Mauritius sheldgoose

Geese were reported by visitors to the Mascarene island of Mauritius in the 17th century, but few details were provided by these accounts. While the British zoologist Walter Rothschild noted Oustalet's objection to the species belonging in Sarcidiornis In 1907, he believed that it was merely an oversight that the caruncle was not mentioned in contemporary accounts, and that an allusion to the small size of these geese supported them being Sarcidiornis. The American ornithologist James Greenway listed the bird as a species of Sarcidiornis in 1967. In 1987, the British ornithologist Graham S. Cowles stated that an additional carpometacarpus from the Mare aux Songes then recently identified in the British Museum of Natural History confirmed Andrews' suggestion that the Mauritius bird did not belong in Sarcidiornis, but in the sheldgoose (or shelduck) genus Alopochen, to which the extant Egyptian goose (A. aegyptiaca) belonged. In his 1994 description of the Réunion sheldgoose (then Mascarenachen kervazoi) based on fossils from Réunion, Cowles again listed the Mauritius bird as A. mauritiana, noting that Andrews had implied it was close to the Malagasy sheldgoose. In 1997, the British ornithologists Hywel Glyn Young, Simon J. Tonge, and Julian P. Hume reviewed extinct wildfowl, and noted that the interrelationships of the four extinct sheldgeese from the region of Madagascar and the western Indian Ocean were unclear, and that they may not all have been full species. They also listed the Mauritius sheldgoose as a species of Alopochen. The French palaeontologist Cécile Mourer-Chauviré and colleagues stated in 1999 that while the Mauritius sheldgoose was similar to the Malagasy and Réunion sheldgeese, it may have been endemic to Mauritius, and may be distinguishable from those species if more remains of it are found. They also moved the Réunion sheldgoose to the same genus as the Egyptian goose and the Mauritius sheldgoose, Alophochen. The British writer Errol Fuller stated in 2000 that while the geese seen on Mauritius by 17th century travellers may be connected to the species described from bones, it is possible that there is no connection. ==Description==

The best contemporary description of the Mauritius sheldgoose, and the only one that indicates what it looked like, is that of the English traveller John Marshall from 1668: The pelvis of the Mauritius sheldgoose is also similar in size to that of the brant goose, measuring from the front brim of the acetabulum (the socket in the hip where the femur attaches) to the hind end of the ischium (which forms the back part of the pelvis), and generally agrees with the pelvis of ducks and geese. Cheke, who had previously researched the history of the dodo, found no documentary or ornithological arguments for this identification, and expressed puzzlement over it and other of Grove's conclusions. After contacting the Dutch national archives, he established that the illustration was unsigned, but had been accompanied by a 1670 letter written by the previous commandant G. F. van Wreeden and H. Klingenbergh. Cheke pointed out that the supposed dodo had a short, deep bill, webbed feet, normal wings, and a short, upturned tail, features inconsistent with it being a dodo. He suggested it was instead a better fit for the Mauritius sheldgoose, which would therefore make it the only known contemporary illustration of this bird in life. The new identification also implied that the dodo was already extinct by 1670, though the drawing had been used to support it surviving longer than generally assumed. Cheke identified two other waterbirds depicted in a stream as possible Mascarene teals, and a crow-like bird as the extant Mauritius bulbul. Cheke and the British palaeontologist Jolyon C. Parish stated in 2020 that the illustration "almost certainly" showed the Mauritius sheldgoose. ==Behaviour and ecology==

of Mauritius sheldgeese (left) and Mascarene teals (lower right) by Julian P. Hume, 1996 Little is known about the habits of the Mauritius sheldgoose. The surviving endemic fauna is still seriously threatened. The Mauritius sheldgoose lived alongside other recently extinct Mauritian birds such as the dodo, the red rail, the Mascarene teal, the broad-billed parrot, the Mascarene grey parakeet, the Mauritius blue pigeon, the Mauritius scops owl, the Mascarene coot, and the Mauritius night heron. Extinct Mauritian reptiles include the saddle-backed Mauritius giant tortoise, the domed Mauritius giant tortoise, the Mauritian giant skink, and the Round Island burrowing boa. The small Mauritian flying fox and the snail Tropidophora carinata lived on Mauritius and Réunion but became extinct in both islands. Some plants, such as Casearia tinifolia and the palm orchid, have also become extinct.{{cite book | first2 = J. P. | last2 = Hume |pages = 43–52, 66, 112 ==Extinction==

Travellers to Mauritius and Réunion made repeat mentions of highly palatable geese and ducks, and these were listed among the favourite prey of hunters there. Cheke stated in 1987 that the Mauritius sheldgeese were considered abundant in 1681, but quickly declined thereafter; the French explorer François Leguat considered them rare in 1693, and the Dutch governor of Mauritius Roelof Deodati declared them extinct in 1698. Cheke added that since the number of men on these islands was low in the 1600s, it is unlikely they would have been responsible for the extinction of widespread animals, but those limited to certain habitats, like for example geese and ducks, may have been exterminated by hunting, though reduced breeding would probably be due to introduced animals. Cheke and Hume suggested in 2008 that the introduction of cats to Mauritius possibly in the 1680s led to a rapid decline in ground-nesting birds, such as geese. Cheke elaborated in 2013 that the main culprit was cats, with hunting being secondary, and the species survived introduced rats and pigs. ==References==