The fundamental role played by natural history museums in the dissemination of knowledge is of ever greater importance in this era of global threats to biodiversity (Collar et al. 2003, Bauernfeind et al. 2010, Webster 2017, Miller et al. 2020). Museum collections provide essential historical data for understanding the spatial evolution and historic demography of birds (e.g. Beissinger & Peery 2007), and are important in the implementation of effective conservation measures for species with declining populations. Ecologists and conservationists need to know ‘what is where' in museum collections. Therefore, as suggested by Cooper & Steinheimer (2003), museums should publish catalogues of extinct or endangered (‘E&E’) avian species. For extinct taxa, museum specimens are irreplaceable and special care is required (Adams et al. 2003). The 5,000,000 bird eggs in the world’s museums are an invaluable and underused resource (Kiff 2005, Marini et al. 2020), but they have enabled decisive discoveries that have improved protection of threatened birds (see, e.g., Ratcliffe 1967, Hickey & Anderson 1968). Therefore lists of eggs belonging to ‘E&E’ species are also of value.

The Musée de la Vallée, Barcelonnette, France (hereafter MDLV) houses two ornithological collections comprising mounted specimens and eggs, which were thoroughly inventoried between 2012 and 2019 (Gouraud 2012, 2015, 2019). They are briefly presented below.

The ornithological collections of the Musée de la Vallée

The Caire-Chabrand collection was initiated by Joseph-Adolphe Caire (1809–84), also known as the ‘abbé des Oiseaux’ (Arnaud 1904) whose goal was to possess a pair of all European species, as well as an example of their eggs. Three years before Caire died, his nephew-in-law Emile Chabrand (1843–93) acquired the collection. Chabrand was a passionate naturalist who enriched the collection with birds he traded or collected during his journeys, especially a round-the-world trip in 1882–83 (Chabrand et al. 2008). As his collection grew, in 1886 Chabrand constructed a dedicated repository intended for its public display. After his death in 1893, the collection passed to the municipality. The Caire-Chabrand collection comprises 880 mounts of 487 species, and 1,178 identified eggs from a total of 1,426 representing 318 species ( GBIF dataset).

The Berlie collection was started by Pierre Berlie (1832–1914), a teacher near Barcelonnette, and continued by his son Antoine (1864–1934), also a teacher. Like Caire, the Berlies aimed to assemble a collection of European birds and their eggs. The collection remained in the family home until April 2019, when the great-granddaughter of Pierre Berlie reached an agreement with the MDLV's director to deposit the collection in the museum. The Berlie collection holds 525 mounted specimens of 396 species, and 249 identified eggs (from a total of 260) of 102 species ( GBIF dataset).

Two manuscript catalogues list the species in the Caire-Chabrand collection. The first, dated 29 September 1881, is the notarial deed prepared when Emile Chabrand acquired the Caire collection¹. This consists of three columns for each species giving (1) the number of mounts, (2) the French vernacular name, and (3) the number of eggs. The second catalogue, dated 1894, was prepared by Pierre Berlie following the death of Emile Chabrand. It comprises different lists of all natural history and ethnological items present in the collection at that time. Non-European species are listed separately (other than a very small number that were included in the European list). A list of c.30 mounts that reached MDLV between 1896 and 1911 completes the catalogue; 16 were located during the recent inventory, including an Andean Condor Vultur gryphus (1899) and one of two Egyptian Vultures Neophron percnopterus (from 1908) (see Table 1). Pierre Berlie also produced a handwritten catalogue of species in his own collection. Dated 1902, this may be incomplete as it was prepared 12 years before Pierre's death and 32 years before Antoine's. Moreover, some sheets are loose pages and as a result others may have been lost. It contains several lists. The main one appears to be the list of European species; it consists of several columns, with the French vernacular name, the sex, the number of birds, and a price². A second list is dedicated to exotic and non-European species, and gives only the number and sex of specimens of each species.

French vernacular names used in Chabrand's and Berlie's catalogues are sometimes too vague for clear identification. In addition, neither of these catalogues provides information on the collector or the date and locality of collection. Finally, study and comparison of these catalogues with the contents of the collections sometimes show certain inconsistencies (for example, for some species the 1881 list mentions a single egg and the 1894 list none, when there are in fact two in the collection).

Some specimens (both mounts and eggs) bear a label with the species name and sometimes a locality; very few give more detailed information. Both collections have faced several relocations, which explains how labels have been lost, some eggs were broken and shells of different species were mixed, all of which can hinder identification (especially some passerine eggs of the same genus or family). Generally, the eggs of relatively few species can be identified by the appearance of the shell alone. Without original data, identification of eggs to species can be very difficult, if not impossible, and even with them identification can be debated if an adult was not positively observed at the nest (which is not always noted on the labels). Moreover, the authenticity of many eggs supplied by dealers is doubtful. Much caution is therefore required in identification. However, it now seems possible to extract DNA from even a tiny fragment of shell (Birkhead 2016: 19). Hopefully, the development of molecular techniques will help identify eggs without original data (thereby underlining the importance of preserving unlabelled oological material that is sometimes considered—wrongly—to be ‘scientifically worthless’). Larger eggs at MDLV usually have inscriptions on their shells, whilst smaller eggs are identified on a separate label (some with information, often a number, also on the shell). I systematically tried to confirm the species mentioned on the original inscriptions by comparing their appearance and dimensions with those of eggs of the species in the literature (plates in Cramp et al. 1977–94, Walters 1995, Harrison & Castell 2002)³.

TABLE 1

List of the 39 extinct and endangered (‘E&E’) bird species (mounts and eggs) in the Musée de la Vallée ornithological collections. * in the EDGE score column refers to the 16 species whose EDGE score has been recalculated following changes in their IUCN status since Jetz et al. (2014). The taxonomy of Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca and Italian Sparrow Passer italiae have also changed since the publication of Jetz et al. (2014): the former was previously considered a polytypic species (now split), whereas the latter was considered as a subspecies of either House Sparrow Passer domesticus or Spanish Sparrow P. hispaniolensis. The EDGE score provided by Jetz et al. (2014) for these two species is therefore no longer representative of current taxonomy and is replaced by ‘Taxo’.

Although all continents, except Antarctica, are represented in both of the two collections, the birds and their eggs are of species that predominantly occur in Western Europe. Because the Berlies never travelled abroad, it is probable that exotic or non-European species in their collection were obtained via exchanges or purchases with other naturalists or dealers.

I present here the catalogue of ‘E&E’ bird species, including eggs, in MDLV. According to the Red List of threatened species (IUCN 2021), the MDLV ornithological collections house 60 mounts of extinct and threatened birds comprising one extinct species (a single specimen) and 35 threatened taxa, of which three are Critically Endangered (CR), five Endangered (EN) and 27 Vulnerable (VU). Among eggs, a total of 39 units comprising 18 threatened species, of which three are CR, two EN and 13 VU are held at MDLV (Table 1). From this list, I provide additional information for seven species that meet the following criteria. As with the Baillon collection (Gouraud 2014), I have detailed mounts and eggs of all Critically Endangered species at MDLV because of their small number. In addition to the criteria applied by Adams et al. (2003: 341) to the EN and VU categories, I have elected to also detail species with either (1) a restricted geographic range, either Extent of Occurrence or Area of Occupancy (IUCN criterion B), or (2) a small and declining population (IUCN criterion C). Just one species is involved (Buff-throated Purpletuft Iodopleura pipra) of which the number of mature individuals is estimated to be fewer than 2,500 and the number of individuals in the largest subpopulation <250 (i.e. IUCN criterion C2a(i), see BirdLife International 2016).

An important parameter for ecologists and conservationists is the ‘originality’ of a species, expressed as a measure of its genetic isolation (measured in My). This parameter, first developed for mammals by Isaac et al. (2007), then extended to birds by Jetz et al. (2014), combines the global threat level (or extinction risk, i.e. IUCN status) and results in an estimate of a species’ expected loss of evolutionary history per unit of time. The result (termed the Evolutionary Distinctiveness and Globally Endangered, or EDGE, score) ‘incorporates a species value of originality, or irreplaceability, weighted by the urgency of action’ (Reilly 2018: 108) and is complementary to IUCN status but EDGE species do not include extinct taxa. I have added EDGE scores according to the list prepared by Jetz et al. (2014: Table S1). For a consistent assessment of the EDGE scores presented below, note that those calculated by Jetz et al. (2014) ranged from 0.58 (species with a low level of threat and low degree of genetic isolation) to 6.83 (species with a high degree of genetic isolation), and a 95th percentile of 3.94 (based on 9,993 bird species; mean = 2.31 and median = 2.13). The IUCN status of 16 species had changed since Jetz et al. (2014). I recalculated and updated their respective EDGE scores following equation (1) in Isaac et al. (2007: 2).

Photographs of the mounts can be viewed in the respective GBIF database by following the hyperlinks attached to the inventory numbers. Eggs were not photographed, except the Siberian Crane Leucogeranus leucogeranus egg for the purpose of this study. The taxonomy and nomenclature of del Hoyo & Collar (2014, 2016) are employed for the Caire-Chabrand and the Berlie collections, and are followed here. IUCN status is that in the IUCN Red List of threatened species website ( https://www.iucnredlist.org) during the inventory and updated on 15–23 December 2020. I present and discuss data from original labels, where possible, in relation to information provided in the catalogues dated 1881, 1894 and 1902.

Extinct species

Threatened species

GRUIDAE
SIBERIAN CRANE Leucogeranus leucogeranus CR / EDGE score: 5.16

Grus leucogeranus Pallas, 1773

MDLV.2015.0.4; egg, measurements 95.53 × 57.45 mm, Caire-Chabrand collection (Fig. 1). Catalogue 1881.—Not mentioned. Catalogue 1894.—Two mounts (male and female) listed under ‘Grue leucogérone / Grus leucogeranus’ with the comment ‘manquant [missing]’. No egg is mentioned.

Remarks.—The only inscription on the egg reads ‘Grus leucogeranos’. It appears twice, once in pencil, and again on a small label pasted on the shell, apparently in different handwriting (Fig. 1). Although no egg is mentioned in the 1881 and 1894 catalogues, it was almost certainly part of the Caire-Chabrand collection when Emile Chabrand died in 1893. After his death, very few natural history objects were added to the collection (c.30 mounts—and no eggs—between 1896 and 1911). Moreover, this is not the only case where a specimen (mount or egg) is present but not listed in the 1894 catalogue. For example, the 1881 catalogue mentions a single egg of Common Crane Grus grus, but the 1894 catalogue none. However, the collection has two, one dated ‘1853’ and which is the egg mentioned in 1881.

Siberian Crane eggs do not appear to be common in world oological collections and the majority appear to have been collected post-1900 (Appendix). Of 93 Siberian Crane eggs reported in collections, 73 were laid in captivity, and according to their labels only 16 are of wild provenance. The other four, including MDLV.2015.0.4, are of unknown origin. Although the Siberian Crane studbook gives 1905 as the date of the first captive Siberian Cranes (Kashentseva & Belterman 2009), Lord Lilford had this species in his aviaries as early as 1893 (Lilford 1903: 284). The first eastern and western Siberian Crane nests seem to have been discovered in 1960 and 1981, respectively (P. Tomkovich in litt. 2021, fide Vorobyev 1963 and Sorokin & Kotyukov 1982, respectively). The origin of any egg said to have been collected in the wild pre-1960 therefore appears questionable and further research is needed.

On his return from the North Cape in 1890, Chabrand made a short stopover in St. Petersburg (24–27 July) and Moscow (28–30 July). During his travels Chabrand frequently visited museums and sometimes met their directors or curators (Homps 2010). He visited the ‘Parc zoologique' of St. Petersburg (probably what is now the St. Petersburg Zoo) on 25 July, and the ‘Musée de l'Industrie’ in Moscow (where he saw a mammoth, genus Mammuthus) on 29 July. Chabrand's diaries⁴ do not specify if he met the curators or directors, or if he obtained specimens or eggs (during this period, Valentin Bianchi was one of the curators at the Imperial Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg; see Appendix). Although the provenance of MDLV.2015.0.4 is unclear, it is reasonable to hypothesise a captive origin. With a laying date prior to 1 September 1893 (and the death of Emile Chabrand), this egg seems to be, if not one of the first obtained, at least one of the oldest in the world’s collections. Moreover, in addition to one at Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de Toulouse (Appendix), that in the Caire-Chabrand collection appears to be the second egg known in France (the Paris museum does not possess any eggs of this species; J. Fuchs in litt. 2021).

As mentioned in the 1894 catalogue, the two bird specimens are no longer part of the collection, and their whereabouts are unknown.

Figure 1.

Egg of Siberian Crane Leucogeranus leucogeranus (MDLV.2015.0.4) showing the two different inscriptions (© Aurélie Béranger / Musée de la Vallée)

EMBERIZIDAE
YELLOW-BREASTED BUNTING Emberiza aureola CR / EDGE score: 4.55

Emberiza aureola Pallas, 1773

MDLV.2015.0.654; egg, no measurements taken, Caire-Chabrand collection. Catalogue 1881.—Two ‘Bruant auréole [= Yellow-breasted Bunting]’; no egg mentioned. Catalogue 1894.—Two ‘Bruant auréole [= Yellow-breasted Bunting]’; no egg mentioned.

Remarks.—The only inscription on the egg reads ‘Bruant [Bunting] / E[mberiza]. aureola’. Like many buntings, eggs of this species show important intraspecific variation in their ground colour as well as in size, number and colour of the markings. The appearance and pattern of MDLV.2015.0.654 match eggs of clutch Q-3762 at the Zoological Museum, Moscow Lomonosov State Univ.⁵. It is unknown when and where the egg was collected, or who obtained it. The two bird specimens mentioned in the 1881 and 1894 catalogues no longer form part of the collection, and their whereabouts are unknown.

Figure 2.

Comparison of the number of bird species in the Caire-Chabrand collection listed in each IUCN Red List category, between 2012 (red bars) and 2020 (grey bars)

Evolution of the list of threatened species at MDLV during 2012–20

Birds are the best-studied taxonomic group and is the only class to have been evaluated in its entirety (52 species lack data and are treated as Data Deficient). In 2020, 14% of the world's extant bird species were threatened, i.e. listed as CR, EN or VU (IUCN 2021, see Summary statistics, Table 1a). There is broad consensus as to the loss of biodiversity globally and the notion of the sixth mass extinction (Barnosky et al. 2011, Kolbert 2014, Ceballos et al. 2017). Like other large groups, birds are no exception (Inger et al. 2015, Rosenberg et al. 2019). At the start of the present millennium, 1,186 bird species were threatened and 128 extinct (Stattersfield & Capper 2000). Twenty years later, 1,508 species are classified as threatened and 159 extinct (IUCN 2021, see Summary statistics, Table 3). We can expect to see these changes reflected in museum ornithological collections, leading inevitably to an ever-growing list of species potentially on the verge of extinction or worse. Regular reappraisal of ‘E&E’ species lists ideally would be necessary.

The inventory of mounted birds in the Caire-Chabrand collection was made in 2012. As expected, eight years later the number of threatened species has increased slightly. Near Threatened (NT) and VU species increased by 11 and 13, respectively, reflecting the reclassification of 23 Least Concern species (Fig. 2). Finally, the status of one species (Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca) moved from EN to VU in 2015 (see IUCN 2021, Summary statistics, Table 7 [2014–15]).

As the inventories of the Caire-Chabrand oological collection and of the Berlie collection (birds and eggs) were completed in 2015 and 2019, respectively, I judged that the time difference with the present study was not sufficient for a comparison. A reassessment of the IUCN status of species in the MDLV's ornithological collections is planned in 10–15 years.

Recognition of the number of species whose IUCN status has changed over the last decade is certainly much greater in large ornithological collections, which are more likely to contain species otherwise poorly represented in collections worldwide, and is even truer for those rich in endemic or (especially Pacific) island species. In the context of global biodiversity loss, reassessment of the number of threatened species in the world's ornithological collections is another, albeit sad, means of documenting the current ecological crisis.