Perhaps surprisingly, the first significant losses of California condors caused by Europeans occurred in the Pacific Northwest, not in California. Between 1805 and 1835, 11 condors are known to have been killed. There is good reason to suspect the total number might have been significantly higher.
On 30 October 1805 on the Columbia River near present-day Cascade Locks, Oregon, William Clark wrote in his journal: "this day we Saw Some fiew of the large Buzzard Capt. Lewis Shot at one, those Buzzards are much larger than any other of ther Spece or the largest Eagle white under part of their wings &c." [1]. This was the introduction of the California condor to the members of the "Corps of Discovery," the Lewis and Clark Expedition, who had traveled across the United States on their way to the Pacific Ocean. Three weeks later, near Cape Disappointment, Washington, they killed their first one. In his journal for 18 November 1805, Patrick Gass wrote: "They killed a remarkably large buzzard of a species different from any I had seen. It was 9 feet across the wings, and 3 feet 10 inches from the bill to the tail." Captain Clark's entry was more descriptive: "Rubin Fields Killed Buzzard of the large Kind near the meat of the whale we Saw: W. 25 lb. measured from the tips of the wings across 912 feet, from the point of the Bill to the end of the tail 3 feet 10 14 inches, middle toe 5 12 inches, toe nale 1 inch & 3 12 lines, wing feather 2 12 feet long & 1 inch 5 lines diameter tale feathers 14 12 inches, and the head is 6 12 inches including the beak."
On 16 February 1806 near the ocean in what is now Clatsop County, Oregon, a second condor was killed. This one was brought wounded to the Corps of Discovery campsite, and Clark had the opportunity to examine a live bird at close range. His description of this bird, along with a line drawing of the condor's head, was preserved in his journal.
"Shannon and Labiesh brought in to us to day a Buzzard or Vulture of the Columbia which they had wounded and taken alive. I believe this to be the largest Bird of North America. It was not in good order and yet it weighed 25 lbs. Had it have been so it might very well have weighed 10 lbs. more or 35 lbs. Between the extremities of the wings it measured 9 feet 2 Inches; from the extremity of the beak to that of the toe 3 feet 9 inches and a half. From hip to toe 2 feet, girth of the head 9 inches 34. Girth of the neck 7 12 inches; Girth of the body exclusive of the wings 2 feet 3 inches; girth of the leg 3 inches. The diameter of the eye 4 12/10ths of an inch, the iris of a pale scarlet red, the pupil of a deep Sea green or black and occupies about one third of the diameter of the eye. The head and part of the neck as low as the figures 1 2 [referring to drawing] is uncovered with feathers except that portion of it represented by dots forward and under the eye. (See likeness on the other Side of this leaf). The tail is composed of twelve feathers of equal length, each 14 inches. The legs are 4 34 inches in length and of a whitish colour uncovered with feathers, they are not entirely Smooth but not imbricated; the toes are four in number three of which are forward and that in the center much the longest; the fourth is short and is inserted near the inner of the three other toes and rather projecting forward. The thigh is covered with feathers as low as the Knee. The top or upper part of the toes are imbricated with broad scales lying transversely; the nails are black and in proportion to the Size of the bird comparatively with those of the Hawk or Eagle, Short and bluntly pointed-. The under Side of the wing is Covered with white down and feathers. A white Stripe of about 2 inches in width also marks the outer part of the wing, embracing the lower points of the feathers, which [c]over the joints of the wing through their whole length or width of that part of the wing. All the other feathers of whatever part are of a Glossy Shining black except the down, which is not glossy, but equally black. The Skin of the beak and head to the joining of the neck is of a pale orange Yellow, the other part uncovered with feathers is of a light flesh Colour. The Skin is thin and wrinkled except on the beak where it is Smooth. This bird flies very clumsily. Nor do I know whether it ever Seizes it's prey alive, but am induced to believe it does not. We have Seen it feeding on the remains of the whale and other fish which have been thrown up by the waves on the Sea Coast. These I believe constitute their principal food, but I have no doubt but that they also feed on flesh. We did not meet with this bird until we had descended the Columbia below the great falls; and have found them more abundant below tide water than above. This is the Same Species of Bird which R. Field killed on the 18th of Novr. last and which is noticed on that day tho' not fully described then I thought this of the Buzzard Species. I now believe that this bird is rather of the Vulture genus than any other, tho' it wants Some of their characteristics particularly the hair on the neck, and the feathers on the legs. This is a handsome bird at a little distance. It's neck is proportionably longer than those of the Hawks or Eagle.
Shannon and Labiesh informed us that when he approached this Vulture after wounding it, that it made a loud noise very much like the barking of a Dog. The tongue is long firm and broad, filling the under Chap and partaking of its transverse curvature, or its Sides forming a longitudinal Groove; obtuse at the point, the margin armed with firm cartilagenous prickles pointed and bending inwards."
This ended the "scientific" part of the Lewis and Clark Expedition encounters with the condor, but more birds were killed. On 16 March 1806, Patrick Gass reported:
"Yesterday while I was absent getting our meat home, one of the hunters killed two vultures, the largest fowls I have ever seen. I never saw such as these except on the Columbia River and the seacoast" [2].
As the party returned up the Columbia River on 6 April 1806, another condor succumbed: "Jos. Field killed a vulture of that species already described." This, the last condor reported by the group, was shot in the Columbia Gorge near Rooster Rock, not far from where the species was first encountered on the trip down the river the previous fall.
Although the Corps of Discovery was a military expedition and did not include "scientists" in the accepted sense of the word, the leaders of the expedition were not without interest and ability in natural history [3]. Meriwether Lewis (1774-1809) had learned the rudiments of botany from his mother, who collected medicinal plants, and had grown up hunting and exploring the outdoors. During two years as President Thomas Jefferson's personal secretary, Lewis prepared for the upcoming expedition by spending time with such specialists as Dr. Benjamin Rush (basic medical training), Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton (botany), and Dr. Caspar Wistar (paleontology). William Clark (1770-1838), co-leader of the expedition, was less educated than Lewis, but added many zoological, botanical and geological comments to his maps and journals. Several other members of the party kept journals, often copying the "official" records (apparently planned, to guard against important data being lost, should the formal expedition records be destroyed), but also adding their own perspectives. Lewis carried a number of natural history books with him, including botanical works by Linnaeus. There is nothing to show that Lewis had special training in zoology, but the party brought back excellent descriptions of the mammals and birds encountered, including a far better description of the California condor than had been written based on Archibald Menzies' bird.
The expedition apparently did not succeed in bringing a condor specimen back to the East Coast. That large a bird may have been too cumbersome to carry all the way across the country, or it may be that a condor was among the specimens lost on the way home. Some parts of a condor were deposited in Charles Wilson Peale's Philadelphia Museum, but it isn't clear what parts. In the literature, the remains are variously described as: a head; a skull and primary feather; a bill and talons; and a bill and a quill-feather [4, 5, 6]. The latter description, from Charles Lucian Bonaparte who actually examined the remains, is likely the accurate one. Peale's Philadelphia Museum was disbanded in the late 1840s and the collections sold in 1850 to a number of institutions and individuals [7]. There are no certain records of the Lewis and Clark condor artifacts after the 1830s, and they probably have not survived.

It was 19 years after the Lewis and Clark Expedition that the next killing of a California condor in the Pacific Northwest was documented. It's doubtful that those years were trouble free for the condors. There were no scientific ventures into the Columbia River country, but there was a steady stream of fur trappers and adventurers traveling the river valleys. That these men were not adverse to shooting at condors is suggested by the last three documented killings by the Lewis and Clark party, noted above. These may have been mere shootings for fun, but there may have been more personal and practical justifications in the minds of the mountain men. On 28 March 1806, Meriwether Lewis wrote:
"This morning we set out very early and at 9 A. M. arrived at the old Indian Village on Lard side of Deer Island where we found our hunters had halted and left one man with the two canoes at their camp; they had arrived last evening at this place and six of them turned out to hunt very early this morning; by 10 A. M. they all returned to camp having killed seven deer... the men who had been sent after the deer returned and brought in the remnent which the Vultures and Eagles had left us; these birds had devoured 4 deer in the course of a few hours... Joseph Fields informed me that the Vultures had draged a large buck which he had killed about 30 yards, had skined it and broken the back bone."
William Clark's account: "[The men] sent after the deer returned with four only, the other 4 haveing been eaten entirely by the Voulturs except the Skin. The men we had been permitted to hunt this evening killed 3 deer 4 Eagles & a Duck."
John Ordway's notes: "the grey Eagles are pleanty on this Island they eat up three deer in a short time which our hunters had killed... some of the hunters killed Several of them".
Living off the land was seldom easy for these early Northwest travelers. Finding their hard-earned and much needed food devoured by condors and eagles would have been frustrating for sure, but could also have been life-threatening if it was a regular occurrence. Reducing condor and eagle populations may have been both retaliatory (for past deeds) and preventative (to forestall future problems). Other writers reinforce this idea. Alexander Henry, writing from the Willamette Valley 25 January 1814:
"I sent for the eight deer killed yesterday. The men brought in seven of them, one having been devoured by the vulturs. These birds are uncommonly large and very troublesome to my hunters by destroying the meat, which, though well covered with pine branches, they contrive to uncover and devour" [8].
Writing more generally later in the century, Andrew Jackson Grayson expressed similar anti-condor sentiments:
"In the early days of California history it [the condor] was more frequently met with than now, being of a cautious and shy disposition the rapid settlement of the country has partially driven it off to more secluded localities. I remember the time when this vulture was much disliked by the hunter because of its ravages upon any large game he may have killed and left exposed for only a short length of time. So powerful is its sight that it will discover a dead deer from an incredible distance while soaring in the air" [9].

In 1825, two more condor collectors arrived on the Columbia River. Dr. John Scouler and David Douglas had traveled together on the Hudson's Bay Company ship, William and Ann, Scouler as ship surgeon and naturalist and Douglas as botanist under the auspices of the Hudson's Bay Company and the Royal Horticultural Society of London. Both were protegés of botanist William Jackson Hooker, who was apparently instrumental in getting them their appointments.
John Scouler (1804-1871) was born in Glasgow, Scotland, and studied medicine at the University of Glasgow. He came to the attention of Dr. Hooker because of his botanical skills, but he had a broad interest in natural history and ethnology [10]. His time on the Columbia River was relatively brief, from 8 April to 1 June 1825 and (after a voyage north to the Queen Charlotte Islands) from 3 September to 25 October 1825. His journal does not include any observations of live condors, only a 22 September 1825 record of acquiring one specimen:
"This morning we breakfasted at the Kowlitch [Cowlitz?] village & we were treated with much civility, although they were in a very unsettled state and were preparing for war in consequence of the circumstances formerly alluded to [a dispute between two families of Indians]. On arriving on board the ship much of my time was employed in procuring & preserving birds. The incessant rains we experienced at the advanced period of the year rendered the accumulation of plants hopeless. The river at this season was beginning to abound in birds. I obtained specimens of Pelecanus onocrotalus, Falco & a species of Vultur, which I think is nondescript. My birds are principly obtained from the Indians who would go through any fatigue for a bit of tobacco" [11].
Scouler returned to Great Britain in early 1826 (I haven't found an arrival date for him), and within the year his condor was at Benjamin Leadbeater's taxidermy establishment in London. It was displayed at a 12 December 1826 meeting of the Zoological Club of the Linnean Society in London [12]. About the same time, Charles Lucien Bonaparte saw the specimen at Leadbeater's, describing it as "a specimen from the Oregon, the second known in any collection" [13]. Leaving England shortly thereafter, Bonaparte went directly to visit Dutch ornithologist Coenraad Jacob Temminck at the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie at Leiden, The Netherlands [14]. He probably told Temminck about the condor, because the Rijksmuseum acquired the specimen in 1827 or 1828. It is still at Leiden [15].
One wonders why Scouler's condor went so quickly to Leadbeater, rather than being donated to some institution in Scotland or England. There seems to be no answer to that question. Scouler was back in Britain only a short time before he obtained a position as ship's surgeon on a voyage to Calcutta. Perhaps he needed to quickly divest himself of his North American specimens, and Leadbeater was a ready receiver. After returning to Scotland, Scouler wrote many papers on natural history, geology and ethnology, but seems never again to have mentioned his "nondescript" vulture from the Columbia.

David Douglas (1799-1834), born in Perth, Scotland, was more of a botanical specialist than Scouler, but was also well versed in other aspects of natural history. When Scouler left the Columbia River for Canada in June 1825, Douglas remained. Through the winter of 1825-1826, he made various excursions up and down the Columbia, and also traveled south into the Willamette Valley. In spring and summer 1826, he extended his travels far up the Columbia into what is now northeastern Washington, returning in the fall to Fort Vancouver. In September 1826 he traveled up the Willamette River once again, this time crossing into the Umpqua River drainage before returning to Fort Vancouver for the winter. In March 1827, he started inland, eventually crossing the Rocky Mountains and visiting Hudson's Bay before sailing back to Great Britain in October 1827 [16].
Douglas' journal does not include any references to condors before the winter of 1825-1826, but then he apparently saw them regularly near the west end of the Columbia Gorge. In the Willamette Valley in October 1826, he found them "common," with nine condors seen in one group [17]. In spring 1827 Douglas' friend George Barston noted that condors were "ever hovering around" along the Columbia River [18]. Douglas killed his first in January or February 1826, probably near Fort Vancouver. In a general summary of his winter collecting activities, he wrote:
"When opportunity favored I collected woods, and gathered Musci &c., and from this time to March 20th I formed a tolerable collection of preserved animals and birds, but this desirable object was frequently interrupted by heavy rains. Among the birds and animals deserve to be mentioned Tetrao Sabine, T. Richardsonii, Sarcoramphus californica [the condor], Corvus Stelleri, an endless variety of Anas, several species of Canis, Cervus, Mus, and Myozus" [19].
Later, he elaborated on acquiring the condor specimen:
"On the Columbia there is a species of Buzzard, the largest of all birds here, the Swan excepted. I killed only one of this very interesting bird, with buckshot, one of which passed through the head, which rendered it unfit for preserving; I regret it exceedingly, for I am confident it is not yet described. I have fired at them with every size of small shot at respectable distances without effect; seldom more than one or two are together... I am shortly to try to take them in a baited steel-trap" [20].
His next close encounter came in mid-October 1826, on the divide between the Willamette and Umpqua rivers, probably in present-day Lane County, Oregon. He wrote:
"This morning we passed a hill of similar elevation and appearance to that passed yesterday. Several species of Clethra were gathered - one in particular, C. grandis, was very fine - and many birds of Sarcoramphus californica and Ortyx californica, and two other species of great beauty were collected" [21].
Clearly, Douglas didn't mean that he collected "many" condors (Sarcoramphus) and quail (Ortyx). Likely, he meant to say that while gathering plants (Clethra, and possibly "two other species of great beauty"), he observed many condors and quail. If he did kill a condor on that trip, it was not preserved.
Douglas killed his last condors in the late winter and spring of 1827. Only one is mentioned in his journal, on an unspecified date in February:
"Killed a very large vulture, sex unknown. ... Of a blackish-brown with a little white under the wing; head of a deep orange colour; beak of a sulphur-yellow; neck, a yellowish-brown varying in tinge like the common turkey-cock" [22].
Apparently, this was one of the two condors he described in more detail in an 1829 journal article:
"Specimens, male and female, of this truly interesting bird, which I shot in lat. 45. 30. 15., long. 122. 3. 12. were lately presented by the Council of the Horticultural Society to the Zoological Society, in whose museum they are now carefully deposited."
"The length of the bird is 56 inches; the measure round the body 40 inches. Weight 25 to 35 pounds. Beak 3 _ inches long, bright glossy yellow. Head 9 inches round, deep orange, with a few short scattered feathers on the fore part, at the root of the beak. Iris pale red. Pupil light green. Neck 11 inches long, 9 round, of a changeable color, brownish yellow with blue tints. Body 24 inches long, black or slightly brown. Collar and breast feathers lanceolate, decomposed, white on the outside near the points. Quills thirty-four, the third the longest. Extent between the tips of the wings 9 feet 8 inches. Under coverts white; upper coverts white at the points. Tarsi 4 _ of an inch long, bluish black. Claws black, blunt, having little curvature. Tail 14 feathers, square at the ends, 15 inches long. In plumage both sexes alike; in size the female is somewhat larger" [23].
If his latitude and longitude readings were accurate, these birds were killed somewhat southeast of Fort Vancouver, perhaps in the Sandy River drainage east of present-day Gresham, Oregon.
There is some confusion in the record at this point. Douglas claimed that he killed both of the condors he brought back to England, but another writer at Fort Vancouver in the spring of 1827 told of a condor that was given to Douglas:
"One morning a large specimen [condor] was brought into our square, and we had all a hearty laugh at the eagerness with which the Botanist pounced upon it. In a very short time he had it almost in his embraces fathoming its stretch of wings, which not being able to compass, a measure was brought, and he found it full nine feet from tip to tip. This satisfied him, and the bird was carefully transferred to his studio for the purpose of being stuffed. In all that pertained to nature or science he was a perfect enthusiast" [24].
This may have been a third condor, or Douglas may have claimed credit for shooting two birds just to simplify the record (a not uncommon practice). If there was a third mortality, the specimen almost certainly was not preserved. As Douglas reported, the two condors he took back to England were given to his sponsors at the Royal Horticultural Society of London, who in turn presented them to the newly-formed Zoological Society of London [25].
Apparently no official records survive of Douglas' two condors at the Zoological Society Museum. An 1835 guide to the Zoological Society live animal exhibits made passing mention of the museum mounts as "two noble specimens... the only pair in Europe" [26]. I found no record of them after that date. In 1841 the Society gave up its lease on the building housing their greatly overcrowded Museum, and the entire collection was packed away in a warehouse until a new building was available in 1844. Lack of adequate funding for the museum, coupled with vast improvements at the British Museum (Natural History) that made the Zoological Society museum less important, led the Society to begin closing down their facility. In 1849, they began to dispose of duplicate specimens to other collections, and in 1850 voted to sell all the specimens to the Government. An upswing in member interest in the museum postponed that decision, but in 1855 the museum closed. Type specimens were given to the British Museum, and the rest of the collection was sold to various other museums and private collectors [27]. Unfortunately, there seem to be no surviving records of those sales. Probably Douglas' condors were sold in 1855, and probably they are either at the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, or at the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique in Brussels. The Paris birds came from the collection of Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1858, and the Brussels condors were purchased from the Verreaux Brothers in November 1857 [28]. Either Bonaparte or the Verreaux brothers would have been logical bidders on the Natural History Society specimens - and it's unlikely there were other condors available in Europe at that time - but neither museum has any accession paperwork.

Except for the condors shot by the Corps of Discovery, doctors and botanists were dominating the condor collecting field. Archibald Menzies was both doctor and botanist, as was John Scouler. David Douglas was a botanist. All these people had broad naturalists skills and interest, but the last person known to kill a condor in the Columbia River area was also the first condor collector with a principal interest in ornithology. In 1834, John Kirk Townsend (1809-1851), at the invitation of ornithologist and botanist Thomas Nuttall, joined the Nathaniel Wyeth expedition across the country to the Columbia River. The party reached the Columbia near Walla Walla, Washington, in early September, stayed along the river until 11 December 1834, then traveled to the Hawaiian Islands for the winter. They returned to the Columbia in late April 1835. Nuttall left the area in September 1835 to return to the eastern United States, via Hawaii and California. Townsend stayed on, seldom traveling far from the main Columbia River valley between Walla Walla and the Pacific coast, until December 1836, when he sailed for Hawaii enroute to the East Coast [29].
According to Townsend, he did not see any California condors until he returned from Hawaii in the spring of 1835 [30]. His records are confusing. The only reference to condors in his published journal is as a name on an appended list of birds seen on the trip [31]. In answer to an inquiry from John James Audubon, he wrote that condors were "seen on the Columbia only in summer, appearing about the first of June," but also that they were "most abundant in spring" [32]. Townsend's one published account of condors mentioned only the spring, when he "constantly saw the Vultures at all points where the Salmon were cast upon the shore." The one condor he shot was killed in April 1835, on the Willamette River near present-day Oregon City, Oregon. The tale of the killing seems a little larger than life, but the specimen still exists.
"In a journey of exploration which I made to the Willammet, in the month of April, when the river was crowded with Salmon, making their way up against the stream, urged by an abortive instinct to pass the barriers of the thirty feet fall, I observed dozens of Turkey Vultures constantly sailing over the boiling surges, with their bare heads curved downwards as if in search of prey. As I gazed upon them, interested in their graceful and easy motions, I heard a loud rustling sound over my head, which induced me to look upward; and there, to my inexpressible joy, soard the great Californian, seemingly intent upon watching the motions of his puny relatives below. Suddenly, while I watched, I saw him wheel, and down like an arrow he plunged, alighting upon an unfortunate Salmon which had just been cast, exhausted with his attempts to leap the falls, on the shore within a short distance. At that moment I fired, and the poor Vulture fell wounded, beside his still palpitating quarry. My prize being on the opposite side of the river, I lost no time in removing my clothing and plunging into the stream. A few vigorous strokes carried me across; I sprang upon the shore, and ran, with delighted haste, to secure the much coveted and valuable specimen. But I soon discovered that I had still something to do before the operation of skinning him was to commence. The huge creature had been only wing-broken, and as I approached him, seemed determined not to yield himself a willing captive. My gun had been left behind; I was in a state of absolute nudity, and at that moment, the inhabitants of an Indian village near, consisting of men women, children and dogs, startled by the sound of my gun, were flocking out to see what was the matter. I looked about in vain for a stick; none was to be found, and my only weapons were stones, with which I continued, for a considerable time, to pelt the Vulture, who sometimes hobbled awkwardly away, when attacked, and at others dashed furiously at me, hissing like an angry serpent, and compelled me likewise to run. It must have been an amusing scene for the Indians looking on, and I heard more than once, the loud, obstreperous laugh of the women, when the Vulture was flapping after me and I throwing sand in his eyes with my naked feet. After perhaps half an hour spent in this way, I was fortunate enough to hit him fairly on the head with a large stone, which stunned him, and he fell. In an instant I alighted upon him, sitting upon his body; and firmly grasping his neck with my hands. One of the Indians, at my request, brought me a knife, and I soon despatched him by severing the spine. I hired one of the boys to cross the river in a canoe to bring over my clothes and gun, and when dressed, skinned my prize with the Indians crowding around me, curious to see the operation" [33].
The history of Townsend's condor is not clear. Because it was killed in April 1835, before Thomas Nuttall left the Columbia, it probably was among those specimens that Nuttall delivered to The Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia in the summer of 1836. Less likely is that Townsend kept the condor with him until he arrived in Philadelphia in November 1837. In either event, it appears that the condor skin was sold to John James Audubon along with most of Townsend's Western collections. Although the story of Audubon's acquisition is confusing, being told a little differently by everyone who related it, it does nothing to enhance Audubon's image[34, 35, 36, 37].
Audubon was in the final stages of publishing Birds of America when the first part of Townsend's collection reached Philadelphia. Audubon wanted badly to examine, paint and describe the new species so they could be included in his book. Those at the Academy refused to let him do more than see the specimens, thinking (rightly, it seems to me) that the absent Townsend should be allowed to do what he wanted with his collection when he returned from the West. Audubon was insistent and, enlisting the aid of Thomas Nuttall and other prominent men, he finally persuaded the Academy to sell him 93 Townsend specimens, presumably only those species for which there were duplicate specimens. (It is likely the condor was not sold to Audubon at that point, as it was not a "duplicate.") As part of the agreement to sell, Audubon and Nuttall published a paper in the Academy's journal (in Townsend's name), describing the new species. When Townsend returned to Philadelphia the next year, hard up for money and with much of his potential glory having already been usurped by Audubon, he agreed to sell Audubon the rest (or most of) his Western collection. The condor was probably included in that second sale.
Except for a brief description of the "young individual obtained from Dr. Townsend" [38], I haven't found any specific mention of Townsend's condor among Audubon memorabilia. (As it was an immature bird, it was not the one Audubon used as his model for the Birds of America painting.) Audubon's collection was housed for awhile with John G. Bell, a New York taxidermist and good friend of Audubon, then later was at Audubon's home on the Hudson River. Spencer Fullerton Baird was given about 40 of Audubon's "duplicates" in 1845, and another (apparently larger) gift in April 1846. Baird's daughter, Lucy Baird, wrote:
"I have often heard my father say that Mr. Audubon finding him to be modest in selecting from the collection only such birds as he thought Mr. Audubon could readily spare, told him that that was not what he meant, that he was to take any that he really wished, and, finally, he, Mr. Audubon went through the collection himself and took out with his own hand many additional specimens, and among them some of the most valuable in the entire collection" [39].
Presumably this latter gift included the Townsend condor. When Baird moved from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, to Washington, D. C. in 1850, as Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, he took his bird collection with him. Apparently included was the Townsend condor, which still abides in the U. S. National Museum of Natural History [40].

Scientists, explorers, trappers, traders, and eventually homesteaders continued to visit the Oregon Territory. Some reported seeing condors, but none are known to have been killed in the area for the next quarter-century. Interest in California condors shifted to California.

Chapter Notes

1. Many versions of the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals have been published. All quotations given here, except for a Patrick Gass entry (Note 2) are from: Moulton, G. E. (editor). 2002. The journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Thirteen volumes. Because of the many versions, I have noted observations by date, rather than specific page numbers.

2. Gass, P. 1904. Gass's journal of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Reprint of the edition of 1811. Chicago, Illinois: A. C. McClurg and Company.

3. A number of authoritative biographies have been written of Lewis, Clark, and other members of the Corps of Discovery. My principal source has been: Cutright, P. R. 2003. Lewis and Clark: pioneering naturalists. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

4. Page 17 in: Harris, H. 1941. The annals of Gymnogyps. Condor 43(1):3-55.

5. Pages 35-36 in: Nuttall, T. 1832. A manual of the ornithology of the United States and Canada. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Hilliard and Brown.

6. Page 16 in: Bonaparte, C. L. 1833. American ornithology; or, The natural history of birds inhabiting the United States not given by Wilson. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Carey & Lea.

7. Burns, F. L. 1932. Charles W. and Titian R. Peale and the ornithological section of the old Philadelphia Museum. Wilson Bulletin 44(1):23-35.

8. Page 817 in: Coues, E. 1897. The manuscript journals of Alexander Henry and David Thompson, 1799-1814. New York, New York: Francis P. Harper.

9. Page 52 in: Bryant, W. E. 1891. Andrew Jackson Grayson. Zoe 2(1): 34-68.

10. Keddie, W. 1874. Biographical notice of the late John Scouler, M. D., LL.D., F.L.S., some time President of the Society. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 4:194-205.

11. Page 280 in: Scouler, J. 1905. Dr. John Scouler's journal of a voyage to northwest America. Oregon. Historical Quarterly 6(3):276-287.

12. Anonymous. 1827. Proceedings of the Zoological Club of the Linnean Society. Zoological Journal 3(10): 298-303.

13. Buonaparte, C. L. 1828. Supplement to the Genera of North American Birds, and the Synopsis of the Species found within the territory of the United States. Zoological Journal 3(9): 49-53.

14. Page 86 in: Stroud, P. T. 2000. The emperor of nature, Charles-Lucien Bonaparte and his world. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

15. See the notes (page) for condor specimen Number 8.

16. Douglas, D. 1914. Journal kept by David Douglas during his travels in North America 1823-1827. London: William Wesley & Son.

17. Douglas 1914 op. cit., page 216.

18. Fleming, J. H. 1924. The California Condor in Washington: Another Version of an Old Record. Condor 26(3):111-112.

19. Douglas 1914 op. cit., pages 62.

20. Douglas 1914 op. cit., pages 154-155.

21. Douglas 1914 op. cit., page 67.

22. Douglas 1914 op. cit., page 241.

23. Douglas, D. 1829. Observations on the Vultur Californianus of Shaw. Vigor's Zoological Journal 4(1):328-330.

24. Fleming op. cit.
25. Douglas 1829 op. cit.

26. Pages 2-3 in: Bennett, E. T. 1835. The gardens and menagerie of the Zoological Society delineated. Cheapside, England: Thomas Tegg and Son.

27. Pages 98-123 in: Scherren, H. 1905. The Zoological Society of London, a sketch of its foundation and development and the story of its farm, museum, gardens, menagerie and library. London, England: Cassell and Company, Limited.

28. See the records for specimens Numbers ----- (pages)

29. Townsend, J. K. 1999. Narrative of a journey across the Rocky Mountains, to the Columbia River, and a visit to the Sandwich Islands, Chili, &c. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.

30. Townsend, J. K. 1848. Popular monograph on the accipitrine birds of N. A. --No. II. Literary Record and Journal of the Linnaean Association of Pennsylvania College 4(12): 265-272.

31. Townsend 1999 op. cit., page 249.

32. Pages 240-245 in: Audubon, J. J. 1839. Ornithological biography, Volume 5. Edinburgh, Scotland: Adam & Charles Black.

33. Townsend 1848 op. cit.

34. Stone, W. 1899. Some Philadelphia ornithological collections and collectors, 1784-1850. Auk 16(2):166-177.

35. Rhoads, S. N. 1903. Auduboniana. Auk 20(4):377-383.

36. Stone, W. 1916. Philadelphia to the Coast in early days, and the development of western ornithology prior to 1850. Condor 18(1):3-14.

37. Branch, M. P. 2008. John Kirk Townsend. Pages 373-380 in D. Patterson, R. Thompson and J. S. Bryson (editors), Early American nature writers: a biographical encyclopedia. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

38. Pages 244-245 in: Audubon, J. J. 1839. Ornithological biography, Volume 5. Edinburgh, Scotland: Adam and Charles Black.

39. Pages 134-135 in: Dall, W. H. 1915. Spencer Fullerton Baird, a biography. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott Company.

40. See the records for condor specimen Number 14 (page)