Notes on the Mammals of Gogebic and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan, 1920 Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, Number 109 — Background and Themes

Habitat Descriptions and Their Influence

The paper opens with descriptions of the three study regions, emphasizing how human alteration shaped the landscape. In the Cisco Lake Region, a dam raised the water level six to ten feet, killing trees along lake borders and altering emergent and aquatic vegetation habitats. The authors note that these habitats could not be well studied in those lakes. Elsewhere, they describe a boggy swamp near Gogebic Lake dominated by black spruce but containing arbor-vitae and hemlocks. Such details ground the species accounts in specific, observable conditions.

For each species, the authors list the habitats where it was recorded—categories like wet hardwood forest, dry hardwood forest, mud-flat, tall-sedge, and mountain-heath. The counts of individuals per habitat allow readers to gauge relative abundance, though the authors warn that the data are not strictly comparable. For example, the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus lucifugus) was recorded as aerial in all three regions, with 15 individuals shot over lakes and forest openings at specific evening times.

Field Observations of Behavior and Reproduction

The authors include direct observations of animal behavior and reproductive status. For the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), they describe runways in wet hardwood forest near Gogebic Lake: "exceedingly abundant, usually running along or under sticks or logs" and often just under leaves. One old log was "honey-combed with these tunnels." They also note that deeper runways follow down under tree roots.

Reproductive data are given for several species. A female Blarina taken July 10 showed small uterine swellings identified as embryos, but no embryos were found in 26 other females taken between July 15 and September 4. The authors conclude that in this region the species breeds in spring or early summer and does not usually breed again during July and August. Such specific, quantified observations are typical of the paper's approach.

Larger Mammals and Local Knowledge

For larger species, the authors rely heavily on reports from residents and trappers. The black bear (Ursus americanus americanus) is noted as "rather common" based on reports. One bear was seen crossing a railroad track near Cisco Lake Station; tracks were found in mud by a brook. A memorable incident occurred at dusk August 28, when H. B. Sherman, setting up a camera along a deer trail, had a small bear pass within twenty-five paces, "apparently but little concerned with his presence or that of the nearby camp and fire, except that it sniffed the air occasionally."

The timber wolf (Canis lycaon) was reported common by residents, with signs and tracks seen in several habitats. The coyote (Canis latrans) had appeared and become numerous at the north end of Lake Gogebic within the last few years, according to trapper J. E. Fischer, who supplied skulls and skeletons. These accounts show how the authors integrated local expertise with their own fieldwork.

Readers interested in historical ecology or the distribution of mammals in the Upper Great Lakes region will find this paper a valuable primary source. The authors' careful separation of their own observations from those of informants, and their frank acknowledgment of the limitations of their data, make the report a model of cautious field science. The habitat-specific counts and behavioral notes offer a snapshot of a landscape that has since undergone further change.

Sitting with these Michigan field notes, I think of measured, patient observation. There is such quiet intimacy in recording a track or a runway. That same unhurried curiosity, that same devotion to the ordinary creature, lives in The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle [vol. 1 of 5] — A Reader’s Guide. Both are simply notebooks of noticing, side by side on a shelf.