Category: Meeting Minutes

(Note: This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order. He introduced himself and thanked the attendees for joining the meeting. Referencing an email sent to members about potential wine-pairings for the evening’s lecture, “Winemakers’ Wingmen: How Birds and Farmers Can Help Each Other,” he toasted the audience with his own glass of wine.

Commencing with the business portion of the meeting, President Chaya announced the result of an online vote to approve the minutes of the September  members’ meeting: it passed with 141 votes of approval, none of disapproval, and no abstentions.

Next, he announced the result of an online vote on the approval of new members. It passed with 142 votes of approval and none of disapproval. President Chaya welcomed the following ten individuals as new members:

1. Evelyn Huang, sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
2. Maria King, sponsored by Karen Askew
3. Laurel Fay, sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper                    
4. Ellen Yamaguchi, sponsored by Alice Deutsch
5. Nick Dawson, sponsored by Barbara Saunders
6. Tara C. Craig, sponsored by Amanda Bielskas
7. Justin Koplin, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
8. Adriana Dinu, sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper
9. Ellen Jaffe, sponsored by John Wittenberg
10. Debby Goldman, sponsored by Alice Deutsch

Stating there were 138 votes of approval and none of disapproval, he announced the results of a recent vote by members to appoint the following nine nominees as Directors of the Linnaean Society of New York Ltd:

• Sherry Felix, Mary Jane Kaplan, and D. Bruce Yolton as Directors Class 1 (term ending 2022)
• Mary Beth Kooper, Vicki Seabrook, and Michelle Zorzi as Directors Class 2 (term ending 2023)
• Marie-Claire Cunningham, Ursula Mitra, and Lydia Thomas as Directors Class 3 (term ending 2024)

He also explained that the officers of the previously unincorporated LSNY immediately became ex-officio directors once the incorporation process was concluded.

President Chaya then invited non-members in attendance to join the Society, explaining that they could learn how to do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org. He also pointed out that he or any of the other LSNY officers listed on the website would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, emphasizing that an organization is only as healthy as its growing and diverse membership. He declared that the LSNY welcomes all to become members regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, background, ability, or geographic location.

As the final item of business, President Chaya announced the Society’s need for volunteers, referencing his recent email communication asking for additional field trip registrars. He asked all to consider supporting the organization by volunteering to be trip registrars. He also announced that LSNY is seeking the assistance of someone with technical expertise related to combining in-person speaker meetings with live-streaming Zoom broadcasts, which will be needed once in-person meetings resume at the American Museum of Natural History.

___________________________________________

At 7:10 pm, President Chaya introduced the evening’s speaker, Sara Kross, Ph.D.,  a conservation biologist and agroecologist who has spent more than a decade conducting research into the complex interactions between wildlife and people in agricultural landscapes. Sara completed her Ph.D. at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and was a founding member of the Marlborough Falcon Conservation Trust in New Zealand. Born in New York, she moved back to the U.S. as a David H. Smith Conservation Postdoctoral Fellow in California and is now a faculty member at Columbia University, where she works with students conducting research projects on snow geese, feral cats, ocelots, dolphins, ticks, and mountain lions.

Her talk was titled “Winemakers’ Wingmen: How Birds and Farmers Can Help Each Other.” Today, agricultural regions have the largest footprint of any terrestrial ecosystem on the planet. These vast landscapes are often thought to be devoid of wildlife, but they can and should sustain diverse and abundant populations of wildlife, especially birds. As stewards of their land, farmers have the ability to engage in management practices that boost avian diversity. However, tight economic conditions and a general wariness of welcoming wildlife to farms means that many farmers do not or cannot utilize those practices. Dr. Kross discussed the complex relationships between farmers and birds and the ways management practices can boost avian diversity, sharing case studies based on her extensive research on New Zealand falcons, North American songbirds, and barn owls living on farms that produce wine grapes, milk, and vegetables.

Dr. Kross opened her talk by acknowledging the many students and colleagues who have supported her work, as well as by thanking the institutions and other supporters that have funded it.

She stated that “agricultural expansion and intensification is the greatest extinction threat to birds,” and shared the following quote from Aldo Leopold in “The River of the Mother of God”: “Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public interest.” She described agroecology as the melding of two fields: biodiversity conservation and agriculture.

She then discussed her research and field work in both New Zealand and central California. Her work in New Zealand involved re-introducing the New Zealand Falcon to the vineyards of Marlborough, the country’s largest wine-growing region. In California, she has been studying whether Barn Owls can provide viable pest control for farming. Finally, she has also tried to quantify the damaging effects on crops from birds and insects as a result of birds foraging in California’s Central Valley.

Dr. Ross introduced her talk about her Ph.D. research in New Zealand with a discussion of its formation as a distinct geographic entity. When the supercontinent Gondwanaland broke apart beginning tens of millions of years ago, the section that formed New Zealand had no existing land mammals. Included in the unique flora and fauna that has since evolved there are several ground-nesting bird species, such as the flightless Kakapo, the Tieke, (of which only 650 still exist), and the Kaki (only 170 wild adults remaining). These birds are now facing a crisis due to the introduction ofground mammal predators, against which they have evolved no protections.

Her research focused on the New Zealand Falcon, also known as the Karearea, a ground-nesting bird that is endemic to New Zealand and nationally threatened. Historically, this species ranged from the mountains to the sea but is now found only in the highlands, where their numbers have been dropping.  Her goal was to determine if reintroducing individual falcons from the hills of Marlborough into vineyards would be mutually beneficial to the falcons and the winemakers who have struggled with the destruction of their grapes by hungry songbirds. The primary culprits, the European Starling, the Eurasian Blackbird, and the Song Thrush (all introduced from Europe), all like to pluck grapes off the clusters, leaving very little behind.  

After the successful translocation of falcons, she found that the vineyards with falcons had 78.4% fewer Song Thrushes, 82.5% fewer Eurasian Blackbirds, and 79.2% fewer European Starlings than those with no falcons. Also, falcons consumed more introduced birds and fewer endemic birds than expected.  

Her models found that the vineyards with falcons had 95% fewer removed grapes and 55% fewer pecked grapes. Land value was estimated to be increased by $234 per hectare for sauvignon blanc grapes and  $326 per hectare for pinot noir grapes.  

As for the falcons, she found that egg depredation in the highlands was 63.2%, but only 38.1% in the vineyards. One of the major predators of falcon eggs, the stoat, is found only in the high country. Viewed in a variety of ways, falcons appeared to be no worse off in intensive vineyards.  

Dr. Kross stated that the Marlborough Falcon Trust does captive breeding as well as education and outreach, and all falcons now used in vineyards are rehabilitated and un-releasable birds. 

She then turned to her post-doctoral work in California. Farmers in the Central Valley have constructed nest boxes to increase Barn Owl populations, because they think they help control pests. Here, her research involved determining whether this is the case.

She first looked at the owls’ diet and found that 99.5% of their prey items were agricultural pests. She also found that Barn Owls were keeping prey below carrying capacity, and that high densities of owls can almost eliminate these pests. 

She expressed concern about secondary poisoning, as 65% of Barn Owl carcasses contained anti-coagulant rodenticides. We still have little understanding of sublethal exposure rates in wild living raptor populations. Her group got funding from the USDA for a multi-year study of rodenticide exposure in raptors’ blood in different seasons, and in diurnal vs. nocturnal raptors, but results are not yet available. 

If agriculture were considered its own ecosystem, it would be the largest biome on the plant. Agricultural expansion means habitat fragmentation. As agriculture intensifies, there are increases in chemical inputs, soil erosion, and climate change; in addition, agriculture uses over 70% of the planet’s accessible fresh water. This can lead to both a decrease in biodiversity and an increase in pest survival as crop yield increases. As an example, she cited the decline in North American avifauna: today there are three billion fewer birds than there were in the 1970s. Many of these declines were linked to agricultural practices.

Dr. Kross then talked about her research in California’s Central Valley around the practices farmers can use to improve conservation and productivity. The Central Valley is a hyper-productive landscape—the “salad bowl of North America. One-third of the produce grown in the United States is from the Central Valley, which produces over 230 different crops. All the farmers she encountered seemed to want to support nature on their farms, but they have to think of their bottom lines. So they need to see the benefits of improving conservation on their land. In her research, she looked at patch quality, patch size, and patch isolation. In one experiment using alfalfa, avian species richness was higher with smaller patch size and complexity. Adding hedgerows, or any kind of woody margin, to the edges of farmland increased bird abundance. She found that more birds and more bird diversity reduce insect pest abundance by 33%.  

She ended her talk by speaking of farmland’s critical role in biodiversity and saying, “You cannot call agriculture “sustainable” if you don’t incorporate native habitat on farmland.”

At 8:03 pm, former Vice President Rochelle Thomas (filling in for Vice President Gabriel Willow) thanked Dr. Kross for her talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.

At 8:19 pm, former Vice President Thomas passed the floor back to President Chaya, who also thanked the speaker, as well as the audience, and invited viewers to return for the next speaker program on November 9.

8:20 pm—The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(Note: This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order. He introduced himself and thanked the attendees for joining the meeting, noting that tonight marks our tenth online meeting.

Commencing with the business portion of the meeting, President Chaya thanked the members of the LSNY Council for their help and announced the result of a vote to approve the minutes of the May members’ meeting: it passed with 140 votes of approval, none of disapproval, and no abstentions.

Next, he announced the result of a vote on the approval of new members. It passed with 140 votes of approval and none of disapproval. President Chaya welcomed the following fifty individuals as new members:

1. Ronnie Almonte, sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper
2. Paul Andersen, sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper
3. Mary Belmont, sponsored by Barrie Raik
4. Nancy Benedict, sponsored by Kate McMullan
5. Daniel Bernstein, sponsored by Ken Chaya
6. Rory Bernstein, sponsored by Tom Stephenson
7. Margaret (Marge) Burman, sponsored by Will Papp, Gil Shrank
8. David “Nick” Butterini, sponsored by Debbie Mullins
9. Paul Citrin, sponsored by Will Papp
10. Myron Cohen, sponsored by Paul Sweet
11. Russell Comeau, sponsored by Debbie Mullins
12. Dorothy Davison, sponsored by Karen Asakawa
13. Louise Diedrich, sponsored by Ruth Hart
14. Edward Evanisko, sponsored by Linda LaBella
15. Sandy Fiebelkorn, sponsored by Alice McInerney
16. Benita Fishbein, sponsored by Rick Wright
17. Deborah Goldberg, sponsored by Ellen Rockmuller
18. Scott Grodnick, sponsored by Will Papp
19. Emma Guest-Consales, Ph.D., sponsored by Gabriel Willow
20. Alexis Hill, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
21. David Hill, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
22. Susan Joseph, sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper
23. Laura H Kahn, M.D., sponsored by Ken Chaya
24. Mary Kinney, sponsored by Ken Chaya
25. Terry Klee, sponsored by Ken Chaya
26. Nancy Kricorian, sponsored by Gabriel Willow
27. Tobias Lederberg, sponsored by Roy Tsao
28. Ching Man Lee, sponsored by Ursula Mitra
29. Amy Ludwig, sponsored by Ken Chaya
30. Alexander F.M. More, sponsored by Elise Boeger
31. Carrie Parkey, sponsored by Kristin Ellington, Anne Lazarus
32. Thomas Perlman, sponsored by Ken Chaya
33. Greg Plowman, sponsored by Linda LaBella
34. Tracy Plowman, sponsored by Linda LaBella
35. Linda Rabino, sponsored by Anne Lazarus
36. Shannon Randall, sponsored by Debbie Mullins
37. Noah Ratzan, sponsored by Anne Lazarus
38. Christina Reik, sponsored by Karl Holtzschue
39. Dominic Ricci, sponsored by Gabriel Willow
40. Martin Sattell, sponsored by Kathleen Matthews
41. Joseph Schiavone, sponsored by Patricia Klein
42. David Schmittou, sponsored by Emelia Oleson, Laura Jacobs
43. Alison Shields, sponsored by Anne Lazarus
44. Aaron Stern, sponsored by Ruth Hart
45. Paul Tannuzzo, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
46. Cheryl Tucker, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
47. Cheryl Wischhover, sponsored by Janet Wooten
48. Joyce A. Wright, sponsored by Nancy Shamban
49. James Zarroli, sponsored by Carine Mitchell
50. Dawn Zeman, sponsored by Ken Chaya

President Chaya invited non-members in attendance to join the Society, explaining that they could learn how to do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org. He also pointed out that he or any of the other LSNY officers listed on the website would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, emphasizing that an organization is only as healthy as its growing and diverse membership. He declared that the LSNY welcomes all to become members regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, background, or geographic location.

As the final item of business, President Chaya updated members on the Society’s effort to incorporate. He announced the results of a recent vote on the subject by members: there were 179 votes in favor of incorporating and accepting the new by-laws, and two opposed. He thanked the membership for its support and noted that today we received paperwork from New York State documenting that the society is now legally incorporated and is officially “The Linnaean Society of New York, Ltd.”

___________________________________________

At 7:13 pm, President Chaya introduced the evening’s speaker, Angelica Menchaca, a bat conservationist and director of Global South Bats. She earned her Ph.D. at Bristol University in the UK, studying Tequila Bats (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae). Her career has been dedicated to the conservation of animals and the use of genetic tools to answer ecological questions. Her fascination with bats and the need to promote their conservation in the most threatened places on Earth led her to join forces with other young scientists to develop self-sustaining initiatives to ensure the survival of bats across the global south.

Her talk was titled, “How Bats Are Uniting Conservationists in the Global South.” Have you ever wondered how bats fly? Or what they do at night? Or why they get such bad press? Bats are vital elements of our ecosystems and deserve our appreciation, but they face many threats worldwide. Dr. Menchaca covered some of the most remarkable aspects of bat diversity, as well as the bat’s role in ecosystems and in our daily lives. She also explained how their link with disease transmission inflicts damage on their reputation. A new initiative led by young scientists in the Global South organization (www.globalsouthbats.org and www.tequilabat.com) is helping protect bats in the most vulnerable places on earth. Bats deserve our appreciation as vital elements of our ecosystems, but they face many threats worldwide.

Dr. Menchaca opened her talk by saying she hoped that by the time she finished, her audience would have a greater appreciation of bats and think of them each time we drank tequila or ate a mango or fig. She also hoped that viewers would become more involved or at least interested in bat conservation.

She asked, “What makes them so interesting?” and remarked on how they come out at night, can fly as high as 10,000 feet, and are “somewhat of a mystery.” While there are some who still think of bats as “mice with wings,” bats and mice are not even closely related. While both of these small species are mammals, only bats are able to fly. Flight adaptation has enabled them to reach every part of world with the exception of Antarctica.

Before continuing, she shared a few “fun facts” about bats:

• The only flying mammal
• The second largest mammal group
• Spread all over world
• Have diverse feeding adaptations
• Are ecosystem service providers (pollination, insect control)
• Echolocate, using ultrasonic frequency
• Incredible longevity (40+ years)
• Unique immune system (DNA repair mechanisms)
• Utilize a navigation system (including stars, magnetic field, olfactory cues)
• Roost in large groups (can be as large as in the millions)
• Large lung capacity
• Big hearted

Bats are important pollinators, and they eat moths and insects that kill crops we need. Fruit bats help disperse seeds. There are over 1,400 species of bats in the world, but only three of them actually feed on blood, and two of them are quite rare. These vampire bats feed mostly on cattle and poultry. Bats are highly diverse and have many adaptations that can open doors to our understanding of evolution.

Looked at monetarily, bats deliver about one billion dollars to the global corn industry; in Texas alone, cotton farmers save about $1 million in pest control annually, thanks to bats.

Bats evolved about 52 million years ago. Dr. Menchaca showed a fossil of Icaronycteris index, one of the oldest bats, stating that bats evolved very early in the age of mammals. Icaronycteris index had a fairly long tail, a carry-over from a nocturnal arboreal mammal ancestor that likely used ultrasonic communication.

Speaking of the diversity of bats, she showed photos of 12 African bats to demonstrate their extensive physical variation.

When considering animal longevity, often smaller animals (e.g., hamsters) tend to live for very short periods of time (two-four years). As demonstrated by dogs, horses, and whales, longevity tends to increase with size. Bats are an exception; they are a very small mammal, but can live for decades. One of the oldest bats recorded was at least 41 years old.

A number of studies have looked at the longevity of bats. Some have shown that as bats age, they turn up the volume of their metabolism repair mechanisms. One study focused on the protective structure on bat chromosomes (i.e., telomeres, which shrink as we age). Bats can repair their telomeres and other damaged cells—examples of adaptations that we can study to learn about aging.

Addressing the concern that bats are disease vectors, Dr. Menchaca referenced the current pandemic and questions around the role of bats in spreading COVID. She acknowledged that bats can carry more diseases than other animals, the reason being that their repair mechanisms make them excellent survivors. As a result, they are able to host viruses without getting sick. Over two hundred viruses have been detected or isolated from bats. Bats and viruses have been co-evolving for a very long time. Coronavirus is a very large family of viruses, with only a few causing serious illness. Many animals are associated with coronaviruses, and there is no direct evidence of COVID-19 coming from bats. Dr. Menchaca added that we have an excellent opportunity to learn about antibodies from bats.

The evolution of flight may have affected bats’ immune system. Rapid metabolism causes oxidative stress that can damage DNA. Genetic changes during the evolution of flight likely included adaptations to limit collateral damage. It is likely that flight adaptations impacted immunity, which impacted lifespan.

Dr. Menchaca then discussed her own work, the study of one particular bat species: the Tequila Bat. She showed a photo of a cave in the Sonoran Desert of the American Southwest, where she goes twice a year to study these bats, pointing out that many of the bats in the photo that seemed “fat” were actually pregnant females arriving at the roost to give birth.

Only female Tequila Bats do a long-range migration from central Mexico to New Mexico and Arizona. They are trying to follow the blooming of certain plants and arrive at the right time for the birth of their pups. They spend the summer in the Sonoran Desert and return to Mexico in the fall.

However, there is a second population of Tequila Bats in Southeast Mexico that does not migrate. The females of both populations breed with non-migrating males. The goal of Dr. Menchaca’s research is to explore the differences between the migrating and non-migrating females.

She captured bats of both populations, took many measurements, and studied the morphology of their wings, finding that females that do not migrate are better adapted for flight at slower speeds and with higher maneuverability. Migratory females have pointier wings that may be better adapted for long-distance flight. Males had wings more similar to non-migrating females. Also, there was only a tiny bit of sexual dimorphism.

Dr. Menchaca then discussed her work with Global South Bats (GSB), which was formed as a network of bat researchers where members could share knowledge and work together to find solutions to common bat conservation challenges.

The term “Global South” refers to developing countries, which are located primarily (but not exclusively) in the Southern Hemisphere. It is a term coined by economists that GSB adopted because it represents the places where biodiversity is the highest, but where economic and social challenges are also huge.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Global South Bats was able to hold its first field course in Kenya, uniting students from 12 South American countries and 12 African countries. The goal was not just to train these students, but to teach them how to become a community. The idea was to do conservation for bats while also bringing people together. “Without a collective dream, we won’t achieve conservation as researchers would want it.” She added that as a bat biologist, research is one of her greatest passions, but working with students and teaching them to achieve their own goals is what really keeps her going.

One of the main things GSB is trying to achieve is to bring together people from different parts of the world to focus research in the Global South, not just the elite, but also on-the-ground conservationists who have an interest in bats and are living in the community. The goal is to empower and connect these communities, as well as to centralize their conservation efforts. GSB’s new website is still a work-in-progress, but will ultimately have a members-only area where members can communicate with one another, access resources (e.g., a tutorial on how to build nets), and learn from researchers across the globe (how to use a piece of equipment, analyze data, or design one’s own experiments and research). GSB hopes to make a real difference in the bat world.

The talk concluded with an invitation to attendees to visit GSB’s website to learn more about their work: globalsouthbats.org.

At 7:59 pm, Vice President Gabriel Willow thanked Dr. Menchaca for her talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.

At 8:29 pm, Vice President Willow passed the floor back to President Chaya, who also thanked the speaker as well as the audience.

8:31 pm—The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(Note: This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order. He introduced himself and thanked the attendees for joining the meeting. As of that moment, he said, 84 people were watching the meeting live. He also announced that over 70 people had participated in Linnaean walks in Central Park that morning and that it was likely that, collectively, participants saw over 100 species today.

President Chaya noted that this was our ninth speaker meeting to take place live and online, and that it is our last meeting of the season. He then thanked the Society’s council members and officers for their help throughout the year.

Commencing with the business portion of the meeting, President Chaya announced the result of a recent online vote to approve a slate of new council members. It passed with 118 votes of approval and none of disapproval. President Chaya welcomed the following nine individuals as new members:

1. Elizabeth Tylawsky, Active, sponsored by Kate McMullan
2. Edmund Berry, Active, sponsored by Barbara Saunders
3. Jill Hoskins, Supporting, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
4. Anna Via McCollough, Life sponsored by Ken Chaya
5. Carey C. Russell, Active, sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
6. Margaret Bradley, Active, sponsored by Ellen Rockmuller
7. Ana Gomez-Taylor, Active, sponsored by Rochelle Thomas
8. Patrick Smith, Active, sponsored by Anne Lazarus
9. Kevin Rolwing, Active, sponsored by Gabriel Willow

He then announced the result of a vote to approve the minutes of the April meeting: it passed with 116 votes of approval, none of disapproval, and two abstentions.

President Chaya invited non-members in attendance to join the Society, explaining that they could learn how to do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org. He also pointed out that he or any of the other LSNY officers listed on the website would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, emphasizing that an organization is only as healthy as its growing and diverse membership. He declared that the LSNY welcomes all to become members regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, background, or geographic location.

He reported on the annual Bird-a-thon, an event that raises much-needed funds to support the research and stewardship conducted by the Great Gull Island Project. Great Gull Island is the site of the largest Common Tern colony in the world and the largest Roseate Tern colony in the Western Hemisphere.

This year, the Bird-a-thon took place on the weekend of May 8-9. President Chaya said that while awaiting final results, he had two “shoutouts”: (1) The team named the “Noble Gnatcatchers” reported seeing 105 species in Central Park and Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and (2) a six-year-old participant named “Arthur A.” counted 22 species near Quechee, VT. “Congratulations, Arthur!” Viewers were told that they can make a donation to GGI, at any time, by visiting the News & Resources page on the LSNY website.

As the final item of business, President Chaya announced that the council had voted unanimously to incorporate and accept the bylaws of the new corporation with one small amendment. This means that members will have the opportunity to vote on incorporation in the next month. He explained that a three-quarters majority vote will be needed to incorporate, and encouraged members to support the work of the council with a vote of “yes.” An outline of the voting process will be included in his forthcoming president’s letter.

___________________________________________

At 7:14 pm, President Chaya introduced the evening’s speaker, Roland Kays, who is the head of the Biodiversity Research Lab at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Science and a professor in the Fisheries, Wildlife & Conservation Program at North Carolina State University. Roland is broadly trained in mammal ecology, evolution, and conservation, and has published on sloth sleep, Canis soupus, frugivorous carnivores, arboreal fishers, and incognito olinguitos.

His talk was titled, “Eastern Coyotes: Part Wolf, Part Dog; Extremely Adaptable and Close.” The Eastern Coyote is actually a large coyote-wolf mix that has expanded its range in eastern North America over the last few decades. Having taken over the wildlands, this big predator is increasingly observed in urban areas—including New York City. Roland addressed questions such as how easily do these animals adapt to urban landscapes? How will people’s relationship with coyotes change?

Roland opened his talk by referencing the coyotes that have been seen recently in New York City’s Central Park, sharing photos of coyotes taken there by Linnaean member Bruce Yolton.

He then discussed the background of the coyotes we’re seeing today, with the objective of helping us to better understand how to co-exist with them in urban and suburban environments.

In the Pleistocene Era (12,000 years ago), there were a great many megafauna in North America. During this time, there were coyotes, but they were not in the forests and lived largely on prairies and deserts. They were also mesopredators — relatively small to medium when compared to megapredators present at the time, such as short-faced bear, American cheetah, dire wolves, and others. While megapredators from this era went extinct, the coyote survived, along with the wolf and the cougar.

Roland then discussed the impact of humans on coyotes, as they began to inhabit North America. Following the first immigrants who came over the Bering Strait, settlers from Europe wanted to exterminate the existing predators they found in North America. As an example, Roland referenced the Great Hinckley Hunt, which took place in Ohio on Christmas Day in 1813. The residents of this area decided they wanted to wipe out all animals in a local forest so that they could let their sheep wander there with no predators or competitors. They formed a circle surrounding the forest and closed in on the center, killing every animal they encountered. This was the attitude toward animals, in general, at this time. By 1960, wolves were almost completely driven out of the lower 48 states, with only a few remaining in the uppermost portions of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

He said that then, at some point, a female of the few remaining wolves came into heat and we can infer she mated with coyotes, which were more prevalent in the area. The resulting offspring bred back with other wolves to create hybrids. He then showed a chart of the genetics of one real wolf in Minnesota, indicating that its genetic make-up was 15% coyote and 85% wolf. In other instances, some of the hybrid descendants of the initial coyote/wolf mating bred back with coyotes until the resulting offspring were mostly coyote. This was occurring at a time when coyotes were moving eastward. Those with wolf genes moved eastward into upstate New York more rapidly. We have some evidence that one of the first females to arrive in upstate New York interbred with dogs, as no other wolves or coyotes were present. In short, this animal was a coyote x wolf mix, interbred with dog. A GENSCAN of one Eastern Coyote showed it to be 84% coyote, 8% wolf, and 8% dog. These hybrid individuals look mostly like coyotes, but the genetic mix causes some to exhibit characteristics of dogs in their appearance. He said that while Eastern Coyotes are hybrids, they are not “coywolves,” as they are mostly coyote and are as much dog as they are wolf. There is also continual variation and gene flow.

He addressed the question of how Eastern Coyotes differ from Western Coyotes, saying that the Eastern Coyote is a bit larger. Eastern Coyotes grow to a maximum of 50 lbs., with the eastern male averaging 35 lbs. The average western male is 25 lbs.

Wolf DNA is helping Eastern Coyotes to grow larger. There are four different genes that have been passed on from wolves that are affecting body size and skeletal proportions, especially chromosome 4. Researchers examining the diets of Eastern and Western Coyotes found that those in the East eat more deer and those in the West eat more mice, while both eat rabbits in approximately equal portions. Even within the East, diet varies by location. For example, in Westchester County, NY, coyotes have been found to have a diet of 60% deer and 19% rodents, while those in New York City have been found to have a diet of 9% deer, 18% rodent and 24% plants. In short, coyotes are generalists and will eat what they can get. They are also generalists when it comes to habitat. Unlike their western counterparts, Eastern Coyotes are using forests and hunting alone, rather than in packs. Camera traps in North Carolina showed them overwhelmingly hunting alone.

He remarked that, in coyotes, evolution and natural selection are happening right in front of us, and that like the coyote, modern man is also a “three-species hybrid” (i.e., Human x Neanderthal x Denisovan).

Next, Roland addressed the subject of coyotes in urban and suburban areas. We tend to think that animals aren’t successful in more highly populated areas but, actually, some do quite well. He cited the example of deer thriving in suburban areas. Given that we co-exist with coyotes in urban and suburban areas, he went on to discuss the negatives and positives of this co-existence, first highlighting the challenges.

Coyotes vs. domestic cats: free-ranging cats are likely to be killed in an encounter, as coyotes are opportunistic feeders. Coyotes will eat cat food, as well as cats themselves. They will also eat small dogs. Most coyote attacks on dogs are on small ones; most large dogs that have been attacked were actually chasing coyotes prior to the attack. Additionally, 92% of the dogs that were attacked were unleashed. Most recorded attacks were in Canada, while attacks in the eastern United States are rare, but do happen. Not all coyote/dog interactions are aggressive. Only 10% of their recorded interactions were predatory; most were social.

Coyotes do attack people. There were 142 recorded attacks on people between 1960-2006. Of these, 85% were in western states, 7% were rabies related, and two were known mortalities. Usually, there were minor or no injuries. Putting the numbers in perspective, Roland stated that there are many more bites/deaths from dog attacks than from coyote attacks. Further, 30% of attacks on humans have taken place when known feeding of coyotes has taken place nearby. He also said that he thinks that attacks on people are increasing and cited 19 attacks in Montreal in 2018 and multiple attacks in recent years in Frisco, TX, Moraga, CA, and Los Angeles. He noted, however, that in several of these locations, the attacks were all attributed to the same individual coyote.

He summarized the conflicts with coyotes as follows:

Conflicts with livestock, domestic cats and domestic dogs do occur.

Attacks on people are rare.

Attacks on people are more common in the western U.S. than in the east.

Moving on to discuss possible solutions, Roland stated that coyote removal doesn’t reduce local population size. As coyotes are territorial animals, if one is removed, too many young dispersers are ready and eager to take over the vacated territory.

He then looked at options for changing the behavior of coyotes. He said that mesopredators are very good at evaluating risk and can evaluate humans in this way. In short, mesopredators adapt to predators. We need to focus on animals’ behavior. Some places, like Canada, are doing hard-core hazing using paintballs and dogs. As coyotes get bolder and bolder, how do we manage them? It’s a challenge and, as we continue to live with them, we should not feed them. Also, some hunting and trapping is important to modify behavior and remove problem animals. How to adopt and maintain safe coexistence with urban coyotes is still a challenge we will need to work on.

Pointing out the positive side of predators, Roland spoke of their role in the balance of nature. This balance is needed, even in urban areas, and coyotes can help.

Roland concluded his talk by showing just how “urban” coyotes can be: he displayed photos taken of various coyote intruders in kitchens, bathrooms, groceries—and even one on a rooftop in New York City. He showed a final photo of one that had found its way onto an airport tram in Portland, Oregon, asking genially, “how far will they go?”

At 7:50 pm, Vice President Gabriel Willow thanked Roland for his talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.

At 8:35 pm, Vice President Willow passed the floor back to President Chaya, who also thanked the speaker and invited viewers to return in September when the LSNY will resume its online meetings.

8:40 pm—The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(Note: This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order. He introduced himself and thanked the attendees for joining the meeting. As of that moment, he said, 163 people were watching the meeting live.

He welcomed the two new officers of the LSNY council,  Secretary Deborra Mullins and Vice President Gabriel Willow, and announced that the full slate of officers recommended by the council at the 2021 annual meeting was unanimously passed with 181 votes.   

President Chaya noted that this was our seventh speaker meeting to take place live and online, and that it was still unknown when the Society could return to presenting its programs in the Linder Theater at the American Museum of Natural History. Until then, we would continue to bring our programs online on a monthly basis.

Commencing with the business portion of the meeting, President Chaya announced the result of a recent online vote to approve a slate of new council members. It passed with 134 votes of approval and none of disapproval. President Chaya welcomed the following 13 individuals as new members:

1. Dr. Kevin Burgio, Active, sponsored by Kathryn Heintz, Tod Winston, and Kaitlyn Parkins
2. Prathima Christdas, Active, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
3. Erica Piik, Active, sponsored by Kathleen Matthews
4. Elizabeth Keim, Active, sponsored by Kathleen Matthews
5. Dr. Alison North, Active, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
6. Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert, Supporting, sponsored by Ken Chaya
7. Joseph Goddu, Supporting, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
8. Steven DeWitt , Active, sponsored by Ken Chaya
9. Christina von Braun, sponsored by Will Papp
10. Rick Weiman, sponsored by Ursula Mitra
11. Jelisa Renee Oliveras, sponsored by Regina Alvarez
12. Pamela Carley, sponsored by John Holland
13. Eileen M. Schwinn, sponsored by Vicki Seabrook

He then announced the result of a vote to approve the minutes of the January meeting: it passed with 133 votes of approval, none of disapproval, and one abstention.                                                                                                                                 

The following four individuals were unanimously approved as new or returning council members by the same online vote:

1. Marie-Claire Cunningham
2. Ursula Mitra
3. Lydia Thomas
4. Michelle Zorzi

President Chaya then invited non-members in attendance to join the Society, explaining that they could learn how to do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org. He also pointed out that he or any of the other LSNY officers listed on the website would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, emphasizing that an organization is only as healthy as its growing and diverse membership. He declared that the LSNY welcomes all to become members regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, background, or geographic location.

President Chaya then spoke of the Society’s need to incorporate, explaining that its current constitution leaves the Society vulnerable to liability issues and is not compatible with 21^st-century banking requirements. The leadership of the council has been working with attorneys to bring the LSNY into the 21^st century as a legal not-for-profit organization. Members are not likely to notice any differences in the Society’s general activities, and the council and president unanimously support this change. He said that a letter will be sent to members shortly, along with a summary of the proposed changes and a copy of the new bylaws. Approximately 30 days later, members will be asked to vote yes/no on incorporation and the new bylaws. The LSNY will need a three-fourths majority vote to make any changes to our constitution.  

At 7:16 pm, President Chaya announced that this evening’s program would feature a private screening of the documentary Full Circle, followed by a talk with Executive Producer Anne Via McCullough, along with Cinematographer Michael Male, Great Gull Island Project Director Helen Hays, and a GGI team member, Joe DiCostanzo.

Full Circle provides an intimate view of the Great Gull Island Project. The largest Common Tern colony in the world and the largest Roseate Tern colony in the Western Hemisphere are both found on this 17-acre island in Long Island Sound. Under the direction of Helen Hays since 1969, the team at Great Gull Island monitors the nesting sites of Common and Roseate Terns. The film also shows the contribution of individual ornithologists and communities in Brazil, Argentina, and the Azores to the documentation of the terns’ migration routes.

Since 2005, Anne Via McCollough has been volunteering in the Department of Ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History, working in collections for Paul Sweet. During her years at the Museum, Anne learned about the Great Gull Island Project and volunteered—marking nests—on the island in 2013. Her association with Helen Hays showed her first-hand the value of long-term scientific fieldwork. In February of 2016, Anne founded Taking Flight Productions with Ethan Ferkiss. They began filming in April 2016 with cinematographer Phillip Townsend and were joined by cinematographer Michael Male in 2018.

In addition to interviews with Helen Hays and stunning footage of the work on the island, as well as of the team’s collaborative international work, the film includes interviews with a number of GGIP volunteers, scientists, and team members over its 50-year history and historical footage from the 1976 documentary, Ternwatch.

Speaking of the project’s genesis, Hays said, “When I first came to the American Museum of Natural History, I was cataloguing dead birds, but I was more interested in live birds.” So, when a woman in the education department called her one day and asked if she’d like to come to GGI, she was intrigued.  

The island was used by the military during WWII, destroying the original tern colonies there. Following the war, the AMNH paid $1.00 to purchase the island and then reached out to the Linnaean Society to restore terns to the island. Members went there, removed military structures, and restored some of the habitat. Hays saw this as her opportunity to study live birds and assembled volunteers who were willing and able to spend at least a week at a time there. Volunteers were a mix of ages and included retirees and college students.

In 1968, when the project began, 1,500 pairs of Common and 1,500 pairs of Roseate Terns were nesting on the island. That year, there was a great deal of rain and, thus, many avian fatalities. Fortunately, that year proved to be an unusual one, and the 1969 breeding season was much better. The island now has 30,000+ birds and is one of the great seabird colonies of the world.  

Although no two years are exactly alike, the birds typically first arrive from South America around April 26 or 27 and within a few days settle themselves on the island. The Roseate Terns prefer to nest in the rocks, while the Common Terns prefer open areas. To contain vegetation growth for Common Terns, the Meadow Voles which once inhabited the island were successfully reintroduced. For Roseate Terns, special nesting areas were built which mimicked the rocky habitat they prefer.

Hays and others described the courtship, mating, and nest selection of the terns. Volunteers had to wear special hats with distractions on top to deter the protective tern parents from causing them injury as they went about marking the nests. By June 10, usually the first chick hatches. As the chicks cannot  control their own body temperature, the parents need to help keep them both warm and cool enough until they can self-regulate.

It is at this point that the volunteers begin their banding. Hays and others in the film spoke of how once a bird has a band, you have access to every record ever made about that bird—its parentage, birth date, birth location, etc. Future encounters can also be tracked and added to its record. Banding changes a bird from just being a bird to being an individual. Populations can be studied over time. Once the chicks are tagged, the next step is to trap and identify the parents.  

Chicks begin to flap their wings from the time they’re a week old, and at 28 days, their wings are usually long enough to fly. They begin to fish on their own at about six weeks, but adults will feed them for at least nine weeks. During this time, the volunteers and scientists do a lot of observing on GGI, using telescopes to note the band number of an individual bird and making notes on its behavior.

Once the young are strong enough to fly greater distances, the entire colony prepares to depart. At the end of the summer, the team watches the birds leave, and the island gradually gets quieter and quieter.  

In the early 1970s, volunteers began finding abnormal chicks with numerous birth defects. Hays reached out to a contact at Cornell University and sent him the dead birds for analysis. He found PCPs in both the dead birds and the fish they had been eating. This was the first warning that the PCBs in the environment were affecting humans too; it prompted corrective measures. Since that time, further defects have not been seen.  

Today, because of climate change, water temperatures have been quite different from one year to the next. It is unclear what impact this will have on terns and their ability to feed their young in the future. 

The film also looked at the GGIP’s efforts to learn where in South America the birds were spending their winters. One year in the 1990s, starting in the southernmost part of Argentina, Hays and her colleagues worked their way up the coast searching for the terns’ wintering grounds. Arriving at Punta Rasa, Argentina, they were amazed to find roughly 30,000 Common Terns, a larger population than had been seen before anywhere. After several days there, they were introduced to Esteban Bremer, who worked for the Argentine Wildlife Federation and had caught a bird banded on GGI 17 years earlier. (Argentinians now come regularly to GGI and work with Americans on both the winter and summer grounds of the terns.)

Finding no Roseate Terns in Argentina, Hays and her team moved further up the coast, and in 1995, decided to search offshore Brazil, where they finally found the proverbial “needle in the haystack,” a flock of a few thousand Roseate Terns.

The project’s work continued to expand internationally. Finding that an individual named Pedro Lima in Mangue Seco, Brazil, was reporting his discovery of many of the GGI birds, Hays contacted him and went to visit. While there, she found that some of the terns in Brazil had been banded in the Azores, so she sent a team there in 1997 to band both Common and Roseate Terns. Meanwhile, the GGI team was going to Brazil and putting radio transmitters on terns to find out where they were going for food. Around this time, the team in the Azores caught a bird with one of the transmitters, learning that some of the terns spent the winter in Brazil and then nested in the Azores. This discovery indicated that at least some genetic diversity was likely being maintained. 

Another example of the value of international collaboration appeared when it was noticed in Brazil that some fishermen were wearing bracelets with bird bands that had clearly been obtained by destroying terns. Hays found environmentalists from a local organization, Aquasis, who helped GGI engage with schools and fisherman to educate the villagers about protecting the terns. As a goodwill gesture, GGI created a toy boat regatta as part of the education process and then added beach cleanups and, ultimately, a “tern festival.”  

The GGIP holds that the terns don’t belong to one country or hemisphere—rather, they are a link and help us forge relationships. In the fall of 2016, all the groups from various countries (Azores, Brazil, Argentina, U.S.) that had been working to protect these terns finally got to meet for the first time in Barcelona.

Over the decades, many of the GGIP students have become scientists, doctors, and, importantly, adults who understand the importance of science.  

Thinking of who will carry on her work in the future, Hays said, “There is only one thing I would ask of that person: protect the terns and see that they can nest successfully here.”

At 8:32 pm, the film ended. Vice President Gabriel Willow introduced himself and said that it was an honor for the LSNY to host this private screening of the film. He announced that Anne Via McCollough, Michael Male, Helen Hays, and Joe DiCostanzo—who were all part of the project and appeared in the film—were on the Zoom call and able to answer questions. He then facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.

9:01 pm—Vice President Willow passed the floor back to President Chaya, who also thanked the speakers and complimented them on their incredible work on the GGI Project. He stated that over 200 people had joined the program and concluded by saying that viewers can support the work of GGI by sponsoring participants in the LSNY’s birdathon for the Great Gull Island Project on May 8 and 9. He will be sending all members information on how to participate in the birdathon and support the project.

Finally, he said that he hopes all viewers will join him again next month, when the program will feature a talk by Dr. Roland Kays, “Eastern Coyotes: Part Wolf, Part Dog; Extremely Adaptable and Close.” 

9:06  pm—The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(NOTE:  This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order. He introduced himself and thanked the attendees for joining the meeting. He said that as of the current moment, 246 people were watching the meeting live and thanked the LSNY officers, council members and committees for their continued work and support.

He then gave a shout-out to his team of fellow officers, and council and committee members.  He first recognized the officers and members of the council by name: Vice President, Rochelle Thomas; Secretary, Lydia Thomas; Recording Secretary, Amy Simmons; Treasurer, Ruth Hart; Editor, Jonathan Hyman; and Council Members, Marie-Claire Cunningham; Kathleen Matthews; Ursula Mitra; Sherry Felix; Mary Jane Kaplan; Bruce Yolton; Mary Beth Kooper; Vicki Seabrook; and Gabriel Willow. He then thanked committee members and chairs as well as a few others: Stephen Chang of the Awards Committee; Chuck McAlexander of the Constitution Committee; Jonathan Hyman, Editorial Chair; the Field Trip Committee of Miriam Rakowski, Mary Beth Kooper, Deborra Mullins, Anne Lazarus, Vicki Seabrook, and Maire-Claire Cunningham; Gabriel Willow of the Field Observations Committee; Kathleen Matthews, for Membership; a special thanks to Kathleen and volunteer, Erika Piik, for their valuable work in posting LSNY announcements to social media; Rochelle Thomas for lining up our Speaker Programs; Bruce Yolton, for developing the LSNY website and keeping it up and running; and finally, Tom Burke, for his devoted and continuing management of the Rare Bird Alert.

President Chaya noted that tonight marks our sixth speaker meeting taking place live and online, and that it is still unknown when the Society may return to presenting its programs in the Linder Theater at the American Museum of Natural History. Until then, we will continue to bring our programs online on a monthly basis.

Because the Society’s membership had recently voted online via email, there were only three business items on the agenda.

The first item was to announce the result of a vote on the approval of new members. It passed with 103, votes of approval and none of disapproval. President Chaya then welcomed the following nine individuals as new members:

1. Judith R. Gordon, Associate, sponsored by Lea Kouba
2. Cynthia Roberts, Supporting, sponsored by Ken Chaya
3. Susan Steinbrock, Active, sponsored by Ken Chaya
4. Richard Davis, Active, sponsored by Kevin Sisco
5. Michelle Talich, Active, sponsored by Crystal Thiele
6. Leslie Day, Active, sponsored by Ken Chaya
7. Shreyas Gupta, Life, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
8. Dianne McKeever, Life, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
9. Erica Rooney, Active, sponsored by Dolores Brandon Thompson

He then invited non-members in attendance to join the Society and explained that they could do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org. Additionally, he said that he or any of the LSNY officers listed on the website would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, emphasizing that an organization is only as healthy as its growing and diverse membership. He also emphasized that the LSNY welcomes all  to become members regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, background, geographic location, or “even the number of bird species you have on your life list!” saying, “We would love to hear from you, and to welcome you to our community of birders and nature lovers!”

The second item on the agenda was to announce the result of a vote to approve the minutes from the January meeting. It passed with 104 votes of approval and none of disapproval.

President Chaya reminded members that although we have been meeting on Zoom since September, this is still an official meeting of the Society. And as such it is still a forum for topics of interest to our membership. If anyone has a topic or announcement under the item of new business that they would like to propose, they may send either him or the secretary a note by email.

The final item on the agenda was the announcement that next month, at our Annual Meeting, taking place on Tuesday, March 9, we will be presenting a slate of officers to be voted on by the membership. Voting will be handled electronically as we have been doing for the past 6 months. All members will receive an email from President Chaya immediately following the meeting asking to return their votes on the Officers within 24 hours. 

If there are any nominations from the floor, the names of candidates must be submitted to Secretary, Lydia Thomas, no later than midnight, February 23. Secretary Thomas may be contacted via email at secretary@linnaeannewyork.org or by US mail addressed to our PO Box at the LSNY, PO Box 801, New York, NY 10024. Both of these addresses can be found on the website under “Contacts.”  Such nominations must include the name and email of any candidates and the office position they are nominated for. Each nomination from the floor MUST be accompanied by 15 member signatures which can be submitted electronically by including the name and email address of each signing member. 

The live, online Annual Meeting will only be open to Linnaean Society members. The evening’s presentation by Peter and Rosemary Grant on their study of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands, will be recorded and will be made available for public viewing on our website at a later date. All of the information on the Annual Meeting related here has been recently emailed to all members in the February President’s Letter. Another invitation to the Annual Meeting will be forthcoming to all LSNY members in another week or two. 

At 7:13 pm, President Chaya introduced the evening’s speaker, author Jim Wright, who is the author of The Real James Bond, the story of the ornithologist/author who was the victim of the greatest identity theft in history. Although Bond, who wrote the landmark Birds of the West Indies in 1936, is now mostly a footnote for 007 fans, he lived a life of great accomplishment.

He announced that Jim’s illustrated talk would cover Bond’s life and career, with special mention of ornithologists who were spies, most notably the American Museum of Natural History’s James Chapin. Jim will also talk about three Bond specimens in the AMNH collection: Saint Lucia Black Finch, La Selle Thrush, and Bahama Nuthatch (now feared extinct).

Immediately after the presentation, Caribbean ornithologist Dr. Joseph Wunderle will join Jim to discuss Bond, current conservation efforts in the West Indies, and more. Not only did Joe know Bond, but he once met Sean Connery in the Bahamas and was suspected of spying in Grenada in 1983.

Jim began his talk by sharing a photo of a program from the April 11, 1944 meeting of the LSNY, when James Bond was the featured speaker.  Jim then showed a copy of his new book which features on the dust jacket an image of the fictional James Bond character in a man’s suit with the head of a Cuban Green Woodpecker.  Remarking that this was “not the first time that James Bond posed as a bird,” Jim showed a clip from the 1960’s movie, “Goldfinger” which featured the character James Bond sneaking into a marina at night by swimming underwater using an underwater breathing apparatus hidden within a gull decoy.  As Agent 007 emerged from the water, the decoy gull was prominently strapped to his head – prompting Jim to quip that “this is where the term ‘gullible’ comes from.” He then showed a few illustrations from the book and a quote about it from bird writer Julie Zickefoose: “If the real James Bond does nothing more than convince readers that an ornithologist can be something other than proper, stodgy or dull, then it will have done the world a great service.” 

Jim then showed a photo of the ornithologist – and ‘real’ – James Bond (1900-1989) commenting that he actually did look a bit “nerdy.”  Bond grew up in a well-to-do family in Philadelphia.  His mother was a Roebling of the Roebling family who built the Brooklyn Bridge.   The death of his older sister when she was seven and he was four led his family to move to the country from Philadelphia.  Shortly after moving there, his mother died.  His father then married a widow from London and moved there with Bond and his brother.  In London, he attended Harrow and then Trinity College.  After college, he became a banker in Philadelphia.  However, he soon realized that he hated banking and was interested in pursuing ornithology.  Not long after, he came into a small inheritance and determined that if he was frugal and careful, it would provide just enough income for him to pursue his passion.  His first job was at the Academy of Natural Sciences, but the position was unpaid.  As a result, when the Great Depression happened, he wasn’t let go.  

Early on, Bond decided to pursue his life’s work in the West Indies.  When he first arrived, he traveled on foot and horseback and stayed in local huts, sleeping in a hammock. In 1934, he spent time documenting the Zapata Rail and others endemics.  Eating rodents, employing arsenic for the curing of bird skins and using a double barrel shotgun to collect specimens, Bond collected three different specimens for the American Museum of Natural History: the La Selle Thrush, the Bahama Nuthatch and the St. Lucia Black Finch.

When he visited Haiti in 1929, he set out to find the rare La Selle Thrush, which is superficially visually similar to the American Robin.  To collect it, he had to travel by horseback for 20 miles and sleep in a hut.  To collect the Bahama Nuthatch he traveled by rum runner.  When he arrived, one of the local islanders let him stay in his hut and Bond was able to collect two specimens of this previously undescribed species.  Jim remarked that now, following two hurricanes in the past five years, this bird may be extinct.  Bond took two trips to St. Lucia to collect several St. Lucia Black Finch, including the first two females ever collected.  Upon returning to the United States and visiting Jim Chapin at the AMNH, Bond boasted, “I collected a genus you don’t have in the AMNH,” prompting Chapin’s colleague, Frank Chapman, to immediately write to request one for the museum’s collection. 

Bond’s life’s work, “Birds of the West Indies” was published in 1936 by the Academy of Natural Sciences and remained in print for more than six decades.  Jim reported that an early version, signed by Bond, recently sold for $5,000 at auction.

Jim stated that while doing research for his own book, “The Real James Bond,” he was surprised by how many ornithologists worked for the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency) during World War II.  Speaking of the connection between ornithologist and spies, Jim played a recorded narration from the book “Cloak and Dagger” which described how ornithologists had many of the same skills and attributes required of successful spies.  For instance, both share an ability to recognize and identify elusive and hidden subjects, both are able to live in foreign countries as outsiders without being ‘strangers,’ both know their way around firearms, and both carry and utilize surveillance equipment.

Speaking of one ornithologist who is now known to have been a spy—Jim Chapin—Jim Wright said he made a name for himself when he went to the Belgian Congo at age 19 while a student at Columbia University.  After spending six years there, in 1936 he came out with a four-volume set, “Birds of the Belgian Congo.”  At outbreak of World War II, he was recruited to be a spy there and joined the OSS.  At the time, the Belgian Congo held the world’s richest supply of uranium and the Allies wanted to keep it out of hands of Nazis.  They were successful and this uranium went on to be that which was used by the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb.  

Jim then questioned whether or not Bond was a spy.  Although his research turned up nothing confirming or indicating that he was as spy, Jim did find one interesting circumstance that gave him pause:  prior to the outbreak of WWII, Bond traveled on the state-of-the-art SS America to the Caribbean.  As Bond was notoriously frugal, and this voyage would have been extremely expensive, Jim did some further research and discovered that at least two members of the Duquesne spy ring were then working as crew members on the ship.  Wondering if Bond may have been a spy, after all, Jim wrote to the CIA to as if there was any connection but the organization responded that it could neither confirm nor deny any.  In short, the ‘jury is still out’ on this matter.

After WWII, Bond married in the same year as Ian Fleming, who was then in Jamaica writing “Casino Royale” and needed a name for the book’s secret agent character.  Jim then played a recording of a later interview with Fleming where he is asked how he came up with the name for this character.  Fleming stated, “I just pick-up names driving through the countryside…I wanted to find a name that would have no romantic association of any kind…one of my bibles, here, is “Birds of the West Indies” by James Bond, so I stole it.”  As Fleming never told Bond that he did this, it took about a decade for the James Bond character in his books to reach America.  It wasn’t until an article listed Fleming’s “From Russia With Love” as one of John F. Kennedy’s favorite books that word started to spread.  It was at this time that Bond and his wife began receiving prank phone calls and that led to them learning of the “theft.”  – Mary Bond wrote to Fleming accusing him of stealing her husband’s identity.  Fleming responded with “yes, you caught me” but invited the couple to visit him if they ever came to Jamaica. A few years later, they did just that – dropping by, unexpectedly, at Fleming’s home, “Goldeneye.”  Initially, Fleming was nervous that Bond might be there to sue him but when Bond assured him that he was not, saying, “I don’t even like your books,” Fleming relaxed and he and his wife entertained the Bonds. Before they left, Fleming gave Bond a copy of his new book, “You Only Live Twice,” and signed it to “the real James Bond,” dated 2/5/64. 

After the film “Goldfinger” came out in 1964, all things 007 became hugely popular, which led to annoying experiences for Bond.  For example, when he discovered a specimen of the thought-to-be-extinct bird, the Eskimo Curlew, instead of giving it the respect that such a finding would typically receive from scientific journals, the popular media instead had a field day with James Bond puns and jokes about it (i.e., “New Bond Thriller: Case of the Curlew”) The association between the ornithologist and the fictional spy only increased after Fleming’s death.  In the movie, “Die Another Day,” actor Pierce Brosnan (who played James Bond) is seen carrying a copy of “Birds of the West Indies” and spying on Halle Berry’s character through pair of binoculars.  When she asks what he’s doing he says “I’m an ornithologist – I’m just here for the birds.”  

Jim went on to say that this was a shame, as Bond deserves to be more than a footnote to the 007 story, and listed many of Bond’s contributions to science:  He collected rare eggs for science, including Harpy Eagle eggs; he formulated “Bond’s Line,” drawing a line north of Trinidad and correctly insisting that the birds of the Caribbean originated from North America and not South America, as was then assumed; he popularized the birds of the West Indies for generations of travelers, and he was a champion for the protection of birds there.  Although he collected specimens to benefit science, he did not want to shoot more than necessary—even to the extent that he was criticized at the time.  He was 

very far-sighted about protecting birds in the West Indies and, as early as the 1930’s, was writing about his concerns about habitat destruction and the parrot trade and the need for bird sanctuaries.  He recognized that “…there is no doubt that the principal factor that has resulted in the extinction or rarity of so many West Indian birds is man.”

He closed his talk by inviting attendees to visit his website:  realjamesbond.net, saying that the proceeds of its sale of autographed books would go to BirdsCaribbean, a regional non-profit dedicated to the conservation of Caribbean birds and their habitats. He then introduced Joe Wunderle who is on the board of BirdsCaribbean, and is the editor of BirdsCaribbean’s journal, the Journal of Caribbean Ornithology. He has researched birds in the West Indies for four decades.

Jim showed photo of Joe in Eleuthera, Bahamas where he was doing study of Kirtland’s warbler.  Alongside him were two Bahamian student interns and a field assistant.  Joe said that while BirdsCaribbean does conservation and science, it also trains young conservationists and focused on building local capacity to bring about conservation in the Bahamas.

Jim asked Joe about the current status of the Bahama Nuthatch in light of two, recent major hurricanes, including Hurricane Dorian, which was a Class 5 hurricane.  Joe said that destruction was considerable to the islands’ pine forests and that while he is not optimistic about the species’ survival, the Caribbean is remarkably resilient.  He is hoping it is still there, but it has not seen yet been seen.

Joe said that he met “the real James Bond” when he was a graduate student.  He had been working on a field project in Central America on the relationships between hummingbirds and species such as bananaquits and it was recommended that he speak with Bond about where to work in the Caribbean.  Bond told him about a black bananaquit in St. Vincent and Grenada saying that nothing was known about it and suggested he do research there.  

Joe went on to tell a story of how in 1981 he was briefly mistaken for a spy while doing field work in Grenada.  At one point, he was detained in a room with a group of Cubans and was able to discuss the birds of Cuba with them.  They were amazed by what he knew, and the Grenadians eventually decided he was harmless and released him.  What he knew of Cuban birds was thanks to James Bond’s book. 

Jim asked what was currently the greatest threat to birds in the Caribbean and Joe responded that it was habitat loss.  One of the factors driving this loss is the big push for economic development and, on the coasts, resort development.  Another threat is the lack of awareness by locals and, on some of the French  islands, hunting can still be a bit of an issue.

When asked what viewers can do to help birds in the Caribbean, Joe encouraged them to come down to the Caribbean and see the birds, once COVID-19 is no longer a danger.  When doing so, visitors should use local guides and support eco-tourism.  

8:03 pm—Vice-President Rochelle Thomas thanked both Jim and Joe and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.

8:18 pm—Vice-President Thomas passed the floor back to President Chaya, who also thanked Jim and Joe.  He concluded the program by saying that he hoped all LSNY members would join next month for the annual meeting and that everyone else would be back for April’s meeting when the evening’s program will feature a private screening of the documentary “Full Circle,” about the Great Gull Island Project, with a talk by Executive Producer Anne Via McCullough.

8:19 pm—The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(NOTE:  This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order. He introduced himself and wished all a very happy 2021. 

He thanked the attendees for joining the meeting and expressed the hope that all will continue to attend LSNY programs in 2021. He said that as of the current moment, 211 people were watching the meeting live and thanked the LSNY officers, council members, committees, and past presidents for their continued work and support.

President Chaya reported that it is still unknown when the Society may return to presenting its programs in the Linder Theater at the American Museum of Natural History. Until then, we will continue to bring our programs online on a monthly basis.  

Because the Society’s membership had recently voted online via email, there were only two business items on the agenda.

The first item was announcing the result of a vote on the approval of new members. It passed with 106 votes of approval and none of disapproval. President Chaya then welcomed the following three individuals as new members: 

1. David Greenspan, Active Membership, Sponsored by Lydia Thomas
2. Constance Wiley, Active Membership, Sponsored by Susan Schuur
3. Tom Kenney, Active Membership, Sponsored by Rochelle Thomas

He then invited non-members in attendance to join the Society and explained that they could do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org. Additionally, he said that he or any of the LSNY officers listed on the website would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, emphasizing that an organization is only as healthy as its growing and diverse membership.

The second and final item on the agenda was announcing the result of a vote to approve the minutes from the December meeting. It passed with 103 votes of approval and none of disapproval.

At 7:08 pm, President Chaya introduced the evening’s speaker, David Haskell, Ph.D.  David has won acclaim for eloquent writing and deep engagement with the natural world. His talk this evening, The Songs of Trees: Stories from Nature’s Great Connectors, would go on to describe how he has integrated contemplative, literary, and scientific studies of the natural world. 

What might be learned by paying repeated attention to very small parts of our neighborhoods or forests? David has explored this question by returning again and again to the same square meter of old-growth forest in Tennessee, then repeatedly visiting individual trees in various locations around the world. These explorations reveal the biological connections that sustain all life, in places as diverse as cities (Manhattan, Denver, Jerusalem), forests (in the Amazon, Rockies, and boreal regions), and areas on the front lines of environmental change (eroding coastlines, burned mountainsides, and war zones). In each location, attention to the sensory richness of place has yielded insight into both ecology and ethics.

David Haskell’s work integrates scientific, literary, and contemplative studies of the natural world. His first book, The Forest Unseen, was a finalist for the 2013 Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction and received numerous honors, including the National Academy’s Best Book Award for 2013. His second book, The Songs of Trees, examines biological networks through the lives of a dozen trees around the world. It was the winner of the 2018 John Burroughs Medal and the 2020 Iris Book Award.

Haskell received his B.A. from the University of Oxford and Ph.D. from Cornell University. He is professor of biology and environmental studies at the University of the South in Sewanee, TN, and is a fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. He serves on the boards and advisory committees of local and national land conservation groups.

David began his talk by telling us that he was speaking from a location on the land of the Arapaho tribe; he acknowledged and thanked Arapaho elders before going on to thank the Linnaean Society for its invitation to speak this evening.

He stated that the coronavirus pandemic we’re currently experiencing brings an aspect of social behavior to the fore: that sometimes we need to establish distance. However, this necessity is only one aspect.  In fact, we live always in relation to others and “can’t do it alone…life is made for connection.”    

Trees, due to their size, networks, and long lives, are champions of interconnection.  Their immobility is also an advantage in making interconnections. They have to make it work where they are. Where you land as a tree seed is where you’re going to live. Trees have to cooperate and get along with other entities around them. When we look at a tree, our human sense deceives us: we see what seems to be an individual, but in fact, trees are living communities. 

David went on to say that tree lives and human lives are entwined and connected. 

To really learn from trees, he selected a number of very small places and returned to them again and again.  One of them was a single square meter in Tennessee where he returned repeatedly for a year. On his visits he would note the scent of the leaf litter, the various species present, what the light was like one day relative to the previous day, and more. Through this single square meter, he could get a glimpse of what the forest was experiencing. In his second book, he extended the practice of returning again and again to one place by choosing about 12 trees and returning to them for many years. He was quiet and listened to birds, bugs, wind, ice, rain, and more. He explained that by listening, one can quite literally understand the life of the tree.  Metaphorically, we can understand the lives of others.

He then went on to tell a bit about the lives of three of the trees he studied and about how they help illustrate the connection between trees and people.

The first tree he discussed was a ceiba tree in the Amazon forest of Ecuador, where there is 100% humidity, almost constant rain, and 90-degree temperatures. The view from the top of this tree is of thousands of kilometers of unbroken Amazon forest. This is one of the most biodiverse places in the

terrestrial world—with hundreds of species of trees, birds, insects, etc., and this tree is a hub of life. He shared a photo and pointed out that one can barely see the tree itself, as it is covered with moss, orchids, young fig trees, etc., that are growing on it. There were hundreds of species living on this tree, some of which spend their entire lifespans in the tree, never descending to the ground. And, as there is a lot of life, there is a lot of competition. In this part of Ecuador, there are 30,000 species of herbivore, most of which are insects, and there is intense competition for survival. David went on to say that we tend to think that competition forces us into individuality, but this simply isn’t true. Competition hasn’t forced us into aloneness—it has forced us into collaboration. The only way to survive is in cooperation with others. The trees have to unite their roots with cooperative fungi to getwater, because much rainfall never makes it through the dense canopy to the soil. He then showed a large leaf full of holes, remarking that the leaf is a living community full of dozens of species of fungi. The leaf’s function and viability depend on the help of a community of bacteria, fungi, and plant cells all working together. He went on to say that if a monkey is expelled from a group, it will not be able to survive. Also, ants and fungi must work together to survive.  Where biological competition is most intense, we find the most intense partnerships; this is what allows species to survive.

This is also true of human cultures that have evolved in the Amazon forest. The Waorani are people who have lived here for thousands of years. They don’t give plants individual names—plant names come from context and relationships (i.e., where they growing, how they are used).  The same holds true for people. For the Waorani, one’s name is not an indicator of individuality; it indicates your social group.  If one leaves a group and joins another, one’s name changes. Names reflect relationships rather than individuals.  

He contrasted the Waorani with philosopher Henry David Thoreau and his self-proclaimed goal to earn a living “by the labor of my hands only” in his classic work, Walden. Haskell pointed out that for Thoreau, the shedding of dependence on others was a carefully manufactured untruth (i.e., his sisters did his laundry, and he had visitors). One does not live by the labor of one’s hands alone—we are all dependent on others. 

The dogma of separation is also present in the study of biology. The unit, in biology, is individual—this is useful, but examining interrelationships is another way of studying biology. A shift is underway in biology and ethics to ask questions such as “How can I be a better member in a community?” David stated that “we reveal ourselves through our relationships,” going on to say that the type of data that companies like Google and Facebook value and collect about us isn’t who we are as individuals, but who and what we interact with. Our relationships provide the information that identifies us.  

He then spoke of how oil extraction is degrading places like the Amazon. Oil prices are currently low, so pressure is temporarily reduced, but roads and habitat destruction are hurting biodiversity.  Millions of hectares of tropical forest are lost every year—and this rate is currently accelerating. These places are home to many, many indigenous peoples. David reported that indigenous groups that were formerly in conflict are learning from the forest and now working together, as well as reaching out to us to ask for our help. While we value forests and trees, we need to remember that we are in brother/sisterhood with other human beings who need our help. We in the Western world are being asked to help.

The second tree he discussed to illustrate the connection between trees and people was an olive tree in the old city of Jerusalem, where there is much lower humidity than in the Amazon. This tree was likely transplanted in the 1960’s and was about 100 years old. Each leaf of the olive tree has a layer of fuzz that protects it during drought, and it is incredibly well adapted to thrive in this environment of very dry summers and cooler/slightly wetter winters. For thousands of years, the thrushes and doves that feed on the trees have dispersed their seeds. But about 8,000 years ago, humans came into picture and started eating their fruit and cultivating them, performing “domestication”—which is what we call it when we clear out competing plants, bring in irrigation, etc. Olive trees are one of the few plants that will feed humans in this harsh environment. And, the fate of humans and the fate of olive trees are dependent upon one another. David showed a photo of a thousand-year-old tree to demonstrate how its trunk reflects the adaptation of the tree to changing conditions, thus ensuring its survival.

He went on to explain that below the old city of Jerusalem, there still exists a Roman city, and showed a photo of an ancient olive press. He stated that for thousands of years, the winds have blown pollen from the mounts of Jerusalem into the Dead Sea. Every year, a new little layer of mud is added. Therefore, the layers at the bottom of the Dead Sea record thousands of years’ worth of pollen. A mud sample under a microscope shows pollen grains and enables us to see when olives were abundant or rare. Wherever the trees have thrived, humans have done very well. However, whenever that bond is broken, both suffer (i.e., in times of war or severe drought). David presented a column showing 10,000 years of mud data. It indicated that there weren’t many olives until the early Bronze Age, which is when people flourished, too. During the Iron Age, both olive trees and humans collapsed due to a famine caused by severe droughts. Things didn’t rebound until a couple of thousand years ago. He posited that the fact that all Abrahamic religions have olive oil as part of their ceremonies (anointing with olive oil, etc.)  is a direct statement of mutual dependence.

David then switched to a new location, Scotland, and told of how the ground in Edinburgh was torn up to build the massive Queensbury Bridge. Edinburgh had the largest known human settlement in Scotland in the period just after the Ice Age. When the ground was excavated for the bridge, a great deal of charcoal from hazelnuts was found, as the people living there shortly after the Ice Age got their food and heating fuel for the most part from hazelnuts. In short, the colonization of northern Europe came about because of the relationship between people and trees. People and birds helped propagate hazelnuts. Hazelnut trees have roots that are wrapped in fungus that protect it. This was an “Age of Nuts,” as people were feeding on nuts, not grains. The Queensbury Bridge is built on the remains of the first people who lived in northern Europe after the Ice Age. 

The third tree he discussed was a Callery Pear, a species which is native to China, although this particular tree is located at Broadway and West 86^th Street in New York City and reaches out over two lanes of Broadway. In 1916 the governmental department that was the precursor to the USDA was tasked with finding pear species that could be interbred with other pear trees to help them resist blight. Some of these introduced species have crowded out native species in other parts of the country, but on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, it’s not a problem; it’s a benefit. If one were to swipe a windowsill a couple of blocks away from this tree, they would find soot, sludge, diesel fuel. The trees are protecting us from some of this pollution. Soot sticks on twigs and trunks, and the trees’ intake of carbon and release of oxygen cleans the air. Twenty percent of New York City lies under tree canopies—cleaning our lungs and providing shade.  It is typically 15 degrees cooler under a tree, which saves on air-conditioning costs. Also, some storm water is delayed and absorbed by trees, resulting in less overflow into rivers during heavy rainfall. David stated that trees in a city also change the social dynamic—challenging viewers to try standing on sidewalks without trees and not get bumped into. Trees create “eddies” along sidewalks’ “whitewater rapids.” The choreography of sidewalks is different with and without trees. They change our sensory impressions of the City.  

He then discussed an experiment he conducted with the Callery Pear in Manhattan that showed how the sounds of birds and the subway are recorded in its bark/wood via their vibrations. He shared a seismic graph of the vibrations thatreached the tree to show what it is sensing as the subway runs underneath it. These vibrations cause the tree to grow in a different way, such that the energy of the city actually persists in the form of the tree. It is tough to be a tree in a city, but if we give them our attention and care, they provide reciprocity. 

He also pointed out that trees are present in so many other ways in our life—such as when one human mind connects to another through flattened cellulose by reading a book, or when we hear the second life of a tree expressed musically in the sound of a violin. After trees die, they continue to give life: houses are held up with wood; energy is partly powered by wood.  

David closed with an invitation to viewers to select a tree and “befriend it” by opening their senses to its sound, sights,and aroma, saying, “In this time of human isolation, it is still okay to hug a tree and touch a tree. Give it your attention and see where that leads you over the coming weeks and months.”

8:08 pm—Vice-President Rochelle Thomas thanked David for his talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.  

8:32 pm—Vice-President Thomas passed the floor back to President Chaya, who also thanked David, saying that by the end of the program, 283 viewers had tuned in. He then invited attendees to return for next month’s program, “The Real James Bond,” with speaker, Jim Wright.

8:34 pm—The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

AS: Final

(NOTE:  This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order.  He remarked on the challenging year we all faced in 2020 and the benefits of nature and community in helping us to get through such a difficult time.

He thanked the attendees for joining the meeting and expressed the hope that all will continue to attend LSNY programs in 2021.  He said that as of the current moment, 203 people were watching the meeting live and thanked the LSNY Council, committees and past presidents for their continued help this year.

President Chaya reported that it is not yet known when the Society may return to presenting its programs in the Linder Theater at the American Museum of Natural History.  Until then, we will continue to bring our programs online on a monthly basis. 

Because the Society’s membership had recently voted online via email, there were only three business items on the agenda.  

The first item was the news that Vicki Seabrook has been elected the newest member of the LSNY Council, with 113 unanimous votes of approval.  

The second item was the result of a vote on the approval of new members.  It passed with 112 votes of approval and none of disapproval.  President Chaya then welcomed the following eight individuals as new members:  

1. Gale Page, Active Membership, Sponsored by Frank Smith
2. John Maniscalco, Active Membership, Sponsored by Ardith Bondi
3. Daniel Atha, Active Membership, Sponsored by Kevin Sisco
4. Caroline Richard, Active Membership, Sponsored by Ken Chaya
5. Erica Rosengart, Active Membership, Sponsored by Alice Deutsch
6. David Schwartz, Active Membership, Sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
7. Susan Schwartz, Active Membership, Sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
8. Claire Borrelli, Active Membership, Sponsored by Amy Simmons

He then invited non-members in attendance to join the Society and explained that they could do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org.  Additionally, he offered that he, personally, would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, commenting that an organization is only as healthy as its growing and diverse membership.

The final item was the result of a vote to approve the minutes from the November meeting.  It passed with 109 votes of approval and none of disapproval.  

At 7:08 p.m., President Chaya introduced Donald Kroodsma, a birdsong scientist and professor emeritus of ornithology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. As a research scientist, Don has published widely on birdsong for more than 50 years, with lifetime achievement awards from the American 

Ornithologists’ Union and the Wilson Ornithological Society. More recently he has authored books that introduce the general public to birdsong: the John Burroughs Medal-winning The Singing Life of Birds, The Backyard Birdsong Guides, Birdsong by the Seasons, and Listening to a Continent Sing: Birdsong by Bicycle from the Atlantic to the Pacific. 

The title of Don’s most recent book (2020), Birdsong for the Curious Naturalist, was also the title of the evening’s talk. Both his book and his talk explore the beauty of the world of birdsong: songs and calls, female song, song learning and dialects, mimicry, matched counter-singing and counter-calling, night singing, complex songs, repertoires, and dawn singing.

Don opened by remarking that he finds something restorative about nature, and he invited the attendees to  listen to birdsong a bit more deeply.  He then introduced four key concepts that he would be addressing around the topic:

1. Simple to complex
2. Two-voice mimicry
3. Female song
4. Dialects and Dawns
   

1. Simple to complex
Starting with an example of a song on the simpler end of the spectrum, Don introduced the pitch-shifting of the singing Black-capped Chickadee.  He shared visuals of its “hey sweetie” song as a waveform to show how loud it is, and then as a sonogram to show its frequency.  Playing examples, he pointed out that if you listen during the daytime, a chickadee will sing “hey sweetie” all day at the same pitch.  However, the pitch varied throughout his 20-minute recording of a single bird during the dawn chorus.

Moving to more complex songs, Don discussed his research in northern Michigan in April of 2017. He heard a birdsong that at first sounded to him like an exaggeration of the Black-capped Chickadee’s song.  This bird turned out to be a Brown Thrasher. Noting that its songs resembled those of nine different species (Black-capped Chickadee, Eastern Wood-pewee, Common Loon, Eastern Meadowlark (call), Eastern Meadowlark (song), Chipping Sparrow, Northern Cardinal, Nashville Warbler, Northern Flicker, and Least Flycatcher), Don remarked that evidence for these songs being imitations rather than random sounds was bolstered by the fact that none of the songs were of western birds (which would have been out of range of this bird’s normal migratory flyway).  In the course of three days, from April 26-28 of 2017, Don recorded this single thrasher singing a total of about 7,700 songs and 60 different “handles.” (One imitation every 130 songs; each of ten models occurs about six times;  7697/6 = about 1,300 different songs.)  He noted that before females arrive, the males are singing intensely and matching one another.  As an example, he told of two birds who did about 50 matches in only 8.5 minutes. One possibility is that the birds were making up sounds as they went along, matching each other, and another is that they already had these repertoires established and were simply drawing from them.

In an attempt to better understand how the Brown Thrasher vocalizations came to be, Don then researched a closely-related species, the California Thrasher.  In March of 2017, at Montana de Oro State Park in California, he was “blown away” by an individual of the species that he heard there.  Each day, the singing bird had a different, particular “theme,” which is almost the opposite of  how the Brown Thrasher sings. In a sense, each day, the California Thrasher was withholding some of what it knew. Each day’s singing was very different from that of the other days, as could be heard in the samples he played for the audience.

Moving on to the Northern Mockingbird, he referenced its extensive mimicry, reporting how he once heard a single individual bird imitate 14 different species.  That said, again in Los Osos, while listening in the middle of the night he heard two birds engaging in song matching—audio examples of which he shared with the audience. (Don also noted that unpaired, bachelor birds do often sing in the night.)  The song matching was rather astounding to him, as the two birds didn’t use mimicry which is so typical of mockingbirds. 

2. Two-voice Mimicry 
After acknowledging the negative feelings some have about European Starlings, Don went on to say that  their songs are very under-appreciated.  He then played a continuous 49-second song from a single individual, in which the bird imitated a phoebe and a flicker simultaneously by using both its right and left voice boxes. He said that the two voice boxes present in the European Starling can be controlled independently, and said he found this to be a bit of a “miracle.”

3. Female Song 
It is not only male birds that sing.  In particular, Don cited the female Northern Cardinal as one known to be a frequent singer, particularly when it is incubating eggs on the nest.  Playing examples, he said that the female sometimes does song-matching with the male when she is on the nest and he is nearby.  In addition, Northern Cardinals often match one another from neighboring territories.

The female Rose-breasted Grosbeak also sings from the nest.  To our ears, the song of the male Rose-breasted Grosbeak is extraordinarily beautiful. (Human ears are adapted for birdsong that is “slow and low.”)  According to Don, if you sit near a nest, you’ll hear the male singing as he’s coming in (he sits on the nest, as well).  Although it gives away his location, the male will also sing from the nest.

When singing a dawn song, the Rose-breasted Grosbeak will sing a long, continuous series of notes from the ground, whereas during daytime, he will sing from the treetops or the nest.  Also, as shown by sonograms of a singing male grosbeak, most of the sound occurs between 2-3.5 kHz, but when he sings a courtship song to the female at dawn, he sings portions of his song at a very high 10kHz. 

4. Dialects and Dawns 
Don said that one of the questions birders most want answered is why some families of birds learn songs, yet others do not.  Interestingly, Anna’s Hummingbird is a song-learning hummingbird, but it sings so fast that our ears don’t really hear the song.  Anna’s hear (and learn) details that we can only hear at slowed-

down speeds.  It seems that birds can hear in real time much better than humans can.  If we slow the sound down, we can hear the details, perhaps in the same way that they can. Don also reported that by looking at sonograms of Anna’s Hummingbird songs from different areas in California, he was able to identify features of each that the songs of birds in the other locations lacked.  In other words, the birds were singing the same songs, but in different “dialects.”

Chipping Sparrows also have mini-song dialects.  He pointed out that one can quite often walk through a park or golf course, position oneself between two Chipping Sparrows, and hear them sing two seemingly identical songs.  Noting this, he listened to recordings and looked at sonograms to see just how similar the songs of two neighbors were, and found that the songs were indeed essentially identical.  This is because each male learns his song from a single adult male.  So, when you hear males singing identical songs in the same area, you can presume that they have learned their songs from one another and have a relationship of some kind.  

Don then played the “lek-like” dawn singing of three  male Chipping Sparrows that he had recorded in the dark in Missouri—calling it one of the “most intriguing examples of what birds do during the dawn chorus.”  As could be heard in the recording and seen on the sonogram, each bird had a unique sound, and the members of the “lek” sang them at one another for five minutes.  Because each song was unique, after another thirty seconds, it could be heard that bird #3 had departed and bird #4 had now arrived.  This example gives a bit of a window into what’s going on in the dawn chorus:  males are congregating at territory boundaries and having “song battles”—with Chipping Sparrows providing an extreme example of what’s going on.  Don went on to explain that at dawn, lekking interactions take place among males on territories to which the birds who own them return later in the day. 

He concluded by encouraging attendees to “go out there and listen,” and made some suggestions for doing so:

• Listen to one singing bird.  Compare successive songs and note how they change with the time of day and the seasons.
• Try to determine a “handle” (or unique song) that you will know when you hear it again for more complex singers.
• Listen to singing neighbors.  How is each individual fitting into the community?  Note and listen to the various species.  Try to think in an evolutionary context how each song came to be.

8:05 p.m., Vice-President Rochelle Thomas thanked Don for his talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.  

8:22 p.m. Vice-President Thomas passed the floor back to President Chaya, who thanked Don, saying that by the end of the program, 273 viewers had tuned in.  He then invited attendees to return for next month’s program, “The Songs of Trees: Stories from Nature’s Great Connectors,” presented by David Haskell, Ph.D.

8:24 pm – The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(NOTE:  This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order.  He welcomed the attendees before thanking the Council, Committees and past Presidents for their continued help this year.

He then reminded the audience that more information about Linnaean programs and field trips—now in progress with safety guidelines in place—could be accessed on the LSNY website.

President Chaya also reported the recent loss of the Society’s oldest member, Michael Burke Flynn, age 100, who first joined the LSNY in 1937.  Michael passed away at his home in El Paso, Texas on October 26, 2020. This past year, his daughter, Bonnie, told the Society that each year, he never failed to insist upon renewing his Linnaean Society membership. On behalf of the Society, President Chaya expressed condolences to his family and friends.

President Chaya reported that the American Museum of Natural History has cancelled all program events through the end of the year and that it is not yet known when the Society may return to presenting its programs at the Linder Theater.  Until then, we will continue to bring our programs online on a monthly basis.  He announced that the business portion would start the meeting and that the program would follow.    

The results of the online poll taken at last month’s Zoom meeting was announced.  In response to the question if attendees would prefer one (1) or two (2) meetings with speakers each month, there were 92 votes for two meetings and 39 votes in favor of a single meeting.  President Chaya expressed his pleasure that the meetings have struck a popular note with attendees, but that to conduct two speaker meetings each month would/will require a great deal of work and that the Society is run by volunteers.  So, the matter will need to be considered further before a decision is made.  If such a change is made, however, it would not take place before sometime in 2021.

Because the Society’s membership recently took the opportunity to vote online via email, there were only three business items on the agenda.  The first item was the result of a vote on the approval of new members.  It passed with 79 votes of approval and none of disapproval.  President Chaya then welcomed the following 11 individuals as new members:

• Beatrice Schwartz, Active Membership, Sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
• Jean-Paul Picard, Active Membership, Sponsored by Mary Picard
• Donna L. Schulman, Active Membership, Sponsored by Mary Normandia
• Gillian Henry, Supporting Membership, Sponsored by Victoria Seabrook
• Sally Kopstein, Active Membership, Sponsored by Nancy Shamban
• Mary Ann Zovko, Active Membership, Sponsored by Kevin Sisco and Kathleen Heenan
• I.C. Levenberg-Engel, Active Membership, Sponsored by Gabriel Willow and Ruth Hart
• Lenge Hong, Active Membership, Sponsored by Gabriel Willow
• Chee Wok Yong, Active Membership, Sponsored by Nancy Shamban
• Michele Truong, Active Membership, Sponsored by Crystal Thiele
• Sylvia Paredes, Active Membership, Sponsored by Chuck McAlexander

He then invited non-members in attendance to join the Society and explained how they could do so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org.  Additionally, he offered that he, personally, would be willing to sponsor anyone who would like to join, commenting that an organization is only as healthy as it’s growing and diverse membership.

The second item was the result of a vote to approve the minutes from both the September and October meetings.  It passed with 79 votes of approval and none of disapproval.  

The third and final item of business was to announce the request for nominations for a new Council member to replace Amy Simmons, who created a Council vacancy when she became Recording Secretary of the Society.  Nominations were requested from the floor and were to be sent directly to President Chaya at president@linnaeannewyork.org by 9 p.m. that evening.  

At 7:11 p.m., President Chaya introduced Matthew Combs, who earned his Ph.D. at Fordham University in Bronx, NY, studying the ecology and evolution of brown rats in urban landscapes. His work leverages genetic and modeling tools to understand rat migration dynamics and their influence on zoonotic disease. Matt has worked with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene on their rat control efforts and promotes the inclusion of biological context in management strategies. He currently works as a Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Columbia. 

The subject of his talk was, “Rats in the City:  Ecological and Conservation Implications of a Global Pest.” His focus was on the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), which has successfully invaded cities and islands across the globe, causing major public health risks and conservation concern. 

Matt began his talk by highlighting how different species of animals respond differently to the urbanization which occurs in cities, with Brown Rats (also sometimes inaccurately referred to “Norway Rats”) being among the animal species that actually thrive in an urban environment.  Also, due to the global pattern of urbanization, there is an opportunity for replicated study throughout the many major cities that have significant Brown Rat populations. 

Brown Rats are “opportunistic generalists” in terms of diet and habitat:  they will eat what is available and are flexible enough to live anywhere they can create a small nest.  Breeding quickly (gestation period of only 21 days), Brown Rats give birth to 8-10 pups per litter, but have fairly short life spans (most in NYC only live for about a year.)  They are quite intelligent, responding quickly to change and able to learn from one another about new food sources and dangers.  They are also rather social and can change their behavior to fit their current environment.  With well-adapted physical abilities for navigating a city, they can gnaw through asphalt, climb, dig and chew through aluminum and cement.  In short, they can access cities in ways that other animals cannot.  

Matt then listed some of the more popular myths about rats, also providing facts to debunk them:

Myth: “Rats are as big as cats”  
Fact:  Most rats have an average weight between .5 and 1.5 lbs., with a maximum weight of 2 lbs. and a body size of 7-10 inches.  Matt shared that the largest rat he has ever caught weighed 1.75 lbs. (and its body is now at the Yale Peabody Museum.)

Myth:  There is one rat for every human in NYC.
Fact:  Rat populations fluctuate with the seasons, peaking in spring/summer, but estimates are 250K to 2M.  A more realistic ratio is 1 rat for every 36 people.  He noted that rat numbers started increasing in 2015 but that this was more likely due to a change in the methods for reporting rat complaints (via text) than in any true increase in rodent numbers.

Myth:  Rats can flatten their skeletons.  
Fact:  Rats cannot flatten their skeletons, but they do have hinged ribs.  They are limited by their skull size, which is about ½”, or the size of a quarter.

Myth:  Cats can reduce rat populations.  
Fact:  While studies have shown that the presence of cats impacts rat behavior, they have also shown no impact on population size.

He then asked the question, “Why worry about rats?”, and listed three major reasons:  
Public Health – Rats carry a variety of viruses (i.e., Leptospirosis, Bartonella, Seoul Hantavirus), as well as ectoparasites (i.e., Tropical Rat Mite, Spined Rat Louse, Oriental Rat Flea)
Infrastructure damage – Rats can chew and gnaw on support structures and create significant damage
Environmental Health – The poison used to reduce rat populations can end up poisoning animals higher up the food change (hawks, herons, foxes, etc.) 

Having established why cities need to think about and address their rat problems, Matt then pivoted to summarizing the challenges we’re facing and what science can do to help:

Rat distribution – abundance across variable social and ecological conditions such as density of brick sewers, building age, distance to subway line.  His research compared those variables with the prevalence of rats in the city, as measured by DOHMH rat inspections and looked for correlations.  Results showed that landscape variation predicts differential rat abundance. The age of a building was the greatest predictor of its likelihood of having rats.  Other contributing factors to higher rat prevalence included (but were not limited to) the amount of green space (very low amounts of green space and very high amounts of green space were least appealing to rats, whereas ‘middle amounts’ of green space proved to be the ‘sweet spot’ for rats) and median income (lower income areas tend to have higher rat infestation.)  As the Department of Health has limited resources, science can help determine what is most effective (i.e., focusing on older buildings in lower income areas) and what the highest priorities should be when faced with limited budgets.

Population Connectivity – dispersal behavior and movement barriers.  From trapping rats throughout NYC and analyzing their DNA, Matt’s research looked at relatedness among rats, finding that it drops quickly with increasing distance:  at 200 meters there are elevated levels of relatedness; at 200-1600 meters rats are less related, but more related than they would be at random; past 1600 meters, rats are no more related to one another than random individuals would be.

His research also indicated that there were fairly distinct rat populations corresponding with the various neighborhoods throughout the city, with Midtown showing the most inbreeding and least genetic diversity.  In contrast, rat populations in Inwood, the Upper East Side, Upper West Side and Downtown showed much greater genetic diversity.  (As a side note, Matt remarked that the media had fun with the concept of “Uptown and Downtown Rats”)  

The Midtown habitat supports lower rat densities likely because it is less residential and more transient, resulting in less household garbage (which is also picked up more quickly.)  In the surrounding areas, there are more backyards and alleyways to create opportunities for rats to be successful.  With lower rat density in Midtown, it is also harder for rats there to pass along their genetic material.  So, science tells us that we need to be treating for rats across entire neighborhoods, not just individual properties, and that movement barriers create natural management units which we should use to our advantage.

Adaptations – evolutionary response to cities and rodenticides.  To look at how rats have adapted to cities and human environments, research was done comparing the genetic material from rats from their site of origin (the wild grasslands in northern China) to those in cities and looking for new traits that they have evolved.  A genome scan was done for evolutionary signals of adaptations and they were found around locomotion, diet and metabolism. Urban rats showed adaptations in their muscular and skeletal systems for urban traversing; in their diets by way of higher fat/protein content and in their metabolism in the form of an ability to detoxify exogenous chemicals (i.e., rodenticides.)

Matt spoke about the history of rodenticides, starting in the 1940’s and ending with the introduction of 2^nd generation rodenticides in 1975, which take longer to work, causing rats to become sluggish and making them attractive and easy targets for predators who then become poisoned, themselves. Eighty-four percent of dead raptors from NYC that were sent to the DEC tested positive for anti-coagulation rodenticides from 2012 -2015.  Multiple bird species have been poisoned, including Red-tailed Hawks, Peregrine Falcons, Barred Owls, Snowy Owls, Black-crowned Night-herons and others.  

He also spoke about the importance of implementing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to be effective and looked at why current approaches aren’t effective.  Culling rats without a change in environment creates a population rebound (i.e., using poison but failing to remove garbage.)  He listed the following approaches as important to an effective IPM:

Resource (trash) reduction – difficult in NYC, but proven effective elsewhere.  We need a real sea change in how we deal with trash.   
Habitat modification – Reduce harborage around plantings & buildings; need to make difficult choices by way of aesthetics and function    
Non-rodenticide population reduction – dry-ice, reproductive control, genetic engineering.
Legislative and regulatory changes – i.e.,California is even considering a ban on rodenticides.
Constant vigilance and repetitive treatment – although can be expensive and laborious.

Matt’s final takeaways:

• Rats are fascinating and talented, but pose real risks for cities and people.
• Rat abundance is associated with buildings, income, green space
• Rat populations split uptown and downtown in NYC
• Rats appear to be evolving to city life and rodenticide
• Identifying rat issues is easy, true IPM solutions are difficult

8:10 p.m., Vice President Rochelle Thomas thanked Matt for his talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.  

8:28 p.m. Vice President Thomas passed the floor back to President Chaya, who thanked Matt, as well, and invited attendees to return for next month’s program, “Birdsong for the Curious Naturalist,” by Donald Kroodsma.

8:29 pm – meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(NOTE:  This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order.  He welcomed the attendees and announced that there were 135 viewers online before thanking the Council, Committees and past Presidents for their help during the pandemic.  He then reminded the audience that more information about our programs and field trips—now in progress with safety guidelines in place—could be accessed on the LSNY website.

President Chaya explained that the American Museum of Natural History has cancelled all program events through November of this year and that it is possible that the Society will not be able to return to the Linder Theater at the AMNH until sometime in 2021.  Until then, we will be bringing our programs online on a monthly basis.  He announced that the business portion will start the meeting and the program would follow.    

Because the Society’s membership recently took the opportunity to vote online via email, there were only two business items on the agenda:  the results of two votes, one for the approval of Amy Simmons as the new Recording Secretary and one for the approval of new members.  Both passed with 91 votes of approval and none of disapproval.  President Chaya welcomed Amy Simmons as Recording Secretary and then the following fourteen individuals as new members:  

• Crystal Thiele, Active Membership, sponsored by Barbara Saunders
• Reece Hunt, Active Membership, sponsored by Barbara Saunders
• Michelle Zorzi, Active Membership, sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
• Will Test, Supporting Membership, sponsored by Ken Chaya
• Laura Weir, Active Membership, sponsored by Mary Beth Kooper
• Tina Li, Active Membership, sponsored by Ken Chaya
• Tao Leigh Goffe, Active Membership, sponsored by Rochelle Thomas
• Betsy DiFelice, Active Membership, sponsored by Dawn Hannay
• Nancy Turner, Active Membership, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
• Virginia de Liagre, Active Membership, sponsored by Will Papp
• Steve Holleran, Active Membership, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski
• Nithya Sowrirajan, Active Membership, sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
• Matthew Ring, Active Membership, sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
• Richard Woods, Active Membership, sponsored by Miriam Rakowski

He then invited non-members in attendance to join and explained how they could go about doing so by visiting the LSNY website, www.linnaeannewyork.org

At 7:08 p.m., President Chaya introduced Jonathan C. Slaght, Ph. D., who is the Russia and Northeast Asia Coordinator for the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), managing research projects that involve endangered species and coordinating WCS avian conservation activities along the East Asia-Australasian Flyway from the Arctic to the tropics. Slaght has spent more than twenty years working on conservation issues in the Russian Far East, fifteen of them with Blakiston’s Fish Owls, and is a foremost expert on the species. His book on his experiences tracking Blakiston’s Fish Owl in Russia, Owls of the Eastern Ice, was published in August 2020 and it was these experiences that were the subject of his talk. 

Jonathan provided an overview of the landscape and the diverse wildlife found within the region, followed by a description of Blakiston’s Fish Owl biology, ecology, and his efforts, along with those of his Russian colleagues to protect them from extinction.

Blakiston’s Fish Owls are the largest owls in the world, with six-foot wingspans and weights in the range of Bald Eagles. These endangered birds are found at very low densities across northeast Asia, where they hunt for salmon and other aquatic prey in clean mountain rivers and nest in the cavities of enormous trees.

In this region called Primorye, there is a unique and diverse mix of wildlife typically from temperate forests with wildlife typically associated with sub-tropical habitat.  Essentially, it is a mix of sub-tropical species creeping north and boreal species creeping south.  Tigers, leopards and lynx all share the same forest with brown bears, raccoon dogs (a true dog and the only dog species that hibernates in winter), wild boar, long-tailed goral, and the Siberian musk deer (a deer species with uniquely elongated canines), among other species.  This region also includes a large diversity of bird species, as well, including Blakiston’s Fish Owl.

Jonathan first saw Blakiston’s Fish Owl in this region in 2000, while he was with the Peace Corp.  He had heard of it, but did not recognize it at first, as he assumed it was too rare to be seen near the village where he was living.  He stated that even by owl-standards, these birds are “weird”:  (1) the male and female have a unique, synchronized duet (which he played for the audience); (2) most owls have super-sensitive hearing due to very defined facial discs, whereas Blakiston’s Fish Owl has poorly defined facial discs and hearing that is not particularly sensitive; (3) most owls are known for exhibiting ‘silent flight,’ yet Blakiston’s is quite loud when it flies.  Jonathan hypothesized that these are physical adaptations that were lost due to Blakiston’s prey selection and habitat (i.e., fish are underwater so silence is not such an issue, and their habitat is one of roaring waterways, so sensitive hearing would not be particularly beneficial.)  

Blakiston’s Fish Owl requires two landscape features to survive.  The first is an enormous canopy of old growth trees with cavities large enough to accommodate a nest.  Blakiston’s lays one to two eggs, often resulting in a single fledgling.  The species nests every other year and when its chick fledges, it stays with the parents for at least a year and a half.  The second requirement is that of open water in winter.  This is not easy to find in a place where the temperature in winter regularly dips to the -30’s.  Fortunately, this location happens to feature areas where underground radon warms water just enough to keep it from freezing.

The competing needs of humans and these owls were not really an issue until fairly recently.  In 1984, the birds’ general nesting area had only 142 miles of road, but by 2005 there were 3,000 miles of road.  Thus, there was an almost sudden emergence of threats to the species, but no plans in place to mitigate the problems.  Due to the cryptic nature and low density of Blakiston’s, there was very little data to work with.  Slaght connected with two Russian scientists and moved forward with an initiative to catch these owls and fit them with GPS trackers to collect data to use to build a conservation plan.

He went on to describe the work he and these colleagues embarked upon in incredibly harsh and remote areas of Russia.  Initially, they only sought evidence of the owls for future use.  This evidence included:  (1) its tracks in the snow along rivers, (2) its feathers – they tend to release “fat” semi-plume feathers that cling to brush and (3) trees with holes large enough for a nest.

In January 2007 he returned with one of his Russian colleagues to try to actually catch some of the owls.  After spending weeks at a time under extremely cold and arduous conditions, and on the very point of giving up, just before the season ended they were able to catch and tag four individuals. A transmitter was able to record one or two locations a day for about a year, depending on how it was programmed.  To save the battery, it only received data, and didn’t transmit it.  Thus, there was a need to recapture the birds at a later date. Fortunately, Blakiston’s is a very long-lived species with a limited range and not many natural predators. 

From 2008 – 2010, field seasons got “more serous” and the team lived in a customized truck that they could drive to more remote areas.  Jonathan spoke about the importance and value of fostering positive local relationships.  In such a remote and physically inhospitable area, one might need the help of the few locals in the area. He remarked that he has now known some of the residents for over 15 years and they still offer their help.

Jonathan then pivoted to ask the questions: “Why does this matter?” and “How does it apply to us?” emphasizing the importance of recognizing that everything in life is connected.  He pointed out how the current COVID-19 pandemic has shown us just how connected we all are.   From looking at the data, he was able to see that nearly ALL of the owl’s nesting areas were along the river valley – almost exactly where humans had built their roads for logging and fishing.  Much of the wood logged there comes to America to become flooring and the fish caught there is sold all across Asia.  So, if we conserve the land to benefit the owls, then we also benefit the sustainable use of these resources for people.  

After obtaining his Ph.D. in 2011, Jonathan began working with the primary logging company in the region to ensure that it has minimal impact on the owls.  As a result, the company knows to avoid harvesting and building roads in sensitive areas and has been willing to actually block human access to roads with high-diversity wildlife.  He has also successfully put up nest boxes to replace some of the loss of old growth trees.  Currently, there are about 150-200 pair of Blakiston’s living in Primorye, which is about 25% of the total species population.  Jonathan closed by saying that while we’re not saving an entire species, it feels good that we’re making a difference for at least some of the owls.

7:53 p.m., Vice President Rochelle Thomas thanked Jonathan for his talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program.  

8:10 p.m. Vice President Thomas passed the floor back to President Chaya, who thanked Jonathan, as well.  He then announced that a total of 202 viewers had attended tonight’s lecture and invited them to return for next month’s program, “Rats in the City:  Ecological and Conservation Implications of a Global Pest,” presented by Matthew Combs, Ph.D.

8:13 – meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Recording Secretary

(NOTE: This meeting and presentation took place online, via Zoom platform technology, due to social-distancing protocols prompted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic)

At 7:00 pm, President Ken Chaya called the meeting of the Society to order. He noted that it was the Society’s first meeting of the season as well as its first online meeting, ever. At this point, he announced, a total of 79 viewers were online, watching live. President Chaya extended a welcome to all and thanked the Council, committee members and past presidents for their help. He also shared the success of today’s Society field trip in Central Park, which saw 61 bird species, and he encouraged attendees to visit the LSNY website (www.linnaeannewyork.org) for more information on future Society field trips and programs.

President Chaya explained that the American Museum of Natural History has cancelled all program events through November of this year and that it is possible that the Society will not be able to return to the Linder Theater at the AMNH until sometime in 2021. Until then, we will be bringing our programs online on a monthly basis. He announced that the business portion will start the meeting and the program will follow. Because members recently voted online via email on the acceptance of new members, there was only a single business item on the agenda: the results of that vote. With 114 votes of approval and none of disapproval, President Chaya welcomed the following six new members to the Society:

• Asta Skocir, Active Membership, Sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
• Erika J. Garcia, Active Membership, Sponsored by Chuck McAlexander
• Janet Wooten, Supporting Membership, Sponsored by Andrew Rubenfeld
• Kevin J. Sisco, Active Membership, Sponsored by Ken Chaya, Will Papp, Kathleen Matthews
• William Andrew Haluska, Active Membership, Sponsored by Kathleen Matthews
• Diana Lennon, Active Membership, Sponsored by Ken Chaya

He then invited non-members in attendance to join and explained that they could go about doing so by visiting the LSNY website.

At 7:07 pm, President Chaya introduced Paul Sweet, Collections Manager in the Ornithology Department at the American Museum of Natural History, who presented “Exploring in the 21st Century: Ornithological Fieldwork in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea.” Paul spoke about his work as part of a team of vertebrate specialists from the AMNH who made an expedition to the highlands of Papua New Guinea in 2014. The expedition was in search of new specimens and new species and was part of an AMNH initiative called “Explore 21,” developed to encourage multi-disciplinary, old-school field work using modern techniques.

Papua New Guinea, which lies directly to the north of Australia and the east of Indonesia, is a land area of 178,000 square miles with very few roads. It is composed of 700 islands. The population of 7.3 million is 82% rural, speaks 848 different languages (although most also speak Tok Pisin), and exists primarily on subsistence agriculture. During the Pleistocene era, New Guinea and Australia were part of the same land mass, so they have quite a bit of the same flora and fauna. The fauna of continental Southeast Asia have an abrupt end at the Australia/New Guinea plate. New Guinea is known as a “biodiversity hotspot”: although it only has .5% of the earth’s landmass, it has 5-10% of the earth’s species, with 779 bird species recorded and 621 breeding species. Fifty-nine percent of the birds found in Papua New Guinea are endemics. Paul shared photos of a number of the more unique and colorful avian species found there, including kingfishers, pigeons, doves, and parrots, and a variety of Birds of Paradise, a group for which the country is perhaps best known. He shared that many bird families there are quite diverse, citing as examples: doves, parrots, honeyeaters, whistlers, and kingfishers (of which there are at least 30 different species in PNG.)

Paul highlighted the history of biological exploration of Papua New Guinea, starting with the Magellan Expedition of 1522, which first exposed Europeans to the birds there, through the expeditions of AMNH Ornithologist E. Thomas Gilliard and his wife Margaret, which took place from 1948 through 1964. Paul remarked how little things had changed since the time of Gilliard’s expeditions: today, they still hire guides to hike into the forests carrying equipment and food on foot. In addition to Paul, the 2014 AMNH expedition team included: Brett Benz, Ornithology, Chris Raxworthy, Herpetology, and Neil Duncan, Mammalogy.

First flying into Port Moresby, the team spent several days there stocking up on supplies and were joined by local scientists, PNG National Museum Herpetologist, Bulisa Iova; Ornithologist, Michael Kigl, and Mammalogist, Enock Kale. From there, a pilot, using only sight for navigation, flew them to Mount Hagan and ultimately to Malaumanda, a remote village of homes on stilts with a landing strip in the Highlands. The Highlands, which run like a spine through the center of the country, consist of isolated peaks and valleys and two lowlands that are not in contact — features which contributed to the extensive endemicacy of many of the species there.

After a delay due to a local wedding, they set off for Wigilia Camp, a trip which represented about a 1,000-foot incline and virtually no trails. After spending a night with a local family in their ‘bush house,’ the team finally arrived at base camp, which had been cleared, in advance, by Enok and team, who had departed ahead of the AMNH group.

The team then began their fieldwork, which was essentially collecting and preserving specimens — a more labor-intensive process for the ornithologists than the herpetologists, who were able to simply drop their specimens in formalin for preservation. During their stay at this camp, most of their time was spent preparing specimens in their field lab. The environment was extremely wet and somewhat cold. The herpetologists encountered previously undescribed snakes, as well as an incredible diversity of frogs, including previously undescribed species.

After two-and-a-half-weeks, the team came back down to the village for a few days to dry out, rest, collect specimens at that level, and spend time with some of the villagers. A village shaman went through a field guide with Mike Kigl and shared the local names for many of the birds. (The village’s language is not widespread, so this was a unique opportunity.) The AMNH scientists also blogged from the field via a satellite phone during this time – uploading photos and text directly to the museum.

While at a lower altitude and warmer, their second camp was equally as wet as their first. And, although the second camp was only about 1,000 meters lower, it featured completely different avian fauna. The forest here was much taller and not quite as mossy and wet. Paul shared photos of some of the small mammals collected there, including tube-nosed fruit bats and a newly-discovered species of mouse. He concluded his talk by thanking their locally-based field crew.

At 7:58 p.m., Vice President Rochelle Thomas thanked Paul for his talk and facilitated the Q&A portion of the program. She then passed the floor back to President Chaya, who thanked Paul as well, and invited the audience to return for next month’s program by Johnathan Slaght, “The Salmon-eating Owls of Russia.”

The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Amy Simmons, Acting Recording Secretary