Animal Carvings from Mounds of the Mississippi Valley | Page 8

distorted. The
position of the nostrils, however, and the contour of the mandibles,
together with the position of the eyes, show clearly enough that it is a
likeness of no bird known to ornithology. It is enough for our present
purpose to say that in no particular does it bear any conceivable
resemblance to the toucan.
Of the second supposed toucan (Ancient Monuments, p. 260, Fig. 169)
here illustrated, the authors remark:
The engraving very well represents the original, which is delicately
carved from a compact limestone. It is supposed to represent the
toucan--a tropical bird, and one not known to exist anywhere within the
limits of the United States. If we are not mistaken in supposing it to
represent this bird, the remarks made respecting the sculptures of the
manitus will here apply with double force.
[Illustration: Fig. 15.--Toucan of Squier and Davis.]
This sculpture is fortunately easy of identification. Among several
ornithologists, whose opinions have been asked, not a dissenting voice
has been heard. The bird is a common crow or a raven, and is one of
the most happily executed of the avian sculptures, the nasal feathers,
which are plainly shown, and the general contour of the bill being truly
corvine. It would probably be practically impossible to distinguish a
rude sculpture of a raven from that of a crow, owing to the general

resemblance of the two. The proportions of the head here shown are,
however, those of the crow, and the question of habitat renders it vastly
more likely that the crow was known to the Mound-Builders of Ohio
than that the raven was. What possible suggestion of a toucan is to be
found in this head it is not easy to see.
Turning to page 266 (Fig. 178) another and very different bird is held
up to view as a toucan.
[Illustration: Fig. 16.--Toucan of Squier and Davis.]
Squier and Davis remark of this sculpture:
From the size of its bill, and the circumstance of its having two toes
before and two behind, the bird intended to be represented would seem
to belong to the zygodactylous order--probably the toucan. The toucan
(Ramphastos of Lin.) is found on this continent only in the tropical
countries of South America.
In contradiction to the terms of their description their own figure, as
will be noticed, shows three toes in front and two behind, or a total of
five, which makes the bird an ornithological curiosity, indeed. However,
as the cast in the Smithsonian collection shows three toes in front and
one behind, it is probably safe to assume that the additional hind toe
was the result of mistake on the part of the modern artist, so that four
may be accepted as its proper quota. The mistake then chargeable to the
above authors is that in their discussion they transferred one toe from
before and added it behind. In this curious way came their
zygodactylous bird.
This same pipe is figured by Stevens in Flint Chips, p. 426, Fig. 5. The
wood-cut is a poor one, and exhibits certain important changes, which,
on the assumption that the pipe is at all well illustrated by the cast in
the Smithsonian, reflects more credit on the artist's knowledge of what
a toucan ought to look like than on his fidelity as an exact copyist.
The etchings across the upper surface of the base of the pipe, miscalled
fingers, are not only made to assume a hand-like appearance but the

accommodating fancy of the artist has provided a roundish object in the
palm, which the bird appears about to pick up. The bill, too, has been
altered, having become rounded and decidedly toucan-like, while the
tail has undergone abbreviation, also in the direction of likeness to the
toucan. In short, much that was lacking in the aboriginal artist's
conception towards the likeness of a toucan has in this figure been
supplied by his modern interpreter.
[Illustration: Fig. 17.--Toucan as figured by Stevens.]
This cut corresponds with the cast in the Smithsonian collection, in
having the normal number of toes, four--three in front and one behind.
This departure from the arrangement common to the toucan family,
which is zygodactylous, seems to have escaped Stevens's attention. At
least he volunteers no explanation of the discrepancy, being, doubtless,
influenced in his acceptance of the bird as a toucan by the statements of
others.
Wilson follows the cut of Squier and Davis, and represents the bird
with five toes, stating that the toucan is "imitated with considerable
accuracy." He adds: "The most important deviation from correctness of
detail is, it has three toes instead of two before, although the two are
correctly represented behind." How Wilson is guided to the belief that
the sculptor's mistake consists in adding a toe in front instead of one
behind