escaping seasonality to a new location doesn’t answer why the bird doesn’t just permanently stay there. To address that seeming contradiction, Dr. Winger offered the example of the Blackpoll Warbler, which returns year after year to exactly the same breeding site. Adult migratory birds tend to return to their same breeding sites every year, and this fidelity – known as philopatry – contributes to their reproductive success. Dr. Winger concludes that site fidelity underlies the evolution of bird migration: bird migration evolves as a strategy to escape seasonality, and the return to a known, familiar breeding site results in a good chance of reproductive success.

The phenomenon of bird migration causes competition between reproduction and survival. While the abundant resources of the temperate and Nearctic zones provide environments beneficial to reproductive success, the migratory journey can be hazardous and risky. Earlier in the lecture Dr. Winger had introduced the concept of the slow-fast continuum of life histories, and now he returned to it to evaluate where migrating birds might sit on that continuum. In animals, an example of a fast life history might be the mouse – it develops fast, produces a large number of offspring, and lives a short life – as contrasted with an elephant, which illustrates the slow-end of the life history continuum by developing slowly, producing only a few offspring, and living a long life. To assess migrating birds’ position on this continuum, Dr. Winger compared data of bird species that breed in the boreal zone but migrate varying distances to their wintering grounds; eBird data showed that the time spent on breeding territory decreased with migration distance, as did annual fecundity (annual number of chicks), while annual survival data (from the Institute for Bird Populations) showed that annual survival relative to body size increases with migration distance. Thus field data suggests that long distance migrants fit on the slower end of the life history continuum: the Yellow-rumped Warbler becomes an example of a migratory bird with a fast life history, having a short-range migration and enduring difficult winter conditions, while the Blackburnian Warbler is on the slow life history end of the spectrum, producing fewer annual offspring and yet making a far longer migratory trip. While breeding in the high latitudes produces a faster life history strategy than in the tropics, the evolution of long distance migration slows the life history down.

Dr. Winger summarized his talk, emphasizing that migration and its evolution are geographically complex phenomena, but that phylogenetic studies point to some bird species evolving to migrate from the temperate zone to the tropics as analogous to evolutionary responses to seasonality. As a consequence, the strategy of long-distance migration enables a higher annual survival rate compared to shorter-range wintering in the temperate zone, or not migrating at all.

Dr. Winger concluded by mentioning the troubling large-scale declines in bird populations across the world due to the effects of anthropogenic habitat loss, light pollution, and related hazards. We saw with the life history analysis of long-distance migrating birds that in spite of having evolved high survival rates, these are among the species particularly vulnerable to rapid population decline because of their lower number of offspring and the risks they are exposed to, especially during migration. Dr. Winger commended the Linnaean Society for its efforts on conservation advocacy for birds.

At 7:55 p.m., Vice President Doug Futuyma thanked Dr. Winger for a fascinating lecture. He then hosted the Q&A session.

At the conclusion of the Q&A, Vice President Futuyama thanked Dr. Winger again, and at 8:20 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.

A recording of this meeting in its entirety can be found on the Linnaean Society of New York website.

Respectfully submitted by Lisa Kroop, Recording Secretary