94 Daniel McKinley 



him. By then, in their report for the period 26 November to 12 December 

 1936, both Sprunt and Allen had pretty much put their stamp of ap- 

 proval upon the notion that there were parakeets present. Despite Allen's 

 later recantation, consider this: "From the details of these and previous 

 observations and the established nature of the evening flyway we have no 

 hesitation in identifying these birds as Carolina Paroquets (Conuropsis c. 

 carolinensis)." It is perhaps not surprising that, in the face of such 

 persnickity taxonomic overkill, talented and experienced Griscom should 

 have emphasized that "neither gentleman had had any previous ex- 

 perience with wild parrots at any time or place." 



Things slowed down in 1937. There was a February report of a para- 

 keet from the elder Shokes but nothing else until 1 1 September when one 

 was sighted. Shokes, with what seems to me a suspicious haggling over ir- 

 relevant — or spurious — details, insisted that there was some "'speckl- 

 ing'" around the shoulders of the latter bird, although agreeing other- 

 wise that it was adult. 



This time of lull was fated to coincide with the visit of top brass. Gris- 

 com and others descended in the period 7 to 16 December, during a 

 stretch of bad weather. Griscom obviously was in a no-nonsense mood 

 which, as a dean of American field ornithologists, he had some right to 

 be. He pronounced it "most improbable that these birds were Carolina 

 Paroquets; that they were more likely to be Parrots of other species that 

 had escaped from captivity or been released." (It might have been 

 questioned whether they were parrots at all.) Anyway, Griscom was con- 

 cerned for the good name of the Society, should all that leak to the press, 

 and he also wanted to keep investigations alive on the slim chance that 

 something might turn up. 



Some of Griscom's opinions of various people involved have been cited. 

 It ought to be said that he considered the younger Shokes, Hollie, "a 

 thoroughly honest and attractive fellow," although pretty largely lacking 

 in critical capacities to make ornithological decisions. To exemplify his 

 estimation Griscom pointedly noted that Hollie 's sighting of what Sprunt 

 had accepted as "a beautiful adult Carolina Paroquet" had, under grill- 

 ing, become "a strange looking bird unlike anything he had ever seen be- 

 fore; that it was generally 'bluish in color with a yellow topknot,' and was 

 apparently catching insects on the bank of the creek." Griscom sug- 

 gested that "flight-lines" would not be held to by the birds over any very 

 long period of time; that parrots were not usually late in going to roost 

 (he might have pointed out that mourning doves, so like parakeets in size 

 and perhaps even in pattern of flight, frequently careen about quite late); 

 and that, even though he could be wrong about the Carolina parakeet, 

 which he had never seen, parrots usually called and chattered loudly 



