From Hawaii Wildlife Center

Watch out! This burrito bites back. Just a quick checkup for this Pueo (Hawaiian Owl) patient and back to the aviary she goes for quiet time.

I was trying to find what exactly makes the Pueo different from the normal Short Eared Owl, but haven’t come across that. The only interesting things I noticed was it’s scientific name is Asio flammeus sandwichensis, but I also haven’t found where the sandwich part comes from, and I learned about SOS.

So called “sick owl syndrome” is affecting the Pueo, which is typically more hearty than many other local birds species. The cause is not yet determined, but it seems to cause a stumbling behavior. I’ll have to look more into this.

For many Hawaiian families, both ancient and modern, pueo are ‘aumakua, ancestral guardians that protect the family from harm.

The Peuo is unique to Hawaii. Its ancestors came over with the Polynesians. Barn Owls were also introduced to the islands in the 50s and 60s when the local government imported 86 Barn Owls.

The extinct stilt owls also used to live there.

  • anon6789@lemmy.worldOP
    4·
    24 days ago

    From a 2 page history of the Pueo, the Pueo is smaller and darker colored compared to the typicial Short Eared Owl.

    The resident Hawaiian population of Short-eared Owl has been considered an endemic subspecies, A.f. sandwichensis, first named by Bloxam (1827a) as “Strix sandvicensis” following his observations during the 1825 voyage of the Blonde (Olson 1996a). Dole (1869, 1879), Sclater (1871), and others promoted a bit of confusion by referring it to two genera and species, Strix delicatula (an old name for Tyto owls of Southeastern Asia) and Brachyotus galapagoensis (along with Otus bracyotus, old namesfor Short-eared Owl) and it was given various other specific and subspecific names by early naturalists (Synonymies). The resident subspecies has been reported to be weakly differentiated (smaller in size and averaging darker and richer plumage) from the nominate subspecies of the Holarctic (Rothschild 1900, Bryan 1901a, Amadon 1950, Fleischer and McIntosh 2001), and synonymization has been recommended (e.g., Cassin 1858, Stejneger 1887, Perkins 1903, Olson 1996a, Zeigler 2002); however, recent analysis of specimens indicates sufficient differentiation for subspecific status (P. Pyle, unpublished ms.).