Recently analysis and looks at contemporary sources show that Audubon did falsify some other species, which has led some people to believe that these were also hoaxes. Others believe that some of them were misidentifications of known species.
~~Its been awhile but he also hoaxed a sea serpent skeleton I believe.~~
As pointed out below, I am mistaken. The [skeleton sea serpent hoax was by Albert C. Koch](https://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2021/07/kochs-monstrous-missourium-and-horrid_24.html?m=1)
From my understanding he pranked a fellow (ameteur) naturalist by describing and drawing fanciful fish species, apparently it was nothing more than a prank and he regretted it later in life as it really tarnished his reputation
The sea serpent was probably Albert Koch's "Hydrarchos", which was a chimaeric set of *Basilosaurus* bones recovered from Alabama. Koch also placed an "enhanced" specimen of an American Mastodon *Mammut americanum* on display (enhanced with blocks of wood between the vertebrae and leg joints to make it seem bigger) under the names "Missourium" and "Leviathan"-the latter appellation is the reason the name of the biting sperm whale *Livyatan* had to be changed to the Hebrew spelling of "Leviathan", as "Leviathan" is now recorded as a synonym of the American Mastodon. I believe "Hydrarchos", or at least part of it, is currently in a museum in Germany, and the "Missourium" was bought by Richard Owen and put on display in the London Museum as a Mastodon (with embellishments removed). u/GundamBebop
Yes thats what I was remembering! Im not sure why I remember it being Audubon who hoaxed it though. [Heres a link with more info if anyone wants to have a look](https://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2021/07/kochs-monstrous-missourium-and-horrid_24.html?m=1).
Im usually good with my monster/cryptid bird info too :(
Said falsified species were explicitly made for a prank (on John Rafinesque, who was so enthusiastic about describing new species that he rampaged through Audubon's house trying to smack a bat with a musical instrument because he was convinced it was a new species). I cannot really say that's good proof of the eagle being a hoax.
[Here](https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-british-ornithologists-club/volume-140/issue-2/bboc.v140i2.2020.a3/Audubons-Bird-of-Washington--unravelling-the-fraud-that-launched/10.25226/bboc.v140i2.2020.a3.full) is an article that makes what I believe is a very good case that the "Washington Eagle" was not only a hoax, but was plagiarized from an illustration of a golden eagle in the 1802 edition of *The* *Cyclopaedia.* Audubon's description of finding one of the eagle's nests on a rocky cliff is also suspect-- golden eagles and other "true" eagles nest on cliffs, but bald eagles and their close relatives never do. It would not be the last time Audubon was accused of plagiarism. Fellow bird artist Charles Wilson claimed that Audubon's painting of a great horned owl was closely based on his own.
Halley's paper is nothing new-the 2012 edition of Birds of America makes note of this and simply suggests that the illustration of the golden eagle was used as a model. We know that at least one of Audubon's birds is probably a misidentified mutation of a known bird (Townsends' Bunting, which turned out to be an aberrant Dickcissel) so I see no real reason to be overly-suspicious of his other "unknown birds" (which I suspect for the most part are also aberrant individuals).
It is well known that Audubon based some of his paintings on the past works of others, even if he had specimens in hand-in particular I do not understand why Halley would even bring up the Bald Eagle painting when it was based off of a taxidermied specimen (and even then his note bears little relevance-what was stopping Audubon from painting his freshly-shot specimen in the same pose?). The paper makes me think of 'academic headhunting' wherein the author targets a big historical or genus name (see the paper reclassifying *Kronosaurus* as "Eiectus" or the original draft of the *Deinosuchus* monogram that included a paper that would have reclassified it as "Deinosuchoides"-what rubbish!), and given that Audubon is a very popular figure for people to degrade these days due to his virulent (even for the time) racism I would not be surprised if it were so, though I doubt this had much to bear with it and has more to do with the author putting out what he believes is a solution to the issue.
That being said-I am more inclined to believe that Audubon shot an aberrant bald eagle or an ecomorph of a bald eagle rather than him wholesale making up a species. Today "Falco washingtonii" is synonymized with the bald eagle.
Agreed. Whatever the case, the notion of a large, undiscovered eagle in North America is rather hard to swallow. That said, regarding the possibility that all-dark bald eagles once existed, it's worth noting that the Steller's sea eagle once had a population in Korea that lacked the species's normal white wing patches. For a long time, these were considered to be a subspecies or even a species in their own right. No one had seen one since 1968, and they were believed to be extinct.
Then, in 2010 one was hatched-- to normal-colored parents-- in the Berlin Zoo. This proved that the dark form of the Steller's sea eagle was simply a recessive color morph and not an extinct taxon. Might the Bird of Washington, if it existed, have been something similar? Not a hoax, an undiscovered species, or a misidentified juvenile, but an adult bald eagle with a rare color mutation? If that's the case, it's possible we might see this mutation again.
Certainly it does not exist *now*. Whether it could have existed \~200 years ago is another story. Bartram's vulture may provide another example of a large as-of-yet unrecognized raptor existing in 18th-19th century America.
I was actually thinking Bartram's vulture might be another recessive color morph, similar to the Korean Steller's sea eagles or what I think the Bird of Washington might have been.
See, in 1737, Eleazar Albin described a captive bird of dubious origin that sounds exactly like a king vulture, except that he also mentions a white tail tipped with black. In other words, just like Bartram's vulture. But we don't know where Albin's vulture actually came from, whether it was from Florida or South America. We don't actually know whether Albin's vulture was from Florida or not, but it does have the same white tail as Bartram's. So there might have once been a white-tailed morph of the king vulture, which perhaps was abnormally common among the Florida population, just as brown-shouldered Steller's sea eagles were unusually common in Korea.
If the Florida population was small and recently isolated, a random color mutation might have become more common through inbreeding, which in turn would have made the birds less fit and vulnerable to extinction (which would explain why they disappeared so quickly after being discovered). It could be that the genes for a white tail still exist, recessively, in king vultures today.
In short, I think that both the Bird of Washington and the painted vulture existed, but neither was a distinct species. Both were simply recessive color morphs of already-known birds.
The small birds are probably just juveniles or females of known species. The small-headed flycatcher looks like some kind of Empid, and I'm pretty sure the Washington Eagle is an immature bald or golden eagle.
At least one bird that Audubon "described", Townsend's Bunting, has turned out to be an aberrant dickcissel. I would assume this explanation of his specimens representing aberrant forms of known birds would probably satisfy many of the others as well.
I remember seeing this Washington sea eagle in a book as a child and meticulously drawing it on my art portfolio. I'm sure it looks like trash now if I could look at it again, but I wish I could
Recently analysis and looks at contemporary sources show that Audubon did falsify some other species, which has led some people to believe that these were also hoaxes. Others believe that some of them were misidentifications of known species.
~~Its been awhile but he also hoaxed a sea serpent skeleton I believe.~~ As pointed out below, I am mistaken. The [skeleton sea serpent hoax was by Albert C. Koch](https://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2021/07/kochs-monstrous-missourium-and-horrid_24.html?m=1)
From my understanding he pranked a fellow (ameteur) naturalist by describing and drawing fanciful fish species, apparently it was nothing more than a prank and he regretted it later in life as it really tarnished his reputation
Oh it was just a prank bro thank god can you imagine a sea serpent out there! I’d be too uncomfortable to buy cruise tickets
The sea serpent was probably Albert Koch's "Hydrarchos", which was a chimaeric set of *Basilosaurus* bones recovered from Alabama. Koch also placed an "enhanced" specimen of an American Mastodon *Mammut americanum* on display (enhanced with blocks of wood between the vertebrae and leg joints to make it seem bigger) under the names "Missourium" and "Leviathan"-the latter appellation is the reason the name of the biting sperm whale *Livyatan* had to be changed to the Hebrew spelling of "Leviathan", as "Leviathan" is now recorded as a synonym of the American Mastodon. I believe "Hydrarchos", or at least part of it, is currently in a museum in Germany, and the "Missourium" was bought by Richard Owen and put on display in the London Museum as a Mastodon (with embellishments removed). u/GundamBebop
Yes thats what I was remembering! Im not sure why I remember it being Audubon who hoaxed it though. [Heres a link with more info if anyone wants to have a look](https://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2021/07/kochs-monstrous-missourium-and-horrid_24.html?m=1). Im usually good with my monster/cryptid bird info too :(
Why am I tagged?
Said falsified species were explicitly made for a prank (on John Rafinesque, who was so enthusiastic about describing new species that he rampaged through Audubon's house trying to smack a bat with a musical instrument because he was convinced it was a new species). I cannot really say that's good proof of the eagle being a hoax.
[Here](https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-british-ornithologists-club/volume-140/issue-2/bboc.v140i2.2020.a3/Audubons-Bird-of-Washington--unravelling-the-fraud-that-launched/10.25226/bboc.v140i2.2020.a3.full) is an article that makes what I believe is a very good case that the "Washington Eagle" was not only a hoax, but was plagiarized from an illustration of a golden eagle in the 1802 edition of *The* *Cyclopaedia.* Audubon's description of finding one of the eagle's nests on a rocky cliff is also suspect-- golden eagles and other "true" eagles nest on cliffs, but bald eagles and their close relatives never do. It would not be the last time Audubon was accused of plagiarism. Fellow bird artist Charles Wilson claimed that Audubon's painting of a great horned owl was closely based on his own.
Halley's paper is nothing new-the 2012 edition of Birds of America makes note of this and simply suggests that the illustration of the golden eagle was used as a model. We know that at least one of Audubon's birds is probably a misidentified mutation of a known bird (Townsends' Bunting, which turned out to be an aberrant Dickcissel) so I see no real reason to be overly-suspicious of his other "unknown birds" (which I suspect for the most part are also aberrant individuals). It is well known that Audubon based some of his paintings on the past works of others, even if he had specimens in hand-in particular I do not understand why Halley would even bring up the Bald Eagle painting when it was based off of a taxidermied specimen (and even then his note bears little relevance-what was stopping Audubon from painting his freshly-shot specimen in the same pose?). The paper makes me think of 'academic headhunting' wherein the author targets a big historical or genus name (see the paper reclassifying *Kronosaurus* as "Eiectus" or the original draft of the *Deinosuchus* monogram that included a paper that would have reclassified it as "Deinosuchoides"-what rubbish!), and given that Audubon is a very popular figure for people to degrade these days due to his virulent (even for the time) racism I would not be surprised if it were so, though I doubt this had much to bear with it and has more to do with the author putting out what he believes is a solution to the issue. That being said-I am more inclined to believe that Audubon shot an aberrant bald eagle or an ecomorph of a bald eagle rather than him wholesale making up a species. Today "Falco washingtonii" is synonymized with the bald eagle.
Agreed. Whatever the case, the notion of a large, undiscovered eagle in North America is rather hard to swallow. That said, regarding the possibility that all-dark bald eagles once existed, it's worth noting that the Steller's sea eagle once had a population in Korea that lacked the species's normal white wing patches. For a long time, these were considered to be a subspecies or even a species in their own right. No one had seen one since 1968, and they were believed to be extinct. Then, in 2010 one was hatched-- to normal-colored parents-- in the Berlin Zoo. This proved that the dark form of the Steller's sea eagle was simply a recessive color morph and not an extinct taxon. Might the Bird of Washington, if it existed, have been something similar? Not a hoax, an undiscovered species, or a misidentified juvenile, but an adult bald eagle with a rare color mutation? If that's the case, it's possible we might see this mutation again.
Certainly it does not exist *now*. Whether it could have existed \~200 years ago is another story. Bartram's vulture may provide another example of a large as-of-yet unrecognized raptor existing in 18th-19th century America.
I was actually thinking Bartram's vulture might be another recessive color morph, similar to the Korean Steller's sea eagles or what I think the Bird of Washington might have been. See, in 1737, Eleazar Albin described a captive bird of dubious origin that sounds exactly like a king vulture, except that he also mentions a white tail tipped with black. In other words, just like Bartram's vulture. But we don't know where Albin's vulture actually came from, whether it was from Florida or South America. We don't actually know whether Albin's vulture was from Florida or not, but it does have the same white tail as Bartram's. So there might have once been a white-tailed morph of the king vulture, which perhaps was abnormally common among the Florida population, just as brown-shouldered Steller's sea eagles were unusually common in Korea. If the Florida population was small and recently isolated, a random color mutation might have become more common through inbreeding, which in turn would have made the birds less fit and vulnerable to extinction (which would explain why they disappeared so quickly after being discovered). It could be that the genes for a white tail still exist, recessively, in king vultures today. In short, I think that both the Bird of Washington and the painted vulture existed, but neither was a distinct species. Both were simply recessive color morphs of already-known birds.
So you say he is a known liar....but not this time...
No I think he also lied this time
The small birds are probably just juveniles or females of known species. The small-headed flycatcher looks like some kind of Empid, and I'm pretty sure the Washington Eagle is an immature bald or golden eagle.
At least one bird that Audubon "described", Townsend's Bunting, has turned out to be an aberrant dickcissel. I would assume this explanation of his specimens representing aberrant forms of known birds would probably satisfy many of the others as well.
I remember seeing this Washington sea eagle in a book as a child and meticulously drawing it on my art portfolio. I'm sure it looks like trash now if I could look at it again, but I wish I could
Small headed flycatcher and blue mountain warbler look the same to me
Looks like a Stellars Sea Eagle to me