llajor specimen fraud in the Forest Owlet lleteroglaux lAthene auct

/bls(1999)141,11-21
llajor specimen fraud in the Forest Owlet lleteroglaux
lAthene auct.| blewitti
PAMELA
C. FASMUSSENI'
& NIGELJ. COLLAR'
IDivisionof Birds, NHBRoom 336,MRC 114,Smithsonianlnstitution,Washington,DC 20560, USA
2BirdLifelnternational,We brook Courl GirtonRoad, CambridgeCB3 1NA, UK
The Forest Owlet HeterogJaux(Athene auct.) bleUttt is krown from central India from
sevenold specimens,four of which were taken in northwest Maharashtrain 1880-83 by
J. Davidsonand the last purportedly in Gujarat over 30 yearslater by R. Meinertzhagen.
Becauseof recendy documented specimenfraud by Meinertzhagen,we sublectedhis
Forest Owlet specimento scrutiny (including X-raysJ and establishedthat it had been
extensivelyremadein a way that transformedits original appearance.Moreover,it shows
severalfeatures- tying of distal humeri from the outside,cotton wing-stufffngidenticalto
that from a Davidsonbird, original retention of humerus and forme y a stretchedneck that identif its true collectorasDavidson.Exarninationof the Natural History Museum's
cataloguerevealsthat a fifth Davidsonspecimen,collectedin 1884 in the areawhere his
ffrst four were taken, was registeredin 1925 but is now missing,although not loggedas
lost, sold or exchanged.Meinertzhagen'sdiary and specimencataloguestrongly suggest
that he was not in Gujarat on the date given for his l9l4 specimen, and he
surprisinglynever published the record, despite its exceptionalrarity. We concludethat
he stolethe fifth DavidsonForestOwlet specimenfrom the Natural History Museum,and
remade and relabelledit to concealits origin, thereby compromisingthe geographicand
temooral record of this criticallv threatenedsoecies.
The Forest OwLet HeterogJaux (Athene auct.) bbwixi
was until 1997 (King & Rasmussen1998J only known
from sevenold specimenq all collected in central India.
The type specimen was collected in eastern Madhya
Pradeshin 1872, while a bird was obtained 100 km to
the south in Orissa in 1877, four were taken 900 km
to the east in northwest Maharashtrain 1880-83 by J.
Davidson and one was purportedly taken in Gujarat in
l9l4 by R. Meinertzhagen (Fig. l). Recent documentation of specimen fraud perpetrated by Meinertzhagen in redpolls ,4canthk spp. (Knox 1993) led us to
question the reliabllity of the entire Meinertzhagen
bird skin collection. This resulted in the discoverythat
falsiffcation of data is common among Meinertzhagen's
Indian subcontinent specimens (BOU Council 1997,
Rasmussen 1998, Rasmussen & Prys-Jonesunpubl.
data) and prompted us to consider the possibility that
his 1914 Forest Owlet might have a different history
from that indicated by the label data. As this specimen
'Corresponding
author
Email:[email protected]
o 1999 Brilish Ornithologists'ljnion
was claimed to have been collected some 30 yearsafter
all other known material and at a new locality, the
question ofits authenticity clearly bearson the species'
conservation standing, the ramiffcations of which are
discussedelsewhere(Rasmussen& Collar 1998). Based
on morphological comparisons,we resurrect for bleuittr the monotypic genus Haeroglaux (Rasmussen &
Collar unpubl. data).
IIETHODS
Forcat Owlet specimens
Six museum specimens of the Forest Owlet were
mentioned by fupley (1976); four of them at the
Natural History Museum (BMNH), including the t1pe,
two Davidson specimensand the Meinertzhagen skin
(Knox & Walters 1994); with two more Davidson
specimens at the Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Harvard University IMCZJ and the American Museum
of Natural History (AMNHJ, respectively, both
having been exchanged from BMNH. All the above-
12
PC. Rasmussen& N.J. Colal
Figure1. Mapof localities
fromwhichsp€cimsns
ol the Fo.est
Owletoriginate.
mentioned specimenswere thus once held at BMNH;
four of them (including the type and three of
Davidson's) as pan of the Hume Collection. The
second specimen collected, that from Karial, Orissa
(Ball 1877, 1878), is held in the National Museum of
Ireland, Dublin. Thus, all seven published Forest
Owlet specimensare currently extant and accounted
for (Table 1), and five are shown in Figure 2.
ln searching for other, unpublished material of the
Forest Owlet (Appendix l), we examined the BMNH
register of the Hume Collection, but found no
specimen beyond those above (Hume's original
catalogue was stolen and destroyed: E. Moulton
unpubl. data). However, the register of the Davidson
Bequest, which is not in taxonomic order, records an
additional unpublished specimen as Caitle noctua
bleufiri (BMNH 1925.12.23.958, male, Taloda,
Khandesh, 4 December 1884). Although tJrere is no
annotation in the register indicating its exchangE losq
destruction or other transfer, no corresponding
specimen is now present in BMNH. This skin has
evidendy been missingsincebefore 1975, otherwise its
existence would have been known to fupley, who in
April of that year requested the loan of BMNH holdings apart from the type (Smithsonian Institution
Archives Accession 92-063). He later stated 'l
borrowed ffve of the half dozen known specimens'
(Ripley 1976), indicating that he knew ofjust four at
BMNH. Ali (19781, unaware of Ball's specimen in
Dublin, wrote that tupley 'brought together all the
available material of A. bbwitti'. Certainly this fffth
Davidson Forest Owlet specimen was unavailable
when researchwas being done fqr Knox and Walters
(1994J in tlre mid-l980s (M.P Walters in litt. 7997).
It would have brought the total number of knom
specimensofthe ForestOwlet to eight, but for the fact
that cursory examination of Meinertzhagen'sspecimen
had already raised our suspicions.
Conparisonof piaparationtechniques
To evaluatethe autlenticity of Meinertzhagen'sForest
Owlet specimen, we studied the techniques and
materials used in its preparation by external examination, radiographs and analysis of stuffing fibres. We
attempted to discriminate Meinertzhagen's earlycentury preparation style of small owls by doing
similar examinations of 18 of his specimensof Little
Owl Athme noctua in the Rothschild Collection (now
at AMNH) and ten of his Spotted Owlets IBMNH
1965.M.5214-5223,Deccanand Madras,1901, 1937;
Table1. Specimen
datalor ForestOwlets.
SpecimenNo.
BMNH 86.2.'t.54:)r
NMr2902.1887'
BMNH 86.2.1.546
AMNH 2652273
B M N H8 6 . 2 . 1 . 5 4 4
MCZ 236630.
BMNH 1925.12.23.9585
BMNH 1965.M.52303
Sex
Date
Locality
Collector
F
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
14Dec1872
8 Feb182/
5 Dec1880
5 Dec 1880
20Apr1881
5 Dec1883
4 Dec1884
9 Oct.'19'14
Busnah-Phooljan,
C.P (= Phuljar,
M.P,21'13'N,82"51'E)
Kaial.c. P ( = Kharhial,
orissa,20"1/N, 82'46'E)
(Mahalashtla,
Taloda,Khandesh
21'32'N,74"11'E)
Khand€shftaloda intered lrom datel
(= Shahacta,
Shada,Khandesh
Maharashlra,
21'32'N,74o30'E)
Rapapur,Taloda,Khandosh
Taloda,Khandesh
Mandvi,TapliR.,140(sic)m. N ol Bombay(Gujalat,21'16'N,73"22'E)
F. n. Egwitt
V Ball
J. Davidson
J. Davidson
J. Davidson
J. Davidson
J. Davidson
R. M€inertzhagen
M, Male;F,lemale.
lHolotype.
,Oneof about400 Ballspecimens
withlot nurnberNMI2902.1887.
3Exchanged
lromBMNHon 27 Oct 1928;icrmerlyBMNH86.2.1.545.
4Exchanged
fromBMNHon 10 Feb1927;fo.merlyBMNH1925.12.23.1;
recopied
labelhaserroneous
dateof 12May,andstates'From
the HumeColl€clion',
atlhoughin factit wastromthe Davidson
Eequestto BMNh.
5lisledin BMNHregist€rbut missingfromcollection.
6Weconcludehereinthisis acluallyBMNH1925.12.23.958.
Ornithotogisis'
Union,
/bis,141,11-21
O 1999Bdtish
Specimen fraud in Forest Owlet
rng
has
ll5
ln
,l.lI
'ns
'lt
in
rh.'
Lith
ble
,-)
'\\ ]l
l.r(t
nan
rr'st
Jnd
rnarh-
; tn 8
Lttle
\H
,j
-
Figure2. Comparison
of five specimensin ventral(twoupper
rows)anddorsal(twolowerrows)views
of ForestOwlets.Upper
row of each set, from left to right: BMNH 1965.M.5230
(Mein€rtzhagen
BMNH 86.2.1.544(worn April
specimen),
KhandeshDavidsonspecimen),
BMNH86.2.1.546(December
KhandeshDavidsonspecimen),BMNH 86.2.1.543(Blewitl's
holotype,Phuliar),NMI 2902.1887(Ball Karial specimen).
Lowerrowof eachset,fromleftto rightrliveKhandesh
Davidson
SpottedOwlets.(Photos:H. Taylor)
From
Quetta, 6 April t9l4; Lucknow, 1925; W Bengal,
1926). To ascertain Meinertzhagen's general preparation style in 1914, sevenofhis Poona(Pune) specimens
from between 3 September and 2 October l914 were
examined and X-rayed, these being the closest in
Meinertzhagen'scollection register to the claimed site
and date of his Forest Owlet specimen (Mandvi, 9
October l9l4). To evaluate the authenticity of the
13
above Meinertzhagen Little Owlq their preparation
styles were compared among the seriesas well as with
eight Middle Eastem Little Owls that initially
appeared similarly prepared (collected by Lynes,
Rothschild, Hartert, Hilgert, Nicoll, Riggenbach and
Flnkiger; all AMNH Rothschild Collection specimens)
and plumage condition and moult stagewere checked
for seasonal appropriateness. In addition, supplementary data and X-rays are available on preparation
stylesof severalhundred specimensofother Asian taxa
from the Meinertzhagen Collection and other collectors (Rasmussen& Prys-Jonesunpubl. data), including
l2 putative Meinertzhagen specimensof small owls of
other genera.
To examine the possibility that the Meinertzhagen
ForestOwlet might be the missingDavidson specimen,
detailed comparisonswere made with the four extant
Davidson Forest Owlet skins; with a Jungle Owlet
Glaucidium radiatum (BMNH 1925.12.23.960)
collected by Davidson at the same locality aq and just
two days after, the missing Forest Owlet; and with
Davi&on's other owl specimens in BMNH (17 of
which were X-rayed). To evaluate the distinctiveness
of Davidson's preparation style, we randomly sampled
lndian owl specimens from other collectors. X-rays
(radiographs]ofthe above specimenswere made in the
fish divisions of BMNH, AMNH and USNM, using
either Ready-packKodak Industrex-M film or SR fflm,
and settings of 30 kV and l0 mA for an exposure of
40 s; 30 kV and 3 mA for 2 min, and 25 kV and 5 mA
for 30 s, respectively.To obtain comparative samples
of original cotton stuffing, J. P Angle made an incision
in the underwing skin along the ulna on the Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet and the Davidson Jungle Owlet.
These samples were compared microscopically and
instrumentally using a standardbattery offorensic tests
by D.W Deedrick, Chief, Tiace Evidence Unit, Federal
Bureau of lnvestigation (FBIJ.
To allow interpretation of the circumstances
surrounding the collection of the Mandvi specimen,
PCR examined the October 1914 entries of Meinertzhagen's diary deposited at Rhodes House Library
Oxford University.
NESULTS
Evidenc€ to? the rcmaking of Ueine zhagenb
Forcst Owlet
ComDressionof neck
Althoughhiddenby feathersandnot readilydetected,
the neck skin of Meinertzhaeen's
ForestOwlet has
union,/b,i 14'1,11-21
o 1999BritishOrnilhologists'
14
PC. Rasmussen& N.J. Collar
been extensively and neatly folded under (Fig. 3a),
with one major and at least one smaller fold. This
feature is more obvious on X-rays (Fig. 4aJ, which
show the major fold to be about l5 mm wide all round
the neck. If folding had taken place at the time of
original preparation, the skin would simply have
shrunk back; the sharp buckling now present is clear
evidence of the neck being compressedinto the body
well after the skin was dry
lncision and stitching
The ventral incision of the Meinertzhagen specimen is
a very long opening, now loosely stitched by doublestranded blue thread, but the portion over the breast
has one clearly visible old needle-and-threadhole by
which the skin was once stretched and dried, aswell as
other torn, raggedlydried edges(Fig. 3b). The present
stitching does not match the old hole or torn edges,nor
does it follow the stretched edges of the skin. The
ponion of the incision over the belly, however, has no
old stitching holes, but has cleanly cut edges (Fig. 3cJ
which have not shrunk back as they do when fresh
specimeosdry
The nature of the ventral incision indicates that
Meinertzhagen'sForest Owlet rvasextensively remade
some time after original preparation. The only plausible explanation for the failure ofthe present stitching
over the breast to match an old needle hole or follow
the skin edges is that the odginal stitching was
removed some time after the specimen was completely dry and new stitching put in. Moreovet the clean
edgesofthe abdominal part ofthe incision and the lack
of subsequent shrinkage indicate that this cut must
also have been made after the specimen was fully dry.
A loosely sewn incision with double-stranded thread
would place minimal strain on the delicate skin edgeE
and is a common feature of remade specimens in
Meinertzhagen's collection (Rasmussen& Prys-Jones
unpubl. data), and one that we have rarely seen in
specimensthat bear no other indications of remaking.
Figure 3. Close-up photographsof the remade Meinertzhagen
Forest Owlet specimen. (a) Neck skin fold (arrow); (b) part of
incision over breast (arrow indicates old needle-and-thread
hole); (c) abdominalportion of incision;(d) wing incisionshowing tow-wrappedlong bonesand originalcottonnearcarpaljoint
(arrow indicatescotton). (Lowestphoto: H. Taylor)
Union,/bis, t4t, 11-21
O 1999BritishOrnfihotogists'
Absence of oil
The Meinenzhagen specimen is the only Forest Owlet
skin that does not have grease-stainedfeathers around
the incision,or obviousoil on the feet and bill. Instead,
unlike the other Forest Owlets, it has a white powdery
residue on the feet and bill, and the bill appears
bleached (as opposed to dull orange in all the others).
These features are consistent with the specimen
having been treated with a solvent. It is unlikely that
any individual of this almost certainly non-migratory
owl would have had more than a moderate fat laver
and it is thus improbablethat its collectorwould have
gone to the considerabletime and trouble involved in
washing it with a solvent during original prepalation.
16
PC. Rasmussen& N.J. Collar
in the Meinertzhagen specimen, and the loss of much
ofthis bird's skull may have been an inadvertent result
of removal of the articular region, perhaps owing to
the britdeness of long-dried bones. Davidson left the
femora in his other Khandeshspecimenq which would
have made the legs very difficult to reposition, so it is
likely that the femora were removed in the remaking
of Meinenzhagen's specimen. Repositioning of an
originally improperly dried wing (as were some of
Davidson'sJwould be facilitated by breakageor disarticulation of the wing bones.
Comparbonr
with rloine
zhagen' owl
speclmens
Becauseof the questionable provenance of many of
Meinertzhagen'sspecimeng the featuresofhis genuine
preparation style are difffcult to determine. Our efforts
to establish his early-century preparation style for
small owls have been hampered by the considerable
differencesbetween many specimensin his collection,
some of which match specimens from other collectors's seriesfor which specimensare missing.
However, except for two birds noted below, all his
A. nactua lilith and A. n. gJaux In LMNH show consistency within and to a lesser extent between series
(Fig. 5a, 5b), aswell asbeing broadly similar in style to
several other Meinertzhagen .4drenr specimens (e.g.
nocraa, BMNH 1965.M.5160-5163, 5167; brama,
BMNH 1965.M.5214-s2r8,
5223-5224;Fig. sd).
Alsq we have not located other collectors' specimens
that closely match the Meinertzhagen Little Owl
series.[n addition, the AMNH Litde Owls appear to
be in seasonally appropriate plumage, unlike many
questionable Meinertzhagen specimens,so all indications are that this material bears genuine data.
However, two specimens from this series - both of
A. n. lilith (AMNH 631339-631340 - are prepared
very differendy from the others, and have clearly been
remade, albeit not in the same manner as the Fotest
Owlet; their provenance must also be considered
dubious. The Meinertzhagen owl temporally closestto
his Forest Owlet is a Spotted Owlet [Fig. 5c, BMNH
1965.M.5220) purportedly collected at Quetta on
6 April l9l4; tlis specimen, however, bears little
similarity in style to any of the other Meinertzhagen
owls studied, and again may not bear genuine data. Of
48 small owls ostensibly collected by Meinertzhagen,
including 30 in the Meinenzhagen Collection and l8
Litde Owls in the Rothschild Collection, only one A. n. hAlaw| the Tibetan race - bears any compelling
resemblancein preparation style to that of his Forest
Ornithologists'
union.,bis,141,|1-2'l
o 1999British
Owlet. This specimen, purportedly collected by
Meinertzhagen on the Tibet-Sikkim border, is almost
certainly fraudulent as well (Rasmussen& Prys-Jones
unpubl. data).
Charecterlatlcs
rp€cimens
ol feineltzhagon
Pune lPoonal
A Meinertzhagen seriesfrom Pune collected between
3 September and 2 October 1914 {BMNH 1965.
M.s72s, 6043, 6113, 9898, 9934,
542-lrs43)
shows a consistentextemal preparation style, with the
hea& at least slightly tumed; long thin necks, understuffed bodies, crossed legs and no external support
stick. The incisions on all are rather low and sewn with
beige to brown thread, and each has similar small dark
flakes of a sawdustlike material in the somewhat oily
feathers around the incision- X-rays (one shown in
Fig. 5e) confirm their similarity; the back of the skull
was cut off on six of the seven specimens;the humeri
were broken just below their heads(except in one witl
shattered wing bones); and the wings are positioned
asymmetrically. Most characteristically, the short
support stick was wrapped with stuffing material and
at Ieast sometimes with thread wound over that; the
neck skin dried close to the stick in these specimens
and appearsundisturbed, indicating that tlle 'cottoned'
stick was used in the original preparation. Finally, the
plumage condition of each specimen seemsseasonally
appropriate. All indications, thereforg are that the
Puneseriesmay bear genuinedata.
It will be noted that the characteristicfeaturesofthe
Pune series are not present in Meinertzhagen's Forest
Owlet specimen, although the latter was purportedly
collected just seven days after the last of the former
Comparison of the Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet
(Fig. 4a) with an Indian Roller Coracias bengabnsis
from his Pune series (chosen becauseof the species'
comparable size: Fig. 5e) confirms this lack of resemblance in style.
Comparisor of Davidson specimens and
Ieingrtzhagenb
FoEat Owlet
Davidson's owl specimens from Khandesh fbut not
those from some other localities) are all very similar
and have several unusual and characteristic features
that set them well apart from those of other collectors.
Becausethe missing Forest Owlet is from Khandesh,
we deal here with Davidson'sstyle from this locality. lt
seemslikely that some of his skins were prepared by
local assistantsfollowing his instructions, but for the
Sgecimen fraud in Fotest Owlet
17
1 t')
l () I l ( ' 5
)na)
'\'cen
!r65.
:{3)
r the
lJerilort
\\ ith
Jrrk
r oil-v
nin
skull
|lr1cti
\ ith
on.-d
rhort
l.rnd
.. the
,ncd
, rhe
'n.rlly
i the
.l the
'LrreSt
rctii-v
rntcr.
,\\'let
Figure 5. X-rays of other Meinert2hagenspecimens.(a\ A. noctua lilith, AMNH 631344; (b) A. n. glaux, AMNH 631277; (c) Spotted
(d) SpottedOwlet,BMNH 1965.M.5216;
(e) IndianRoller,BMNH 1965.M.6043.
Owlet,BMNH 1965.M.5220;
sake of simplicity we refer herein to the Khandesh
preparation style as Davidson's. The two Davidson
Forest Owlets not shown in Figures 2 and 4 (the
AMNH and MCZ specimens) and his other Spotted
Ou'lets are very similar extemally and on X-ray view
to BMNH 86.2.1.546,with no significantdifferences.
:1()t
:::tilr
Retention of humerus
X-rays of original Davidson Khandesh owls show that
in 1l out of 12 cases he retained the complete
humerus (Figs 4b,4c). Although the Meinertzhagen
Forest Owlet now entirely lacks humeri and proximal
radii and ulnae, the X-rays (e.g. Fig.4a) show the
channelsin which the shaftsof the humeri lay and the
impressionofthe head ofthe right humerus, indicating
that the skin must have originally dried around a full
sct of wing bones.
'J.'sh,
l rt r . I t
tJ b1
,r the
Ventral incision
,\s described above, the Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet,
rrhich nou. has the ventral incision long and loosely
servn with double strands of thread, must previously
have had a high, sewn incision over the breast (Fig. 3b)
It'rrsis
.aies'
tsem-
and the skin over the abdomen must have first been
cut duing the remaking process (Fig. 3c). Three of
the four Davidson Forest Owlets have long, unservn
incisions,while the 1883 specimen has a long, tightly
sewn incision, so all are dissimilar to the presumed
original incision o[ the Meinenzhagenspecimen on
that basis. However, examination of Davidson's
Spotted and Jungle Owlet specimensshowed considerable latitude in incision position and stitching: four
had high, sewn incisions (as the Meinertzhagen Forest
Owlet originally must have had], while ten possess
other incision types.
Wing-stuffing
Davidson'sspecimensshow the highly unusual characteristic of having cotton stuffed around the radius and
ulna without the skin over these bones having been
slit (Fig. 3dJ. In all 3l Davidson owls examined for this
featurE stuffing fflls the forearm vacuity rlp to near the
carpal joint: this is the reason that in X-rays the skin
edgesshow up well removed from the bones (Figs 4b,
4c). However, palpation and X-rays clearly reveal that
none of the Meinertzhaeen Little Owls in the
union,/D,q l4'1,11-21
O 1999BritishOrnilhologisls
18
PC. Rasmussen& N.J. Collal
Rothschild Collection has stufftng around the radius
and ulna (two examples in Fig. 5a,5b). In addition,
palpation of 80 randomly selected BMNH Indian
specimens(20 of each species)of Brown Hawk-Owls
Ninox scutulata, hngle and Spotted Owlets, and Little
Owls from various collectors showed that, of thesg
only one Bourdillon Brown Hawk-Owl (1880.8.9.94,
TiavancoreJ has stuffrng in the forearm, although the
overall preparation style is very poor and different
from that used by Davidson. When J.P.Angle slit the
wing skin on the Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet for this
examination, he found that while the proximal twothirds of the radius and ulna are wrapped and bound
with tow, the distal portion up to the carpal joint is still
stuffed with a wad of yellowed, unreffned cotton
(Fig. 5dJ. In expert independent comparison of a
sample of this cotton from the Meinertzhagen Forest
Owlet with Gat from Ge same portion of a wing of
the Davidson Jungle Owlet (collected two days after
the missing Davidson Forest Owlet and at the same
'no
locality)
signiffcant differences were detected
between these samples' (D.W Deedrick iz lin. '1997;
test results on ffle with BMNH).
Neck length
Davidson's Khandesh owls examined are typified by
their unusually long necks (Figs 4b, 4c). By contrast,
Meinertzhagen's Forest Owlet has a short neck, but
this is the result of the aforementioned l5-mm wide
fold in the skin (Figs3a, 4a), which shortenedthe neck
by at least 30 mm and probably more. In the MCZ
Davidson specimen, the distance from the base of the
lower mandible to the upper breast fthe neck length)
is about 47 mm; in Meinertzhagen's this distance is
now about 25 mm, so neck length must have been at
least 55 mm in the original preparation.
Position of feet and legs
The feet of Davidson's Khandesh Forest and Spotted
Owlets are either positioned sraight (Figs 4b, 4c), or
with one leg dried off to the side, with the tarsi
uncrossed. The tibiotarsi were not pushed into the
body and the claws are for the most part curled in. The
Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet has the feet positioned
straight and close together, and the toes and claws are
dried in a comparable position to those of Davidson's
Khandesh bnds. The only apparent differences in leg
and foot position between Davidson skins and the
Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet are due to remakine:
the visible portions of the legs on the Meinertzhagen
bird are shorter because the skin is twisted round.
Ttre skin of the right leg was largely fflled with
Ornilhotogists
Union,
tbts,141,11-21
O'l9ggBritish
cotton above the broken tarsomeerarsus.
Tying ot distal humeri
Davidson sometimes utilized a unique technique of
'elbows'
sewing the
or distal humeri together from the
oztsideof the specimen, acrossthe back but under the
feathers and pulled tight. Of the four attributed
Davidson Forest Owlets, only the 1883 specimen has
the distal humeri tied together on the outside.
Examination of his other owl specimens at BMNH
showed that two out of I I Spotted Owlets IBMNH
1925.12.23.951,957, from 1883J, his only Shortearcd.Owl Asio flammeus (from 1884) and two out of
four Barn Owls Tyto alDa (BMNH 1925.12.23.
942-943, from 1885 and 1883, respectively) had the
wings tied together from the outside. The external
thread between the elbows is lacking in all ffve of his
Jungle Owlets (from 1884-87), all four Brown HawkOwls (from 1895-96), his only two Tawny Owls Srni
aluco biddulphi (from 1896) and his single Brown
Fish-Owl Kenpa zeylnnensis(from 1883).
Although tlese were previously hidden by feathers,
the Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet still has pieces of
matching coarsewhite thread, one sewn into the skin
'elbow'
of each
and lying over the back; clearly these
were originally a single strand which was cut durins
remaking.When positionedacrossthe back without
being pulled tigh! the tlvo ends of the thread now
overlap each other by about l0 mm, indicating that
the wings were positioned at least that much closer
together during remaking, and that they had originally
been tied together on the outside in the manner
typical ol and fso far as we are aware) unique to,
Davidson. Of curators and techniciansin severalmajor
museumswhom we have consulted, none knew of anv
other preparatorwho evertied the wingsby sewingthe
distal humeri together from the outside. In a random
check for an external thread between the distal humeri
of 100 BMNH owl specimens (Barn Owlq Brown
Hawk-Owls, Short-eared Owls and Spotted Owles;
20 of each species) by several different preparators
(not including Davidson), none possessedthis feature,
nor did the Blewitt or Ball Forest Owlets, nor anv of
the Rothschild Museum seriesof Little Owls lrom the
Meinertzhagen Collection.
Dtscusstoll
The lraudulence of Xelnertzhagen's spocimon
The remakingof specimensis an acceptedtechnique
that doesnot necessarily
lessenthe valueof the mate-
Specimen fraud in Forest Owlet
lue of
'm the
Lerthe
ibuted
:n has
rtside.
\INH
\INH
Shortout of
12.23.
rd the
temal
of his
-larsks Strix
Jrorvn
rthert
;cs of
e skin
these
luring
thout
lnow
l that
.loser
xnally
anner
re to,
major
rt any
rg the
ndom
.rmen
,\'lets;
ralors
3lUre,
ny of
T)the
|eN
rique
nate-
rial. It is usually undertaken in the following circumstances: preparing study skins of birds as exhibit
mounts or dismounting exhibit specimensfor incorporation into study skin collections; repositioning of
improperly prepared specimens;cleaning of greasyor
dirty skins; preparing skins that had been salted and
dried in the field.
However, in the case of a very rare specimen, a
responsible curator would probably not sanction
extensive remaking for mere cosmetic changeq since
thc risk of damageis considerable;and it would seem
unlikely that Meinertzhagen would have taken such a
course if the specimen were already adequateor nonincriminating, Both of these circumstanceswould be
e\pected to apply had the bird originally been
preparedby Meinertzhagenor someoneworking under
his supervision. In any case, the end result of the
remaking is that the Meinertzhagen Forest Owlet
specimennow bearslittle superficial resemblanceto its
original preparation. Inevitably, therefore, the extensive remaking of Meinertzhagen's Forest Owlet must
be regarded as highly suspicious.There are, however,
severalother circumstanceswhich, independently and
in conjunction, point towards the non-authenticity of
\ leinertzhagen'sForest Owlet.
First, his extensive unpublished diaries make no
referenceto his having left Bombay during the period
(i-13 October l9l4 or to his having done any collectrng at that time. The date of collection given on the
specimen label, in Meinertzhagen's own hand, is 9
October 1914. The entry immediately preceding this
Jate in his diary is for 6 October, and states'Sheppard
and I came down to Bombay today and are staying at
the Taj Mahal Hotel. We have a great deal to do now.
I am busy compiling an Intelligence Book for the
troops...' The following entry is for 13 October 1914,
againfrom Bombay,which states'...1have been kept
r ery busy here with my Intelligence work.'
Second, in Meinertzhagen's own register, we can
find no record of his having collected any other bird
specimens at or near this time (9 October 1914) or
place (Mandvi, Gujaratl. The closest register entries,
both chronologically and geographically, are from
Pune,between 3 September and 2 October 1914, and
his diary affirms his presence there during that
period but, as noted above, these apparendy genuine
specimensof common roadside birds bear no r"semblance in preparation style to his Forest Owlet.
Chronologically, the nearest Meinertzhagen register
entries subsequentto the Forest Owlet are from East
Africa, to which he sailed in late October 1914
fCocker 19901.
19
Third, our examination of contemporary maps (four
miles to the inch) produced by the Survey of India
Offtces, Calcutta, show that Mandvi is roughly 30
miles (50 km) eastof t}re Bombay-Baroda railway line
and 8 miles (13 km) north of the Tapti Valley line that
ran east through Klandesh from Surat. To fft such a
trip into a maximum of six days (7-12 October),
Meinertzhagen would have had to first take a ffain,
then either take a secondtlain to a station near Madhi
(about 2l'08'N 73'14'E) and walk/ride eight miles
north, or take a boat from north of Surat up the Tapti
River to Mandvi. After only a day or two at this curious destination, he would have had to make his way
back again by the same means.
Fourth, Meinertzhagen never himself published on
the specimen, despite its rarity and obvious importance, eyen though he produced a note on other
Athene (Metnertzhagen 1950). His Forest Owlet was
not mentionedby Ali (1948, 19491or Ripley (1952,
196IJ, indicating that this sole Gujarat record had not
yet been reported. ln Ali (1948), the only deffnite
localities mentioned for the species are Phuljar (i.e.
near Sambalpur) and Khandesh, although he added
'... not actually met with by the Survey in
that it was
the Cujarat Satpuras,but of which the known distribution is suggestive'.Ali gavea signedcopy of this paper
to Meinertzhagen, who stamped his library seal on it,
suggestingits receipt well before his death in 1967 and
probably much earlier (Meinertzhagen'shealth greatly
restricted his ornithological activities after 1960:
Cocker 1990), and at some stage Meinertzhagen
informed Ali of his specimen ('Meinertzhagen had
given me his locality as Mandvi': S. Ali in lir. to S. D.
Ripley, 25 July 1975, Smithsonian Institution Archives
Accession92-063). The ffrst mention of the specimen
in the literature was by Ali and Ripley (1969), two
years after Meinertzhagen'sdeath. Prior to that, Ripley
(1952J, hence doubtless Fisher [1960) and Anon
(1962), had stated that no new data had been obtained
on the l.otest (Jwlet slnce ld/2.
These circumstancesmake it very dif&cult to believe
that a soldier who was also both a prolific collector and
diarist would leave Bombay for no plausible reasonat
an extremely pressing time (war having been joined
only two months before); undertake a joumey that
would necessarilyinvolve complicated logistics;collect
only one bird specimen, by chance an extemely rare
species (the only specimen recorded this century) at a
locality from which it was previously unrecorded; and
then return to Bombay, all without even mentioning
the event in his diary or publishing on the specimen.
Certainly on tlre testimony of the diaries and the
union,,brs,141,11-21
O 1999BritishOrnithologisrs
20
p.C. Rasmussen
& N.J. Co ar
specimen registe, an ,expedil
after 18g5, he improved his style
."rr"auyc,?,""i'r;;r;:#:n"::Xill"J,
j:'.],-"' Apparently.
sufiiciently
to abandonthis techniquealtogether
,;["1i:",""ff#il::iJ.IjJfi:^':;
;i#;
Dayidson a! the true collector
o,
lf eine?tzhag€nb specimen
original
from his collection, bui io
."t.h
,matenal
nrgnly distinctive
aspects of Davidson,s ,ayf". Wf,""
rnls clrcumstance is considered
together with the fact
It. is
-apparent from examrnation of Davidson,s
Khandeshspecimensthat he had
U.* fo.*rn""tt"
trainedasa preparator;his style(.. "*
,h", ;i;;, ;;.;;;
torsl differeddistinctlyfrom those
ofa"y
;l;;
we haveexamined.
",h;.r,af"i,"
flo
o _.r,
i?1.i-"nt
ff; ;#i;;ffiff;.:ilfl
,,:,,:HlHl?;u
.T; :1::.:il:T::r;,rm*l':
fi ':l:il?
;:
Meinenzhagen,s being at Mandut
,Tl,i,:r
on
"q"l1sl
r \JcroDer
l9l4 or everhavingcollecteda
specimenof
lorest Owlet, the inescapable
conclusioni, d;;;;
ivrerneruhagen specimen is
in fact the missing fifth
blrd
therefore expunge the Mandvi
lavidsl
-We
lorest Owlet from
the record. This decision
is
BMNH and Davidson,soriginal
data have
::::?"d
",
now been restored to the specimen
in question.
distal humeri together on
the outside ;
il
il;
necks.of his skins. Other ffeld preparators
cut or break
the tibiotarsus at or below is
r
;::JH:ffT''-:L#-::tl Ti"[f,i:
specimen
retainsonly ,_Af O,"." ,i
I:i:l"t*en
one remur is not evidence
"
itd,dnot;;;;;;
that
;;;;1: 3,"1r":'."1[n'ffi
:ii
il*t,tt.ff
ti'dH*
frlg[lft
j"i't'i":#
Eti:t'r#",9;il{p;ili1"ffi
**effi,*t#**t+
ffi
:r,;ii't#j-t''*,l;
#'l'n"l#l
ii;iiff:":g:!u'
;I:",;"T*::
ifrt';ffilfftl';$i:
;H#:;i,,'.T.ff1:I, jJ"lTl,
originally had the entire set
of wing ;;;.;;:;
Davidson's Khandesh birds.
Davidsol s method of stuf&ng
cotton around the
radius and ulna (forearm) without
sjittine rhe wt.o
srun js most unusual,as preparators
_"iu__rir.i
"f preparators
bilds
stuff'this area.
of
19_:Trll
.rarely
much larger birds
often cut the skin,o..rnou"
ah.
TTlt: i"d:" "t -"v not,t.rffth";;;;;;;
corton
foundneu.th" ca.pal
:l:'l:1t1"
T.
tointof
u't, rvrelnenzhagen
specimen would have become
o.*rh absorption
of fat,;"j;.;;^; ;;i;
]:1": :lll
Indeed,the.distalponionof the
f.^rr, .."iai.""
to accessdurinSremaking,as
the
"T: . ::?,dffi:rlr,
ii::ff
;j ffiHi
not removed at that time.
probably adopted the unrque
technique of
. .Davi.dsol
tyrng the distal hu_meritogether
acrossthe outside of
the back to solve the problem
of the wings n";;j;;
;;
;l'.:l;:f'l:'"lff :[:::I'..,"Jfi
T..#
il:
from the inside,eith-er
Uy ,..ing
I'19:.,,o9.S",
,1," scapulartracrs,or by
ryingth" tu_.j
:l::Cn
trfii$Ili1r",:r.-J
iln"ff"ll'i,"J'j_';l
!:i';kx f*q,:';,
,tt]i$it'.,ffi
]l'::#
dj,:[j:ffi
REFEREIfCES
Ali, S. t948. The GujaratSatpuras
|n trldran
h
ornitho-geographv
Gujarat Bes.s*. u"tl]'i..'i]rl',,
Afi..S.
The Satpu.atrend an orn,tnoO
Ecal hehwayprcc.
Na .1949.
"s
Acad. Sci. lndia 1Si 37g_3a6
?'"":i**:"g",T,Jjl;l*,*:t
:!i;q",;ffi
^"''l;31i";.?if?i'f;""n1'nl;o;"'
e er"*i"towrorForest
spotj:
:i,T:::
#
",,ii';.
T1,1:,:.3"_:::o
;:#'*
iff
-in
somg but not all, medium-sized
owlq ."rr,t
"l
presented less difiiculty
in positioning th.
o 1999Bdlish
ornithotogists,
union,/b/b,141,lr_21
*ingr.
Aff,S. & Rjpfoy,S.D, 1969.Hanfu;
of theBirdsot rn(liaanctpaktstan toqether with those ot Nepat,
Sikkim, Anutan anACevii.
Specimen laud in Forcsl Owlet
ttrle suffires of the
rpparendy
do match
;lc. When
h the fact
r missing
t'r'idence
Iandvi on
ecimenof
that the
sing fffth
' Mandvi
clsl0n 1s
lata have
)n.
cmoval of
Angle for
Evidence
ons,addi'r ided by
\luseum
shop, O.
and FE.
B\INH);
lparatlve
n.-d; M.
Beehler,
rhourne,
\luseum
>ological
Ta1'lor,
lices.R.
father's
rversity,
5i| proian Red
;as proiational
hrough
:)grams,
vol.3, StoneCurlewsto Odg 1st edn. Bombay:OxfordUniverAnon 1962.A newgenusof birds- and old speciesin danget Ner
Scienrsl19 (278):606.
edll, V. 1A77.Noteson birds observedin the regionbetwe€nlhe
Mahanadiand Godavari ttuers.Stray Feathers5t 41H,20.
Bsff, V. 1878.Fromthe Gangesto lhe Godaueti.Stay Featherc7,
191-235.
British Ornlthologi3ts' Union (BOU) Council 1997. The tuleinertzhagenCollectionof birds at The NaturalHistoryMuseum,
EirdGroup,Tring,UK. lbis 139: 431.
Cocker, lr. 1990. Richard Meinertzhagen: Soldier, Scientist and
Sov London:Mandarin.
Fishe., J. 1960. Bitd Speciesin Danger ol Ertinction. Inlernalional
Zoo Yeabook2. London:ZoologicalSocietyol London.
c.eryel, B. 1995. Bitds ot the Indian Subcontinent. Hong Kong:
Gurdebook
Co.
xing. B.F. & Rssmussen, P.C. 1998. The rediscoveryol lhe
Fcrest Owfet Athere (Hetercglaui blewini. Foktail14.
- a case ol lraud examxnox, A.G. 1993.RichardMeinertzhagen
red. /bis135: 32G-325.
xnor. A.G. & WefleJ3,)4.P,1994.Extinctand endangercdbirdsin
:ae collectionsof The Natural History Museum. T/inq,UK: Brilish
No- 1.
linrthologists'ClubOccasionalPublication
&rrErtzhagen, R. 1950.On ihe generaAthere Eoie 1822(geno.tpe Athene ,octua (Scopoli)) and Speovo Gloger 1842
Jenotype Stix cunicula a Molina). Bu . 8r. Onithol. Club ?Oi
P.C. 1998. Tytler's Leaf Warbler PhytloscopusVten
-on-breedingdistribution,morphologicaldiscrimination,and
".slnr"".n,
.?etog.Fo*tail 14. 17-28.
R.smussen, P.C. & Coll6r, N.J. 1998. ldenlification,distribution
3.d siatus ot the Forest Ovtlel Heteroglauxblewifti. Forl<tail1{l
:1-{9.
R'pley, S.o. 1952. Vanishingand extinct bird species ot India.
-) Eombay Nat. Hist. Soa 50: 902-€06.
Ripfey, S.O. 1961. A Syropsis ol the Birds of lndia and Pakistan
logethet with Those ol Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Ceylon, 1sr
edn. Bombay:EombayNatural History Society.
21
Rfpfey, S.D. 1976. Reconsideraiion ol Athene blewitti (Hvme}
J. Bonbay l,lat. Hist. Soc. 73: 1--4.
Received19 July 1997;revisionsaccepted
l3 November1997
APPENDIX
The museums listed below were examined {with negative
results) for additional specimens of the Forest Owlet.
Examination was by direct inspection, perusal of computer
and other catalogues,and correspondencewith staff
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia; Bombay
Natural History Society; Catnegie Museum of Natural
History Pittsburgh; Casde Museum, Norwich; Cincinnati
Museum of Natural History; Field Museum of Natural
History Chicago; Institut Royal des Sciences Naturels,
Brussels; Merseyside County Museums, Liverpool; Museo
Civico & Storia Naturale, Milan; Museo Civico di Storia
'Giacomo Dorio', Genoa; Museo Zoologico
Naturale
'La Specola',Flotence;The Museum, Michigan
Univetsitario
State University, East Lansing; Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Ha*ard; Mus€um National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Paris; National Museum of Natural History (USNM),
Washington, DC; Rijksmuseum voor Natuurlijke Historie,
Leiden; Royal Albert Museum, Exeter; Senckenberg
Museum, Frankfurt; University ofKansas Museum of Natural
History, Lawrence; University of MichiSan Museum of
Zoology, Ann Arbor; University Museum, Oxford; University
Museum of Zoology, Cambridge {UK); Yale Peabody
Museum of Natural History New Haven; Zoological Survey
of India, Calcutta (ZSIJ; Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam.
'graphy.
n Spol-
)eylon,
Union,,6b, 141, ll-21
@ 1999BdtishOrnithologists'