fm HARVARD UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OF THE Museum of Comparative Zoology THE WILSON BULLETIN A Quarterly Magazine of Ornithology Harrison B. Tordoff Editor Keith R. Kelson Associate Editor Volume 64 1952 Published by THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB if U ( : .< [■(•: . 'I u jj KM. CDffP. ZOOL UBRART MAR 2 5 1952 VOL. 64, No. 1 jijrn'AOn PAGES 1-64 ®J)c Wilson bulletin Published by )t Elision (©rnitfjological Club at Lawrence, Kansas The Wilson Ornithological Club Founded December 3, 1888 Named after Alexander Wilson, the first American ornithologist. President — Maurice Brooks, West Virginia University, Morgantown. First Vice-President — W. J. Breckenridge, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Second Vice-President — Burt L. Monroe, Ridge Road, Anchorage, Ky. Treasurer — Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Drive, Louisville 5, Ky. Secretary — Harold F. Mayfield, 2557 Portsmouth Ave., Toledo 13, Ohio. Membership dues per calendar year are: Sustaining, $5.00; Active, $3.00. The Wilson Bulletin is sent to all members not in arrears for dues. Wilson Ornithological Club Library The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, housed in the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, was established in concurrence with the University of Michigan in 1930. Until 1947 the Library was maintained entirely by gifts and bequests of books, pamphlets, re- prints, and ornithological magazines from members and friends of The Wilson Ornith- ological Club. Now two members have generously established a fund for the purchase of new books; members and friends are invited to maintain the fund by regular contributions, thus making available to all Club members the more important new books on ornithology and related subjects. The fund will be administered by the Library Committee, which will be glad for suggestions from members on the choice of new books to be added to the Library. George J. Wallace, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, is Chairman of the Committee. The Library currently receives 65 periodicals as gifts and in exchange for The Wilson Bulletin. With the usual exception of rare books, any item in the Library may be borrowed by members of the Club and will be sent prepaid (by the University of Michigan) to any address in the United States, its possessions, or Canada. Return postage is paid by the borrower. Inquiries and requests by borrowers, as well as gifts of books, pamphlets, reprints, and magazines, should be addressed to “The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.” Contri- butions to the New Book Fund should be sent to the Treasurer, Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Dr., Louisville 5, Ky. (small sums in stamps are acceptable). A preliminary index of the Library’s holdings was printed in the September 1943 issue of The Wilson Bulletin, and each September number lists the book titles in the accessions of the current year. A brief report on recent gifts to the Library is published in every issue of the Bulletin. The Wilson Bulletin The official organ of The Wilson Ornithological Club, published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December, at Lawrence, Kansas. In the United States the subscription price is S3. 00 a year, effective in 1951. Single copies 75 cents. Outside of the United States the rate is $3.25. Single copies, 85 cents. Subscriptions, changes of address and claims for undelivered copies should be sent to the Treasurer. Most back issues of the Bulletin are available (at 50 cents each for 1950 and earlier years, 75 cents each for 1951 and subsequent years) and may be ordered from the Treasurer. All articles and communications for publication, books and publications for review should be addressed to the Editor. Exchanges should be addressed to The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Entered as second class matter at Lawrence, Kansas. Additional entry at Ann Arbor, Mich. THE WILSON BULLETIN A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY Published by The Wilson Ornithological Club Vol. 64, No. 1 March 1952 Pages 1-64 CONTENTS The President’s Page Maurice Brooks 4 Flint-billed Woodpecker. Painting by George Miksch Sutton opp. page 5 The Flint-billed Woodpecker George Miksch Sutton 5 Notes on Variation in the Carolina Chickadee William A. Lunk 7 Notes on the Ecology of the Short-billed Marsh Wren in the Lower Arkansas Rice Fields Brooke Meanley 22 New and Additional Records of Utah Birds William H. Behle and Robert K. Selander 26 The Alder Flycatcher in Washtenaw County, Michigan: Breeding Distribution and Cowbird Parasitism Andrew .1. Berger and David F. Parmelee 33 A New Ovenbird from the Southeastern United States Thomas D. Burleigh and Allen J . Duvall 39 General Notes NEST OF RED-SHOULDERED HAWK WITH SIX EGGS Thomas P. Smith 43 THE STATUS OF BARROw’s GOLDEN-EYE IN KANSAS William B. Stallcup 43 birds becoming “caught” in flocks of other species Hervey Brackbill 44 WESTERN MEADOWLARK ATTACKS GROUND SQUIRREL Clarence A. Sooter 45 HARRYING OF HERONS BY GULLS A FURTHER NOTE F. W. Preston 45 HOMING ABILITY OF FEMALE COWBIRDS Harold B. Wood 46 flight-speed of the mourning dove Eric W alter Bastin 47 FEMALE COWBIRD HUNG IN AN OLD NEST OF BALTIMORE ORIOLE K. T . Rogers 47 sutton’s warbler ( Dendroica potomac) again observed in west Virginia Harold D. Mitchell 47 black vulture depredations at Kentucky woodlands Harvey B. Lovell 48 Stoddard's yellow-throated warbler in bay county, Florida George Miksch Sutton 49 UPLAND PLOVER AND YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD IN THE CHICAGO REGION F. J. Freeman 49 Editorial 5® Ornithological Fiterature Jean Delacour, The Pheasants of the World, reviewed by S. Dillon Ripley; W. C. Allee and K. P. Schmidt, Ecological Animal Geography, reviewed by H. S. Fitch; Charles F. Yocum, Waterfowl and their Food Habits in W ashington, reviewed by Maurice F. Baker; Leon A. Hausman, Beginner s Guide to Attracting Birds, reviewed by William A. Lunk. Conservation Section: Preserve or Playground? William W. H. Gunn and Henry S. Mosby 57 Graduate Research in Ornithology Aaron M. Bagg and Gustav A. Swanson 60 THE PRESIDENT’S PAGE This letter is in the nature of hail and farewell. The Wilson Bulletin already has a new Editor and Associate Editor, and before the next issue appears the Club will have a new Secretary and a new President. It is scarcely necessary to say that those who are retiring wish these new officers well. I cannot let the occasion pass without expressing, on behalf of the Club, our appreci- ation for the long and unselfish service which George M. Sutton as Editor, Andrew Berger as Assistant Editor, and Harold F. Mayfield as Secretary have given. During the five years of World War II, the Wilson Club held no general meetings. Following this trying period, George Sutton took over as President, and later as Editor. His work went far toward re-knitting our membership into a compact group. With Andy Berger’s as- sistance, he maintained the high standards of The Wilson Bulletin. The generosity of many Club members has made possible the publishing of more color plates than in any similar period of the Bulletin s history. To the Secretaryship, Harold Mayfield brought a wide business experience and a deep understanding of human values. He is one of the devoted amateurs in our ranks, and his work on Kirtland’s Warbler has demonstrated an ability to match the professional in scientific competence. More than any other person, he is responsible for the excellent programs of our annual meetings during the last five years. No person may serve the Wilson Club without gaining a sense of the vigor of its membership. The Club is sixty-two years old, fairly venerable as such organizations go in this country. Yet it has not run out of ideas, nor of members to put these ideas into execution. Its early interest in life history and ecology has flowered and borne an abun- dant harvest. In a very real sense, it has helped in shaping the direction of ornithological work throughout the world. Mark Twain, in “A Connecticut Yankee,” has a wonderful statement as to his concepts of government and society. To paraphrase his ideas, officers come and go, but the Club is the enduring thing. All strength derives from it, and it will flourish just so long as its members share in the responsibility for its welfare. I am happy that at this year’s Annual Meeting we seem likely to wipe out for all time the artificial barriers imposed by different classes of membership in the Club. There will no longer be an Associate grade; all members will be equal in their duties and their privileges. This is as it should be in a democracy. One source of deep gratification lies in the close cooperation between the Wilson Club and its sister organizations, the American Ornithologists’ Union and the Cooper Ornitho- logical Club. Through some happy circumstance, each organization has found its sphere of usefulness, and no clashes of interest have arisen. This comity has made possible the service of Sewall Pettingill as President of the Wilson Club while he was also Secretary of the A. O. U., and has allowed Josselyn Van Tyne to maintain an active interest in Wilson Club affairs while he is President of the A. 0. U. It is fortunate indeed that such relationships exist. My personal thanks go to all who have so unselfishly given of their time and money during the past two years. This has made the President’s lot a happy one. I’ll see you in Gatlinburg. Maurice Brooks FLINT-BILLED WOODPECKER [Phloeoceastes guatemalensis regius ) Adult male, life-size, sketched February 16, 1938, along the Rio Corona, near the village of Guemes, Tamaulipas, Mexico, by George Miksch Sutton. This is the second of a series of eight color plates honoring the memory of Dr. David Clark Hilton. THE FLINT-BILLED WOODPECKER BY GEORGE MIKSCH SUTTON THE Flint-billed Woodpecker ( Phloeoceastes guatemalensis ) has been wide- ly known as the Guatemalan Ivory-bill; but since it is neither very closely related to the true Ivory-bills of the genus Campephilus , nor by any means restricted to the republic of Guatemala, a new name seems to be needed. Wetmore has said of the species: “These are strong-muscled, robust birds with tough, thick skins, so that their preparation as specimens entails definite physical labor. A needle will scarcely penetrate the thickened skin of the back of the head” (1943. Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus ., 93:272). In one of my early notebooks appears a statement, not wholly in jest, to the effect that a good name for the bird would be Thick-skinned Woodpecker. I he Flint-bill ranges from Panama northward throughout tropical Central America and Mexico to southeastern Sonora in the west and to central Famaulipas in the east. Along the Faredo-to-Mexico City highway I have seen it repeatedly as far north as Victoria and Guemes, Tamaulipas. I have never seen it on the Mesa de Flera proper, but in the well-wooded valleys below the mesa it is fairly common. In the northern part of its range it probably does not reach elevations above 2000 feet. It is about 14!/2 inches long. Adult and immature birds of both sexes are crested. The adult male’s entire head is red. In the female the pileum and throat are black, while the nostril feathers, fore part of the chin, and sides of the head are red. In nestling males the crest proper is red, but the front half of the crown and most of the head are dusky. In young females the upper part of the crest is black, the lower part red. As for the neck and body, these are largely black in all plumages; but a broad white line down each side of the neck connects with a narrow white shoulder stripe; the breast and belly are barred with light grayish buff; and the wing linings are pale yellow. This yellow seems especially bright when the sun’s rays are nearly horizontal. In adults the bill is flinty gray at the base, grayish white toward the tip, the eyes pale yellow, the skin around the eyes dark gray. For a long time I thought that the Flint-bill was voiceless; but on May 29, 1947, along the Rio Sabinas in Tamaulipas, I happened upon a family group — a young female, well able to fly, and its parents. The adult birds gave a loud note of protest which I jotted down as keck or hack (Sutton, 1950. Bird- Banding, 21:49). The species’ most characteristic “sound,” however, is an incisive double-rap, a sort of abbreviated drumming, sometimes given in chorus. Such a chorus Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Newman, Mr. and Mrs. Rich- ard R. Graber, Charles Shaw, and I heard in the late afternoon on January 8, 5 6 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 1952, in the vicinity of Rancho Sabinal, west of Aquismon, San Luis Potosi. A single bird, a male, in a tree near the old hacienda in which we were living, continued to give the double-rap from one spot (about 30 feet from the ground I for about three-quarters of an hour, and we heard what seemed to he answering double-raps, but no vocal Llint-bill utterance, from a dozen direc- tions during the same period. The flight of the Llint-bill is undulatory, though usually not deeply so. 1 he bird is energetic in its feeding. With its powerful bill it hacks away at the bark and dead wood. The nest is excavated by both the female and the male. On March 1, 1938, while on a riverhank trail near Gomez Larias, Tamaulipas, I heard the dull puck, puck, of a woodpecker at work above me. When the bird finally backed out so that I could see it, I perceived that it was a female Llint-bill. A loud double-rap from her served to summon the male, who went to work promptly, though for some reason he did not wholly disappear within the cavity. Oc- casionally he backed out completely to toss a billful of chips into the air. In 1941, members of the Cornell Lhiiversity — Carleton College Expedition found two nests — one (partly finished) half-way up the mountain just west of the Rio Sabinas, near Gomez Larias, about 1500 feet elevation, April 12; the other, finished but empty, about fifteen feet from the ground in a leaning dead tree very close to the river, April 30 (Sutton and Pettingill, 1942. Auk, 59:19). I have never seen the eggs. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, January 23. 1952 NOTES ON VARIATION IN THE CAROLINA CHICKADEE BY WILLIAM A. LUNK RECENTLY I undertook to identify an Oklahoma series of Carolina Chickadees {Parus carolinensis ) in Dr. George M. Sutton’s collection, and to clarify the limits of that portion of the species’ range. Extended far beyond the scope of the original problem, the work finally entailed not only rather exhaustive comparison of material from Oklahoma and neighboring states, but also study of considerable series from the eastern part of the range. In all. well over 450 specimens of P. carolinensis and about 100 of P. atri- capillus were examined. I assembled data which it seems desirable to present without further delay, outlining some tentative conclusions but fully recogniz- ing the incompleteness of many parts of the study. For the use of material I am indebted to Herbert Friedmann, John T. Zimmer, M. Dale Arvey, E. R. Hall, A. I. Ortenburger, Arthur C. Twomey, and others; special thanks are due J. L. Peters for examining some specimens for me and loaning others, Josselyn Van Tyne and R. W. Storer for sug- gestions both in the study and in preparation of this paper, Richard and Jean Graber for collecting a number of specimens, W. H. Brudon for assistance in preparation of the figures, and above all to Dr. Sutton for generously placing his series at my disposal and assisting throughout the work. Northwestern Range of the Species The literature indicates no very clear understanding of the northwestern limits of the Carolina Chickadee’s range. I find that the species occurs throughout Oklahoma, exclusive probably of the panhandle, westward at least to Lipscomb County in the northeastern corner of the Texas panhandle, and across southern Kansas from Meade County northeastward to Greenwood and Douglas counties. Included in Dr. Sutton’s fine series (mostly of breeding males) are birds from Ellis (Sutton. 1936:433), Roger Mills, Caddo, Payne, Noble, Oklahoma, and Murray counties, Oklahoma. Nice (1931:131) has given additional data on the species in Oklahoma, including the report of specimens from Woodward County. Material I have examined from other collections adds a number of other Oklahoma localities. I he Lipscomb County, Iexas, bird is an unsexed immature (U.S.N.M. No. 186735) taken in June. Most of the 31 Kansas specimens examined, taken by various collectors, are in the University of Kansas collection. Two from Douglas County, however, are at the University of Oklahoma; and the single one from Meade County, collected in the summer of 1950, by Graber, is in the Sutton collection. 7 8 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 I wish to point out that the northern limit of P. carolinensis in this region, as here outlined, very nearly coincides with the southern limit of P. atricapil- lus. I have made no attempt to locate all Kansas specimens of the latter species; but among those collected by Graber and now in the Sutton collection are examples from as far south as Hamilton, Meade, and Butler counties. The occurrence of P. atricapillus in Oklahoma has been reported (Nice, loc. cit. ) but I have seen no specimen, or other published record of a specimen, of this species from the state. Methods and Scope of Study In studying the specimens, I first considered variation in size and color, temporarily disregarding present subspecific distinctions. Size data I have treated statistically and graphically; but only direct comparisons were em- ployed for color, with no attempt at precise quantitative treatment. Measurements were made with dividers, and wing-measurements are of the chord; tail-lengths were taken by visually placing one tip of the divider at the point where the middle rectrices meet the skin, and measuring to the tip of the longest feather (unless this obviously was loosened and extended beyond its normal position in the tail). Juvenile chickadees are recognizable by texture of body plumage, dullness of coloration, and other features, and were not considered in any of the tabu- lations. Recognition of first-winter and one-year-old birds presents more of a problem. Lew series included enough accurately aged specimens to be of use in this connection (a notable exception being the large series of P. a. sep- tentrionalis collected by Wetmore at Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas). There are probably enough differences so that a technique for age-determina- tion could be perfected; but thus far I do not feel I can make accurate and clear-cut distinctions. Binding, furthermore, no demonstrable difference in size or color between comparable series of adults and known immatures, I eliminated only a few clearly labelled immatures of P. carolinensis, and treated the remainder of the samples as composed for all practical purposes of adult birds. As I shall show later, size disparity is so great in chickadees that proper determination of sex is of prime importance. Any birds with sex questioned or not indicated were eliminated from the tabulations. Even so, it is probable that a certain amount of error was introduced by incorrectly sexed specimens. In color comparisons, birds were carefully separated on a seasonal basis. In treating measurements, however, the undoubted discrepancies caused by dif- fering amounts of (normal) wear were considered impractical to eliminate. The distributional picture, furthermore, may be confused somewhat by season- al movements of the birds. Chickadees are comparatively sedentary; but William A. Lunk VARIATION IN CAROLINA CHICKADEE 9 there is ample evidence of some migratory movement, which in some cases might be considerable. Individual and seasonal variation is striking in series from any given local- ity. Study skins of chickadees are made difficult to work with by the marked effects of poor preparation, dirty plumage, wear, fading, and foxing and discoloration of some older specimens. I would stress the need not only for more, but for better, material: namely, clean, well made skins, particularly in fresh fall plumage, with as much detailed ecological data as possible. Geographic Variation For comparative treatment 1 found it necessary to group in some wa) the scattered samples used. Figure 1 shows the arrangement of my 15 gioups, arrived at after consideration of geographic separation, size of samples, and differences shown, and after elimination of unsuitable specimens as explained 10 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 above. Solid outlines and bold-face letters (A-O) indicate merely these arbitrary groupings; and for the sake of brevity the samples will be referred to usually by the letter designations only. Actual boundaries of the specific and subspecific ranges are not intended to be indicated on the map. It will be seen that the alphabetical series of samples run generally from northeast to southeast, then west and southwest, and then north. The samples cover, in a scattering fashion, the greater part of the range of the Carolina Chick- adee. Size V ariations in wing and tail measurements have been most useful. 1 hese values lend themselves well to statistical treatment, the results of which are given in Table 1. I assembled only a small part of the material available from eastern states, and many of the samples both there and in the west are admit- tedly small. Samples of less than ten individuals, I did not analyze beyond the calculation of a simple mean. However, the trends in size are unmistak- able; I believe the figures will be useful not only in connection with the present remarks but as a basis for comparison in further studies. Keeping in mind the generally clockwise geographical progression of the samples, we see in Table 1 a steady decrease in mean dimensions of P. carol- inensis from the northeast to the southeast of the species range ( A-E ) , then relatively little change across its southern portions (F-J ), and a marked in- crease again to the northwest (J-O). Even the smallest samples give means that fit in well with this pattern. The trends are closely similar for wing- length and tail-length, and for the two sexes. I have used most of the wing- length figures, which tend to show less variability, to illustrate in somewhat clearer fashion the nature of the variation, making use of the so-called Dice squares (Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows what appears to be a smooth clinal gra- dation from northern West Virginia, Ohio, and neighboring states ( A-B ) , where the wing-length of males averages close to 64 mm., to Georgia and Florida (E-Fj, where it averages about 60 mm. There is little change in size through the states to the west along the Gulf, until we come to coastal Texas and western Louisiana (I-Jj, where the mean wing-length of males appears to he something under 61.5 mm. Then passing north and west into the higher elevations of central and north-central Texas (K-M) we find indications of a very marked increase in size, until over a wide area through Oklahoma and Kansas (N-O) males seem to have a wing-length averaging well over 65 mm. The general direction of size increase then seems to be from south to north, or somewhat from southeast to northwest. The magnitude of the change is apparent from Table 1 and Figure 2. 1 have not fully treated the measurements of hill and tarsus. Some of the Table 1 Measurements of Samples of P. carolinensis. (See map, Figure 1 for localities.) CO Wing Tail No. Range Mean a V No. Range Mean < T V MALES A 10 62 -66 64.0±.38 1.2 1.9 10 54 -58 55.9 ±.40 1.3 2.3 B 21 59.5-67 63.4±.39 1.8 2.8 21 53 -62 55.5±.52 2.4 4.3 C 11 60 -64.5 62.9±.36 1.2 1.9 11 52 -57.5 54.2±.51 1.7 3.1 D 24 59 -67 62.6±.43 2.1 3.4 24 50.5-58 53.9±.37 1.8 3.4 E 19 56.5-65 60.2 ±.45 2.0 3.3 19 48 -54.5 52.0±.42 1.8 3.5 F 23 56 -63 59.9±.35 1.7 2.8 24 48.5-55 51.0±.32 1.6 3.0 G 5 59 -63 61.0 — — — 4 48.5-53 50.3 — — H 34 56 -63 59.7±.32 1.8 3.1 34 48.5-55 50.8±.26 1.5 3.0 I 15 59 -66 61.4±.44 1.7 2.8 15 47.5-56.5 52.7±.64 2.5 4.7 J 21 58.5-64.5 61.0±.32 1.5 2.4 21 50 -56 53.1 ±.31 1.4 2.6 K 14 60.5-68 63.1 ±.45 1.7 2.7 14 50 -59 54.6±.51 1.9 3.5 L 10 60.5-67 63.8±.63 2.0 3.1 10 52 -59 55.8±.65 2.0 3.7 M 7 62 -65 63.6 — — — 7 55 -59 56.7 — — N 32 62 -69 65.5±.33 1.9 2.9 32 54.5-62 57.8±.33 1.9 3.2 0 15 62 -67.5 65.1±.36 1.4 2.1 15 54 -63.5 58.7±.57 2.2 3.7 IJ 36 58.5-66 61.2±.27 1.6 2.6 36 47.5-56.5 52.9±.32 1.9 3.6 MNO 54 62 -69 65.2±.24 1.8 2.7 54 54 -63.5 57.9±.27 2.0 3.5 FEMALES A 16 57 -64 61.2±.44 1.8 2.9 16 52 -58 54.7±.39 1.5 2.8 B 18 58 -65 61.2±.38 1.6 2.7 18 48.5-57.5 53.8±.63 2.7 5.0 C 9 58.5-62 60.3 — — — 9 50.5-54.5 52.5 — — — D 13 56 -65 60.1 ±.67 2.4 4.0 13 50 -58 52.6±.64 2.3 4.4 E 10 57 -62 58.4±.49 1.6 2.7 10 47.5-52.5 49.8±.63 2.0 4.0 F 14 54 -59 57.0±.34 1.3 2.2 14 46 -51 48.8 ±.35 1.3 2.6 G 5 56.5-61.5 58.5 — — — 5 46.5-51.5 49.3 — — — H 17 55 -61.5 57.7±.35 1.5 2.5 17 47.5-52.5 49.4 ±.37 1.5 3.1 I 8 56 -59 57.8 — — — 8 47 -52.5 49.8 — — — J 22 57 -62 59.3±.32 1.5 2.6 22 48 -55.5 5 1.2 ±.38 1.8 3.5 K 10 58 -62 60.4±.32 1.0 1.7 10 48.5-54.5 51.7±.53 1.7 3.3 L 7 57.5-65 61.1 — — — 7 52.5-58.5 55.0 — — — M 3 60.5-63 61.5 — — 3 51 -57 54.0 — — — N 7 60.5-66 63.8 — — 7 55 -62 57.7 — — — 0 7 59 -66 62.4 — — — 7 54 -61.5 57.2 — — — U 30 56 -62 58.9 ±.28 1.5 2.6 30 47 -55.5 50.8±.35 1.9 3.7 MNO 17 59 -66 62.8±.48 2.0 3.2 17 51 -62 56.9 ±.64 2.6 4.6 Measurements OF Samples of P. atricapillus. |' Wing Tail 2 c No. Range Mean T V No. Range Mean <j V MALES W. Va. 7 64 -67.5 65.9 — 7 58 -64.5 61.6 — — *Kan. 37 62 -71.5 66.9±.36 2.2 3.3 37 61.5-70.5 65.4±.38 2.3 3.5 FEMALES W. Va. 5 61 -66.5 64.3 — 5 56.5-64 61.1 — — -Kan. 42 61.5-68 64.5 ±.23 1.5 2.3 42 58 -66.5 63.0±.32 2.1 3.3 * Series taken by Wetmore, near Lawrence, and in L). S. Natl. Mus. collection. 11 12 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 MM.- 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 — I — t t i I i ♦ i I i I t I rh — I H i t i I i t i 't i I i I i I ♦ M 1 M t » M I 1 I 1 I M i I i | M 1 I i ♦ i I i I MM.- 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 I1 ig. 2. Size variation (wing-length) among populations of P. carolinensis. (See Fig. 1 for location of samples.) In each diagram, horizontal line extends from the lowest to highest observed extreme; vertical line marks calculated mean (M) ; narrow rectangle represents standard deviation (cr) on each side of mean; and shaded rectangle represents twice standard error of mean (2<tm) on each side. larger specimens appear strikingly big-billed; but this character may well be correlated simply with over-all size. William A. Lunk VARIATION IN CAROLINA CHICKADEE 13 Relative Tail-length Since the tail/wing ratio is usually regarded as diagnostic in separating P. carolinensis from P. atricapillus, I thought it deserved special attention. Rather than present an orthodox statistical treatment of the ratios as such, I have chosen to use a diagram (Fig. 3), in which I have plotted mean wing- length against mean tail-length for males of each sample considered (open circles). We see shown, not actually a constant ratio, but rather one that 69 - 68 - 67 66 65 i 64 63 I62 61 60 59 58 O P. carolinensis samples Means of Males o\o <o' & / / septentriona/is AJD / / / frigoris / / / /nevadensis AJD 9/ / / ' . /r^L O / dO«°k® M/ / / W.Va. ' O / N 0°/ / _ / ^ AJD / / / / / /_ ^-Lawrence, 9/ / Kan. I / atricapillus / / AJD ^ •• / \ turner / • °ztis \ S / practicus for'tuitus / AJD AJD / practicus / °o /°J / HCO / / 9 occidentatis / / / / ^ / / / / t- / / H<PF/ E / / / Ao/ > & / / 4'/ V/ J L V/ J L o\o no> V/ P. atricapillus subspp. Means of Males J I I L J I I I ^ I 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 TAIL - MM. Fig. 3. Tail/wing ratios (based on mean measurements of males) of populations of P. carolinensis and of P. atricapillus. Data for most races of atricapillus from Duvall (1945- AJD) ; that for one sample of practicus from Oberholser (1937: 220 - HCO) ; the rest from my Table 1. (For locations of lettered samples, see map Fig. 1.) increases somewhat with over-all size of the birds. (Absolute size increases along a diagonal from lower left to upper right, while a proportionately longer- or shorter-tailed condition is indicated by a trend to lower right or to upper left respectively. For reference some lines of constant ratio have been added.) The general curve suggested is seen to lean decidedly to the right, the smaller (southern) populations averaging distinctly shorter-tailed, rel- atively, than the larger (northern) ones. (Plot “G”, however, is further dis- placed because of the very small sample used.) I do not regard the differences as sufficient to be of much taxonomic importance within the species. For comparison, I have plotted some mean measurements for populations of P. atricapillus on the same graph (solid circles — see details in legend). 14 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 V ol. 64, No. 1 Lor this purpose I have borrowed some figures given by Duvall (1945). and used a few of my own from Table 1. The interesting and somewhat disturbing feature is the way in which the largest P. carolinensis (those in West Virginia, etc., A-B, and especially those in Oklahoma and Kansas, N-O) seem to ap- proach the smallest P. atricapillus ( note practicus and occidentalis ) not only in absolute mean measurements, but to some degree in proportions. 1 he graph shows one almost continuous band of variation rather than the two parallel bands that might be expected. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Figure 3 is based on mean measurements. If we were to plot all individuals we would be dealing with a series of broadly overlapping ellipses (cf. Fig. 4, which is drawn to the same scale and shows two populations so plotted ) . The conclusion is that some individuals must occur which cannot be assigned to one or the other species on the basis of tail/wing ratio alone. Such indi- viduals do occur, and precisely in the areas where either species might be expected (cf. Duvall, 1945:56). I have identified as P. carolinensis a number of remarkably long-tailed individuals, both from the east and from the west. Several of the more puzzling ones, mostly females (in the University of Kansas collection ) , fall within the size range even of P. a. septentrionalis from neigh- boring areas. The tendency of P. atricapillus to average shorter-tailed in the southern part of its range, while less pronounced, is evident, particularly in the east. From the foregoing it will be clear that I have relied heavily upon color- ation for specific identification of material. There may be considerable con- vergence in coloration also, but my data indicate that it is more likely to be valid than size and proportion in deciding doubtful cases. I do not suggest that hybridization or intergradation necessarily exists. I do infer, however, that there is a correlation, adaptive and/or genetic, be- tween size and relative tail-length, which appears to apply in some manner to both species considered. Careful studies in areas where both species occur, to determine just how constant the various morphological characters are in relation to call-notes, breeding behavior, and general habits, would certainly strengthen our understanding of the distinctions. Color For the study of coloration features, I selected series of P. carolinensis males from various localities representing most of the sample areas, one group consisting of fall birds (Sept. 1 to Dec. 1) and another of spring specimens (Feb. to June). In general, the brown color of the upper parts characteristic of some of the populations is due to brownish tips on the fresh feathers, and tends to disappear first as wear progresses. On the underparts as well the buffy or rufous wash is reduced by wear and fading. Thus some of the best distinctions between the populations are all but lost in spring and summer William A. Lunk VARIATION IN CAROLINA CHICKADEE 15 Table 2 General Color Variation in Samples of P. carolinensis : a rough comparison only, dis- regarding seasonal change and minor variations. (See Figure 1 for location of samples.) Sample Dorsal Coloration General Tone Brownish Wash on Sides Pale Edgings of Flight Feathers A very brown medium strong strong B brown - variable to west medium strong strong D brown dark fairly strong moderate E brown dark strong weak F brown dark strong weak H rather gray - variable medium moderate weak I gray pale weak moderate J gray pale weak moderate L rather gray - variable medium fairly strong strong N gray pale rather weak strong 0 gray pale rather weak strong specimens, in which we must turn to the somewhat nebulous matter of general darkness or paleness, at the risk of being misled by dirt or fading. I would want to examine much more material, particularly from eastern areas, before attempting detailed tabulations or any sort of quantitative treat- ment. Basic trends in coloration, however, are not difficult to detect. Table 2, while deliberately brief and general, is an attempt to show simply the most evident of these trends, which are in fact about as expected on the basis of published descriptions. Fresh-plumaged fall birds from Bethany, West Virginia (A), are very huffy brown above, especially in the region of the scapulars, and have a heavy wash of pale rufous along the sides, extending in most cases well back along the flanks and even to the under tail coverts. These characters are shared by the birds to the south (B-H), which are on the whole not quite so brightly washed on the sides, hut are nearly as brown above, and often darker in general tone. This coloration is less well marked, hut still apparent, in spring birds. In con- trast, the western populations (I-O) average much grayer above and in general paler, with little color on the sides even in fall; spring and summer birds may be nearly white below. Oklahoma and West Virginia birds can be separated almost perfectly on the basis of either dorsal or ventral coloration alone. Seemingly increased variability, as well as intermediacy, is evident in the samples from the Mississippi Valley area (H,L), where the sharpest change in color occurs. The tendency toward gray dorsal coloration comes well to the east along the Gulf coast, at least to eastern Louisiana (H), where 16 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 fall birds are even grayer than those (also of intermediate coloi ) horn western Arkansas. I have seen no fall specimens from extreme western Okla- homa. which individuals, by inference from the summer ones at hand, would be the grayest of all. The brown on the sides is evident farther to the west than that on the upper parts (cf. western Arkansas birds. L ) , perhaps because of the paler ground color below. In the west, as in the east, it is slightly more noticeable in specimens from northern areas. The pale feather-edgings in wings and tail are very prominent and de- veloped to about an equal degree in the northeastern (A.B) and northwestern (L,N,0) samples, though in the latter associated with generally paler color- ation. In the southwestern samples (I,J) these edgings are somewhat less well developed; and in the southeast (E,G, and especially L), they are usually quite inconspicuous. By far the most marked color variation within P. carolinensis, then, appears to be a cline of decreasing brownness from east to west, both as regards dorsal coloration and washing on underparts. This cline seems to break sharply in the Mississippi Valley area. The color-change is coupled with a similar trend toward general paleness of tone. Secondarily, the light feather-edgings prominent in northern specimens tend to become narrower to the south, and very much so in the southeast, where the birds are darker generally. The brownish wash on the sides tends to become stronger, or at least brighter, from south to north, although the major trend here is from west to east. Lrom my present data I am unable to detect that these latter changes are other than a matter of smooth clinal variation. Subspecific Treatment It must be stressed that this is in no sense a full-scale revision, and that some conclusions herein can be no more than tentative. I have viewed the problem primarily from the population standpoint, and have not been con- cerned with assigning a trinomial to every specimen examined. But with the considerable amount of data before me, it still seems justifiable to comment on the broader aspects of the taxonomic situation, which are often unavoidably neglected in systematic and distributional papers involving series from only one or a few localities. P. c. extimus (Todd and Sutton). — This race appears to be recognizable as described (Todd and Sutton, 1936: 70) . The series of 10 males and 16 females from Bethany are exact topotypes of this race. The characters of very distinct pale edgings of flight feathers, strong washing of rufous below, and marked buffy veiling dorsal!) of this William A. Lunk VARIATION IN CAROLINA CHICKADEE 17 northeastern population have been discussed. In addition I consider the large size to be of more importance taxonomically (at least if sizeable series are treated) than have some earlier writers (cf. Wetmore, 1939:208). The measurements, particularly of sample A, in I able 1 are of interest. I consider samples A, B, C, and probably D to be representative of this form. Birds from the western portions of the range become progressively grayer and paler, and those to the south show a decrease in size and otherwise tend to inter- grade with carolinensis. P. c. impiger Bangs. — The above data suggest to me that further work might prove this race a very tenuous one, if recognizable at all. Writers to date have had divergent views as to the northern limits of its range; from the specimens examined I can detect no change in size from one part of Florida to another, and very little between Florida and Georgia (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Bangs’ two speci- mens (the female type and a male topotype) are both smaller than any chick- adee I have measured; Mr. J. L. Peters kindly checked the measurements for me, and finds those given in the type description (Bangs, 1903:1) essentially correct. Peters writes: “type 9 : wing, 51.5 mm.; tail, 43.5. Topotype $ : wing, 52.3 mm.; tail, 45.3” (letter). I cannot escape the conclusion that these are very abnormal birds, and that even if such individuals do occur more or less regularly they represent merely the extreme of the small size character- istic of all the southern population. Extremes of brownness and darkness, to be expected in this area, have not impressed me as striking in the series I have seen. P. c. carolinensis Audubon. — The nominate race, with (restricted) type locality at Charleston, S. C., seems to me unduly compressed between neighboring races to the north and south, and for that matter to the west, unless we somehow enlarge our concept of it. It is partly for this reason that I suggest the possibility of uniting with it the present impiger. Trautman (1940:311-312) feels also that “there are only two eastern races of this species”; but advocates retention of impiger and carolinensis. My comparisons, including (only two) topotypes from Charles- ton and specimens from many Georgia and Florida localities, lead me thus far to favor the other course. We would then be able to use the well defined characters of smaller size, reduced feather-edgings, general darkness and brownness of dorsal coloration, and (to a lesser extent ) decreased brownish washing below for recognition of the southern race. My samples of this lace have, however, been particularly scanty; I consider samples E, G, and piob- ably H (though the latter average decidedly grayer above) as P. c. carolinen- sis, and am strongly tempted to include l1 . 18 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 P. c. agilis Sennett.— I believe the characters and distribution of this race have been misunder- stood from the time of its description (Sennett, 1888:46). If we considei the type locality, Bee County, Texas, near the very southern extremity of the species range, examine the type description, and compare the type itself with material from various parts of the western range of the species, inconsistency is at once apparent. I have examined Sennett’s type (A.M.N.H. No. 86395; G.B.S. No. 3894, sex not given). In coloration and size it agrees well with the good series at hand from Matagorda County, Texas (J), which I therefore propose to treat for present purposes as equivalent to topotypes; it shows no evidence of fading, and agrees with Matagorda birds of comparable season in the clear gray upper parts, moderate degree of white wing-edging, and pale underparts with faint huffy wash. The primaries of the type are badly broken on both sides, but in each case one or more of the longest remain, so as to yield approximately correct wing-lengths; one rectrix may have been pulled loose, as it is about 2.5 mm. longer than any other. My measurements of the type are: wing, 59.5, 60.5 nnn.; tail, 54.5 mm.; culmen, about 10.0 mm. if measured to base of skull (slight dermestid work makes measurement of ex- posed part uncertain) ; and tarsus, 15.5 mm. The wing-measurements given by Sennett check reasonably well with those taken by me if allowance is made for his probably having flattened the wing. His tail-measurement of the type (2.40 in. — 60.96 mm.) is above any I can obtain even by measuring from the end of the oil gland. His figures for another bird (“No. 406 $ . . . wing, 2.42; tail 2.52") appear questionable. In no case have I found the tail-length of a specimen from this area to exceed the wing-length, or even to approach it closely. Reference once more to Tables 1 and 2 will show the characters I have found to exist in the Matagorda area ( J I and in the area (I) extending northwest from the Gulf coast. Considering the above facts it appears clear that Sennett’s type, if not all of his unfortunately few and scattered specimens, represent this extreme southwestern population. If we accept the evidence, then agilis, described as large and generally so considered, is pale and very gray, but in fact quite small, males averaging under 61.5 mm. in wing-length. In this restricted sense, it occurs in southeastern Texas, southern Arkansas, and most of Louisiana (I,J). In a sense Oberholser (1938:425-428) has expressed the size and color relationships as 1 find them, though I think his P. c. “ guilloti ” must be considered an intergrading population, occupying much of the range of agilis to the west and the western edge of the range of carolinensis to the east. I have already called attention to the decided size gradation from the coastal area toward the north and west, which is actually about equivalent to William A. Lunk VARIATION IN CAROLINA CHICKADEE 19 that throughout the whole range of the species in the eastern states. As a result of this great discrepancy in size, and minor variations in color already discussed, 1 am unable to assign to any described race the specimens from Kansas, Oklahoma, and central lexas (M,N,0), which I therefore propose to call Parus carolinensis atricapilloides, new subspecies 1^PE- Adult male, presumably breeding, No. 6735, G. M. Sutton, collected by him 10 miles south of Arnett, Ellis County, Oklahoma, May 13, 1936. Measurements of type: wing, 66.5 mm.; tail, 60 mm.; tarsus, 16.5 mm.; ex- posed culmen, 9.5 mm. Diagnosis. — Averaging larger than any other described race of P. carol- inensis, in wing and tail measurements. Fifty-four males measure: wing, 62-69 mm. (65.2 ±.24) ; tail, 54-63.5 mm. (57.9±.27). Seventeen females measure: wing, 59-66 mm. (62.8±.48) ; tail, 51-62 mm. (56.9±.64). Distinguished from P. c. extimus by decidedly grayer dorsal coloration at all seasons, com- parative obsolescence of rufous or huffy washing on sides and flanks, general- ly paler coloration, and even larger average size. Most like P. c. agilis (as above restricted), but distinguished by much larger average size (see Table 1, Fig. 4, etc.) ; also by slightly stronger huffy washing on sides, and somewhat more conspicuous pale edgings on flight feathers; tail /wing ratio averaging somewhat higher, and in a few specimens considerably higher, than in agilis. Distinguished from P. c. carolinensis both by paler and grayer coloration, with much more conspicuous pale edgings on flight feathers, and by decidedly larger size. Range. — The northwestern section of the species’ range; from southern and eastern Kansas ( Meade, Greenwood, and Douglas counties I south through nearly all of Oklahoma to central Texas. Intergrades with P. c. extimus to the east, probably in western Arkansas and southwestern Missouri. Intergrades with P. c. agilis to the south and southeast; the zone of intergradation is un- doubtedly of considerable width (see Fig. 1, and discussion below), and more material is needed to establish any positive dividing lines. To indicate the distinctness of the new race, I have set up the scatter- diagram” shown in Figure 4, in which wing-length is plotted against tail- length for each male specimen in the samples M, N, and 0 (P. c. atricapil- loides— indicated by open circles), and for those in samples I and J {P. c. agilis — indicated by solid triangles ) . T his method is suggested as a convenient rough test for separation on the basis of two partially correlated characteis. We see that the diagonal AB separates all but 6 of the northern birds (89%) from all but 2 (94.5%) of the southern ones, in the observed samples. This diagonal is located by the intersection of the vertical and horizontal dash lines 20 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 shown; these in turn were established by taking the point of statistically best separation on the basis of each measurement alone, as indicated. I have arbitrarily selected a line following roughly the 500-foot contour, from west of San Antonio to extreme southeastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas, which on the basis of the scattered material at hand may represent roughly the region of sharpest size-gradation. Samples K and L from this zone of intergradation, I have not used in Ligure 4. The few birds in sample M average smaller than those in N and 0. and thus still tend toward agilis; one tic. 4. Degree of distinctness on basis of wing- and tail-length between P. c. agilis (triangles) and P. c. atricapilloides (circles). AB: line of best separation, based on lines tt and unv, for each measurement alone, located by the standard deviations. Arrows indicate types. (See Fig. 1 for location of samples.) of 7 males falls below the dividing line and another on it; they were never- theless treated with the northern samples, in a deliberate attempt to make the test as rigorous as possible with the material available. As is clear from Table 1 and Ligure 2, there is no significant difference between samples N and O. Lor added comparison, the collective statistics for MNO and for IJ have been added to Table 1. Summary On the basis of specimens examined, I have outlined some slight extensions of the range of P. carolinensis to the northwest. My comparative data demon- William A. Lunk VARIATION IN CAROLINA CHICKADEE 21 strate some of the major variational trends within this species. The most prominent of these are a cline of increasing size from south to north, and one of increasing brownness from west to east. On this basis the most logical treatment appears to me to be the recognition of four races: extimus (large and brown) in the northeast; carolinensis (small and brown) in the southeast, of which impiger may be considered an extreme; agilis (small and gray) in the southwest; and atricapilloides (described above — large and gray) in the northwest. This can be done without radical change in our present concepts, save for the splitting of agilis into two forms; additional characters serve for further separation of the several races. No very precise range limits have been outlined here for any of the subspecies and I feel that this is neither possible nor necessary at the present time, considering the clinal nature of much of the variation. Of secondary concern, and presented only as a basis for further investiga- tion, is the matter of general increase in tail/wing proportion in the larger populations of P. carolinensis (especially noticeable in P. c. atricapilloides) , which tends to approach the reduced ratio of the smaller races of P. atricapil- lus. I have indicated the need for care in identification, and for much care- ful field work in critical areas. Literature Cited Bancs, Outram 1903 A New Race of the Carolina Chickadee from Southern Florida. Proc. New England Zool. Club, 4:1-2. Duvall, Allen J. 1945 Distribution and Taxonomy of the Black-capped Chickadees of North America. Auk, 62:49-69. Nice, Margaret Morse 1931 The Birds of Oklahoma. Revised Edition. Univ. Okla. Publ., Biol. Surv., 3 (1) : 1-224. Oberholser, H. C. 1937 Description of a New Chickadee from the Eastern United States. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash,, 50:219-220 (Dec. 28, 1937). 1938 Bird Life of Louisiana. Dept, of Conservation, New Orleans, La. pp. 1-834. Sennett, George B. 1888 Descriptions of a New Species and Two New Subspecies of Birds from Texas. Auk, 5:43-46. Sutton, George M. 1936 Notes from Ellis and Cimarron Counties, Oklahoma. Auk, 53:432-435. Todd, W. E. Clyde, and G. M. Sutton 1936 Taxonomic Remarks on the Carolina Chickadee, Penthestes carolinensis. Proc. Biol, Soc. Wash., 49:69-70 (July 3, 1936). Trautman, Milton B. 1940 The Birds of Buckeye Lake, Ohio. Univ. Mich. Mus. Zool., Misc. Publ. No. 44:1-466 Wetmore, Alexander 1939 Notes on the Birds of Tennessee. Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus., 86:175-243. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Nov. 20, 1950 NOTES ON THE ECOLOGY OF THE SHORT-BILLED MARSH WREN IN THE LOWER ARKANSAS RICE FIELDS BY BROOKE MEANLEY THE Short-billed Marsh Wren ( Cistothorus platensis stellaris) fitted into an unusual ecological picture as a late summer nesting bird in the lower Arkansas rice fields in 1950. Not until the rice began to approach maturity in the middle of August did this species reach the height of its nesting season ; in fact it seemed not to be present at all about the rice fields until the rice attained a height of about two feet. Since this occurred about the second week in July, 1950, the Short-billed Marsh Wren appeared in the area on or shortly after this time. I spent an average of ten hours daily working about the rice fields of Arkansas County, near Stuttgart, from the first of June through the rest of the summer of 1950, and not a single marsh wren was heard singing in a rice field until July 6. After that date, they became increasingly abundant, and by the middle of August about a third of the rice fields in the area had a few pairs, the number of pairs depending largely upon the variety of rice. Acknowledgments I am indebted to E. R. Kalmbach and Johnson A. Neff of the Denver Wild- life Research Laboratory, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for reviewing the manuscript, and to Gorman Bond of the Section of Distribution and Migra- tion of Birds, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Robert Newman of the Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State Lhiiversity, for the subspecific identifica- tion of several birds mentioned in this paper. The Lower Arkansas Rice District The city of Stuttgart is the “capital " of the lower Arkansas rice district. It is located in that part of Arkansas County known as the Grand Prairie. Physiographically, the Grand Prairie is reputedly a true prairie land, and has never been forested except along the streams and bayous. Ecologically, the area can he divided into three major types: rice field (rotated with soy- beans, lespedeza. and oats), bayou, and edge. A small percentage of un- differentiated land-use types exists. Among these are scrubby fields, pastures, and towns. Typical breeding birds of the rice fields are the King Rail ( Ralius elegans ) and the Short-billed Marsh Wren; of the edge, Red-winged Blackbird ( Agel - aius phoeniceus ) and Dickcissel ( Spiza americana I ; and in bayous, Red- bellied Woodpecker ( Centurus carolinus) , Acadian Flycatcher ( Empidonax 22 Brooke Meanley ECOLOGY OF SHORT-BILLED MARSH WREN 23 virescens) , Carolina Wren ( Thryothorus ludovicianus) , and Parula Warbler I Panda americana) . The dominant macro-vegetation of the bayous is the bitter pecan ( Cary a aquatica) , willow oak ( Quercus phellos) , and overcup oak ( Quercus lyrata) . Rice Culture in Arkansas County About 100,000 acres of rice are planted annually in Arkansas County. This acreage is approximately 25 per cent of the state’s output, which, in turn, is 20 per cent of the entire rice crop of the United States. The half dozen varieties of rice commonly grown in the county are Zenith, Blue Rose, Blue Bonnett, Rexark, Nira, and Cody. Rice is planted from early April to the middle of June. It is generally sown dry, and after the young plants reach a height of about six inches the field is flooded to aid the normal growth of the rice and to keep the various weeds from getting a start in the field. The field remains in this inundated state for about two weeks. It then is drained for a short period, then flooded to a depth of 6 to 12 inches a second time, and not drained again until time for harvesting. Marsh Wren Nesting Environment As the rice attains a height suitable for nesting cover about the middle of July, the Short-billed Marsh Wrens move into the rice fields, presumably from nearby grassy canal banks and fallow fields. The fields selected for nesting in 1950 were those most advanced in development, and usually those with the greatest number of weeds. The weedy rice fields provide a dense cover and some of the materials out of which the wren builds its nest. The weeds seldom reach the height of mature stands of rice, which is approximately 40 inches. Dominant weeds of the rice fields in the Stuttgart area (see Prince, 1927: 1-10) are Paspalum floridanum, Panicum dichotomiflorum, Echinochloa colonum, Echinochloa crusgalli, Cyperus strigosus, Fimbristylis autumnalis, Sesbania macrocarpa, Aeschynomene virginica. Nesting The A. 0. U. Check-List (1931:249) and Bent (1948:274) list the southern nesting limit of the Short-billed Marsh Wren as central Missouri. I bus, these observations extend considerably the known southern nesting limit of this species. Bent lists August 19 as the latest nesting date for this species. Eggs and young found during the first two weeks of September, 1950, in the Ar- kansas rice fields also extend somewhat the known length of the nesting period. While it was difficult for me to believe that this species would he nesting so late in the summer, even when I saw male birds singing in lice fields throughout the day in August, a male and a female which 1 collected on 24 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 August 13 provided evidence of nesting. 1 estes of the male measured 10 mm. in length, while the female had a well-developed brood patch. Furthermore, territorial relationships of singing males were quite evident. Proof of breeding was obtained when I discovered a nest with six eggs on August 20. The nest, located in a field of “Cody’ rice, drained and ready for harvesting, was constructed mainly of the leaves of the rice plant I Oryza sativa) and a sedge ( Fimbristylis autumnalis) , and was approximately eight inches from the ground. The nest could not have been built at this low height before the draining of the field just prior to harvesting, since this field was flooded to a depth of 12 inches. I found a second nest containing one fresh egg on August 29. and a nest containing five large young on September 10. Nesting Density I censused singing males in seven rice fields totaling 453 acres during the first two weeks in August to see if a correlation existed between nesting density and the development of various varieties of rice. The results showed that the earliest maturing varieties had the highest densities of marsh wrens. A 60- acre field of the “Cody” variety, in the late dough stage in early August, had 12 singing males. A 63-acre field of “Cody” in the same stage of development held 5 singing males. Two fields of the “Blue Bonnet variety with 35 and 150 acres each, and maturing almost a month later than the “Cody’ fields, had one and two singing males respectively. Effect of Harvesting During Nesting Season Birds nesting in a rice field which is harvested by a binder have little or no chance of succeeding, since this machine destroys practically all nests it passes over. Probably the only survivors in a field harvested by a binder would be those which nested early so as to have their young already out of the nest by harvest time. Fortunately for the marsh wrens, the combine now almost entirely has replaced the hinder as a rice harvesting implement. A combine leaves a stubble 12 to 18 inches high — sufficient cover for an) normally placed nest. The victims of this method of harvesting would be only those whose nests were in the path of the wheels, an area which I estimate to be about one-third of the field. Twelve pairs of nesting marsh wrens were present in one rice field at harvesting time, September 4. On September 10, at least five pairs remained and there may have been others. I found a nest containing five youiiij, a family with three fledged young, and three males singing in territories in this field on September 10. Brooke Meanley ECOLOGY OF SHORT-BILLED MARSH WREN 25 The nesting season seemed to have ended about the middle of September. By September 15, I could find no singing males and there was no other evidence of nesting. Summary 1. The lower Arkansas rice district is a true prairie land with an impervious sub-soil, providing ideal conditions for rice-growing, and, in turn, nesting habitat for the Short-billed Marsh Wren. 2. Rice is planted from April to June and is harvested from late August through October. During the greater part of the growing season the fields are inundated. 3. The nesting season of the Short-billed Marsh Wren in Arkansas rice fields coincided in 1950 with the maturing of the rice crop in late August. 4. Fields selected for nesting are usually those with the rice furthest along in development in early August, and those with a greater number of weeds (sedges and grasses). 5. Late summer nesting dates are as follows: August 20 (6 eggs) ; August 29 (1 egg) ; and September 10 (5 young). 6. The nesting of this species in the Stuttgart area considerably extends southward the known limit of the breeding range. 7. That some correlation exists between nesting density and development of different varieties of rice is shown by the greater number of singing males in the earlier maturing varieties. 8. The nesting population is somewhat affected by harvesting operations. Machinery destroys some of the nests, causing the wrens to desert the field. Otherwise, the remaining stubble provides adequate cover for the surviving birds to complete nesting, particularly where the rice is combined rather than harvested with a binder. Literature Cited American Ornithologists’ Union 1931 Check-list of North American birds. Fourth Edition. Lancaster, Pa. Bent, A. C. 1948 Life histories of North American nuthatches, wrens, thrashers and their allies. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 195. Prince, A. H. 1927 Weeds and grasses of Arkansas rice fields. Univ. Arkansas College Agnc. Ex- tension Serv., Bull. 253. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stuttgart, Arkansas, October 17, 1950 NEW AND ADDITIONAL RECORDS OF UTAH BIRDS BY WILLIAM H. BEHLE AND ROBERT K. SELANDER SINCE the appearance of the two check-lists of the birds of L tah ( behle, 1944. and Woodbury, Cottam and Sugden, 1949), some birds new to the state have been noted and several additional records of some of the rarer birds have accumulated. In making these data available, we also wish to correct a few inadvertent errors, oversights, and ambiguities currently in the literature of the ornithology of Utah. All specimens mentioned below are in the University of Utah Museum of Zoology (hereinafter abbreviated U.U.M. Z.). We are indebted to John Bushman, Clifton Greenhalgh, G. Hortin Jensen, Clark Johnson, C. W. Lockerbie, Richard D. Porter, and Aaron Ross for col- lecting or bringing into the museum several of the important specimens. Anser albifrons frontalis. White-fronted Goose. — Although there are several records for Utah, they are mostly observations. Two specimens have been taken: female, Bear River Gun Club, mouth Sulphur Creek, 18 miles wrest Brigham, Boxelder County, September 28, 1928; male, Lake Front Gun Club, 4300 feet, Salt Lake County, October 10, 1948. Chen rossii. Ross’s Goose. — This species is a casual migrant but we are not aware of specimens having been previously reported from the state. A male was taken at the Bear River Refuge, 4300 feet, Boxelder County on October 27, 1949. Anas rubripes. Common Black Duck. — Two records were cited by Behle (1944:69). Without indication of the basis for their conclusion, Woodbury, et al. say that the species is a “casual migrant and winter resident, both native and introduced. Most specimens have been hybrid crosses with mallard.” A female shot at Farmington Bay on November 22, 1951, now No. 11890 U.U.M.Z., constitutes another definite record. Aythya marila nearctica. Greater Scaup Duck.— The Greater Scaup is uncommon as a migrant through the state. There are two specimens in the U.U.M.Z. Both are males, one having been taken at the mouth of Bear River. Boxelder County, October 19, 1932, the other at Farmington Bay Refuge, 4300 feet, 12 miles north Salt Lake City, Davis County. March 27, 1949. Tringa solitaria solitaria. Solitary Sandpiper. — Woodbury, et al. (1949:13) indicated that the form T. s. cinnamornea is a casual summer resident breeding in Uintah and Kane counties, and an uncommon migrant through the state. The two specimens from Kane County that they referred to (U.U.M.Z. 2635 and 2636) are instead Spotted Sandpipers ( Actitis macularia) in winter plumage. A record of Tringa solitaria possibly breeding in central-western Utah is afforded by a specimen taken at lbapah, 5200 feet, Tooele County, on July 15, 1950. It was a male with testes 12 mm. long, and was one of a pair. Richard Porter, who collected the specimen, said these two sandpipers would not leave a certain area along an irrigation canal. From these data we infer that they were breeding and thus should be referred to T. s. solitaria (see Conover, 1944). The wing of the specimen obtained measures 130 mm. and the culmen, 31.0 mm. The back seems olivaceous and is spotted with white. A white sup- raloral streak and dark loral streak extend part way to the eye. The primaries are im- maculate. 26 William H. Behle and Robert K. Selander UTAH BIRD RECORDS 27 These two birds from Ibapah and those reported by Twomey (1942:392) from the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah, which were also probably breeding, seem to be among the southernmost records of breeding birds for the species. According to Conover (op. cit.: 541), T. s. cinnamomea, the northern race, migrates mostly west of the Mississippi, so should ultimately be found in Utah. The only other two examples we have from Utah, although not breeding birds, seem to be closest to T. s. solitaria. One is a male taken at Farmington Bay, 4300 feet, Davis County, May 10, 1950. Its wing measures 132.5 mm. and the culmen 28.0 mm. I he other is an unsexed specimen, probably a female, taken July 9, 1937, at a pond in Monument Valley, 5400 feet, two miles southwest of Poncho House, San Juan County, Utah, reported by Woodbury and Russell (1945:48). Its wing measures 140.8 mm. and the culmen 31.1 mm. Another specimen, a male, taken July 14, 1937, at mud flats at Kayenta Reservoir, 5500 feet, Navajo County, Arizona, has a wing measurement of 136.1 mm. and a culmen of 31.2 mm. Its testes were not enlarged. Erolia alpina pacifica. Red-backed Sandpiper. — In Utah this species is an uncommon but regular migrant, known to occur from May 1 to 26 and August 11 to November 18, according to Woodbury, et al. (1949:14). Apparently, this is based principally on sight records. Since few specimens have been collected, it seems desirable to report two specimens in the U.U.M.Z. collection. Both are females: one was taken at the mouth of the Bear River, Boxelder County, May 26, 1932; the other, at Farmington Bay Refuge, 4300 feet, Davis County, May 10, 1950. Limnodromus griseus. Short-billed Dowitcher. — Woodbury, et al. (1949:13) listed L. g. griseus as a “casual but probably regular migrant through the state; available dates are May 20, July 21, August, September 17, 30.” It is not indicated whether specimens are the basis for the records. In his revision of the genus, Pitelka (1950:48) listed only a single specimen of Limnodromus griseus from Utah which he assigned to the race L. g. hendersoni. It is an adult male taken on May 20, 1915, at the mouth of the Bear River. We can report a second record (U.U.M.Z. 8311) of this race, namely an adult female, in almost complete winter plumage, taken on August 17, 1946, also at the Bear River Refuge. It appears that this species is relatively uncommon in Utah, there being but two definite records. Limnodromus scolopaceus. Long-billed Dowitcher. — Woodbury, et al. (1949:13) stated that L. griseus scolopaceus ( —L. scolopaceus, Pitelka, 1950) is an "abundant migrant through state, concentrating in large flocks mainly in Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake valleys, recorded from March 29 to May 13 and August 13 to November 5, but stragglers as late as December 12.” These dates probably are based mainly on sight records and may refer to both species. An earlier spring date than Woodbury, et al., gave pertains to three examples of L. scolopaceus (2 adult males, 1 adult female) taken March 23, 1949. at Deckers Lake, 4300 feet, Salt Lake County. Of these, one male is in complete winter plumage, another shows a few feathers of the nuptial plumage on the breast and scapular region, and the female has feathers of the breeding plumage on the breast, belly, back, and upper wing-coverts. Micropalama himantopus. Stilt Sandpiper.— Woodbury, et al. (1949:14) listed this species as a casual migrant on the basis of a specimen taken in 1893, labelled merely “Utah,” a sight record of several at Bear River Marshes, July 26. 1932, and a specimen (U.U.M.Z. 11889) from Moab, taken in 1936. The latter, however, we find is a skin of the Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) . Columba fasciola jasciata. Band-tailed Pigeon.— A male was taken at New Harmony, 28 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 5250 feet, Washington County, June 24, 1950. The bird was one of a small flock flying along a stream in a Gambel oak-yellow pine community. Coccyzus erythropthalmus. Black-billed Cuckoo.— Heretofore this species was unknown from Utah. An adult female was obtained when it flew into a window at Bountiful, 4400 feet. Davis County, July 9. 1951. The bird was breeding, since it had a brood patch, an enlarged ovary and oviduct, and an egg 12 mm. in diameter in the oviduct. The Black- billed Cuckoo has been reported in eastern Montana (Saunders. 1921:71), eastern Colo- rado (Ridgway, 1916:39), and Idaho (Arvey, 1947:202). Chordeiles minor minor. Eastern Nighthawk. — A male Nighthawk, collected May 29, 1942, at the mouth of Ogden Canyon, 4300 feet, Weber County, Utah, is referable to minor in both color and size. The specimen is the second record for Utah of this transient subspecies. Colaptes auratus luteus. Northern Flicker. — The Yellow-shafted flicker is uncommon in Utah. One flew into a window' of a residence in Salt Lake City on April 5, 1950, and was obtained as a specimen. It was an adult male with testes slightly enlarged. Although closer to C. a. luteus, the specimen is a hybrid with C. cafer collaris. It has the red malar stripe and gray throat and neck of C. cafer, but the scarlet nuchal band of C. auratus; the lining of the wings and tail, while predominantly yellow, actually is intermediate between the normal colors of the twro species. Twomey (1942:406) stated that he found no indication of hybridization in the 9 speci- mens of C. c. collaris that he took in the Uinta Basin or in several others observed there. A breeding female in the U.U.M.Z. collection, taken at Dry Fork Canyon, 6000 feet, 15 miles north of Vernal, Uintah County, on June 28. 1950. has the outer tail feather on the right side yellow-orange, indicating some hybridization with C. auratus in that geographic area. Several other examples of C. c. collaris from various parts of the state show indica- tions of hybridization, especially in possession of a light nuchal band. Progne subis subis. Purple Martin. — Tw'omey (1942:417) found this species nesting in bird boxes about the town of Vernal and observed pairs in Ashley Creek Canyon and along the Duchesne River. Woodbury, et al. (1942:22) indicated that martins breed in colonies in aspens in the mountains of Utah. Actually, few observations have been made of the species in the state, and apparently specimens have not been reported. It is of interest, therefore, that, during the summer of 1950, w'e discovered two colonies in the Wasatch Mountains. They were fairly common at Payson Lakes, 8300 feet, 12 miles southeast of Payson, Utah County, between July 10 and 13, 1950. The birds frequented boggy areas surrounding the lakes where they nested in cavities in the aspens in as- sociation with Violet-green Swallows ( Tachycineta thalassina) , Tree Swallows ( Irido - procne bicolor), and Red-naped Sapsuckers ( Sphyrapicus varius) . The martins were feeding young at the time. Fourteen specimens were obtained as follows: 2 second-year females, 1 adult female, 4 males in adult plumage, and 7 males in second-year plumage. All were presumably in breeding condition since their gonads were enlarged (testes 8-15 mm. long). We saw few' adult males. On J uly 10, 1950, two adult male Purple Martins were collected by Richard Porter in a similar environmental situation at Squaw Flat, Monte Cristo, 8000 feet, Weber County. Although Ridgway (1877:459) reported Purple Martins as “extremely abundant” among the aspens near Parleys Park (near Snyderville, 7000 feet, Summit County) in 1869, they have not been found there in recent years, despite extensive field work, although, seem- ingly, the habitat is similar to that at Payson Lakes and Monte Cristo. William H. Behle and Robert K. Selander UTAH BIRD RECORDS 29 Hylocichla guttata guttata. Alaska Hermit Thrush. — Another of the few examples of this casual migrant taken in Utah is an adult male obtained at the Bear River Refuge, 4300 feet, Boxelder County, on October 15, 1950. Hylocichla guttata slevini. Monterey Hermit Thrush. — Two migrant Hermit Thrushes have recently been identified for us as of this race by A. H. Miller. Both are males, one from one mile west of Farmington Depot, 4350 feet, Davis County, April 27, 1948, the other from along the Surplus Canal, 4300 feet, 5 miles northwest of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, May 9, 1949. In size and color they resemble breeding birds from Atlin, British Columbia. These two examples are similar to three specimens that Woodbury, et al. (1949:25) called H. g. oromela las noted on the labels, U.U.M.Z. Nos. 6721, 6722, 4076). The data for these latter three are as follows: male, mouth of Bear River, below Bear River Club, 20 miles west of Brigham, Boxelder County, May 22, 1933; female, Clear Creek I Raft River Mountains), Boxelder County, May 9, 1933; female. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, May 20, 1937. Hylocichla fuscescens salicicola. Willow Thrush. — Although the early collectors in Utah, notably Ridgway, reported this species as fairly common in the Wasatch Mountain area, no specimens were obtained. Through subsequent years no examples were collected, and, even though some observers occasionally reported the species, we felt that either it did not actually occur in Utah or was much less abundant than in earlier times. On June 14, 1951, we collected a male from a willow thicket along Clear Creek, 5500 feet, Raft River Mountains, 3 miles southwest of Nafton, Boxelder County, Utah. The bird may have been breeding since its testes were 10 mm. long. Regulus satrapa olivaceus. Western Golden-crowned Kinglet. — This species is not listed for the Uinta Mountains by Twomey (1942:433) although Woodbury (1939:159) re- ported sight records in that area made by Clarence Cottam. We shot a male at the mouth of Brown Duck Canyon, near Moon Lake, 8500 feet, Duchesne County, on Septem- ber 2, 1948. Anthus spinoletta alticola. Rocky Mountain Pipit. — Pipits have long been known to be summer residents in the Uinta Mountains and have been presumed to occur in other high mountains of the state. We recently obtained proof of their presence in the Wasatch and Deep Creek mountains of northern Utah. Six specimens (2 adult males, 1 immature male, 2 adult females, and 1 immature female) were secured on the talus slopes of Devil’s Castle Mountain, 10,000 feet, Alta, head of Little Cottonwood Canyon, Salt Lake County, on August 4, 1949. An adult female was obtained by Richard Porter from near the summit of Bald Mountain, 11,000 feet. Deep Creek Mountains, Juab County, June 5, 1950, and a male was taken from the cirque between Mt. Ibapah and Bald Mountain, 11,600 feet, Deep Creek Mountains, July 2, 1950. The latter specimen had testes 8 mm. long. The Deep Creek Mountain specimens represent a considerable extension of range in Utah and, to our knowledge, the first probable breeding record from a mountain range in the Great Basin. Bom bycilla cedrorum. Cedar Waxwing. — Although this species is considered to be a casual breeder in northern Utah, as well as a sporadic winter resident throughout the state, breeding records authenticated by specimens are few. Specimens in the U.U.M.Z. collection representing probable breeding records are as follows: A pair was collected at Paradise, Cache County, July 24, 1932. Two males and two females were taken May 12-13, 1946, in Cave Lakes Canyon, 5 miles northwest of Kanab, Kane County. They behaved as though paired and about to nest. An adult male in worn plumage, testes 30 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 3 mm. long, was taken August 16, 1949, at the Farmington Railroad Station, 4300 feet, Davis County. It was one of three seen in a wallow clump. Vireo solitaries plumbeus. Plumbeous Vireo. — Woodbury, et al. (1949:27) said this form was a summer resident, “mainly of pigmy conifers, possibly in oak brush or stream- side vegetation; breeding not known.” Twomey (1942:436) collected four breeding specimens in the Uinta Mountains and regarded it as “a sparsely distributed summer resident. We secured three breeding specimens from the Uinta Mountains on June 27-29, 1950, at Dry Fork Canyon, 6000 feet, 15 miles north of Vernal. These corroborate the breeding status of the Plumbeous Vireo in Utah because the two males which we collected had enlarged testes and the female had a brood patch. As to the habitat preference, we have found these birds occurring in summer not so much in the juniper-pinon pine or oak belt associations as in a canyon bottom habitat of willows, cottonwoods, and associated vegetation. Twomey found them along the water- courses of the Uinta Basin and stated Hoc. cit.) that “it nests only in very restricted areas in the lower valleys where it can find water and dense cover.” Mniotilta varia. Black and White Warbler. — Following a period of snow and cold, a specimen was picked up on December 10, 1951, in the yard of a resident on the east bench of Salt Lake City. This apparently constitutes the first record for the state. The species has been reported, however, as occurring casually in Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado. Vermivora celata celata. Orange-crowned Warbler. — Two early fall migrants are a female taken September 3, 1949, at Arcadia, 5000 feet, 14 miles northeast of Duchesne, Duchesne County and a female taken at Lake Solitude, 9033 feet, near Silver Lake Post Office (Brighton), Salt Lake County, on September 4, 1945. Dendroica townsendi. Townsend’s Warbler. — Woodbury, et al. (1949:29) indicated May 27 as the latest known date of occurrence of Townsend's Warbler in Utah in spring. We collected an adult female in the Deep Creek Mountains, head of Pass Creek. 8000 feet, 6 miles east of the Goshute Indian Village. Juab County, on June 7, 1950. This bird may have been an extremely late migrant, but the small size of the ovary suggests that it was a non-breeding individual which failed to complete its northward migration. The same authors gave the known fall migration dates as August 10 to October 9. An immature female was taken at Alta, 9000 feet, head of Little Cottonwood Canyon, 15 miles east of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, on July 28, 1949. It was extremely fat. Seiurus noveboracensis limnaeus and S. n. notabilis. Water-thrush. — The Water-thrush occurs as a casual migrant in Utah, eight specimens having thus far been reported, all as of the race notabilis (see Woodbury, 1939:161; Twomey, 1942:445: and Behle and Ross, 1945:169). A male specimen collected May 10, 1949, from a willow and rose streamside habitat at the entrance of Farmington Bay Refuge, 4300 feet, Davis County, was identified for us by A. H. Miller, on the basis of color, as of the race limnaeus. It is, however, somewhat atypical by reason of its large size (wing 77.4, tail 54.8, tarsus 21.5 mm.) An additional record of notabilis is a female taken May 15, 1949. along a stream three miles east of Benjamin, 4400 feet, Utah County. Selander saw a single Water-thrush in similar habitat near Snyderville, 6900 feet. Summit County, May 14, 1949. Setophaga ruticilla tricolora. Northern Redstarts — This species has been considered as a rare breeder in northern Utah. Records were summarized by Ross (1944:129), and Twomey (1942:449) reported two fall records for the Uinta Basin. A probable breeding record for that region is a male adult which we obtained at Merkley Park, 6000 feet, William H. Behle and Robert K. Selander UTAH BIRD RECORDS 31 Ashley Creek, 10 miles north of Vernal, Uintah County, June 12, 1949. An immature female also was taken at Arcadia, 5000 feet, 14 miles northeast of Duchesne, Duchesne County, September 3, 1949. Several redstarts, presumably migrants, were observed on the north side of the Uinta Mountains on September 12, 1950, in streamside vegetation at Hideout Canyon, 5800 feet, along the Green River, Daggett County. Icterus parisorum. Scott’s Oriole. — An unpublished record of this rare species in Utah is of a female in first-year plumage which was shot by John Bushman, May 20, 1951, in a juniper-pihon pine association at the Ekker Ranch, 6000 feet, in the Robbers’ Roost country, 25 miles east of Hanksville, Wayne County. Guiraca caerulea interfusa. Western Blue Grosbeak. — Hitherto known only from southern Utah, a considerable northward extension of range in Utah is indicated by a male which was caught in a trap at the Upland Game Bird Refuge, 5200 feet, Vernal, Uinta County, in June, 1950. Remnants of the bird were saved as evidence. Seemingly, the species is not of accidental occurrence in the valley for another adult male was seen at Vernal on August 4, 1951. H esperiphona vespertine brooksi. Western Evening Grosbeak. — Although common in winter, especially during 1950-1951, summer records for Utah are few and are mostly sight records. Twomey (1942:459) collected three specimens on July 2 and 3, 1937, which he called H. v. montana without critical comment. An adult male was taken at Parley’s Park, two miles south of Snyderville, Summit County, on August 6, 1949. It was perched in a cottonwood tree with another Evening Grosbeak, presumably the female. The male taken was in worn breeding plumage and its testes were 5 mm. long. On the basis of the large bill (depth 15.4 mm. and width at base 13.9 mm.) it is referable to the race brooksi. Leucosticte atrata. Black Rosy Finch. — Probable breeding status of this finch in the Wasatch Mountains, as well as the Uinta Mountains, was established when we collected four examples (adult male, adult female, immature male, immature female) on the talus slopes of Devil’s Castle Mountain. 10,000 feet, at Alta, head of Little Cottonwood Canyon, Salt Lake County, August 4, 1949. Calamospiza melanocorys. Lark Bunting. — Known chiefly as a migrant, it has also been considered a probable breeder. Suggestive evidence of breeding status is afforded by an adult male, testes 15 mm. long, collected in a wet pasture at Murray, 4400 feet, Salt Lake County, June 11, 1950. Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus. Western Grasshopper Sparrow. — In reporting that no recent records of this species are available from areas other than the Uinta Basin, Woodbury et al. (1949:33) overlooked a recent record from wrest of Salt Lake City by Behle and Ross (1945:169). Pooecetes gramineus ajjinis. Oregon Vesper Sparrow. — This sparrow was reported previously as a casual migrant in Utah on the basis of two specimens from Garfield County. There are now two other records. One is of an immature female from the junction of the Virgin and Santa Clara rivers, 2700 feet, two miles south of St. George, Washington County, taken September 11, 1941. The other is an immature of undeter- mined sex taken at Farmington Bay Refuge, 4300 feet, Davis County, September 1, 1949. Zonotrichia qu.eru.la. Harris’s Sparrow. — Another record to add to the few for the state is of a female from two miles west of Mt. Pleasant, 6000 feet, Sanpete County, February 4, 1951. 32 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Yol. 61, No. 1 Zonotnchia coronata. Golden-crowned Sparrow. — In reporting the available records of this species for the state, Woodbury, et al. (1949:35) overlooked the record from Stand- rod, Boxelder County, by Greenhalgh (1948:46). Literature Cited Arvey, M. Dale 1947 A check-list of the birds of Idaho. Univ. Kans. Publ. Alas. Nat. Hist., 1:193-216. Behle, William H. 1944 Check list of the birds of Utah. Condor, 46:67-87. Behle, William H., and Aaron Ross 1945 Miscellaneous records of birds uncommon in Utah. Condor, 47:168-170. Conover, Boardman 1944 The races of the solitary sandpiper. Auk, 61:537-544. Greenhalgh, Clifton 1948 Second record of the golden-crowned sparrow in Utah. Condor, 50:46. Pitelka, Frank A. 1950 Geographic variation and the species problem in the shorebird genus Lim- nodromus. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 50:1-108. Ridcway, Robert 1877 Ornithology, in “Ornithology and Paleontology,” U. S. Geol. Expl. Fortieth Parallel, 4, Part 3, pp. 303-669. 1916 The birds of North and Middle America. Bull. U. S. Natl. Mus. No. 50, pt. 7. Ross, Aaron 1944 The American Redstart in Utah. Condor, 46:129. Saunders, Aretas A. 1921 A distributional list of the birds of Montana. Pacific Coast Avifauna, No. 14:1- 194. Twomey, Arthur C. 1942 The birds of the Uinta Basin, Utah. Ann. Carnegie Mus., 28:341-490. Woodbury, Angus M. 1939 Bird records from Utah and Arizona. Condor, 41:157-163. Woodbury, Angus M., Clarence Cottam, and John W. Sucden 1949 Annotated check-list of the birds of Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah, 39 (16) : 1-40. Woodbury, Angus M., and Henry N. Russell, Jr. 1945 Birds of the Navajo Country. Bull. Univ. Utah, 35 (14) : 1-160. Division of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, November 1, 1951 THE ALDER FLYCATCHER IN WASHTENAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN: BREEDING DISTRIBUTION AND COWBIRD PARASITISM BY ANDREW J. BERGER AND DAVID F. PARMELEE THE Alder Flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii ) is, taxonomically, a much-dis- cussed species about whose detailed breeding distribution little has been written. It has been shown (Berger and Hofslund, 1950; Berger, 1951b) that this species is a common breeding bird in the Ann Arbor region. In 1951, we decided to make a survey of the breeding Alder Flycatchers in Washtenaw County, Michigan. We wanted to determine whether the species breeds throughout the county and whether it is as abundant elsewhere as in Ann Arbor Township. Although we had done no previous field-work in 12 of the 20 townships, we thought, from past experience, that it would be a simple matter to locate the flycatchers by their song as we drove slowly along county roads. We found on July 1 and thereafter, however, that the males sang from dawn to about 8:30 a.m., were generally quiet throughout most of the day, and began to sing vociferously about 8:00 p.m. Singing stopped again about 9:00 p.m. (see McCabe, 1951, regarding morning and evening song in Wis- consin). During most of the day, therefore, it was necessary to stop and search for the birds in what we believed to be suitable habitat. With the exception of Sharon Township and one locality in Ann Arbor Township, we avoided rivers in our survey because we wished to emphasize the fact that in southern Michigan the Alder Flycatcher habitually nests in the vicinity of ponds and potholes and in a dry habitat, as well as along rivers and in exten- sive marshes. We were unable to detect any differences in the songs and call-notes given by birds living in the wet and the dry habitats. We found the first nest on June 4. 1951, and five additional nests under construction on June 8, but the survey itself was not begun until June 22. It was completed on July 7. Time available for the study was limited: the longest period in the field on any one day was six hours, the shortest period, one hour. Parts of seven days (27 hours) were spent in the survey. We drove 340 miles. In most townships we searched only long enough to find one nest, al- though we noted the number of birds seen or heard. This report obviously is not a breeding census, but rather a survey to show that the Alder Flycatcher is generally distributed in Washtenaw County, and that it does nest in each of the 20 townships of that county. As indicated above, the number of nests listed after the seveial townships in Table 1 is not necessarily an indication of the species' abundance. More nests were found in Ann Arbor I ownship partly because we knew it bettei 33 Table 1 Breeding Distribution of the Alder Flycatcher in Washtenaw County in 1951 Date Township Sec- tion Nest-site Nest Contents June 22 Ann Arbor 27 1. Cornus 4 eggs. 2. Salix 1 Cowbird egg and 3 host eggs. 3. Cornus 1 Cowbird egg and 4 host eggs. 4. Cornus 3 eggs. 5. Salix 1 egg. 6. Salix 1 egg. 7. Cornus 4 eggs. 8. Salix Complete but empty. J une 24 INorthfield 31 9. Cornus 3 eggs. 2 of which were broken. J une 24 Ypsilanti 19 10. Crataegus 4 eggs. J une 24 Pittsfield 12 11. Cornus 4 eggs. J une 24 Augusta 20 12. Cornus 4 eggs. J une 24 York 32 13. A 1 nus 1 egg. J une 24 Saline 28 14. Cornus 1 Cowbird egg. J une 24 Manchester 12 15. Sambucus 1 Cowbird egg and 4 host eggs. July 1 Salem 5 16. Cornus 4 young about 5 days old. 17. Crataegus 4 eggs. July 1 Northfield 1 18. Cornus 2 eggs and 2 recently hatched young. July 1 Webster 6 19. Cephalanthus 3 eggs. J uly 1 Superior 20 20. Cornus 1 egg and 1 day-old dead young. 21. Cornus 4 young about 3 days old. 22. Crataegus Nest under construction. 23. Crataegus 3 eggs. July 3 Ann Arbor 31 24. Cornus 4 young about 1 week old. 25. Crataegus 3 young about 5 days old. 26. Crataegus 4 young about 2 days old. 27. Crataegus 1 recently hatched dead young (with most of viscera eaten) lying on ground beneath nest, and 1 day- old young in nest with bloody left scapular region. 33 28. Cornus 3 eggs nearly ready to hatch. 29. Ligustrum 4 eggs. 30. Lonicera 1 Cowbird egg and 3 host eggs. 36 31. Crataegus 4 eggs. 32. Crataegus 4 eggs. 33. Crataegus 2 eggs and 1 young 3-4 days old. J uly 4 Ann Arbor 12 34. Crataegus 2 eggs. 35. Crataegus 3 young about 1 week old. J uly 4 Dexter 32 36. Cephalanthus 1 Cowbird about 1 week old and 1 host July 4 Lyndon 28 37. Cephalanthus 1 Cowbird egg and 3 host eggs. July 4 Scio 17 38. Cornus 3 eggs. 25 39. Sandmens Complete but empty. July 4 Sylvan 9 40. Cephalanthus Adult brooding 4 recently batched young. 10 41. Nest not found Adult attending 1 stub-tailed fledgling out of nest 1 or 2 days. 15 42. Pyrus Malus Complete but empty new nest. J uly 4 Lima 14 43. Alnus 1 egg- July 5 Lodi 18 44. Cornus 4 eggs. July 7 Freedom 21 45. Cornus 3 young nearly ready for fledging. July 7 Sharon 28 46. Cornus 1 Cowbird and 1 flycatcher, both about 1 week old. July 7 Bridgewater 20 47. Sambucus 4 young about 10 days old. 34 Andrew J. Berger and David F. Parmelee ALDER FLYCATCHER IN MICHIGAN 35 than the others, and partly because the colonies there were larger. There is, however, considerably more suitable habitat for the Alder Flycatcher in the northern two tiers of townships than in the southern two. In the latter, a high percentage of the land is cultivated or is in woodlots; lakes, ponds, and marshes are lelatively uncommon. For example, we found only three pairs of Alder Flycatchers (one pair each in Sections 1, 28, and 29) in Saline Town- ship while driving 34 miles over county roads during a three-hour period. I his is about the same length of time that was required to find nests in each Fic. 1. Typical Crataegus habitat of the Alder Flycatcher in Washtenaw County, Michi- gan. Section 36, Ann Arbor Township. From a Kodachrome transparency taken Jnly 20. 1951, by A. J. Berger. of five townships in the northwestern corner of Washtenaw County (see data for July 4). In the southern townships, the birds, for the most part, occur as isolated pairs, not in colonies. In the more northern townships, on the other hand, there are many lakes, ponds, and marshes. Here the species is much more common during the breeding season. Furthermore, colonies of five or more pairs may be found regularly. We feel certain that one could find 40 or 50 nests in one day in almost any of the northern two tiers of townships, whereas in some of the southern townships, one would do well to find three or four nests in a full day of searching. In Ohio, Campbell (1940: 195) also noted that: “Unlike other local flycatchers, Alders often nest in small colonies of three to six pairs. 36 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 Although meager, information is available which sheds some light on geo- graphical differences in habitat and nest-site preference. We suspect that these differences may be more apparent than real, since the Alder Flycatcher has received little intensive study in the field. Barrows (1912:404 ) noted that in Monroe County, Michigan, Mr. Trombley “found at least twenty nests in one restricted locality, all in alders, willows or similar low growth in wet ground." Hyde (1939:155) stated that in New York: “The alder flycatcher is well named, for it is seldom seen or heard outside an alder swamp, and few large alder swamps are without at least one pair of the birds. ’ In Ohio, Trautman (1940:295) said that this species “nested almost everywhere about the lake, swamps, lowlands, and creeks where swampy and brushy conditions prevailed. For nesting sites it seemingly preferred brush, 3 to 18 feet high, composed of such trees as small willows, alders, buttonbush, and dogwood." Farley (1901:350) said of Alder Flycatchers in Massachusetts: “So far as I have observed, it nests invariably in a bush, selecting most often a wild rose, or clump of rose shoots or sprays — usually Rosa Carolina L.” He added that once he found a nest in Spiraea salicifolia. Mousley (1931:551) stated: “The favourite nesting site around Hatley [Quebec] is in the forks of a spiraea bush, only once have I found a nest in an alder tree, twice in nut bushes, and once in a wild gooseberry bush." Campbell (1936) described a population of Alder Flycatchers in Ohio which nested in cockspur hawthorn. In one wet habitat near Ann Arbor, Michigan, Berger and Hofslund (1950) found the following three plants most often used for nest-sites: nine-bark (Physocarpus) , 14 nests; dogwood ( Cornus ), 8 nests; willow ( Salix ), 7 nests. In the present study we found nests in the following: Cornus, 18 nests; Crataegus, 12; Salix, 4: Cephalanthus, 4; Sambucus, 3; Alnus, 2; and one each in Pyrus, Ligust- rum, and Lonicera. In Washtenaw County, the Alder Flycatcher frequently nests in Crataegus bushes on dry hillsides, usually in the vicinity of small ponds. By the first of July many of these ponds (sometimes not more than 50 feet in diameter) have become dry. Berger has found the Alder Flycatcher nesting in dry habitat in Section 20, Superior Township, and in Sections 12, 27, 31, 33, and 36, Ann Arbor Township. At the University Botanical Gardens (Section 33, Ann Arbor Township), the birds nest most frequently in privet ( Ligustrum vulgare) and Tartarian honeysuckle ( Lonicera tatarica) , but a nest with one Cowbird ( Molothrus ater) egg and two host eggs found there on July 20, 1951, was built in a wayfaring tree ( Viburnum lantana) . We assume that one familiar with the southern two tiers of townships would find local breed- ing populations of Alder Flycatchers in similar dry habitats. In writing of the Alder Flycatcher, most authors emphasize its propensity for nesting in dense thickets. This is true, in part, in southern Michigan, al- Andrew J. Berger and David F. Parmelee ALDER FLYCATCHER IN MICHIGAN 37 though the species commonly builds its nests in an isolated hush. When nests are built in dense thickets, however, they usually are placed in the outer edge of the thicket, often in an exposed situation. One frequently can find the nest simply by walking around the margin of a thicket. We also found several nests in road-side shrubbery; one such nest was built only seven feet from the edge of a road. Previous reference (Berger and Hofslund, 1950; see also Fargo, 1928) has been made to the two general types of nests, both of which may be found in the same colony, which are built in southern Michigan: those built in an upright crotch, and those fastened to a horizontal branch. The latter usually are less concealed, whereas the former sometimes are placed within the depths of thickets. In general, however, the bird is an edge-nester. We found the incidence of Cowbird parasitism (20.8% of 48 nests) con- siderably higher than in recent southern Michigan observations (8.1% of 37 nests, Berger, 1951a). Gibbs (1890:8) stated that Traill’s Flycatcher (=Alder) served as a host in southern Michigan. Bendire (1895:311) noted that: ‘‘The Cowbird occasionally deposits an egg in the nest"’ of the Alder Flycatcher. From data available at the time, Friedmann (1929:209) consid- ered this species a “rather rare molothrine victim,” but added further (p. 210) : “Cook, in his unreliable list, mentions it as a molothrine host in Michigan.” In Ohio, Hicks (1934:386) reported 21% of 108 nests parasitized, and Trautman (1940:296) found 9 out of 16 nests parasitized at Buckeye Lake. On August 19, 1951, Berger found a nest containing three Alder Fly- catchers within a day or two of fledging. This nest was a two-storied structure and contained one Cowbird egg and one host egg in the lower story. The only previous report of a two-storied nest of the Alder Flycatcher seems to be that of Anderson (1907:299) who said: “W. A. Bryan has also found a Traill Flycatcher’s nest with a Cowbird’s egg imbedded. ’ Much interesting and significant information could be obtained by co- operative studies of a single species in different parts of its breeding range. See, for example, the discussion by Aldrich (1951) regarding difficulties involved in the determination of subspecies of the Alder Flycatcher because data on breeding status were lacking. Of necessity, Aldrich selected arbitrary dates (June 21 to July 26) for deciding which specimens he examined were migrants and which were breeding birds. Similarly, Phillips (1940.50/ I said that “only from June 25 to July 20 may the birds be presumed to be on their breeding grounds. Four years observations in the Ann Arbor legion have shown us that the breeding season here extends at least from June 1 lo August 19. It remains to be determined whether or not late spiing oi eail\ fall migrants also appear on the breeding grounds dining this peiiod. 38 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 Literature Cited Aldrich, John W. 1951 A review of the races of the Traill’s Flycatcher. Wilson Bulletin, 63:192-197. Anderson, Rudolph M. 1907 The birds of Iowa. Proc. Davenport Acad. Sci., 11:125-417. Barrows, Walter B. 1912 Michigan bird life. Spec. Bull. Mich. Agric. College, 822 pp. Bendire, Charles 1895 Life histories of North American birds, from the parrots to the grackles. U. S. Natl. Mus. Spec. Bull., No. 3, 1-518. Berger, Andrew J. 1951a The Cowbird and certain host species in Michigan. Wilson Bulletin, 63:26-34. 1951b Changes since 1910 in the breeding population of the Alder Flycatcher, Least Flycatcher, Redstart, and Cardinal at Ann Arbor. Jack-Pine Warbler, 29:52-55. Berger, A. J., and P. B. Hofslund 1950 Notes on the nesting of the Alder Flycatcher i Empidonax traillii) at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler, 28:7-11. Campbell, Louis W. 1936 An unusual colony of Alder Flycatchers. Wilson Bulletin, 48:164-168. 1940 Birds of Lucas County. Toledo Mus. Sci. Bull. No. 1, 1-225. Fargo, Wm. G. 1928 Traill’s Flycatcher in southern Michigan. Wilson Bulletin, 40:218-221. Farley, J. A. 1901 The Alder Flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii alnorum) as a summer resident of eastern Massachusetts. Auk, 18:347-355. Friedmann, Herbert 1929 The Cowbirds. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 111. Gibbs, Morris 1890 A very peculiar bird. Ornith. and Ool., 15:5-8. Hicks, L. E. 1934 A summary of Cowbird host species in Ohio. Auk, 51:385-386. Hyde, A. Sidney 1939 The ecology and economics of the birds along the northern boundary of New York State. Roosevelt Wildlife Bull., 7(2) : 1 -215. McCabe, Robert A. 1951 The song and song-flight of the Alder Flycatcher. W ilson Bulletin, 63:89-98. Mousley, Henry 1931 A study of the home life of the Alder Flycatcher ( Empidonax trailli trailli) . Auk, 48:547-552. Phillips, Allan R. 1948 Geographic variation in Empidonax traillii. Auk, 65:507-514. Tkautman, Milton B. 1940 The birds of Buckeye Lake, Ohio. Misc. Publ. Univ. Mich. Mus. Zool., No. 44, 1-466. Department of Anatomy and Museum of Zoology, University of Michi- gan, Ann Arbor, September 15, 1951 A NEW OVENBIRD FROM THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES BY THOMAS D. BURLEIGH AND ALLEN J. DUVALL IN THE course of identifying a collection of breeding birds from northern Georgia we were impressed with the distinct appearance of the Oven- birds at this southern extremity of their breeding range in the eastern United States. A critical examination of over 30 breeding birds revealed the fact that a well-marked subspecies was represented, its characters being as follows: Seiurus aurocapillus canivirens, new subspecies Southeastern Ovenbird Type. — Adult male, United States National Museum No. 342053, Fish and Wildlife Service collection; Margret, Fannin County, Georgia, July 5, 1929; collected by Thomas D. Burleigh, original number 476. Subspecific characters. — Similar to Seiurus aurocapillus aurocapillus (Lin- naeus) of the northeastern United States and Canada, but upper parts paler and grayish green rather than bright green. In this respect it suggests S. a. cinereus A. H. Miller of the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, but is greener and noticeably less gray above, and the ochraceous-buff of the crown is brighter. From S. a. furvior Batchelder, of Newfoundland, it differs in lacking the definite brownish tinge of the upper parts, and in having the markings on the upper breast and sides paler. Geographic distribution. — Breeds in the southeastern United States from eastern Virginia and West Virginia south to northern South Carolina, northern Georgia, and northern Alabama. In winter south to the West Indies and Quintana Roo. Remarks. — Superficially this southeastern race of the ovenbird more closely resembles breeding birds from the Rocky Mountains than it does the nominate race. The grayish wash of the upper parts is not so intense as in cinereus so the suggestion of green is more noticeable, hut in comparison aurocapillus is much brighter green above than canivirens. Miller (1942. Condor, 44:185— 186) noted that in a series of eastern birds that he compared with his new race several approached closely the least gray individuals of cinereus, and he interpreted these few gray birds as variants of the eastern population rather than as examples of his Rocky Mountain race. These specimens have not been examined in connection with the present study, but they probably were from the southeastern United States, and thus he was justified in hesitating to call them cinereus. Birds from western Maryland and Pennsylvania aie inter- mediate in their characters, but closer to aurocapillus than to canivirens. No 39 40 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 positive breeding birds have been examined from the District of Columbia and adjacent areas in Virginia and Maryland. Eight spring examples seem to be referable to aurocapillus, while 6 are like canivirens. Thus, from the available evidence, the region around the District of Columbia is either one of intergradation or the 6 spring examples of canivirens represent the breeding form and the other 8 birds seen are migrants of aurocapillus. In describing the races from Newfoundland and from the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, neither Batchelder nor Miller designed the breeding populations to which the name Seiurus aurocapillus aurocapillus should be restricted. It seems desirable, therefore, that this be done at this time. Motacil- la aurocapillus was described by Linnaeus (1766. “Systema Naturae,’ 1:334) and was based on Edwards’ plate and text (1758. “Gleanings of Natural His- tory,' 5:91, pi. 252) and on Brisson’s description (1760. “Ornithologia sive synopsis methodica,” 3:504). It appears that Brisson based his description on Edwards, and that the specimen from which Edwards made his plate was obtained “at sea, in November, 1751, by the late Tho. Stack, M. D. and F.R.S. in his Voyage to Jamaica, as the ship lay becalmed, about eight or ten leagues distant from Hispaniola” (Edwards, loc. cit.) . Edwards further stated that he received two specimens of the “golden-crowned thrush” from William Bartram of Pennsylvania, which confirmed his opinion that they were “birds of passage.” In the collections in the U. S. National Museum, 18 ovenhirds were examined from Haiti. Fifteen of these are typical of the breeding populations of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada, the upper parts being bright green with no suggestion of a gray wash. The remaining three clearly resemble the breeding birds of the southeastern United States. It seems, there- fore, that the more northern mainland race is definitely commoner in Haiti in migration than is the southeastern form, and that it should be designated as the nominate race with a breeding range from Nova Scotia south to Penn- sylvania. An examination of material from the western United States indicates that cinereus has a much larger breeding range than that given in the original description by Miller. In addition to one example from the type locality, we have studied breeding birds from Glasgow, Leedy, Ekalaka, and Fort Keogh, all in Montana. We have also examined six birds from North Dakota (Fort Rice, Oakdale, and Bismark), two from Wyoming (Bear Lodge Mountain), and one from Missouri (Independence, June 20, 1857). Although Miller (loc. cit.) states that one example from Edmonton, Alberta, is referable to aurocapillus, we have seen a specimen from Fort Chipewyan (May 29, 1901) and another from the Slave River (June 10, 1901) which seem referable to cinereus. However, an immature in fresh fall plumage from Fort McMurray (Aug. 10, 1903) does not seem referable to either of the two Thomas D. Burleigh and Allen J. Duvall NEW OVENBIRD 41 races expected in northern Alberta. Neither Godfrey (1950. Canadian Dept. Resources Development Bull., 120:72) nor Rand (1948. Natl. Mus. Canada Bull., 111:75) could definitely identify, racially, a small series of birds from southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. Additional material and study is needed to determine what race or races breed in Alberta and other prairie provinces of Canada. Newfoundland breeding specimens from Notre Dame Bay, Badger, Glen- wood, and Bonne Bay are all typical furvior. Three breeding birds from Tompkins, in extreme southwestern Newfoundland, likewise, are typical furvior, as are two May examples. However, two other late May birds from the same locality are inseparable from typical aurocapillus. Four fall speci- mens from Tompkins and Doyles are representative of furvior, but a Septem- ber 8 (1946) example from Tompkins, and two birds which struck the light- house at Cape Anguille in the same region in the fall are like typical auro- capillus. With the evidence available from specimens, we are not certain if these spring and fall examples of aurocapillus are birds which wandered north from the normal breeding range of aurocapillus in Nova Scotia, or if they represent breeding populations from the area about Tompkins, the latter being one of intergradation between aurocapillus and furvior. Breedinc distribution of the new race canivirens is based on specimens examined in the U. S. National Museum and Fish and Wildlife Service collections from the following localities: — Georgia: White Co. (Tray Min.), Young Harris, Darien, Decatur, Atlanta, Smyrna, Blood Mtn., Margret, Athens; North Carolina-. Asheville (Bent Creek), Murphy, Hayesville, Clinton; Tennessee : Carter, Parksville, Copperhill, Crossville, Sullivan Co. (Shady Valley), Coshy; West Virginia: Pocohontas Co. (Cranberry Glades), Randolph Co. (Cheat Bridge); Kentucky: Cooperville, Wayne Co. (Rocky Branch), Lynch; Alabama: Aniston; Virginia: Belle Haven, Eastville. Migration of the various races of the Ovenbird may be indicated by identifications of the following specimens taken outside of their known breeding range: ( S. a. canivirens ) Cuba: Guanajay; Jamaica: Moneague; Puerto Rico: Vieques I.; Haiti: Port an Prince, Little Cayemites; Virgin Islands: St. Thomas; Bahamas; Quintana Roo: Cozumel Island; Florida: Key West and Gainesville; Mississippi: Horn Island. Deer Island, and Gulfport. ( S. a. furvior) Sinaloa: near Mazatlan; Bahamas: New Providence and Abaco; Leeward Islands: Antigua; Mississippi: Ariel and Deer Island; Louisiana: New Orleans; North Carolina: Asheville (Bent Creek) and Statesville; Georgia: Athens; Maryland : Baltimore and Montgomery Co. (Sligo Branch); Virginia: Fairfax County, Shenandoah National Park, and Oakton; District of Columbia: Washington Monument; Pennsylvania: Roches- ter; Ohio: Painesville; Ontario: Toronto. (S. a. aurocapillus) Panama: Chiriquf; Costa Rica: Guanacaste (Hacienda Santa Marta); Guatemala: Peten (Remate); British Honduras: El Cayo; Caribbean Sea: Swan Island; Tabasco: Teapa; Veracruz: Ties Zapotes and Conejo; Sinaloa: Mazatlan; Nuevo Leon: Monterrey; Jamaica: Long Hill; Haiti: Cerca La Source, Little Cayemites, Tortuga 42 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 I., Caracol, Cahobas, La Gonave, Hinche, Pie de Macaya, Gonave I., Jeremie, and St. Raphael; Bahamas: Nassau; Puerto Rico: near Mayaguez, N. Guanica Lagoon, Anasco, Guanica, Rio Piedras, Cayey, and Culebra L; Leeward Islands: Antigua; Virgin Islands: St. Croix (Anna’s Hope) ; Florida: Brevard Co. (Padgett Greek) ; Mississippi: Gulfport, Nebraska: mouth Platte River; Georgia: Athens and Harlem; North Carolina: Asheville (Bent Creek) ; W est Virginia: Enon. (S. a. cinereus ) Nebraska: Camp Sheridan; Chihuahua: Mesquite (=Mosquito) Springs; Sinaloa: Mazatlan; Yucatan: Temax. Lish and Wildlife Service, Moscow, Idaho, and Washington, D. C., May 28, 1951 GENERAL NOTES Nest of Red-shouldered Hawk with six eggs. — On February 15, 1943, I noted that a pair of Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus) were beginning their nesting activities in a small woodland in Jefferson County, Kentucky. A pair of Red-shoulders had nested in that woodland the four preceding seasons. I made several visits to the nest in early March. I found one egg March 13, two on March 16, three on March 19, and four on March 22. I do not know exactly when these eggs were laid. On March 22 I supposed the last egg had been laid, so discontinued my visits for a time. In previous years tbe clutch had never exceeded three eggs, and the behavior of the birds, especially that of the highly belligerent female, led me to believe that they were the same pair which had nested there before. On April 10 there were six eggs. On April 15 the female was still incubating, and since none of the eggs showed any sign of hatching I collected them. All were addled, though the presence of small embryos indicated that incubation had been successful for a time. The embryos may have been killed by the unusually cold weather. The possibility that two females were responsible for the six eggs seems ruled out by the consistently aggressive attitude of the female throughout my several visits to the nest in 1943. Nor do the measurements of the eggs in any way suggest two “natural” sets. In order of laying (respective order of the last two not known) they measure: 53.5 X 42.5, 52.5 X 42.5, 55 X 42, 54 X 44, 54 X 43.5, 55.5 X 42 mm. There is general agreement that three or four eggs comprise the usual clutch of this species and three eggs are more usual than four. However. Bendire (1892. U. S. Natl. Mus. Special Bull. No. 1, p. 222) recorded a set of six eggs taken by Dr. William Wood, of East Windsor Hill, Connecticut, and another set of six collected by R. B. McLaughlin, of Statesville, North Carolina, April 5, 1889. Sets of this size apparently are very rare. It is interesting to note that two of the three mentioned come from the southern United States, where small, rather than large, clutches might be expected (c/. Rensch, 1938. Proc. Eighth International Orn. Cong., Oxford, England, pp. 306, 308). — Thomas P. Smith, W -5 Green Tree Manor, Louisville, Kentucky, November 10, 1950. The status of Barrow’s Golden-eye in Kansas. — Barrows Golden-eye (Bucephala islandica) has been reported from Kansas on the basis of six specimens in the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. I have recently reidentified all six as American Golden-eyes ( Bucephala clangula americana) . Bunker (1913. Kansas Univ. Sci. Bull., 7:141) first reported Barrow’s Golden-eye from Kansas, recording the first five of the specimens listed below as ‘ a new' species for the state.” Long (unpub. ms.) reported the sixth specimen. All six were reported again as Barrow’s Golden-eyes by Long in his “Check-List of Kansas Birds’ (1940. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 43:438). Data concerning these specimens include the following: S KU 6403 (1904, Leaven- worth County), $ KU 6401 and $ KU 6402 (1903, Douglas County), 9 KU 7744 and 9 KU 7745 (1909, Douglas County), and 9 KU 5904 (1911, Douglas County). All three males are in juvenal plumage. Since female and immature male Bairows Golden-eyes are difficult to distinguish from American Golden-eyes in corresponding plumages, 1 sent the specimens in question to Dr. Herbert Friedmann for examination. Dr. Fiiedmann agreed that all of the specimens were American Golden-eyes. It seems, therefore, that Barrow’s Golden-eye must be dropped from the list of biids now known from Kansas. However, the possibility of its occurrence must still be con- 43 44 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1052 Vol. 64, No. 1 sidered since it is reported in the neighboring states of Colorado (1931. A. 0. U. Check- List, 4th Ed., p. 53) and Nebraska (1945. Haecker, Moser, and Svvenk, Nebraska Bird Rev., 13:7). Harris (1919. Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, 23:237) listed Barrow’s Golden-eye as a '‘very rare winter visitant” in the Kansas City region. He mentions only two ‘'authen- tic” records. Since, however, his list of birds for this region include some observations made in Douglas County, Kansas, his statement may have been based at least in part on the misidentified specimens. Long (1940. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 43:438) designated the American Golden-eye as “an uncommon migrant throughout the state.” Actually, this species appears to be a regular winter resident although occurring usually in small numbers. — William B. Stall- cup, University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Lawrence, Kansas, May 28, 1951. Birds becoming “caught” in flocks of other species. — Under this caption, in two recent issues of British Birds (1950, 43:332-333; 1951, 44:197-201), several observers have reported instances in which single birds, or small groups, of one species, (1) when flushed with a flock of another species, apparently were unable to break away and instead were impelled against their usual flight habits to follow the maneuvers of t he preponder- ant species; (2) seemed to join flocks of a different species voluntarily and participate in their flights. Some incidents recorded by Selous ( 1905. “Bird Life Glimpses, pp. 60. 127) and several in the Auk (1933, 50:211, 355-356) appear to be earlier examples of the second type. In suburban Baltimore 1 have seen one occurrence resembling the first type. On the evening of September 21, 1949. I found some hundreds of Starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris) and a number of Purple Grackles ( Quiscalus quiscula ) in a park wood. Repeatedly, when the Starlings made mass flights from treetops out over the wood and back, some of the grackles took off, circled, and came back with them. Finally, a single great exodus toward a roost one-half mile away cleared the wood of all the birds. Four times between December 7, 1949, and January 17, 1950. also in suburban Balti- more, I saw Starlings flying with a flock of Rock Doves ( Columba livia ) that usually numbered around 40. Only once did 1 see the entire incident. That time the pigeons left their loafing roof, made one great circle in the air, and alighted again. Just after they rose, a loose band of 10 or 12 Starlings appeared near them. One of the Starlings entered or was sw-ept up by the fore-edge of the flock of pigeons and flew there through half of the circle before sheering away. On the other three occasions the flying flock was already a mixed one when 1 sighted it. Once there w'ere 9 Starlings, in two groups, in the fore-edge, and they stayed there, as much a part of the flock formation as the pigeons themselves, during two or three great curves that the birds made. Again. I was just in time to see 3 Starlings drop out of the flying flock. Once, in a flock that I glimpsed for a few seconds, there were 13 Starlings and only 8 pigeons; I sawr less than one-fourth of a large circle made that time. Although the circumstances of the first Starling-pigeon incident suggest “entrapment,” the repeated occurrence of these mixed flocks suggests voluntary association. It may be significant that all of the Starling-pigeon incidents noted occurred at about 8 a.m., when (he Starlings had only recently arrived at my observation point, 5 miles airline from their downtown roosts. Possibly these birds were still under the influence of their dis- persal-flight impulse. Similarly, the grackles of my first observation were keyed for a flight to a roost. — Hervey Brackbili., 4608 Springdale Avenue, Baltimore 7, Maryland, June 29, 1951. March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 GENERAL NOTES 45 Weslt rii Meadowlark attacks ground squirrel. — While driving along a county toad just south of the Cache la Poudre River, three miles west and one mile north of Greeley, Weld County, Colorado, on May 14th, 1951, 1 saw a Western Meadowlark ( Sturnella neglecta) fluttering up and down a short distance away. Closer observation revealed that the bird was attacking a thirteen-lined ground squirrel ( Citellus tridecem- lineatus) . The bird was hovering over the ground squirrel and repeatedly striking at it as it ran through the grass. The outcome was not learned as the two animals passed from view over a ridge with the meadowlark still in close pursuit. This seems noteworthy to me since I had not previously seen a meadowlark attack any mammal. I suppose that the ground squirrel had molested or had been near the bird’s nest. — Clarence A. Scoter, 5311 West 55th Street, Mission, Kansas, September 27, 1951. Harrying of herons by gulls — a further note. — Imhof (1950. Wilson Bulletin, 62:210) reported the chasing of a Great Blue Heron ( Ardea herodias) by a Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) , and in view of his notes I (1951. Wilson Bulletin, 63:110) reported the chasing of a European Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea) by a European Com- mon Gull ( Larus canus). Since then I have read a comment by Stacey ( circa 1947. “This Wild Company.” Edmund Ward, Leicester, England, p. 52) on the chasing of the Grey Heron by the Black-headed Gull ( Larus ridibundus) . Since the reference may not be readily accessible to my American readers, I quote: “Over the Norfolk marshes 1 have seen how the black-headed gulls will follow and chivvy any heron which flies over their breeding-ground, yet the bittern (according to my limited observations on this bird), so very much like the heron in flight, is tolerated and not interfered with at all. Should a heron happen to cross a field where the peewits nest, the plovers will make the air scream with their frantic attacks until the imagined danger has passed. Why birds should so resent this harmless grey creature I do not know, but perhaps, like all big people, he is good-natured and does not mind.” All three authors express surprise at this persecution of the heron. Note also that Stacey twice comments that it happens when the heron flies over the breeding grounds of the other species. Pereyra (1938. Aves de la zona riberena nordeste de la provincia de Buenos Aires [Birds of the northeast riverside zone of the province of Buenos Aires]. Memoirs Zool. Gardens La Plata, Govt. Print. Office of La Plata, p. 46) speaking of the Black-headed Teal, Heteronetta atricapilla (Merrem) says: “This queer duck never makes a nest but lays its eggs in the nests of various species of aquatic birds of a variety of families and orders, for it not only parasitizes other ducks but also coots or gallinules, herons, ibises, and gulls; . . . The strangest is to see them in the nests of white herons or egrets, and 1 once had the opportunity of seeing a newly hatched duckling in such a nest. It very promptly withdrew to the water, and swimming vigorously attempted to put some dis- tance between itself and the danger, possibly because it might fall victim to those same herons which might either eat it or feed it to their own young. Witherby, et al. (1945 [reprint of vol. 3, 19391. “The Handbook of British Birds.’ H. F. and G. Witherby, Ltd., London) discuss the food of various herons, and note that a variety of small birds and young of larger birds have been eaten. 1 he prey includes domestic chickens, terns, and Great Crested Grebes. There is therefore no reason to doubt that the young of the lapwing and of gulls would be eaten if opportunity occurred. The behavior of the adults of these species may therefore be not entirely irrational. Most 46 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 of these frequently nest in places readily accessible to herons. — F. W. Preston, Box 149, Butler, Pennsylvania, July 18, 1951. Homing ability of female Cowbirds. — Eastern Cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) possess a marked ability to return to their place of banding. Summaries of the homing ability of Cowbirds banded by William I. Lyon appeared in Inland Bird Banding News, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 7, and Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 10. Fox (1940. Bird-Banding, 11:23) recorded a female Cowbird which returned a distance of 107 miles in less than two days, and, on another oc- casion, the same bird returned 184 miles in one week. Females seem to return and to repeat in traps more frequently than do males. Nice (1935. Inland Bird Banding News, 7, No. 2: 2) noted that of four males and nine females banded, no males returned but she bad “two females for two seasons each, and two other females for three seasons.” My records of banded Cowbirds show the tendency of female Cowbirds to remain in a locality throughout the breeding season, and also shows their ability to return quickly to the banding station after being transported distances. These Cowbirds were trapped in a inch chickenwire trap, with open ground funnels, all painted black. Bread and a pan of water were used as bait. All birds recorded here had their band numbers checked in the hand, although some birds were also color-banded. An adult female Cowbird, banded No. 39-255053 at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on May 10, 1948. repeated May 11, 18, June 2, 16, 19, 24 (twice), 25, 27, and 28. On the latter day she was taken 6 miles southwest and released at 7:40 a.m. On July 1 she was back in the trap and continued repeating on July 2 (twice), 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12. In 1949, this female and a male entered the trap on April 5. The male was banded No. 39-255078. This pair was taken that same day to the lndiantown Gap Military Reservation, 22 miles northeast, and released at 12:55 p.m. In flight they kept together until out of sight. The male was not seen again. The female entered the same trap at 7 :30 a.m. on April 7, two days later. She then repeated April 27 and 30 and was taken that last day 10 miles east and released at 11:40 a.m. Three days later she was hack again, repeating May 3, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 24 on which day she was apparently carrying a large egg. I did not weigh any of the Cowbirds, but I could feel a hard lump the size of a marble in the lower abdomen. Since I could not feel this object when I examined the bird again on May 25, I think that she had laid the egg before entering the trap. On May 25, I released the bird 16 miles from my trap and never saw her again. Another pair of Cowbirds, Nos. 39-255006 and 7, trapped together May 10, 1947, was used experimentally. The male repeated May 16, was taken 3 miles to the State Capitol, released and not seen again until June 18 and 31. He was shot at Leland, North Carolina, the week of January 19, 1948. The female, No. 39-255006, color-handed but recorded by handling, displayed her homing abilities through two seasons. Banded May 10. 1947, she repeated May 17, 31 (twice), June 17, 18, 24, 28 (twice), July 1, 3, 5, and 11. Returning on April 15, 1948, she repeated April 30, May 2, 8, and 9. On the last dale she was carried 56 miles south- west to Chambersburg and released at 6:30 p.m. On May 14 she entered the trap at 5:30 p.m. On her next repeat, May 24, she apparently carried a large egg which was laid before her next visit, May 26. Then she repeated May 28 (twice), 29 (four times), and 30. Then taken 6 miles south through Harrisburg and released at 4:03 p.m., she was back at 6 a.m. the next morning. She repeated on June 1, 3, 5 (four times), 7 (twice), 9, and 10 (again apparently with a large egg which was laid before she entered the trap at 7:00 a.m., June 11). 1 took her by train to Philadelphia, 100 miles east, and released her March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 GENERAL NOTES 47 at the University of Pennsylvania at 10:30 a.m. on June 12. Just four days later, on June 16, she had found her way back and I saw her enter the trap at 10:15 a.m. This female then repeated again on June 18 (twice), 19, 20, 21, and 22. There are no further records of her. — Harold B. Wood, 3016 N. Second Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, January 28, 1951. Flight-speed of the Mourning Dove.- — While driving toward Ridgetown, Ontario, on June 6, 1951, I had an opportunity to “clock" the speed in flight of a Mourning Dove, Zenaidura macroura. The bird flushed from a hedgerow on the left side of the road and flew, in typical, direct flight, parallel with the vehicle, a distance of more than three-tenths of a mile. It was about twenty-five feel from my car, and flew approximately five feet above the ground. Adjusting the speed of the automobile to that of the bird, I discovered that the dove was moving at 55 miles per hour, as indicated by the speedometer of the vehicle. The flight, which was along a straight highway and “cross-wind,” ended when the dove entered a roadside thicket. — Eric Walter Bastin, 43, Inglewood Drive, Hamilton, Ontario, August 27, 1951. Female Cowbird hung in an old nest of Baltimore Oriole. — While inspecting nesting territories of the Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula ) eight miles northwest of Ann Arbor, Michigan, I found the results of an interesting bird catastrophe. On May 6, 1951, I discovered the remains of four old oriole nests in a row of trees along a small stream in an open pasture. From one oriole nest dangled a female Cowbird ( Molothrus ater) , obviously dead for no more than a few weeks. On May 8, re- turning with climbing irons and ropes, I succeeded in cutting down the nest and found that the Cowbird hung by a single loop of horsehair. The body was somewhat dessicated but was fairly intact. Dissection of the body cavity showed no signs of the hard parts of an egg, yet it is hard to believe that the Cowbird was doing any- thing other than looking into old nests when caught and strangled. This furnishes evidence additional to that already in the literature that the Cowbird does not always find nests solely by watching the activity of other birds. Two of the old oriole nests mentioned above were unusual in the great amount of horsehair used in their construction; the remains of the one pictured contained well over eighty percent horsehair. — K. T. Rogers, Dept, oj Anatomy, E. Medical Bldg., Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 8, 1951. Sutton’s Warbler ( Dendroica potomac ) again observed in West Virginia. — In late May, 1950, eight members of the Buffalo Ornithological Society visited the eastern 48 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 panhandle of West Virginia to observe the bird life of that region and to attempt again to locate Sutton’s Warbler. After searching for some time along the Potomac near Shepherdstown, we spent several hours on Opequon Creek, about four or five miles southeast of Martinsburg, in an area known locally as Cose Dale. Here we heard a number of likely-sounding warbler songs, but each singer turned out to be a Parula Warbler (Parula americana) . 1 did, however, locate one Sutton’s Warbler about forty feet up in an ash tree, near the creek at Dandridge’s Dam, and was able to show it to every member of our party. The bird was in sight for several minutes, during part of which period it preened, allow- ing careful study of its entire underparts and part of its back. The fact that it did not sing led us to believe that it was a female. All of us noted the bright yellow throat, black-bordered at the side, the black extending slightly forward, tending to form a very incomplete ring across the breast. There was a white line over the eye, but no white area down the side of the neck nor any heavy black side-striping such as characterizes the Yellow-throated Warbler ( Dendroica dominica) . One of our observers, Bernard Nathan, was able to make out the greenish tinge on the back. Parts of the back visible to me seemed to be uniformly grayish and the crown also was gray, but darker. The bird later flew into a large sycamore and was soon lost to sight. Aside from Nathan and myself, the following persons saw the bird: Mr. and Mrs. Edward C. Ulrich. Heather Thorpe, William Almendinger, Robert Sundell, and Irwin Woldman. The date was May 29. Next morning we continued our search, but without success. The heavy foliage could easily have hidden the birds, of course. In early June 1951, we spent several days in the vicinity of Cose Dale and Dandridge’s Dam. as well as along the banks of the Potomac and other neighboring areas, hut were unsuccessful in locating Sutton’s Warbler. However, we intend to continue our search for the bird and its nest, and thus ascertain whether both birds of the pair prove to be Dendroica potomac. We wish to thank Maurice Brooks, of West Virginia University, and M iss Serena Dandridge, of Shepherdstown, for aid and suggestions given our group; also Miss Dandridge and Miss Nina Mitchell for their hospitality. — Hvnoi.n D. Mitchf.ll, 378 Crescent Avenue. Buffalo 14, New York, September 1, 1951. Black Vulture depredations at Kentucky Woodlands. — The owner of a large farm within the area of Kentucky Woodlands Wildlife Refuge between the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers reported that he had lost a number of young pigs from attacks by Black Vultures (Coragvps atratus) . I went to his farm on April 12. 1949, to investigate the report. He showed us three young pigs that had survived recent attacks. The pigs’ tails were lacerated and broken, but the vultures had been driven away before serious damage had been done. The farmer estimated that vultures may have killed as many as 40 pigs on his farm during the previous year and a half. He had not, however, actually seen more than half that number being eaten by the predators. He reported that the birds attacked the tail and rectum and pulled out the intestines. Recently he had arrived at the scene of an attack in time to drive away several of the vultures from pigs still alive, but so badly injured that they died later. Although usually only new-born pigs were eaten, he described one case of a pig two weeks old that had been badly injured. The owner had also lost two calves which he thought had been killed by Black Vultures. The farmer was able to describe accurately the differences between Black Vultures and Turkey Vultures ( Cathartes aura ) and assured us that only the former had been responsible for the depredations. The refuge manager, Talbott Clarke, verified many of the details in the farmer’s account. March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 GENERAL NOTES 49 In a recent note (1947. Auk, 64:131 — 132), I reported a similar case in Meade County, Kentucky, 200 miles east of Kentucky Woodlands. As far as I can ascertain, this is only the second time that Black Vultures have been found preying on domestic stock in Kentucky. I can find no evidence that Turkey Vultures participate in these raids. W. J. Hamilton (1941. Auk, 58:254) reported Turkey Vultures killing young pigs near Fort Myers, Florida. In my earlier article, I expressed a doubt as to the identity of the birds involved. Dr. Hamilton has since informed me by letter that his informant was sufficiently familiar with both species of vultures to make the identification certain.— Harvey B. Lovell, Biology Department, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, July 12, 1951. Stoddard’s Yellow-throated Warbler in Bay County, Florida. — Roy C. Hallman of Port St. Joe, Florida, recently sent me for identification three specimens of the Yellow- throated Warbler ( Dendroica dominica ) collected at Panama City, Bay County, Florida, in the summer of 1942. A male taken June 27 is in worn breeding plumage. A female in fresh winter plumage, and labelled “adult” was taken July 15. A second specimen taken July 15, marked “immature sex?,” is definitely browner in tone than the “adult” female. The male in worn breeding plumage is the only conspicuously slender-billed bird of the three. Its bill-length is 14.5 mm. The “adult” female and young bird are fairly long- billed (respectively 13.5 and 12 mm.), but heavier-billed than the breeding male. I do not hesitate to call the breeding male specimen an example of D. d. stoddardi and I am much interested in ascertaining that that race breeds in Bay County. As for the other two birds, they probably were transients from a breeding ground elsewhere. Mr. Hallman informs me that they were associating with a single Black and White Warbler ( Mniotilta varia) , a species which does not nest anywhere in the vicinity and which does not ordinarily arrive from the north nearly so early in fall migration. All three specimens of D. dominica are yellow in the supraloral area. The adult male, “adult” female, and immature bird measure, respectively: wing, 67, 66, 62 mm.; tail, 50, 51, 49 mm.; and tarsus, 16.5, 17.5, and 17 mm. — George Mikscii Sutton, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, October 13, 1951. Upland Plover and Yellow-headed Blackbird in the Chicago region. — W. L. McAtee (1951. lUilson Bulletin, 63:112) recently recorded only one observation of the Upland Plover ( Bartramia longicauda) , and one of the Yellow-headed Blackbird (A. xanthocephalus) in the Chicago region. His note would infer that the report of Ford, Sanborn, and Coursen (1934. Chicago Acad. Sci. Program of Activities, 5 (2-3) :39 and 65) indicating them to be “fairly common” is not correct. For the past six years I have been observing birds in the Chicago region and have repeatedly found the Upland Plover. One pair (one of them identifiable by a crippled foot) returned each year for three years to a pasture north of Itasca. In 1947, in the area delineated by the towns of Itasca, Barrington, Arlington Heights, Mt. Prospect, and Prospect Heights, I recorded over 50 observations of Upland Plover and located six family groups. Twice I have seen plovers near Joliet and once near Essex in the north- western corner of Kankakee County. Each year I have found Yellow-headed Blackbirds at Baker Lake, Barrington, where they nest. I have been informed by local ornithologists that the birds had been nesting there for some years previous to my finding them. This year (1951) 1 counted six males in their territories. On two occasions I have seen this species in other nearby marshes. Although I have not seen them in the Calumet Lake region, they are reported there regularly. — F. J. Freeman, Itasca, Illinois, July 29, 1951. EDITORIAL One of the more important sources of Wilson Club funds, other than annual dues, is the sale of back issues of the Bulletin. The most advantageous of these sales is the sale of sets or long runs. A shortage of even one back number sometimes prohibits the sale of a considerable number of volumes. Volumes which can not be sold for this reason then become a liability rather than an asset. Owing to certain unfortunate circumstances, we are now embarrassed by a shortage of three numbers (Nos. 1, 2, and 3) of the 1951 volume. We are especially short of the March issue. We suspect that many members do not keep all back issues on file. I hese members will be doing the Club a real and important service by returning any of the first three numbers of the 1951 volume no longer needed to the “Wilson Ornithological Club Library, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan so that more sets can be sold. Members are reminded that increased club funds mean bigger and better future Bulletinsl One of the objectives of the Wilson Ornithological Club has always been the encourage- ment of research, particularly among the younger members. Research costs money, even the small field projects which require the weekly or daily use of an automobile to and from the site of operations. And money is something that isn't always available when and where it is most needed. Several generous friends of the Club have seen this problem and met it in a way which has, we believe, paid big dividends. The Louis Agassiz Fuertes Research Grant of $100 was first announced in 1947, con- tributed by a staunch friend who prefers to remain anonymous. The Pell Fund, gener- ously given to the Club in honor of the late S. Morris Pell for the purpose of encouraging young bird artists, was announced to members the same year. And last year still another award, the Chalif Grant, was announced with the special aim of encouraging and imple- menting field research in Mexico. Your Research Committee, assigned the responsibility of selecting recipients, has been impressed with the high quality of the applications they have received. It is an indication of the kind of ornithology that we like to think the Club is fostering. Our only regret is that we have to disappoint so many applicants, but certainly no stigma can be attached to not being selected. We hope that all members are aware of these awards and their eligibility to apply for them. Your chairman is ready to send application blanks and further information to any interested party. Act promptly, as the selections for the Fuertes and Pell Grants will be made and announced at the annual meeting in Gatlinburg, April 25-26, 1952. The closing date for receipt of applications will be March 25. Your committee members are: Ernst Mayr, Frank Pitelka, George Sutton, Dwain Warner, and John Emlen, chairman. — John T. Emlen, Jr. The National Science Foundation has announced recently the establishment of re- search fellowships in various fields, including biology, as follows: Predoctoral graduate fellowships, stipend $1400, $1600, or $1700 per academic year, with additional allowances for married fellows and those with dependent children. Postdoctoral fellowships, stipend $3000 per academic year, with additional allowances as above. 50 March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 EDITORIAL 51 The National Science Foundation will pay tuition and laboratory fees charged by the institution at which the fellow is studying. A limited travel allowance is paid. The fellowships are awarded solely for the education, training, and development of the recipients. Applications for the 1952-53 academic year are already closed, but those persons interested in applying at some later date should contact the Fellowship Office, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N. W., Washington 25, D. C. The Wilson Ornithological Club welcomes the formation of the Southern Ornithological Society, which was established at Gainesville, Florida, on September 29, 1951. The pur- poses of the Society are to stimulate interest and to promote research in Ornithology. Dr. Pierce Brodkorb was elected President; Julian Baumel, Vice-President; David Karraker, Secretary; and Earl C. May, Treasurer. Correspondence should be addressed to David Karraker, Department of Biology, Uni- versity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. The Membership Committee There are interested and enthusiastic bird students scattered throughout our land who do not belong to the Wilson Ornithological Club. A large majority of them are amateurs, a fact which doesn’t lessen their possible contributions to ornithology and to our organiza- tion. The amateurs are, however, more difficult to contact in regard to membership. We think that these people would profit by membership. In turn, the club would profit by having a larger Bulletin, greater influence, and wider recognition. The membership com- mittee cannot possibly search out all of these individuals. Each of you may know one or more persons who should join. Visualize what would happen to the club if each present member were to find one interested new member. The membership committee can function successfully only if the members will submit names to them. If you know of someone who should be a member, send the name and address of that person (typed or printed clearly, with the Miss, Mrs., Mr., or Dr. clearly indicated I to any of the following Membership Committeemen : Ralph M. Edeburn, Chairman, Marshall College, Huntington, W. Va. Hal H. Harrison, 1102 Highland Street, Tarentum, Pa. R. T. Gammell, Kenmore, N. D. George H. Lowery, Jr., Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, La. Robert C. Conn, 769 Park Avenue, Bound Brook, N. J. G. M. Sutton, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Thomas D. Burleigh, Forestry Building, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Gale Monson, P. 0. Box 1717, Parker, Arizona. Eugene Eisenmann, 11 Broadway, New York 4, New York. Thomas H. Foster. West Road, Bennington, Vermont. Harold D. Mitchell, 378 Crescent Avenue, Buffalo 14, N. Y. Doris H. Speirs, R.R. No. 2, Pickering, Ontario. Wendell P. Smith, Newbury, Vermont. Virginia S. Eifert, 705 W. Vine Street, Springfield, 111. Lewis Terrill, 216 Redfern Avenue, Westmount, Montreal 6, Quebec. OBITUARY Rose Schuster Taylor (Mrs. Henry James Taylor) was born on a Wisconsin pioneer farm two miles west of Middleton in Dane County on January 5, 1863. Sbe was graduated 52 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952" Vol. 64, No. 1 from the University of Wisconsin in 1885 with second honors in her class. After her marriage in 1887 the family home was maintained in Sioux City, Iowa, where Mr. Taylor practiced law for the remaining 15 years of his life. In 1931 she moved to Berkeley, where she died on January 25, 1951, at the age of 88. Three sons and a daughter survive Mrs. Taylor. Naturalists in the central and western United States know Mrs. Taylor for her ornithological and botanical writings. For thirty years, after 1915, she had continuously in preparation some article based on thorough and original study. Her more than forty publications in this period dealt with birds, plants, natural history of Yosemite, Indians, and biographies of naturalists, especially ornithologists of the midwestern states. These reports contained abundant facts and characterizations obtained at first hand or from sources not available in print. About twenty persons were included, and special enthusi- asm was devoted to the accounts of Coues, the Kumliens, and Miss Sherman. Along with this work she had an important influence upon a great many people through her varied services in community enterprises, upon natural history institutions, and upon other organizations. Many traveling naturalists made her home their headquarters in Sioux City or Berkeley. For a long period she spent a part of each year in Yosemite where she helped in the Museum and with other parts of the nature work. Mrs. Taylor joined the Wilson Ornithological Club in 1916, and later became a life member. For years she regularly made the long trip from California to attend the annual meetings. She joined the Cooper Club in 1920 and maintained active membership for twenty years. Accounts of her life have appeared in Iowa Bird Life (1951. vol. 21: 2—5 ) and Yosemite l\ature I\otes (1951, vol. 30: 13-14). — Jean M. Linsdale. THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB LIBRARY gifts have been recently received. From: New' Zealand Department of Science and Industrial Research (Animal Ecology Section) — 1 book, 3 reprints Margaret M. Nice — 11 reprints, 8 maga- zines, 6 books The following Aaron M. Bagg — 1 reprint Andrew J. Berger — 1 periodical Hervey Brackbill — 1 book Oscar McKinley Bryens — 1 reprint Mildred F. Campbell — 1 book Betty Carnes — 1 book Robert M. Chew — 1 reprint J. Fred Denton — 5 reprints Eugene Eisenmann 1 reprint William G. Fargo — 1 book Martin L. Grant — 6 reprints Fr. Haverschmidt — 3 reprints Karl W. Haller — 9 books James Hodges — 1 pamphlet, 12 reprints Philip S. Humphrey — 1 reprint Leon Kelso — 2 pamphlets Nada Kramar — 2 hooks, 68 reprints and pamphlets H. B. Lovell — 1 reprint Douglas S. Middleton — 1 bulletin Walter P. Nickell — 1 reprint Eugene P. Odum — 1 book, 4 reprints Christopher M. Packard — 2 reprints William H. Phelps — 5 reprints Frank A. Pitelka — 3 reprints Aretas A. Saunders — 3 books Frederic R. Scott — 6 magazines Clarence A. Sooter — 1 reprint Robert E. Stewart — 3 reprints Robert W. Storer — 1 book, 2 reprints George M. Sutton — 2 books Josselyn Van Tyne — 12 reprints F. A. Ward — 1 magazine L. R. Wolfe — 27 reprints, 8 magazines University of Wisconsin Department of Wildlife Management — 2 reprints ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE I he Pheasants of the World. By Jean Delacour. Country Life Limited, London, and Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1951:8% X 11% in., 347 pp., with 16 color plates and 16 monochrome plates, and 21 maps and diagrams. .$35.00. No ornithologist living today is better fitted to attempt the task of preparing a new monograph on the pheasants than Jean Delacour. It is a particular pleasure then that he has chosen to do so, and to revise and emend so carefully and notably the previous monographs on one of the most beautiful of all avian families. Ilis immediate predecessor in an illustrious line was Dr. William Beebe, whose four magnificent volumes on the subject, published between 1918 and 1922, have long been out of print as well as some- what outmoded by advancing knowledge. Beebe’s principal contributions were the ob- servations on living birds made for the first time by a naturalist on many of the least known species. Delacour during his remarkable career has been able to combine to an unusual extent the field and museum researches of an ornithologist with the patient study of a careful and recording aviculturist. Too few ornithologists have had any practical or first-hand experience with birds kept under observation in aviaries or at semi-liberty. Too few aviculturists are sufficiently trained or interested to keep records and observe various characteristics of the birds in their possession. It is the blending of work in the field, the museum, and the aviary that has given Mr. Delacour an unrivalled opportunity to study pheasants. It seems to me that such experience is a necessary requisite in any definitive study of these rare, secretive, and yet manageable birds. The plan of this volume is admirable. Mr. Delacour has worked out what seems to t his writer a practical and convenient systematic arrangement of the various genera and species, emphasizing relationships rather than diversity (presumably the aim of system- atics) . He has included under each genus a general discussion of range, field notes, and, in many cases, an important amount of material on the occurrences of these forms in captivity, their breeding, food habits and the like. Following this is a more detailed discussion of the species or subspecies, concise and to the point, which serves to make the amateur feel as much at home among the groups under discussion as the professional. Particularly serviceable in this connection is a detailed discussion of the forms of the true pheasants, Phasianus. Delacour recognizes two species and his break-downs into smaller groups and excellent distribution maps serve to create order out of what had been a chaos of races of these plastic birds. If the true pheasants are today still over-split, taxonomically speaking, at least we know now where to begin. One of the most important aspects of this book is its emphasis on aviculture as an auxiliary aspect of ornithology. Although much is known, and that at least summarized in this volume, about conditions of keeping and rearing many kinds of pheasants, it becomes apparent from a perusal of this work that much remains unknown about the behavior of pheasants. The field is open to the behavior student to whom large aviaries may be available to study mating habits, pair formation, t lie relationships between adults and young, and a host of other psychological attributes of these relatively easily managed birds. The problem of territory could probably be readily studied among aviary birds. Variations within species would be particularly interesting in this connection. Perhaps the notably bad temper exhibited by species of Syrmaticus is directly explainable through a study of their territorial requirements. This is a poignant question to me as the only cock Ijima’s Copper Pheasant (S. soemmerringi ijimae) I ever possessed was so incredib- 53 54 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 ly bad-tempered that immediately after mating with a hen of a closely-related subspecies, S. s. soemmerringi , he reached forward and broke her neck with a swift twist of his bill. In short this is a magnificent book and must find its way into the library of every serious student of game birds, whether ornithologist, aviculturist, or sportsman. I can- not praise it highly enough as a many faceted accomplishment of one man. It seems unjust to carp about small details and I will not beyond saying that the spelling of some of the geographical names, particularly in the region of India, is not always according to current practice. Nor is the Barail Range (mentioned on p. 69) anywhere except in Cachar and the Naga Hills, rather than outside of these districts as implied. But this is quibbling. The plates by Mr. j. C. Harrison are excellent, even imparting a rough tweedy feeling to t He birds as if t hey were being watched out of doors on a cold bracing day. A few are entirely too rough, however. The Sonnerat’s Junglefowl is not done justice to by any means, and, at least in my copy, Rheinart’s Crested Argus seems far too washed-out, and the Congo Peacock altogether too bright. However, these could easily be faidts of the printing, quite out of the bands of the artist. In any monograph of this sort it might have been well to have listed, along with the scientific description of the bird, a citation of when, if ever, it had been illustrated in a publication. Suffice it to say in any case that this volume is a “must” and well merits the great success and popnlarity it is bound to achieve. — S. Dillon Ripley. Ecological Animal Geocraphy. By W. C. Allee and K. P. Schmidt. Revised second edition. 1951. (Based on Tier geographic aaf oekologischer Grundlage. R. Hesse). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N. Y., 5% X 9 in., xiv -f- 715 pp., 142 figs. $9.50. Appearing fourteen years after the first (1937) edition, this useful work has been thoroughly revised and brought up to date. The 597 pages of the original edition have been expanded to 715. The improvements, as stated by the authors, are: “a greatly simplified terminology; a suitable background, without undue emphasis, for modern in- terest in conservation on a world-wide scale; expansion and revision of a large amount of material; expanded chapter bibliographies, including pertinent recent publications.” With these changes the present edition is still more independent of the German original published in 1924, but even so large blocks of the original remain, as the authors ac- knowledge. The organization and chapter headings remain virtually unchanged. Even the separate paragraphs follow those of the first edition in their organization and contents, but new sentences have been added and phrasing altered to incorporate the large amount of new material that has been skilfully integrated with the old. The bibliographic citations are fuller than in the earlier edition; titles are included and papers are arranged alphabetically by authors at the end of each chapter. Approxi- mately one-seventh of the papers cited are new ones published since 1937. The authors state that age alone is little indication of the value of a given report, but that older papers may have special value when they accurately describe conditions of existence that were present years ago. More than a dozen subjects are mentioned in the preface as illustrating the nature and scope of the revisions and additions in this second edition. One of these is “the concept of the biome, with a schematic map showing the biomes of the world.” Discussion of the biome concept, however, is limited to one short paragraph. This brief discussion serves mainly to point out that the biome system cuts across Hesse’s useful classification of the habitable world, the “biosphere,” with successive divisions, into biocycles, superbiochores, biochores, subbiochores, biotopes and facies, a classification based primarily on physical March 1952 V ol. 64, No. 1 ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE 55 environmental features. The map mentioned (the same previously published in Principles of Animal Ecology, 1949, by Allee, Emerson, Park, Park & Schmidt) is on the inside of the cover, and shows not the biomes but the more inclusive “biome-types,” seven of which are recognized. These are: Tundra, Taiga, Temperate Deciduous Forest, Grassland, Desert, Tropical Forest, and Temperate Rain Forest. 1 he last chapter, "The effect of man on the distribution of other animals,” has been altered more than most others and contains much new material under the headings De- forestation; Controlled forests; Orchards, gardens, and parks; Buildings; Tropical regions; Aquatic life; Pollution of streams; Intentional and unintentional transport by man; Direct eradications; Disease and facilitation of its spread; Conservation. There are numerous references to birds, and changes in their ecology and distribution wrought by man’s influence on the environment, with special emphasis on those found in the United States, but with many allusions to birds of other continents. Dependence for nesting sites on "artificial cliffs” provided by eaves of barns, is mentioned as characteristic of both Old World and North American barn swallows. These are referred to respectively as Hirundo rustica and H. erythrogaster, although their conspecificity has been recognized in recent years. Many other outdated scientific names of birds are used. Among the sections that are of greatest interest to ornithologists is that containing the discussion of coastal birds, in the chapter "Animal Life of Swamps and of Shores.” The works of many eminent authorities in this field are drawn upon. The statement (p. 582) that "Like the auks, penguins have only a single egg (rarely two) ...” seems to minimize the fairly wide range of reproductive potential found among the sphenisciform birds. In another chapter, the penguins as a group are used to illustrate the Bergmann Ride of thermal economy by increase in body bulk in colder climates. Among the twelve species of four genera listed, there is a well-defined trend toward increasing size farther south, from the diminutive Galapagos penguin, to the giant emperor penguin of the Antarctic. However, the illustration seems not altogether appropriate, because the Bergmann Rule applies primarily to intraspecific trends. Obviously many minor points of this nature could be raised in a review of any work involving such extensive compilation. But in general the source material has been well selected and carefully appraised to attain a high degree of accuracy. By their thorough- going revision and modernization of this important work, the authors have assured its continuing usefulness as a text and reference for many years to come. — H. S. Fitch. Waterfowl and Their Food Habits in Washington. By Charles F. Yocum. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 1951:6 X 9 in., xvi -)- 272 pp., 48 plates, 63 figs, (including 5 maps), 47 tables. $5.00. The author’s stated objective (p. 2) is “to lay the groundwork for future research on waterfowl in Washington.” In view of this objective, emphasis is placed on compiling pertinent information, with a minimum of interpretation. References to the literature are frequent and the bibliography of 90 titles is an adequate guide for the future researcher. As the title indicates, the subject matter is divided into two fields — waterfowl and their foods. Geography and climate of Washington are briefly reviewed. Data relevant to migration, wintering, and nesting of two species of swans, ten kinds of geese, and 31 kinds of ducks and mergansers are recorded. Major waterfowl wintering grounds in Washington are outlined. The results of two summers’ study of waterfowl found breeding in Washington are presented and there is a brief review of migration, effects of hunting, parasites and disease, and management. 56 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 Chapter 8, concerned with sex ratios of ducks in Washington, is especially good. Means of gathering sex ratio data are critically considered, with the conclusion that such data gathered from one locality or at one time are apt to be inadequate, and that the most reliable data are obtained from counts of birds in the field compared to live-trapping or hunters’ kill data. The chapters on food habits and food and cover plants (chapters 12 and 13) are more thorough than are the remaining ones. A relatively complete review of the literature is made and the original data are cross-tabulated by species, regions, and food items for ready comparison to other data. The original data are weak, as is frequently true for for game species, in that little information was gathered except during the hunting season. The chapter on food and cover plants is excellent, with keys, illustrations, and distri- bution maps for the important food and cover plants of the state. A separate index to this chapter is appended. In general, the make-up and printing are good and conducive to easy reading. The author’s style is easy without being light, but is weakened by too frequent use of such words as “undoubtedly” and “probably.” References are made to rather vague records of occurrence of waterfowl, but sole reliance is not placed on them. Unusual application of words such as “vulnerable” (p. 172), and unusual words such as “epizooty” ( p. 132) are grammatically correct hut do not contribute to clarity. The reviewer finds no justification for “speciate” (p. 16) when used to mean the identification of species. Future students will be fortunate to have this groundwork for waterfowl studies in Washington. — Maurice F. Baker. Beginner’s Guide to Attracting Birds. By Leon A. Hausman. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1951: 127 pp., 27 pp. of text figures. $2.00. In this little handbook we have a work with a clearly defined purpose: to point out to people who know little about birds the advantages and pleasures to be derived from having them around our homes, and then to outline some ways of supplying the necessary items for attracting them. With its low price, convenient size, and readability, it will admirably serve this purpose for many real or potential bird lovers. The illustrated suggestions for nest-boxes and feeding stations, particularly in their emphasis on natural- ness and simplicity, seem to me excellent. The table of favored foods for various purposes is helpful — I wondered why nutmeats, however, did not receive the praise due them. Listing of food-producing vines and shrubs will be of interest and value to many, while discussions of such easily forgotten attractions as warm water, grit, dust, salt (for northern finches), and perches and shelters of several sorts, add much to the book’s usefulness. The author’s attitude toward English Sparrows, Starlings, and prowling cats seems a little over-benevolent at times; and there are passages in which birds are made to sound all but omnipotent as weed-seed and insect destroyers; but these things do not detract seriously. Tn trying to construct a non-technical key in a form so very abbreviated, using only a selected few "Home Grounds Birds, ' I feel Hausman has literally attempted the impossible. The key, which could scarcely be used as such at all, becomes little more than a series of thumbnail sketches of common birds (perhaps quite helpful in them- selves). Classing a Pine Siskin as “gray” and a female Purple Finch as “brown or brownish,” or placing such dissimilar birds as a Cedar Waxwing and a Brown Creeper almost adjacent, illustrates to me the uselessness of gross color and size as bases of separation. The choice of species is questionable, three Hylocichla thrushes being in- cluded, for example, and all wrens omitted from the key. The matter of geographic March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 THE WILSON BULLETIN 57 coverage, while considered to some extent, would still be very confusing to a novice who did not happen to live in the Northeast. The ink sketches of birds, while sometimes crude, yet manage to capture enough of the species’ personality that they could be very helpful. I would have preferred that more of them be used, and the descriptive matter not attempted at all. The good appended bibliography of other published material (a glaring typographical error cites Forbush and May: “National” History of the Birds . . .), should lead readers to adequate sources when they are ready to extend their knowledge of birds. It would be surprising if this book did not encourage a great many to do so. — William A. Lunk. PRESERVE OR PLAYGROUND? ^ ithin the last few generations, governments in the United States and Canada have created many public parks for the purpose of preserving areas of natural beauty and of particular floral and faunal significance. These have been enthusiastically accepted by the public which, encouraged by travel publicity, now throngs to such areas in ever-increasing numbers. Indeed, in some of our smaller parks, it now seems likely that the public, by sheer weight of numbers, is threatening to destroy some of the very things the parks were intended to preserve. Consider, in microcosm, the example of Point Pelee National Park, Ontario, Canada. From the north shore of the western end of Lake Erie, Point Pelee extends southward for some nine miles in the form of a gracefully symmetrical isosceles triangle. Long sand dunes form the two sides of this attenuated triangle, and much of the interior is, or was, marsh land. About three miles from the end of the point, the marsh gives way to sandy soil able to support tall hardwoods. As the soil becomes thinner, red cedars are more prominent. Alongside the beaches and near the terminal sandbar, the vegetation becomes a tangle of shrubs and vines. The eastern sand dune is much less luxuriantly vegetated than the western one, particularly where it borders the marsh. Point Pelee has long been of interest and concern to the Wilson Ornithological Club. In the early part of this century, members of the club from both Canada and the United States made many visits to study its natural history. Their ornithological findings were published at length in The Wilson Bulletin (Taverner and Swales, 1907-1908: No. 59, pp. 37-54; No. 60, pp. 82-89; No. 61, pp. 133-153; No. 63, pp. 79-96; No. 64, pp. 107-124; Wood, 1910, 22:63-78). It was, in fact, a member of the club, the late Mr. P. A. Taverner, who, in his official capacity with the Geological Survey of Canada, drew up the original recommendation that the area be made a national park. The reasons for doing so were: (1) the point was an area of natural beauty which should be preserved; (2) as the southernmost part of the mainland of Canada, it supported a wide variety of Carolinian forms of flora and fauna not found elsewhere in Canada; (3) the large marsh on the point was one of the few water- fowl breeding-grounds of importance remaining in southern Ontario; (4) the area was a focal point on one of the most important migration highways in America, where almost incredible numbers of small migrant birds gathered in spring and fall. In due course this recommendation took effect and, in 1918, Point Pelee National Park came into being by Order-in-Council. The park so formed comprises slightly more than six square miles of the more terminal portion of the point. In deference to local opinion and established custom, the government did not acquire private property existing within the limits of the newly formed park. This concession was contrary to the original recom- mendation made by Mr. Taverner, and the problems arising from these private holdings have increased rather than diminished. 58 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 In the period between the two wars, naturalists derived immense pleasure and satis- faction from studying the unique flora and fauna of the park, and from watching the pageant of migration each spring and fall. The foresight of Mr. Taverner and his associ- ates had served to preserve all four important features of the point. In the late 1930’s, however, there were indications that the trend of civilization threat- ened to upset this satisfactory state of affairs. Improved highways and automobiles brought the park within a few hours’ drive of the increasingly crowded cities adjacent to Lake Erie, and of a host of smaller towns in southern Ontario and nearby states. Simultaneously, more and more water frontage on Lake Erie was being withdrawn from public usage. The fame of the park’s beaches and natural beauty spread rapidly. Several owners of property within the park subdivided their land for summer cottagers. The number of visitors to the park rose first to a gratifying, and then to an alarmingly high level. The physical impact of so many visitors began to make itself evident in the wooded portions of the park. In 1939. Dr. Harrison F. Lewis, Chief of the Canadian Wildlife Service, and a member of this club, played a prominent part in an on-the-spot investigation. As a result, a block of the finest part of the original forest cover was enclosed by a fence to form a wilder- ness preserve which the public was not permitted to enter. The problem was then further deferred by the Second World War which, with its attendant travel restrictions and gasoline rationing, reduced the number of visitors to the park to a small fraction of what it had been. Since the end of the war, all those forces making for a greater number of visitors have sharply intensified. This is clearly shown by the following figures for visitors in the six- month period from April to September: 1946, 74,000: 1948. 120,000: 1950. 207.000. In 1950, this meant an average of 1,100 visitors per day, over a period of six months. The peak figure for one day is in excess of 17,000 persons! These people must be accommodated in an area of six square miles. Yet even this by no means presents the true picture. Nearly five of these square miles are marsh land. The fenced preserve takes a not inconsequential portion of the remainder. Thus the public is confined chiefly to the road margins, the western sand dunes, and the terminal portion of the point. The physical impact of 200,000 people in an area of little more than a square mile must necessarily have a pronounced effect on the vegetation and wildlife of that area. How does this affect the purposes for which the park was established? The one most vitally affected concerns the migratory birds. The funnel-like shape of the point seems to have the effect of causing them to accumulate near the end of the point in immense numbers. Consequently, they require a correspondingly large amount of food and shelter. Under natural conditions these exist there. But with the advent of so many human visitors, also drawn as by a magnet to the end of the point, there have been considerable changes: the establishment of a large parking area, the removal of ground cover to form clearings, the removal of the understory beneath trees for convenience of picnickers, and some removal of trees and shrubs along the shoreline. The search for firewood has brought about the disappearance of old stumps, logs, and parts of living trees. There are even swings and a merry-go-round. The trend is thus towards clearings instead of tangles, wind-blown space beneath the trees instead of undergrowth providing food and shelter. Less and less soil-forming material accumulates where it is needed to bind the sand and deter erosion by wind and water. William W. H. Gunn arid Henry S. Mushy CONSERVATION SECTION 59 Inevitably, those who must administer the park are in a most difficult position. They are fully aware of t Ire original ideas behind the creation of the park. They also know that the paik is attracting 200,000 visitors a year, many of whom come primarily to swim, picnic, play ball, and enjoy community games. These people are not reluctant to voice their opinion that the recreational facilities are still largely inadequate, and they natural- ly receive support from among local business people to whom this influx forms a most welcome bonanza. Since it is, after all, a public park, they say, cannot more consideration be given to the comfort and requirements of the people who visit it? Should the welfare of the birds be safeguarded to the exclusion of the welfare of the people? The answer to this question would never be final, yet it is frequently asked when nature and civilization come into conflict. We believe that the welfare of both man and bird can be safeguarded by careful planning. Public recreational areas are a primary need if people are to be able to enjoy their increasing leisure time. It is important, however, not to confuse the provision of recreational areas with the preservation of natural areas. They are requirements that can well exist side by side, but neither will function as both for very long. In this instance, the migrant birds require a relatively undisturbed natural area, particularly at the end of the point. To them, Point Pelee is one very small but very important place where they gather from many regions for a brief but critical part of their lives. The number of suitable natural areas available to them as stop-over points has steadily declined. Point Pelee’s importance to migrants is thus very great in relation to its size, and every acre assumes a tremendous significance. It would be virtually impossible to set up successfully alternate facilities for them elsewhere. On the other hand, human requirements here are less complicated and more amenable to direction. Visitors who are sincerely interested in conservation and natural history should provide no problem either by their actions or by their numbers — let them be made welcome at the park by all means. The problem thus resolves itself into one of providing more adequate facilities for visitors interested primarily in other forms of recreation. Perhaps such facilities could be furnished in an attractive form to the north of the present park boundary. Failing this, we ask the National Parks Service if it would not be possible to acquire for this purpose some of the private holdings now existing within the more northern part of the park, and now being used as sites for the less attractive types of summer cottages. As a last resort, we would even be in favor of opening up the northern part of the east beach to the public. Any of these measures would assist in de-emphasizing the end of the point, much of which could then be permitted to return to natural cover. With particular regard to Point Pelee National Park, there are also certain specific things which you, as a club member, can do if you wish. First, we suggest that, if you have not already visited the park in migration time, you owe it to yourself as an ornithologist to do so, even if only as a precaution, lest change should mar its future effectiveness. Second, for those who do visit it, we suggest that you look up the superin- tendent or his assistant, and let him know that you are visiting the park as a naturalist. Naturalists form a relatively small minority of all visitors, but their interests are catered to and it is well that they should pay their respects in order that the minority may not seem smaller than it actually is. Third, if you wish to express your impressions as to the value of the park as a preserve, we feel certain that your letters will receive courteous consideration from either the National Parks Service or the Canadian Wildlife Service, in Ottawa. There are sufficient members from this club who visit the park regularly to provide an impressive cross-section of ornithologists’ viewpoints. 60 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 6+, No. 1 Finally, we make bold to hold out one further suggestion to the National Parks Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service. This involves the installation of a park naturalist. We know that park naturalists are being established in national parks in Canada as funds become available. But we suspect that, because of its small size, Point Pelee ranks far down on that list. We respectfully suggest that Point Pelee should be considered pri- marily from the viewpoint of the number of visitors it has. On that basis, the park is surely one of the most fertile spots on the continent for public education in natural history and the value of conservation. Let us have a park naturalist there soon, to demonstrate to visitors the reasons why the park was established, and to safeguard its wildlife re- sources.— William W. H. Gunn and Henry S. Mosby. GRADUATE RESEARCH IN ORNITHOLOGY The compilation of ornithological research in progress by graduate students which was published in The Wilson Bulletin in March, 1951 (vol. 63:62 — 64) was considered to be of value to enough readers that the Editor has asked us to repeat it. Inquiries were sent to some 40 American and Canadian universities where we thought there might be grad- uate students conducting their thesis investigations on ornithological topics. The list should not be considered complete, however. Despite our care, we may have failed to reach all institutions, and a number did not respond. Furthermore, some limita- tions were imposed to keep the list within bounds. Studies concerned with the manage- ment, life histories, or ecology of game birds are not included here because they are noted elsewhere. The Wildlife Review lists such theses upon completion if the titles are filed with the Editor, Neil Hotchkiss, Patuxent Research Refuge, Laurel, Maryland. In June 1951, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a list of current ornithological investiga- tions at the 15 Cooperative Wildlife Research Units. This may be secured from the Service upon request. Persons contacted were asked to list only those thesis investigations which were in progress during the fall of 1951, when the inquiry was made, and to indicate the degree for which the student was a candidate. Readers noting omissions are asked to notify us. California, University of Bowers, Dari (Ph.D.) — Correlation of color differentiation in Wren-tits with light factors in chaparral environment. Bowman. Robert I. (Ph.D.) — Skeletal and muscular anatomy and adaptions of Gala- pagos finches. Childs, Henry E. (Ph.D.) — Population studies of the Brown Towhee iPipilo fuscits) . Cogswell, Howard L. (Ph.D.) — Size of territory in chaparral birds in relation to vegetation. Dixon, Keith L. (Ph.D.) — Comparative ecology and behavior of sympatric and hybrid- izing species of titmice. Johnston, David (Ph.D.) — Gonad cycle and histology in immatures and adults of the California Gull. Norris, Robert A. (Ph.D.)— A comparative study of the biology of the nuthatches Sitta pygmaea and Sitta pusilla. Richards, Lawrence P. (Ph.D.) — Morphologic adaptions in the drepaniids of Hawaii. Cornell, University of Dilger. William C. (Ph.D.) — A study of the thrushes of the genus Hylocichla. Fischer. Richard B. (Ph.D.)— Life history of the Chimney Swift ( Chaeturo pelogica) . Aaron M. Bagg and Gustav A. Swanson GRADUATE RESEARCH 61 Goodwin, Robert E. (M.S.) — A study of the Black Tern. Parkes, Kenneth C. (Ph.D.) — Speciation in the breeding birds of New York State. Reilly, Edgar M. (Ph.D.) — The origin of North American birds, based on studies for the new A. 0. U. Check-List. Florida, University of Adams, Claude T. (M.S.) — Osteology of the Ardeidae. Baumel, Julian J. (Ph.D.) — Comparative osteology of the genus Corvus. Briggs, Marjorie A. (M.S.) — Anatomy of the Sylviidae. Burns, Bartley J. (M.S.) — Birds of Newnans Lake, Florida. Fehon, Jack H. (M.S.) — Comparative osteology of King and Clapper Rails (Rail us elegans and R. longirostris) . Fogle. Orin G. (M.S.) — Body temperature of hawks and owls. Karraker, David 0. (M.S.) — Birds of Lake Alice, Florida. Nelson, Gideon E., Jr. (Ph.D.)- — Generic relationships in the Fringillidae. Georgia, University of Jenkins, James H. (Ph.D.) — Physiological ecology of the Mourning Dove; a study of age and seasonal changes in feathers, gonad histology and lipid deposition. Johnston. David W. (M.S.) — Breeding bird populations in relation to plant succession on the Piedmont of Georgia. Kuenzler, Edward J. (M.S.) — Population density of breeding birds in relation to plot size on a Savannah River area. Major, James C. (M.S.)- — The effect of high and low fat diet on photoperiod-induced lipid deposition in the White-throated Sparrow. Ill inois, University of Calef, Robert T. (Ph.D.) — Breeding bird census and biotic community. Davis, Earle A., Jr. (Ph.D.) — Seasonal variation in the energy balance of birds as affected by photoperiod and temperature. Durham, Leonard (Ph.D.) — The relationship between populations of fishes and pred- atory birds feeding upon them. Eyster, Marshall B. (Ph.D.) — Influence of temperature and photoperiod on innate activity in birds. Goodman, Donald C. (Ph.D.) — Myological anil osteological adaptations in the feeding apparatus of ducks. James, Douglas A. (Ph.D.) — -Experimental measurement of perception and intelligence in passerine birds. Martin, Norman D. (Ph.D.) — Life history of the Screech Owl and experimental study of photoperiods in this nocturnal species. Miller, Ross J. (A. M.)— Measurement of breeding bird populations. Pearson, Robert W. (A. M.) — Breeding bird censuses of the forest edge. Robertson, William B. (Ph.D.) — Breeding bird populations in relation to succession and geographic origin. Stubbs, Robert K. (Ph.D.) —Energy balance in the Bobwhite at different temperatures and photoperiods. Van Horn, Donald H. (A. M.) — Breeding bird censuses. Weise, Charles M. (Ph.D.)— Experimental measurement of the effect of gonads on migratory impulse and fat formation in birds. Iowa State College Bliese, John C. W. (Ph.D.) — The roosting of Bronzed Crackles and their associates, and related phenomena, at Ames, Iowa. 62 THE WILSON BULLETIN March 1952 Vol. 64, No. 1 Kansas, University of Stallcup, William B. (Ph.D.) — Soft anatomy of fringillids. Michigan State College Eyer, Lester E. (Ph.D.) — Natural history of the Bronzed Crackle. Michigan, University of Batts, H. Lewis, Jr. (Ph.D.) — An ecological study of a 60-acre portion of the New- comb Tract, near Ann Arbor, Michigan, with special reference to the nesting birds. Hofslund, Pershing B. (Ph.D.) — A life-history study of the Yellow-throat ( Geothlypis trichas) . Humphrey, Philip S. (Ph.D.) — Analysis of the Mergini. Lunk. William A. (Ph.D.) — Life history of the Rough-winged Swallow ( Stelgidopteryx ruficollis) . Mengel, Robert M. (Ph.D.) — Birds of Kentucky. Owre, Oscar T. (Ph.D.) — A study of the Anhinga. Minnesota, University of Harrell. Byron E. (Ph.D.) — Ecological zoogeography of the birds of the Mexican oak- sweet gum forests. Pospichal, Leo (M.S.)- — An ecological study of the Sora ami Virginia Rails on some Minnesota marshes. Rustad, Orwin (M.A.) — A survey of the birds of Rice County, Minnesota. Northwestern University Shank. Max (Ph.D.) — Experimental study of the refractory period in the Junco and the White-throated Sparrow. Ohio State University Garrett, Lois (Ph.D.) — The life history of the Indigo Bunting. Glenny, Fred (Ph.D.) — Some significant changes in the aortic arches and their de- rivatives and their ultimate fate in birds. Good, Eugene (Ph.D.) — The life history of the Eastern Crow. Land, Hugh (M.S.)- — The seasonal shifting of behavior patterns related to territorial- ism in the Cardinal. Miskimen, Mildred (Ph.D.) — The role of weather in bird migration. Reese, Carl R. (Ph.D.) — A study of the relationship of inorganic and protein-hound blood iodine to the diurnal body temperature cycle of birds. Swinebroad, Jeff (Ph.D.) — Bird populations in a cut-over woods. Pennsylvania State College Dowling, Paul B. (M.S.) — Auditory and vocal ranges in certain birds with special regard for economic applications. Myers, Betty B. (M.S.)- — The volume of birds. Texas A. and M. College Lord, Rexford ( M.S.) —Anatomy of the avian eye. Scroggins, Joe B. (M.S.) — Birds of the Mexican State of Hidalgo. Washington State College King, James R. (M.S.) — Breeding birds of the Pullman area (Washington). Mewaldt, L. R. (Ph.D.) — Reproductive cycle of Clark’s Nutcracker. Trivette, Edward G. (M.S.) — Comparative study of the pelvic muscles of the Lari and Alcae (Charadriiformes) . Aaron M. Bagg and Gustav A. Swanson GRADUATE RESEARCH 63 West Virginia University Hundley, Marion L. (M.Sc.) — A winter distribution study of the Cardinal (Rich- mondena cardinalis cardinalis) . Wisconsin, University of Lanyon, Wesley E. (Ph.D.) — A study of the ethology of the genus Sturnella in Wis- consin. Nero, Robert (Ph.D.) — Breeding behavior and territory in the Redwing ( Agelaius phoeniceus) . Peterson, Arnold (Ph.D.) — Breeding biology and behavior of the Bank Swallow ( Riparia riparia) . Yale University Huntington, C. E. (Ph.D.) — Speciation in Quiscalus. Paynter, R. A., Jr. (Ph.D.) — Avian biology of Quintana Roo, Mexico. — Aaron M. Bagg and Gustav A. Swanson NEW LIFE MEMBER Forestry Association. The results of bis Audubon Field Notes. Oakleigh Thorne, II, was born October 12, 1928, at New York City. In 1951, be received the degree of Bachelor of Science (in Biology) from Yale University where he is at present continuing his studies toward the degree of Master of Science (in Conservation). His principal interests are in field research and in wildlife photo- graphy. Especially is he interested in the production of films to aid in conservation education. He has done population studies and has worked for the National Audubon Society at Greenwich, Connecticut. He is a member of the A. 0. U., Cooper Ornith- ological Club, National Audubon Society, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association, Linnaean Society of New York, New York Zoological Society, Federation of New York State Bird Clubs, Eastern and Western Bird Banding Associations, and the American population studies have been published in I he actual dates of publication of the four numbers of The W ilson Bulletin in 1951 were: April 19, July 2, September 26, and December 21. This number was published on March 15, 1952. 64 Editor of The Wilson Bulletin HARRISON B. TORDOFF Museum of Natural History- University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Associate Editor KEITH R. KELSON Chairman of the Illustrations Committee ROBERT M. MENGEL Suggestions to Authors Manuscripts intended for publication in The Wilson Bulletin should be neatly type- written, double-spaced, and on one side only of good quality white paper. Tables should be typed on separate sheets. Before preparing these, carefully consider whether the material is best presented in tabular form. Where the value of quantitative data can be enhanced by use of appropriate statistical methods, these should be used. Follow the A. O. U. Check-List (fourth edition) and supplements thereto insofar as scientific names of United States and Canadian birds are concerned unless a satisfactory explanation is offered for doing otherwise. Use species names (binomials) unless specimens have actually been handled and subspecifically identified. Summaries of major papers should be brief but quotable. Where fewer than five papers are cited, the citations may be included in the text. All citations in “General Notes” should be included in the text. Follow carefully the style used in this issue in listing the literature cited. Photographs for illustrations should be sharp, have good contrast, and be on glossy paper. Submit prints unmounted and attach to each a brief but adequate legend. Do not write heavily on the backs of photographs. Diagrams and line drawings should be in black ink and their lettering large enough to permit reduction. The Illustrations Committee will prepare drawings, following authors’ directions, at a charge of $1 an hour, the money to go into the color- plate fund. Authors are requested to return proof promptly. Extensive alterations in copy after the type has been set must be charged to the author. A Word to Members The Wilson Bulletin is not as large as we want it to be. It will become larger as funds for publication increase. The Club loses money, and the size of the Bulletin is cut down accordingly, each time a member fails to pay dues and is put on the ‘suspended list.’ Postage is used in notifying the publisher of this suspension. More postage is used in notifying the member and urging him to pay his dues. When he does finally pay he must be reinstated on the mailing list and there is a publisher’s charge for this service. The Bulletin will become larger if members will make a point of paying their dues promptly. Notice of Chance of Address If your address changes, notify the Club immediately. Send your complete new address to the Treasurer, Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Drive, Louisville 5, Kentucky. He in turn will notify the publisher and editor. THIRTY-THIRD ANNUAL MEETING of the WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB GATLINBURG, TENNESSEE, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, APRIL 25 - 26, 1952 Organized Field Trips on Sunday, April 27 The location of this meeting, at the gateway to the Great Smokies, offers unusual attractions to people interested in nature. Papers sessions will begin at 10:30 a.m. to allow time for informal field trips each morning. The scenic area and the availability of cabins should make this meeting especially at- tractive to family groups. For complete details, see the Bulletin for December, 1951. Members are reminded of the Club’s urgent need of spare issues of Numbers 1, 2, and 3 of the 1951 volume of the Bulletin. For further details, see Editor- ial section of this issue. June 1952 VOL. 64, No. 2 PAGES 65-128 ®ije vision Pullcttn Published by ®f)£ ^ilsion ©rnitljologtcal Club at Lawrence, Kansas | Ml)$. COMP. ZWL LIBRARY ' M 2 4 1952 HARVABtJ The Wilson Ornithological Club Founded December 3, 1888 Named after Alexander Wilson, the first American ornithologist. President — Maurice Brooks, West Virginia University, Morgantown. First Vice-President — W. J. Breckenridge, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Second Vice-President — Burt L. Monroe, Ridge Road, Anchorage, Ky. Treasurer — Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Drive, Louisville 5, Ky. Secretary — Harold F. Mayfield, 2557 Portsmouth Ave., Toledo 13, Ohio. Membership dues per calendar year are: Sustaining, $5.00; Active, $3.00. The Wilson Bulletin is sent to all members not in arrears for dues. Wilson Ornithological Club Library The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, housed in the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, was established in concurrence with the University of Michigan in 1930. Until 1947 the Library was maintained entirely by gifts and bequests of books, pamphlets, re- prints, and ornithological magazines from members and friends of The Wilson Ornith- ological Club. Now two members have generously established a fund for the purchase of new books; members and friends are invited to maintain the fund by regular contributions, thus making available to all Club members the more important new books on ornithology and related subjects. The fund will be administered by the Library Committee, which will be glad for suggestions from members on the choice of new books to be added to the Library. George J. Wallace, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, is Chairman of the Committee. The Library currently receives 65 periodicals as gifts and in exchange for The Wilson Bulletin. With the usual exception of rare books, any item in the Library may be borrowed by members of the Club and will be sent prepaid (by the University of Michigan) to any address in the United States, its possessions, or Canada. Return postage is paid by the borrower. Inquiries and requests by borrowers, as well as gifts of books, pamphlets, reprints, and magazines, should be addressed to “The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.” Contri- butions to the New Book Fund should be sent to the Treasurer, Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Dr., Louisville 5, Ky. (small sums in stamps are acceptable). A preliminary index of the Library’s holdings was printed in the September 1943 issue of The Wilson Bulletin, and each September number lists the book titles in the accessions of the current year. A brief report on recent gifts to the Library is published in every issue of the Bulletin. The Wilson Bulletin The official organ of The Wilson Ornithological Club, published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December, at Lawrence, Kansas. In the United States the subscription price is $3.00 a year, effective in 1951. Single copies 75 cents. Outside of the United States the rate is S3. 25. Single copies, 85 cents. Subscriptions, changes of address and claims for undelivered copies should be sent to the Treasurer. Most back issues of the Bulletin are available (at 50 cents each for 1950 and earlier years, 75 cents each for 1951 and subsequent years) and may be ordered from the Treasurer. All articles and communications for publication, books and publications for review should be addressed to the Editor. Exchanges should be addressed to The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Entered as second class matter at Lawrence, Kansas. Additional entry at Ann Arbor, Mich. JUN 2 4 1952 , HARVARD THE WtL80S- Liuunn ■ BULLETIN A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY Published by The Wilson Ornithological Club Vol. 64, No. 2 June 1952 Pages 65-128 CONTENTS The President’s Page W . J. Breckenridge 66 Little Penguin, Painting by Richard P. Grossenheider opp. page 67 Little Penguin Richard P. Grossenheider 67 Notes on the Life History of Amazilia fimbriata in Surinam Fr. Haver schmidt 69 A New Rail from the Pleistocene of Florida Pierce Brodkorb 80 The Displays and Calls of the American Coot Gordon W. Gullion 83 Nesting Behavior of a Purple-throated Fruit-crow Hazel R. Ellis 98 General Notes birds seen on a trip to labrador John G. Erick son 101 CLOSELY ASSOCIATED NESTS OF BRONZED CRACKLE AND ENGLISH SPARROW A. L. and R. M. Rand 105 SONGS OF THE WESTERN MEADOW LARK Loye Miller 106 the song of the alder flycatcher Francis H. Allen 107 swainson’s warbler in prospect park, KINCS COUNTY, NEW YORK Irwin M. ALperin 109 CLAY-COLORED SPARROW IN MASSACHUSETTS Oscar M. Root 110 NOTES ON NESTING TRAILL’S FLYCATCHER IN EASTERN ARKANSAS..- Brooke Meanley 111 notes on Mexican bird distribution Fred G. Evenden, Jr. 112 DUCKS KILLED DURING A STORM AT HOT SPRINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA A. W. Schorger 113 mourning dove nests in unusual site . II. Fewis Batts, Jr. 114 BREEDING STATUS OF THE WHITE-NECKED RAVEN IN KANSAS Marvin D. Schwillitlg 114 Pendulinus a prior name for nectar-adapted orioles W illiam J. Beecher 115 Editorial 116 Report of Treasurer for 1951 Leonard C. Brecher 116 Ornithological Literature 119 George Miksch Sutton, Mexican Birds, reviewed by Frank A. Pitelka; Erwin Stresemann, Die Entwicklung der Ornithologie. Von Aristoteles zum Gegenwart, reviewed by Margaret M. Nice; Ruth Thomas, Crip, Come Home, reviewed by Amelia R. Laskey; Alden H. Miller, An Analysis of the Distribution of the Birds of California, reviewed by William H. Behle; Finn Salomonsen, Gr0n- lands Fugle, reviewed by George Miksch Sutton Conservation Section: Predator Control in the Light of Recent Wildlife Management Concepts .. William H. Elder and Charles M. Kirkpatrick 126 THE PRESIDENT’S PAGE Previous W. 0. C. presidents writing in this page have pointed out the various phases of bird study that are open to advanced amateur observers and have outlined the values derived from different branches of ornithology. We might well observe that in order to continue to enjoy field observation of birds or to he in a position to contribute to ornithology, we must have birds to observe and this in turn requires good bird habitat. Would it not be wise for us to divert a little more of our energies from actual bird ob- serving to the work of preserving from destruction our birding habitats that are basic to our continued interest in birds? One hears much about large state and federal game refuges, and state and national parks, which are excellent conservers of certain species of wildlife. 1 want to call your attention more especially, however, to the small, local birding places. I am keenly conscious that around Minneapolis nearly every spring we are forced to abandon some favorite place for class field observation for a less desirable place or one much farther away. In some localities there are conservation-minded groups already organized which sponsor preservation of small natural areas. For example, the Minnesota Academy of Science sponsored the acquisition of 500-odd acres of the Cedar Creek Forest near Min- neapolis and St. Paul. The Academy later turned it over to the University of Minnesota for research use by the colleges of the state. Bird watchers, either in groups or as individ- uals, should search out these local groups and support their efforts to rescue at least a few of our local birding areas before they are taken over by taverns, manufacturing plants, housing projects, or intensive cultivation. We, of course, cannot stand in the way of legitimate housing or agricultural developments, but most communities can afford to restrict such growth in at least a few choice natural areas if the right local forces will sponsor the imposing of such restrictions. Most state departments of conservation now have large sums of Pittman-Robertson money and more recently assigned Dingle-Johnson funds specifically set apart for, among other purposes, habitat improvement for game and fish. Direct personal appeal to, and cooperation with, the directors of these projects can result in the preserving of many fine bits of local wilderness. Direct personal contact with park board members, highway department directing personnel and such officials often pays off well in preventing so-called “development" in already preserved natural areas. Each community has its own special problems in conserving choice birding spots and each has its own local organizations to which appeals might most profitably be directed. Considerable ingenuity and initiative must be exercised by persons making these efforts, but I am sure that very satisfying local preservation work can be done by small groups or even individuals if the right contacts are made. And, after all. most of us derive our major enjoyment from the local birds we can observe from day to day about our homes or on Saturday or Sunday morning hikes near home. W. J. Breckenridce LITTLE PENGUIN (Eudyptula minor) Adult and young at nest cavity on Phillip Island, Victoria, Australia. Sketched from life in watercolor by Richard P. Grossenheider, November, 1 943. ffiUS. CaMP. ZOOL LIBRARY JUN 2 4 1955 HARVARD UNIVERSITY LITTLE PENGUIN BY RICHARD P. GROSSENHEIDER The Little Penguin ( Eudyptula minor), also known as the Blue, Fairy, or Little Blue Penguin, is 14 to 18 inches long, the smallest of its singular group. During a furlough in Australia in November, 1943, I regretted greatly that I could spend only two days and nights with these birds in the rookeries on Phillip Island, Bass Strait, Victoria. Fortunately the breeding season was in full swing. Nesting sites varied, with few more than 180 yards from shore, and all above reach of high water. Some nests were scooped out under tussocks of vegetation, some in holes under or between rocks, others in sandy areas, and one was located in Stygian darkness beneath a guest house on high ground. Mesembrianthemum (pictured! formed extensive mats in rocky nesting areas and was quite slippery underfoot. A few penguins nested in burrows in the sand in an area where Short-tailed Shearwaters ( Puf finus tenuirostris ) also had nest holes. During the nesting season, from September to March, the Little Penguin occurs along the coasts from southwestern Australia to southern Queensland, and in Tasmania and New Zealand. The remainder of the year is spent in adjacent marine waters. My observations on nesting add little to the ex- tensive information compiled by L. E. Richdale (1940. Emu, 40:180-217), A. J. Campbell (1901. “Nests and eggs of Australian birds,” part 2: 1010- 1013, privately published), and others. Available dry vegetation is used for nest lining. Two roundish eggs, measuring about 2.2 Xl-6 inches, are laid. The shells are slightly coarse, with some gloss, and are white with a faint touch of green when freshly laid (Campbell, op. cit.) . The incubation period is about 39 days. Young begin coming outside the burrow at four weeks of age. The chicks pictured were probably about 28 days old, as the egg tooth is lost at that age ( Richdale, op. cit.) . Domestic duties, from nest-building to rearing the young, are shared by both parents. When one parent is in attendance at the nest, the other is usually at sea. That is, until after the young are four weeks old. when both parents are simultaneously in the water or with the young. The birds are nocturnal on land. During my stay, adults returned after dark from marine excursions, in groups of about 30 to 60. A compact gathering or two would he seen by flashlight to bob to the surface 100 yards out. Again submerging, they would reappear in the shallows and walk up on the landing beach beyond reach of the surf. There they shook off water and preened for about 10 minutes. Then one or more started up a main trail toward the nesting sites and the rest fol- lowed closely. The characteristic posture is not as upright as in other penguins. 67 68 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 Above one well-used landing spot was a rising sandy beach with la rge, scattered tussocks of grass. The main route up this slope was a well-worn penguin path five to seven feet wide, and eight to ten inches deep. What a strange experience it was to sit very still with my feet out in this aisle, and have these startlingly man-like creatures scrambling over my ankles and legs! The penguins paid little attention to the new obstacles. The penguins turned off along smaller pathways which led to their respec- tive nesting areas. They soon relieved their mates and fed offspring by re- gurgitation. Lrom then till daylight their “conversation” could be heard — a weird mingling of resonant groans, inspiration and expiration noises, sharp barking sounds, and pleasant piping notes. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, April 10. 1952 NOTES ON THE LIFE HISTORY OF AMAZILIA FIMBRIATA IN SURINAM BY FR. HAVERSCHMIDT Lesson s Emerald is a medium-sized hummingbird with a rounded tail. ^ Above it is bronze-green, darker on the head and tail, brighter and more glittering on the under surface. The bill is almost straight. Three males that I collected in Surinam weighed 4.5, 4.8, and 5.8 grams; two females weighed 4.9 and 5.8 grams. The sexes are indistinguishable in the field. The species occurs from northern Venezuela to southeastern Brazil. Peters (1945:64-65) recognizes eight races. The subspecies here reported on, A. /. fimbriata, occurs in eastern Venezuela and the three Guianas (Zimmer, 1950). In coastal Surinam, Lesson’s Emerald is the commonest hummingbird, even in the gardens in the town of Paramaribo. The Breeding Season 4 he main breeding season seems to be in July and August, at the end of the long rainy season and the beginning of the long dry season. On July 21, 1951, in my garden in Paramaribo, two birds were constructing nests on horizontal branches. Nest A was two meters above the ground in a Lagerstroemia; nest B was five meters from the ground in a tree. Nest A was deserted a few days later but a new nest (by the same female?) was under construction on August 4, only a few centimeters from the deserted nest and on the same branch. The new nest also was deserted, on August 11, after I had weighed and measured the eggs. A third nest, probably built by the same bird, was found on August 13, in a nearby tree. Nest B was deserted on July 28, when it was almost completed. On August 12, I found another nest about one meter from nest B and on the same branch. The (apparently) two females involved in nests A and B and subsequent nests mentioned above were incubating eggs on August 20. Lesson’s Emerald breeds also at the end of the year at the start of the short rainy season and in the following short dry season. I found a nest with one egg on November 3, 1951, and another nest with two young on November 17, 1948. These young left the nest on December 3. On December 30, 1949, I saw a bird building a nest, and on January 17, 1952, a hummer was incubat- ing two eggs in a nest in my garden. Further, I found a hummingbird incu- bating two eggs on March 8, 1952. The latter date is in the short dry season. In July, 1950, a nest was built in a Bougainvillea in my garden at a height of approximately 1.5 meters. This nest was just in front of one of my windows and thus offered an excellent opportunity to observe the birds during the entire breeding cycle. 69 70 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 1 saw no courtship or territorial behavior. Only one adult was seen at the nest and I assume that this bird was a female, since male hummingbirds usually do not participate in nesting activities. Nest-building On July 25, I discovered, on a horizontal branch, the foundation of the nest last mentioned. On July 27, I saw the bird shaping the small nest cup by trampling with its feet as it stood in the nest and by pressing the underside of its bill and throat on the outer wall of the nest. On this date, the shallow cup was composed of white vegetable material. There were no lichens on the outer wall. On July 28, between 15:25 and 15:42, the bird came to the nest eight times with nesting material. Again, it shaped the nest by trampling. During the trampling, the bird’s entire body seemed to tremble. As the bird turned around in the nest, it often leaned to one side, at which time the movements of the foot on the opposite side could be seen distinctly. Nest-building ceased when a rain shower started. On July 31, the first egg was laid (hour unknown) but nest-building was continued most energetically. The bird sat on the nest from 12:15 to 12:40; detailed notes taken between 13:30 and 14:30 follow. The bird worked on the nest from 13:30 to 13:31; returned at 13:35, worked until 13:38; it then sal on the nest until 13:41; it left at 13:43. Returning at 13:44, it built until 13:45 and then flew away. 1 saw then that it was picking “wool” from an unidenti- fied plant a short distance from the nest. It returned to the nest with a large piece of ‘‘wool,’’ built, went back to the same plant, and returned to the nest with more “wool.*’ At 13:47, the bird disappeared. It returned at 13:55, built until 13:57, left, returned at 13:58 for one minute, left again in one-half minute to make two quick trips for “wool.” The bird left at 14:00 but returned almost immediately and worked on the nest; it sat and trampled. The bill was open although the nest was in shade. The bird left in half a minute and was back at 14:01, built, left, returned at 14:02, and departed in half a minute. It returned at 14:03, left at 14:04, and was building again at 14:05. It then re- mained on the nest until 14:09, then left. It returned with a large piece of “wool" at 14:10 and built for one-half minute and left. It was back again at 14:11. built, and left at 14:14; it returned in one-half minute. From 14:17 to 14:24, the bird worked on the nest. It then sat as though incubating until 14:27; it trampled in the nest until 14:29. In one hour of observation, the hummingbird came to the nest 19 times with nesting material. On August 1, the nest still held only one egg. The bird sat on the nest from 9:45 to 9:53. Between 11:05 and 11:30, it spent 23 minutes sitting on the nest and was absent four times in this period. The interval from the start of nest-building to the laying of the first egg was one week. As noted, however, nest-building continued through the day of laying of the first egg (see also below, under incubation). F r. Haverschmidt AM AZ l LI A LIFE HISTORY 71 I hat hummingbirds steal material from other nests is well-known. Skutch (1931) gives some examples of the destruction of nests of Amazilia tzacall by other individuals of the same species. Fortunately, the nest I observed in 1950 did not suffer damage, although Amazilia fimbriata does steal nesting material from other birds. In December, 1949, I had under observation in my garden a nest of a flycatcher, Camptostoma obsoletum, in which two young had hatched on December 22. At 13:59 on December 30, 1 saw an Amazilia fimbriata alight at the side entrance to the domed nest, reach in and take some white “wool from the inside of the nest, and fly with this material to its own nest, which was under construction rather high in a nearby tree. The hummingbird soon returned to the flycatcher’s nest hut was chased away by one of the parent birds. A little later the hummer visited the nest for the third time and took a rather large clump of “wool from the inside. On December 31, 1 found the flycatcher nest in a deplorable state with the nest-lining much disrupted and the young gone. The Amazilia came three times in quick succession to Fic. 1. Lesson’s Emerald ( Amazilia fimbriata ) at its nest. Photographed near Para- maribo, Surinam, on September 1, 1950, by Fr. Haverschmidt. Table 1 Attendance of A. fimbriata At Nest. Letter “n” preceding time on nest indicates that adult returned at that time with nesting material. Time of Time Time Date Observation On Nest Off Nest August 2 7:18- 8:18 7:18- 7:42 7:51- 8:18 7:42- 7:51 13:25-14:25 13:25-14:25 August 3 13:15-14:15 13:18-13:33 13:15-13:18 13:33-13:35 n13:35-13:43 13:43-13:44 n13:44— 13:45 13:45-13:46 n13:46- 13:46-13:47 n13:47-13:48 13:48-13:50 n13:50-13:56 13:56-13:58 n13 :58-14:03 14:03-14:04 n14:04— 14:06 14:06-14:08 14:08-14:13 14:13-14:15 August 4 13:55-14:55 13:55-14:55 15:50-16:50 15:50-15:54 15:54-16:02 n16 :02-16 :13 16:13-16:17 n16:17-16:19 16:19-16:20 n 16:20-16:27 16:27-16:31 n16:31-16:37 n16 :42-16 :50 16:37-16:42 August 5 6:40- 7:40 6:40- 6:49 6:49- 6:55 6:55- 7:22 7:28- 7:40 7:22- 7:28 August 6 6:28- 7:28 n 6:28- 6:38 6:38- 6:45 N 6:45- 7:05 n 7:13- 7:28 7:05- 7:13 August 7 13:20-14:20 13:20-13:58 13:58-14:20 August 8 8:50- 9:50 8:50- 8:59 8:59- 9:00 n 9:00- 9:01 9:01- 9:02 N 9:02- 9:04 9:04- 9:05 N 9:05- 9:07 9:07- 9:10 N 9:10- 9:12 9:12- 9:13 N 9:13- 9:24 9:24- 9:28 9:28- 9:29 9:29- 9:31 n 9:31- 9:39 9:39- 9:41 9:41- 9:43 9:49- 9:50 9:43- 9:49 August 9 14:25-16:15 14:25-14:28 14:28-14:46 n 14:46-15:22 15:22-15:32 n 15:32-15:33 n15 :38-16 :15 15:33-15:38 August 10 14:25-15:25 14:25-14:30 14:30-14:31 n 14:31-14:33 n14:42-15:25 14:33-14:42 August 11 15:13-16:38 15:13-15:41 15:41-16:06 n16 :06-16 :10 n16:38- 16:10-16:38 August 12 15:00-16:30 15:17-15:55 n16:03-16:30 15:00-15:17 15:55-16.03 August 13 7:55- 8:55 7:55- 8:32 n 8:45- 8:55 8:32- 8:45 August 15 7:25- 8:25 7:25- 7:55 N 8:06- 8:25 7:55- 8:06 72 Fr. Haverschmidt AMAZ1LIA LIFE HISTORY 73 steal material for its own nest. On one visit the hummingbird was chased away by an adult Camptostoma. Egg Laying The eggs of Lesson’s Emerald apparently are laid on alternate days. In the nest which I observed in 1950, the first egg was laid on July 31, the second on August 2. In a nest built in my garden in 1951, the first egg was laid on August 8, and the second on August 10. In another, the first egg was laid November 3, the second November 5, and in still another nest, the first egg was laid March 6, the second March 8. The measurements of the eggs in the second nest mentioned were: 13.3X8.5, and 13X8.4 mm. These eggs weighed 0.55 and 0.50 grams, respectively. Incubation Building and maintenance of the nest studied in 1950 continued through the incubation period up to the day of hatching of the first egg. Not only did the maintenance of the inner and outer walls of the nest continue through incubation, but it was during this period especially that the adult plastered the outside of the nest with pieces of light green lichens. There were few lichens on the nest at the start of incubation. At the end, the entire outer wall was covered with lichens. The bird often returned after a break in incubation with either a piece of white “wool’ or of lichen, although it never carried more than one piece at a time. Table 1 summarizes my observations of the bird’s behavior over one-hour periods during incubation. While incubating, the bird was restless. It often altered its position when sitting. To illustrate its behavior, 1 give here an extract from my notes on one hour of observation on August 13: At 7:55, bird sits with head turned to right (in reference to me) and tramples with its feet; 8:00, tramples, turns counter-clockwise until its hack is toward me; 8:07, turns counter-clockwise and sits with head toward me; 8:25, tramples, and nibbles with hill at piece of lichen on the outside of the nest; 8:32, leaves nest, is back at 8:45, with a piece of green lichen which it fastens on the upper part of t he outer wall of the nest, sits with head toward me; 8:48, turns counter-clockwise, nibbles at wall of nest, sits with back toward me; 8:51, turns counter-clockwise until head is toward me, tramples and nibbles wall of nest while turning; 8:54, still constantly trampling and nibbling and turning counter-clockwise; 8:55, still incubating. During rain showers, the incubating bird “spread out in the nest and pointed its head obliquely upwards so that the rain fell from its plumage. When the nest was in full sunshine, at about noon, the bird stood up in the nest with its bill open and its wings pressed closely to the body. 74 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 When incubating, the bird seemed constantly alert; only once, on August 9, at 15:12, did I observe it to stretch its wings, after which it yawned several times and dozed with closed eyes. It awoke at 15:20 and stretched its wings again. Incubation started with the laying of the first egg (on July 31). The first young hatched on August 16, 16 days later. Incubation does not always start with the laying of the first egg. In a nest in my garden in March, 1952, the first egg was laid on the 6th, the second on the 8th. The adult did not start incubating until March 8. The first egg laid hatched on March 22 at 15:00, when the shells were still in the nest. The second egg hatched before 6:45 on March 24. In this case, the incubation period was 15 to 16 days. This agrees with the incubation period of Amazilia tzacatl as determined by Skutch (1931:500 and 1945:16). Muirs (1925:651) observations on Amazilia tobaci erythronotos in Trinidad give a much longer period of 21 days. It is clear from Muir’s notes that incubation did not start for some time after laying of the first egg. Rearing of the Young I did not see the second egg hatched since I was absent from my home from August 17 to August 21. Throughout the nestling stage, the two young dif- fered markedly in size and they did not leave the nest on the same day. The newly-hatched nestling is pinkish below and blackish above with a little golden-colored down on its hack and head. The mouth-lining is orange, similar in color to the pulp of the fruit of the papaya, Carica papaya. Table 2 gives the weights of the young from August 22 to fledging. Also, the weight of the first nestling on the day of hatching is given. When the young were small, the adult brooded them after feeding and during the night. Brooding was last seen on August 27, when the larger nestling was 11 days old. At this time, the adult could scarcely cover the young. When the sun shone directly on the young, the adult stood straight up in the nest with its neck stretched upward and its bill held horizontal and opened widely. The wings drooped; the feathers of the back and rump were ruffled, giving the bird a rough appearance. When brooding during rain, the adult sat with its head and hill turned obliquely upward and with its feathers tightly appressed to the body. The young sat tightly in the nest, clinging to the bottom with their claws. This was important since the branch bearing the nest was often swept to and fro in the wind. Individual nestlings were fed only when they begged by gaping; the adult invariably fed only the gaping nestling. Ligure 1 shows the characteristic posture of the young while begging. Note that the back of the head rests on Fr. Haverschmidt AM AZ l LI A LIFE HISTORY 75 Table 2 Daily Weiclit of the Young in Grams Date Nestunc 1 Nestling 2 August 16 0.4 August 22 2.55 1.7 August 23 2.58 1.96 August 24 2.75 2.3 August 25 3.13 2.67 August 26 3.1 2.66 August 27 3.28 2.91 August 28 3.52 3.1 August 29 3.8 3.53 August 30 3.98 3.8 August 31 3.97 3.7 September 1 3.92 3.65 September 2 3.9 3.75 September 3 3.8 3.7 September 4 4.0 3.65 September 5 4.0 leaves nest 3.92 September 6 3.7 September 7 4.0 leaves nest the back of the young bird during gaping. The nestlings often turned around in the nest, at times facing in the same direction, at other times in opposite directions. Table 3 gives records of feeding of the young during one-hour periods of observation. These records show that frequently the nestlings are fed more than once on each feeding trip by the adult. I first saw defecation by the young on August 23, when the larger nestling was seven days old. The young bird shuffled to the edge of the nest, pointed its anus upward, forcibly expelled a spray of colorless, fluid feces a consider- able distance from the nest, and shuffled back into the nest cup. On August 26, I observed that the feces, for the first time, although exuded in the manner described above, contained of a semi-solid black substance. Muir (1925) observed in Trinidad that an adult Amazilia tobaci cleaned the nest of feces from the start of the nestling period. I have not seen nest-cleaning by adults of Amazilia fimbriata. On August 30, when the older nestling was 14 days old. 1 first saw wing- exercising by the young. One nestling stood in the nest and buzzed its tiny wings in characteristic hummingbird manner. Thereafter wing-exercising, and also preening, became a regular pastime. I noted also that frequently the young hummingbirds scratched their heads with their feet. They did this 76 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 Table 3 Feeding of the Young Date Time Number of Feeding Visits Portions Fed To: Nestling 1 Nestling 2 August 22 15:10-16:10 1 1 0 August 23 6:30- 7:30 2 3 1 14:18-16:18 7 5 3 5 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 August 24 6:13- 7:13 2 2 2 3 1 14:35-15:35 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 August 25 7:20- 8:20 2 3 2 5 4 14:40-15:40 2 3 3 3 0 August 26 16:10-17:10 2 3 2 3 2 August 27 11:00-13:00 6 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 August 28 14:40-15:40 1 4 0 August 29 15:16-16:16 2 2 2 2 1 August 30 15:25-16:25 2 3 0 1 1 September 1 15:00-16:00 1 2 2 September 2 15:25-16:25 2 1 1 1 0 September 3 13:15-14:15 2 3 1 2 2 September 4 14:30-15:30 1 1 1 September 5, nestling 1 leaves nest at about 15:00. September 7, nestling 2 leaves nest at about 13:00. Fr. H averse h midt AMAZ1LIA LIFE HISTORY l 7 "over the wing, ’ as I have observed to be the case in the hummingbirds Anthracothorax nigricollis and A. viridigula. In a half hour period on September 4, one day before the oldest young left the nest, I made the follow- ing observations relative to exercising. At 14:33 older nestling stands in the nest and buzzes with its wings, as does the other one while sitting; 14:35, older nestling again wing-exercising then both young preening; 14:37, wing-exercising of smaller young while standing in the nest; 14:39, older nestling scratches its head with its foot over its wdng; 14:50, smaller nestling does same; 14:52, both young busily buzzing with their wings after having been fed by the parent, older young standing on the wall of the nest; 14:59, older nestling wing-exercising; 15:04, smaller young does the same, then scratches its head. Fig. 2. Nineteen-day-old nestling of Amazilia fimbriata, one day before leaving the nest. Photographed near Paramaribo, Surinam, on September 4, 1950, by Fr. Haverschmidt. On September 4, I photographed the older nestling (fig. 2). When 1 held it, it buzzed vertically upward from my hand. When the young hummers leave the nest they are duller in color than the adults, especially on the underparts, which are brownish instead of bright green. The bill of the young at this time is strikingly shorter than in the adults (compare figs. 1 and 2). The older young left the nest on September 5, at approximately 15:00. I found it sitting at a height of three meters on a branch of a coffee shrub about ten meters from the nest. The adult fed the fledged young in the shrub after first feeding the young in the nest. At 15:30, the nestling had left the shrub 78 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 and was perched on a wire near the house at a height of six meters. Here it spent the night and was still on the wire at 8:00 the next morning. I he other nestling left the nest at about 13:00 on September 7, when I found it sitting on the same wire. On September 10, I again saw the adult feeding one young near the nesting site. On October 10, I watched a young Lesson’s Emerald as it was fed by an adult near the nest, but I am not sure that this young was from the brood described above. The young, according to my records, leave the nest only when they can fly well. The nestling period in the brood that I studied was about 20 days. Bathing and Sunning Lesson’s Emeralds bathe regularly. I observed two general methods of bathing, the most common of which is a shower-bath in the rain, a type of bathing indulged in by many other birds in this region. During a rain shower, the hummer perches in an exposed spot with its tail widely spread and its body feathers ruffled. The neck and head are held vertically. While perched in the rain, the bird flaps its wings, opens and shuts its bill, preens, scratches (over the wing), waggles its tail, and frequently wipes its bill on its perch. The second method of bathing I have called the “rubbing bath." This I first saw on September 14, 1946, when, during a heavy rain-shower, a Lesson s Emerald in flight rubbed its breast and belly over the drenched foliage of a Terminalia catappa, the leaves of which are large and leathery. The bird repeated the rubbing again and again until its underparts were thoroughly wet. While sunning, the hummers sit facing away from the sun, wings closed, but with the body feathers ruffled and the primaries spread. Eood Amazilia fimbriata feeds from flowers not only while hovering but also while perched. In addition to nectar-feeding, I have twice seen Amazilia apparently taking sand. On December 11, 1951, and again on January 13, 1952, I saw a hummer hovering only a few centimeters over a patch of fine dry sand near my house in Paramaribo. The bird touched the ground a few times with its bill. Although I could not actually see the bird pick up sand, it seemingly was doing so. I could find no insects on the sandy patch. Fighting Amazilia fimbriata, like other hummingbirds, is quarrelsome with birds venturing near its nest. On July 23, 1951, a juvenile kite, Milvago chimachi- ma, alighted on a branch near a hummer’s nest in my garden. Immediately, the hummingbird began diving at the large hawk; the latter ducked its head F r. Haverschmidt AMAZIL1A LIFE HISTORY 79 at each dive and it soon departed. On September 25, 1950, I saw an adult A. fimbriata hotly pursuing a Buteo magnirostris through my garden. Small birds such as thrushes ( T urdus leucomelas ) usually immediately retreat from an attack by hummers. Summary The foundation of a nest of Lesson’s Emerald was found on July 25, 1950. Nest-building lasted for about a week, except that maintenance and plastering of the nest with lichens continued until the first egg hatched. Incubation began with the laying of the first egg on July 31. The second egg was laid on August 2. The incubation period was approximately 16 days. The adult made one to four feeding trips per hour, but fed several portions at each trip. The young left the nest at 20 days; at this age they could fly well. Literature Cited Muir, A. 1925 The nesting of the Emerald Hummingbird ( Saucerottia tobaci erythronota ) in Trinidad. Ibis, 648 654. Peters, J. L. 1945 Check-list of birds of the world. Volume 5. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge. Skutch, A. 1931 The life-history of Rieffer’s Hummingbird ( Amazilia tzacatl tzacatl ) in Panama and Honduras. Auk, 48:481-500. 1945 Incubation and nestling periods of Central American birds. Auk, 62:8-37. Zimmer, J. T. 1950 Studies of Peruvian birds. No. 59. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N ovitates. No. 1475. P. O. Box 644, Paramaribo, Surinam, Dutch Guiana, March 23, 1952 A NEW RAIL FROM THE PLEISTOCENE OF FLORIDA BY PIERCE BRODKORB AMONG recently collected bird material from Pleistocene deposits in ^ Florida are three humeri of a tiny rail of the genus Laterallus. The modern species of this genus are rare in collections, and this has been a handi- cap in determining the affinities of the fossil form. Fortunately this genus does not exhibit the marked sexual dimorphism in size shown by some other rails. Skeletal material of recent species of Laterallus was examined through the kindness of the curators of the Chicago Natural History Museum, United States National Museum, and the University of California Museum of Verte- brate Zoology. The drawings (Fig. 1) were made by Miss Esther Coogle. Laterallus guti, new species Type. — Nearly complete left humerus; collection of Pierce Brodkorb; Pleistocene at Dixie Lime Products Company quarry, one mile south of Red- dick, Marion County, Florida; collected by H. James Gut, June 4, 1951. Description. — Bone agreeing in general conformity with that of other species of Laterallus. Head of humerus rounded in outline, with slight indi- cation of external tubercle; anconal surface relatively flat, with no pneumatic foramen; capital groove broad and deep and set at an angle of about 45 degrees to the shaft; proximal margin of hone faintly scalloped in region of capital groove; internal tuberosity broken off in type, hut its internal margin not abruptly deflected from head; deltoid crest partly broken in type, but rising abruptly from palmar surface; ligamental furrow present but rather shallow; bicipital furrow obscure; shaft robust, bent inward at a slight angle above middle, and with a ridge along midline of proximal portion of anconal surface; a slight ectepicondylar prominence; internal condyle nearly the same length as entepicondyle, and both extended beyond external condyle; brachial depression pronounced and undivided. Color pale brownish. Comparisons. — Of the species of Laterallus available for comparison, the fossil most closely resembles L. jamaicensis (Gmelin) of North America. The humerus of the fossil is only slightly longer than that of L. jamaicensis but is decidedly more robust. The capital groove is deeper, with its margin slightly more produced and less sinuate. The internal tuberosity is larger and has more nearly flat articular surface. The shaft is bent more strongly inward. The ectepicondylar prominence is larger and is concave distally where its lateral margin meets the external condyle. 1 he internal condyle is larger in L. guti. The external distal border of the brachial depression is more raised. The olecranal fossa is deeper. 80 Pierce Brodkorb PLEISTOCENE RAIL 81 The fossil differs from L. ruber (Sclater and Salvin) of Middle America in lesser breadth of the distal end, although the width of the shaft is the same. The entepicondyle is not produced so far beyond the internal condyle in the fossil, and the internal condyle is smaller. The brachial depression is notice- tic. 1. Humerus of Lateral! us. Left and third from left, L. guti. Second from left and right, L. jamaicensis. About three times natural size. ably shallower than in L. ruber. The proximal end of the humerus of L. ruber is unfortunately not available. From L. viridis (Muller) of South America, the fossil differs in having a decidedly smaller humerus in all measurements. The caput humeri of L. guti is more attenuate and less broad. T he articular surface of the internal tuber- osity is more nearly flat in the fossil, and there is less sinuation at the proximal border of the capital groove. The entepicondyle of the fossil is less 82 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 produced. In L. viridis the brachial depression is divided diagonally by a ridge. Lrom L. leucopyrrhus (Vieillot) of South America, the fossil differs in being smaller throughout. Lurther, the external tuberosity is much less pro- nounced, the external tricipital groove is shallower, the ectepicondylar prom- inence is larger, and the entepicondyle is not extended so far beyond the internal condyle. I have also examined a partial skeleton of the Central and South American L. melanophaius (Vieillot). The humerus was not included, but the other skeletal elements indicate a bird nearly as large as L. viridis. Referred material.- — In addition to the type, two fragmentary humeri are available from the same locality. I collected the proximal portion of a right humerus on June 4 and the distal portion of a right humerus on June 24. At least two, and probably three, individuals are represented by the three specimens. Measurements. — Measurements in millimeters of the fossil species and those of allied species are given below. Lor each measurement that of the type of L. guti is given first. Length of humerus____ 1 guti 24.2 jama- icensis 23.5 ruber viridis 28.2 leucopyr- rhus Width of proximal end 4.5, 4.8 4.0 5.7 5.6 Width of distal end ..... 3.3, 3.3 3.1 4.2 4.2 4.1 Width of shaft 1.5, 1.5, 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.7 Department of Biology, University of Llorida, Gainesville, Llorida, Januaky 2, 1952 THE DISPLAYS AND CALLS OF THE AMERICAN COOT1 BY GORDON W. GULLION2 Displays and calls are of paramount importance in the social behavior of birds. A call or the exposure of some bright plumage spot may serve as a social releaser to communicate one bird’s attitude or intentions to other birds, whether aggressive or friendly. This being the case, it seemed desirable to investigate in some detail the displays and calls of the American Coot ( Fulica americana ) in order to understand properly the breeding behavior of this species. This paper presents a segment of thesis research conducted at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, at Berkeley, on coot breeding behavior. Some other aspects have been published or are in press (Gullion, 1950b, 1951a, 1951b, 1952). The greater part of this study was made in the San Francisco Bay area of California, with two lakes figuring prominently — Lake Temescal, a 12.0 acre lake at the western base of the Berkeley Hills in Oakland, Alameda County, and Jewel Lake, a 2.7 acre pond in Tilden Regional Park, Contra Costa County. Display Mechanisms The American Coot is highly territorial in behavior, perhaps more so than most other birds, and must constantly fend off the invasion threats of other coots. Among resident birds this is true even during the winter season. Dis- plays and calls constitute the aggressive behavior which serves to establish and maintain territorial security. Displays by the coot consist of five elements used in various combinations. These elements are as follows: Body posture. — Three different postures constitute the bases for coot dis- plays. The normal posture with head and neck erect is the basis for amiable displays. But a coot with its head depressed is in a posture characteristic of any one of the several aggressive displays. The third posture, that of a bowed head, constitutes the basic form of courtship and mating displays. Under tail coverts. — Several of the American Coot's displays are based up- on the use of the white under tail coverts as “social releasers’' (c/. Tinbergen, 1948). These coverts may be expanded to present an extensive area of white or they may remain in the inconspicuous normal condition presenting only a small patch of white. The position of the tail, whether normal, depressed, or 1 A contribution of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley.. 2 Wildlife Technician, Nevada State Fish and Game Commission. 83 84 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 raised, increases the usefulness of these coverts by further increasing or de- creasing the amount of white visible. Wing arching. — This element is important in most displays. It often is the difference between a certain body posture indicating either an anti-social or a definitely sociable attitude. In the typical wing arch, the wings are held stiffly erect and apart from the body (see figs. ID. IE, 2C and 2D). Whether or not the white tips on the secondaries play a part in the recognition of this arch is not known. The ruff. — In all aggressive displays the neck feathers are erected to form a ruff (see fig. 2 A) . The effect is one of increased neck size, forming a black background for the conspicuous red and white frontal shield. It was found that males are capable of forming a much larger ruff than their mates and when a pair is displaying together, as in nest defense, the sexes can be distinguished on this basis. With one exception, the ruff is not erected in friendly or courtship displays. F rontal shield. — This structure, a fleshy protuberance extending dorso- posteriorly onto the forehead from the upper mandible, plays an important role in the social life of the coot. Since a paper devoted to a study of this structure is in print (Gullion, 1951b), further consideration of it will not be given here. Although calls and displays are used to supplement one another in the field, for the sake of clarity they will be discussed separately. Displays American Coots combine the five elements discussed above to form fourteen distinct displays in addition to the normal position. Apparently each display has a certain social significance. Live are intra-specific aggressive displays and two are inter-specific aggressive displays concerned with territorialism; five more are involved in courtship; one is a general warning display; and one, a display given by young begging food from adults. Normal posture. — This is the posture held by a coot when foraging un- disturbed (see fig. 1A). The head is erect, the tail is held horizontally with the under tail coverts inconspicuous. The wings are held close to the body. As the coot swims in an unhurried manner, its head bobs, applying the principle of parallax to its feeding (cf. Grinnell, 1921). Head-bobbing of the coot is not necessarily in unison with the movements of the feet. When the bird is feeding on plant material this head movement is fairly slow, but it is quickened when insects are being hunted on the water’s surface. Patrolling.- — Seemingly, whenever a coot has reason to believe some ag- gressive action may be necessary against other coots approaching its territory, Gordon W. Gullion DISPLAY AND CALLS OF COOT 85 A. NORMAL POSTURE G. BOWING AND NIBBLING B. PATROLLING H. BRACING C. CHARGING 0 at*. D. PAIRED DISPLAY E. SWANNING J. SPLATTERING A F. WARNING K. BEGGING Fic. 1. Display postures of the American Coot. it pulls its head down and slightly forward, the neck feathers are erected to form the ruff, the tail is slightly depressed and a patrol against invasion com- mences (see figs. IB and 2A ) . A bird may proceed to further aggressive display or retire to the normal 86 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 posture from this position. Other coots, but not other species (except the Ruddy Duck, Oxyura jamaicensis) , respect this display and often no further display is necessary to defend territory intra-specifically. I he patrol is seldom accompanied by call notes. Charging. — If an intruder enters a territory before the resident bird can go into patrol the defender generally moves toward the invader in a charge (see figs. 1C and 2B). In this display the neck is extended forward on a horizontal plane, the tail and wings are held in the normal position, but the ruff is erected and the frontal shield is prominent. The bird swims rapidly leaving a notice- able wake. All species of ducks and small geese occurring in the San Lrancisco Bay area react to this display and other coots often take evasive action while still 100 feet from the charging bird. Splattering. — This display is a rapid charge. The bird retains essentially the same head posture as in the charge while it runs over the water with flap- ping wings (see fig. 1J). The attacked bird very often flees in like manner, but holds its head erect rather than on a nearly horizontal plane (see fig. 2L). Splattering normally begins as a charge, the bird gradually increasing its speed, but occasionally, if the circumstances require it, a splatter may com- mence directly from the normal posture. This form of attack may be pressed against other species of waterfowl as well as coots and because of the intensity of the attack it generally succeeds in its purpose. Lrequently a fleeing coot when closely pursued will dive to escape its attacker. It should be pointed out that splattering is used also as a means of escaping danger when flight is not necessary. It then is not a display and the head is not held at the low angle of the display (see fig. 2L ) . Paired display. — This display is used entirely in intra-specific territorial activity, and always occurs in connection with strife and usually along ter- ritorial borders. This display is normally the final action of aggression and regularly follows charging and splattering. In paired display the head is held low, the wings are arched high above the back, often with tips crossing, and the tail is held vertically, or even tilted over the back, bringing the expanded white under tail coverts into prominence (see fig. ID). The ruff is erected and the frontal shield is prominent. It must involve two or more coots if it is to be more than a fleeting display, with the birds presenting their tails to one another as they pivot close together (see fig. 2C). Non-territorial birds engage in this display infrequently but the border disputes between territorial birds often involve repeated displays last- ing several minutes at a time. As many as seven coots have been seen in mutual display. Generally like sexes reciprocate in display, but frequently a Gordon W. Gullion DISPLAY AND CALLS OF COOT 87 pair will display against a single bird. This latter incident occurs most fre- quently when a chase carries the pursuing bird into the pursued bird’s ter- ritory. Fig. 2. A. A coot patrolling — note the ruff; B. A coot charging; C. A paired display with two coots pivoting tail to tail; D. A coot swanning; E. A male coot churning while his mate swans nearby; F. A coot splattering to escape its pursuer. Paired display often is interspersed with fighting and nearly always follows a fight; it in turn is generally followed by “displacement feeding and preen- ing” (Armstrong, 1947:110), the separated birds preening and diving for food which is seldom eaten but is dabbled nervously. During displacement activity the opposing birds slowly work apart, each moving into its own home area. 88 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 Paired display is not sexual behavior as believed by many authors ( cf . Wet- more, 1920:395; Dawson, 1923:1559; Townsend, 1925:6; Walker, 1932:322 and Breckenridge in Roberts, 1932:457). Fighting. — The climax of aggressive action is actual combat. In coots this is vicious and has been known to result in the death of the vanquished bird (Henshaw, 1918). In most disputes between neighboring pairs the fighting is interspersed with paired display, the latter act consuming much the greater part of the effort. Previous display does not always occur before fighting starts, especially if the issue is territory and the intruding bird is determined to secure it. When birds are about evenly matched in determination, the fight starts with both birds sitting on their tails, propped against their wings on the water. Their adversary is grasped by the breast with the long claws of one foot, leaving the other foot free to slap the opponent. Lrequent quick jabs with the bill are made to knock the opposing bird off balance hut usually result only in a bill full of feathers. As the fight progresses the weaker bird is slowly forced onto its back. If possible, the stronger bird will hold the loser under water, leisurely plucking out feathers. The vanquished coot often escapes by swim- ming long distances under water. Strange coots caught in territorial waters without a disposition to fight are frequently subjected to sub-surface mauling. Defending birds will hit other coots directly from flight without landing first and have been seen diving after an intruder directly from full flight. Underwater fighting certainly occurs but what form it takes is not known. Infrequently as many as four birds may be engaged in one fight. The typical fighting posture has been observed in coots only four days old. Swarming. — This is distinctly an inter-specific display given against such diverse objects as thrown stones, fishing plugs, turtles, snakes, ducks, Black Phoebes ( Sayornis nigricans) , dogs, and man. It seems to be employed al- most exclusively in defense of nests or young. Unlike paired display, the wings play a dominant role in swanning, being not only arched over the back, but also expanded laterally with the primaries touching the water. The tail is not lifted to expose the under tail coverts but the head is extended as in paired display, the ruff is erected and the frontal shield is prominent (see fig IE). The whole effect makes a coot appear at least twice its normal size (see fig. 2D). Occasionally during times of extreme anxiety a bird defending a nest will lapse into a momentary paired display. Churning. — This display is intimately related to the four combative dis- plays just described. Bent (1926:364) gives the best description of this activity when he says, “it often ‘backs water' vigorously with both feet, raising Gordon W. Gullion DISPLAY AND CALLS OF COOT 89 the body backwards out of the water” (see fig. 2E). The feet are used alter- nately in this action. Chu rning is primarily a displacement activity arising from two different circumstances. Most frequently it occurs when swanning or some other effort fails in the defense of the nest or young. Churning occurs also when success in aggressive action is attained so rapidly that the bird seems to be left with a surplus of aroused energy and ‘lets off steam' by this action. W arning. — Whereas the preceding displays are anti-social, the warning display is sociable, warning other coots of danger. An alarmed bird lifts its tail exhibiting the white under tail coverts but not expanding them (see fig. IF). This seems to be the only general alarm signal given by coots. It is seen when a low-flying hawk, vulture, or airplane is overhead, when a dog, cat, or man suddenly appears close by on the shore, or when the coot is some distance away from, but in the general line of attack of, a charging coot. It probably is given as a result of any general alarm and it may be momentary, or repeated at frequent intervals if conditions change rapidly, or it may be maintained continuously if the cause for alarm persists. There is no indication that other species respond to this display. Billing, bowing and nibbling. — These displays, though separate entities, are so closely related that it seems best to treat them together. Billing, as the name implies, consists of two birds touching bills upon meet- ing. It apparently is used between potential mates during pair formation and for recognition of young by parents. Bowing follows billing, the submissive bird going into a bow (see fig. 1G, left bird) and presenting its head and neck to the nibbling activities of the dominant bird. The nibbling bird works its bill through the feathers of the other bird, often burying its entire bill among the breast and back feathers. Since these actions are important in pair formation and courtship they will be discussed in detail in a later paper (see also Gullion, 1950a : 74 — 75) . Bracing. — The brace is not completely understood. It was observed on relatively few occasions and each time it immediately followed a meeting after a period of separation. It has been observed only among paired coots; both sexes participating in it. Bracing consists of a swimming bird raising the fore- part of its body high in the water with the ruff erected and the head stiffly erect (see fig. 1H ) . It occurs when one bird meets its mate returning to the nesting area, both birds approaching in a charge, dipping their bills as they pass and then bracing. Bracing also occurs, and more frequently, during change in incuba- tion. Then the female braces and cackles as the male, often giving a high “kuk-kuk-kuk-kuk-kuk,” closely pursues her. I am not sure, however, that the 90 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 brace executed on this occasion is exactly comparable with that display per- formed when two charging birds of the same pair meet. The brace may be given also by the female as she precedes the male to a platform when copula- tion is imminent. Arching. — This display consists of three parts. After the pair is formed and territory secured, the female commences displaying her under tail coverts when swimming immediately ahead of her mate. This display, the swimming arch, is much like paired display but the wings are not arched nor is the ruff erected. It is only given by the female and she often leads the male towards the display platform while giving it. At first this is an infrequent and momen- tary display but later in the season it becomes more frequent and persistent. The display given on a platform when copulation is not imminent is the standing arch. It is performed by the female standing with her head lowered, her tail elevated and the white under tail coverts expanded. She gives a low “ tuk ” or “punt'' at about two-second intervals and often slaps the platform with one foot. The final and climactic display in the long series of courtship displays is the squat arch (see fig. II) . This is given by the female on the platform when the male is nearby and copulation appears imminent. The female squats, with her tail erect (as in the standing arch), her head lowered (even under water), and she may call as in the standing arch. Although arching seems to be primarily a female display one captive male was observed in a squat arch. On several occasions males were seen standing on display platforms in an upright position and giving a steadily-repeated “ puhk .” Generally they preened and often slapped the platform with one foot while their mates swam nearby. Begging. — This display is first given by young coots when they are a few hours old and they continue to give it as long as their parents react favorably to it. It is a simple display, the hind quarters being elevated, the neck de- pressed and the head turned up at a sharp angle (see fig. IK). The wings are outspread and generally quiver. Begging does not seem to be a forerunner of any adult display. The role of the sexes.- Males take the lead in aggressive displays; normally they attack intruding males first and then return to drive out any invading females. Curiously, this is true even when the attack is pressed against a pair of Mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos) or Ruddy Ducks. However, if the male coot is not available when the territory of a pair is invaded, the female will assume aggressive displays, attacking females first and males second. The courtship displays are often unisexual as described, while the alarm display may be given by either sex. Gordon W. Gullion DISPLAY AND CALLS OF COOT 91 Call Notes 1 he calls of coots are not of musical quality, the calls being variously de- scribed as growls, cackles, and squawks. Calls are important in the life of coots in warning other birds of territorial rights or mutual dangers, in locat- ing and recognizing mates and young, and in defending nests or brooding sites. Attempts to transcribe bird calls into phonetic symbols are never en- tirely successful, since various persons may interpret the same sounds dif- ferently. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to record and interpret the principal calls of coots in my study areas. The several types of calls fall into several categories as described in the following paragraphs. Recognition notes. — The notes exchanged between birds of a pair or be- tween parents and young are simple and rather uniform throughout the popu- lation. Between adults, the male gives a high, clear “ puhk ” and the female replies with a low, nasal “punk.” When calling or dealing with young the male gives a clear “puht” while the female gives a nasal “punt.” Courtship notes. — In courtship the vocal efforts of the male are limited to a cough, given while chasing the female in precopulatory activity. In some males this cough becomes a sharp “ perk ” or “kerk" repeated at very close intervals. If, during a chase, the female is not amenable to mating activity, she faces the male and gives a saucy, cackling “ tack-tack , tack-tack which halts the affair. When the female is displaying on a platform, calling for the male to join her, she gives a note that varies from a low, nasal “punt, punt” or “put, put” to a sharp, clear “tuk, tuk.’ Alarm notes.- — The normal alarm note for a disturbed male is a “puhlk” while the female gives a “poonk.” Whereas the recognition notes involve no vigorous movement, alarm notes are given with a vigorous forward thrust of the head. In time of stress the young are sent to shelter by an explosive “chuck” or “ chook ” note of the male or the quick nasal “punt-unt” of the female. When the nest is approached by an intruder or young cannot be moved away rapidly enough, both parents may “growl " at the intruder, sounding much like a dog growling over a bone. This is normally accompanied by swanning and churning. Perturbation notes. — During times of high nervous tension, as when ter- ritory-seeking pairs are trying to seize existing defended areas, calls are given which are not heard at other times. These calls are given by the defending birds as they retire from repulsing one onslaught and nervously await the next. The call given by the male is a plaintive, crowing “puhk-cowali or “pow-ur while the female gives a simpler “ cooah A male at Jewel Lake in 1950, following the unexplained disappearance of 92 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 his mate, wandered around the pond several days giving a wailing '‘cow-ivah before disappearing himself. Warning notes. — Vocal efforts are used extensively in the protection of nesting areas and to warn birds when they are violating or about to violate another coot’s territory. These calls are highly variable, but in the male they may be described as a quick “puhk-ut,” “ puhk-uhk ,” Upuhk-uk “ puhk-kuk ” or “ pit-tuck .” The female variations are “ punk-unk ,” “ punk-uh ,” “punk-unk- uh ” and “ punk-tunk-tunk all nasal in tone. Intimidation notes. — A paired coot often moves to the limits of his ter- ritory and crows. This is seemingly a challenge to other males to violate his territory. The crow is basically three-parted, loud, and not often repeated. It may be transcribed as a “ puhk-kuh-kuk ,” “ puh-koo-oot “ kuh-kuh-kuk” or “ cook-uh-ook .” Lrequently a male from an adjoining territory will accept the challenge and move quietly but quickly to engage the crowing male in battle. Lemales give a comparable call, which is a hollow crowing sound that varies from “ kaw-pow ” and “kah-kow ” to “ kra-kow .” This is seldom a challenge; at least, a fight has never been seen to ensue and usually the call is given following crowing by a male elsewhere on the lake. Sexual dimorphism in vocal apparatus. — Since the morphological basis of sexual differences in voice indicated above is the subject of a previous paper (Gullion, 1950b), it will not be discussed further here. Discussion Perhaps the displays of the American Coot have been less understood than any other part of the behavior of this species. The patrol activity seems to have been entirely overlooked by earlier authors. Wetmore (1920:395) de- scribes bracing, Bent (1926:364) describes swanning, and Dawson (1923:1557 and 1560 ) describes the alarm signal and churning. Nearly everyone who has written about the coot describes splattering. The same may be said for the paired display, but invariably it has been wrongly associated with courtship. Wetmore (1920:395) discusses billing, while Breckenridge (in Roberts, 1932: 457) and Sooter (1941:38) both correctly describe arching as a precopulatory display on a platform. Sooter also accurately describes the swimming arch in Iowa coots. Displays and calls of other Rallidae. — Nylund (1945:108) shows four dis- plays of the Black Coot ( Fulica atra) , illustrating (1) paired display, (2 ) the male following his mate in precopulatory display, (3) a young coot beg- ging, and (4) a begging young too old to stimulate parental feeding being attacked by a parent. These illustrations appear to be identical with the cor- Gordon W. Gullion DISPLAY AND CALLS OF COOT 93 responding displays of the American Coot. Later, in his English summary (p. 121), Nylund states: “The coots show no marked display behavior,” a state- ment which hardly agrees with his earlier discussion or the findings of others studying the Black Coot. Witherby et al. (1947:2051 describe paired display, bowing, and nibbling in the Black Coot while Cramp (1947) describes splattering in addition to these other three displays. A swimming arch immediately preceding copula- tion in the Black Coot was reported by Hohn (1949:209). Tinbergen and Moynham (1952:21), discussing some displays by birds, state: “A male Coot, for instance, threatens other Coots by facing them with the head pointing forward and downward. This movement displays the white frontal plate . . ..” They also describe a “friendly gesture," which may correspond to the patrol, in which the conspicuous white bill and frontal shield are hidden. Wetmore (1926:121) describes fighting in the White-winged Coot ( Fulica leucoptera) in Argentina which is like fighting of the American Coot, while Sclater and Hudson (1889:158) describe a similar alarm display in the White-winged Coot. The display of the Red-gartered Coot (Fulica armillata ) attributed by Wetmore (1926:118) to mating, sounds much like paired dis- play since it involved wing arching and the display of the white under tail coverts. He may, however, be describing the swimming arch. This general use of conspicuous under tail coverts by the members of the genus Fulica, and perhaps also in the several genera of gallinules, is of interest. The question arises as to the value derived by the exhibition of under tail coverts in the Black Coot and Red-knobhed Coot ( Fulica cristata) when those coverts are as dark as the rest of the bird ( Dresser, 1903 ) . Still, the Black Coot, at least, gives many of the same displays as the white-coverted American Coot. The South American species of Fulica all possess the white coverts with the black median area as in the American Coot (c/. Sharpe, 1894:209-225 ). The displays of the Black Gallinule ( Gallinula chloropus ) seem to be re- markably similar to those of the American Coot. The platform activity of the Black Gallinule or Water-Hen as described and figured by Howard (1940:40) is identical with the arching of the American Coot. In fact, figures 1 and 2 of the plate facing page 40 (Howard, op. cit.) could as well refer to the American Coot as the Water-Hen, at least insofar as the posture is concerned. Howard (op. cit.) further describes bowing and nibbling in the gallinule similar to that occurring in the American Coot. Miller (1946:14) describes churning and swanning in the Black Gallinule which closely resem- bles the corresponding display of the coot (he calls it injury-feigning, but is probably incorrect in doing so). Fighting in the Black Gallinule, as described by Witherby et al. (1947:199), is like that of the coot. Pennock (in Bent, 1926: 347 ) describes wing arching and the exposing of conspicuous white tail 94 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 coverts in this gallinule, believing it to be courtship activity, and Morley (1936:121) describes Black Gallinules charging in a manner similar to that of an American Coot. Other rallids possess coot-like displays to varying degrees. The Corn-Crake ( Crex crex ) erects its tail feathers in a fan-shaped manner in both courting and territorial displays (Witherby et al., 1947:176) while the Water-Cock ( Gallicrex cinerea) raises its tail when alarmed ( Deignan, 1945:107), much as the coot does. In fact, the practice of raising the tail when alarmed seems to be general among the Rallidae. Deignan {op. ci/.:110) also describes the use of white under tail coverts in the courtship display of the Blue Reed-Hen ( Porphyrio poliocephalus) . The Virginia Rail ( Rallus limicola ) runs around the vicinity of its disturbed nest “with drooping wings” (Walkinshaw, 1937: 473). thus resembling the swanning of the coot. Nibbling occurs in the Water- Rail. Rallus aquaticus (Witherby et al., 1947:194). Little comparison can be made between the calls of the various rails, especially as transcribed by a number of different persons. However, it is worth noting that the sexual dimorphism found in the voice of the American Coot is also known in both the Black Coot and Black Gallinule, and perhaps occurs in other species. Riippell (1933) found a sexual difference in the voice and the syrinx in the Black Coot and noted a difference in the voices of the sexes in the Black Gallinule, but did not examine the syrinx of the latter species. Later, Grimeyer (1943) stated that the only reliable field differentia- tion between sexes in the Black Coot is based upon voice characters. Injury-feigning. — The instinct that is so common among waterfowl and shore-birds to feign injury does not seem to exist in the coot. Not once in the several hundred times I have chased coots off nests or away from young have I seen any indication of injury-feigning. Nor have any references to this behavior in the genus Fulica been found in the literature. Perhaps this behavior is rare in the family Rallidae since the only unquestionable instances recorded are for the genus Rallus. Grinnell et al. (1918:287) and Kozicky and Schmidt (1949:359) report injury-feigning in the Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris ) and Witherby et al. (1947:194) report the same behavior in the closely related Water-Rail. Summary and Conclusions The strict territorialism exhibited by the American Coot is associated with an array of displays and calls. All anti-social displays have certain features in common, i.e., the neck ruff and the prominent shield. These two features are supplemented by wing arching and the exposure of conspicuous white under tail coverts when more aggressive displays are required. The response of other coots varies with their own internal state. If the Cordon W. Cullion DISPLAY AND CALLS OF COOT 95 shield of an intruder is flat and its pugnacity at a low ebb, a call or at most a moderate display by the defending bird causes the intruder to retreat; if, however, the shield is swollen and the intruder is seeking territory, the de- fender uses the gamut of anti-social displays, even including actual combat, in its attempts to repulse the invader. While each sex has a definite tonal quality to its calls, there seems to be a great deal of individual variation among birds of each sex. Certain of the notes seem fairly uniform throughout the population, i.e., the alarm and growling notes, but the notes associated with normal activities vary from bird to bird, being similar only in sequence and mode of delivery. The sexual difference that exists in the calls of adult coots makes it relative- ly easy to ascertain the sex of birds in the field. It is surprising that this difference in call notes of the American Coot has not been pointed out by earlier authors. Acknowledgments It is with a great deal of gratitude that I acknowledge the assistance and criticisms of Drs. A. Starker Leopold, Alden H. Miller and Frank A. Pitelka, of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, and Dr. Lewis M. Taylor, of the Division of Poultry Husbandry, University of California College of Agricul- ture, all members of my thesis committee. Also, to those many critical and exacting graduate associates in the Department of Zoology at the University of California; to Mr. Richard E. Walpole and Mr. Jack Parker, manager and naturalist, respectively, of the East Bay Regional Park District, in whose areas this study was conducted; to Mrs. Margaret M. Nice, of Chicago, Illinois; and to my wife, Ardelle, I express my sincere appreciation. Figure 2F is by Stephen A. Fenton and A1 Jonez, of the Nevada Fish and Game Commission; all other figures are by the author (figs. 2 A and 2B are reproduced from Kodachrome transparencies). Literature Cited Armstrong, E. A. 1947 Bird display and behaviour. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Bent, A. C. 1926 Life histories of North American marsh birds. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 135. Cramp, S. 1947 Notes on territory in the Coot. British Birds, 40:194-198. Dawson, W. L. 1923 Birds of California. South Moulton Co., Los Angeles. Deicnan, H. G. 1945 The birds of northern Thailand. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 186 Dresser, H. E. 1903 A manual of Palearctic birds. Publ. by the author, London. 96 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 Grimeyer, D. 1943 Geslachtelijk geluidsverschil en enkele voorlopige mededelingen aangaande het gedrag van den Meerkoet. Ardea, 32:273-278 (with English summary). Grinnell, J. 1921 The principle of rapid peering, in birds. Univ. Calif. Chronicle, October, 1921, p. 392-3%. Grinnell, J., H. C. Bryant and T. 1. Storer 1918 The game birds of California. Univ. Calif. Semi-cent. Publ., 642 pp. Gullion, G. W. 1950a The breeding behavior of the American Coot (Fulica americana ) in the San Francisco Bay area, California. Univ. Calif. Library, M.A. thesis (unpubl.). 1950b Voice differences between sexes in the American Coot. Condor, 52:272-273. 1951a A marker for waterfowl. Journ. W ildl. Mgt., 15:222-223. 1951b The frontal shield of the American Coot. Wilson Bulletin, 63:157-166. 1952 Sex and age determination in the American Coot. Journ. Wildl. Mgt., 16: 191-197. Henshaw, F. W. 1918 Some pugnacious coots. Condor, 20:92. Hohn, E. 0. 1949 Motes on sexual and territorial behavior in the Coot and on the incidence of non-breeding in this species. British Birds, 42:209-210. Howard, H. E. 1940 A Waterhen’s worlds. Cambridge Llniv. Press, London. Kozicky, E. L., and F. V. Schmidt 1949 Nesting habits of the Clapper Rail in New Jersey. Auk, 66:355-364. Miller, R. F. 1946 The Florida Gallinule — Breeding birds of the Philadelphia region (part 111). Cassinia, 36:1-16. Morley, A. 1936 The winter behavior of Moor-hens. British Birds, 30:120-124. Nylund, P. 1945 Bidrag till kannedomen om sothonans biologi. Ornis Fennica, 22:100-121 (with English summary). Roberts, T. S. 1932 The birds of Minnesota. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis, vol. 1. Ruppel, W. 1933 Physiologie und Akustik der Vogelstimme. Journ. fiir Ornith., 81:433-543. SCLATER, P. L., AND W. H. HUDSON 1889 Argentine ornithology. R. H. Porter, London, vol. 2. Sharpe, R. B. 1894 Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum. London, vol. 23. Sooter, C. A. 1941 Ecology and management of the American Coot ( Fulica americana americana Gmelin). Iowa State College Library, Ph. D. thesis (unpubl.). Tinbergen, N. 1948 Social releasers and the experimental method required for their study. Wilson Bulletin, 60:6-51. Gordon W. Gullion DISPLAY AND CALLS OF COOT 97 Tinbercen, N., and M. Moynham 1952 Head flagging in the Black-headed Gull; its function and origin. British Birds, 45:19-22. Townsend, C. W. 1925 The courtship of the Ruddy Duck, Erismatura jamaicensis, and of the coot, Fulica americana. Bull. Essex County Ornith. Club of Mass., 7:5-6. Walker, L. W. 1932 Spirit of the tides — the coot. Bird-Lore, 34:322 324. Walkinshaw, L. H. 1937 The Virginia Rail in Michigan. Auk, 54:464-475. Wetmore, A. 1920 Observations on the habits of birds at Lake Bnrford, New Mexico. Auk, 37:221-247 & 393-412. 1926 Observations on the birds of Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chile. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 133. Witherby, H. F., F. C. R. Jourdain, N. F. Ticehurst and B. W. Tucker 1947 The handbook of British birds. H. F. & G. Witherby, London, vol. 5. 624 Avenue I, Boulder City, Nevada, March 9, 1952 NESTING BEHAVIOR OF A PURPLE-THROATED FRUIT-CROW BY HAZEL R. ELLIS ON Barro Colorado Island, Panama Canal Zone, June 28, 1951, Eugene Eisenmann called my attention to a Purple-throated Fruit-crow ( Querula purpurata ) carrying nesting material. Since this interesting cotinga has re- ceived only casual attention in the literature. I devoted many hours from June 28 to July 16 in observing it. The Purple-throated Eruit-crow is a conspicuous member of the sub-oscine family Cotingidae in the humid lowland forests. Its range is from Costa Rica through northern and Amazonian South America. The species is not one of the brilliantly colored representatives of the group but its persistent and melo- dious call notes, interspersed by harsh caws, announce its presence. Carriker (1910. Ann. Carnegie Mus., 6:662) says: “They have a peculiar soft, liquid, musical note, very difficult to describe, which sounds a great deal like the cooing of a dove, only much sweeter and clearer. All records that I have examined mention this species as seen either singly or in small, noisy parties. The common name, Purple-throated Fruit-crow, seems apt because the bird somewhat resembles a small Crow ( Corvus brachyrliynchos) . It is about ten inches long, is wholly black except for a gray bill and, in the male, a glossy, magenta throat-patch. Its manner of “catching" fruit doubtless accounts for a part of its name. Stone (1928. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 80:169) reported that the natives called the Fruit-crow, “mae de Tucano,’’ mother of the Toucan, on the theory that they always associate with the latter. He further wrote, how- ever, that de Schauensee found this alleged constant association not to be the case although toucans and Fruit-crows were found together in some instances. Fr. Haverschmidt has written me that the Indians of Dutch Guiana claim that the Fruit-crow nests in hollow trees. The pair of birds I observed built a shallow nest of branches and vines in the dense foliage of a tree1 at the edge of an extension to the clearing made for a new laboratory building. The nest was at the junction of steeply ascending branches about 75 feet from the ground. Although the nest was well concealed from below by the dense foliage, from one position I could see that it was a shallow platform or saucer through which light could be seen. When the nest was completed it extended only 1 From a comparison of leaves of this tree with herbarium specimens, it appeared to be Cordia alliodora. This is a common species in the tropical forests, but since flowers and fruits were not present and tbe tree was taller than the 40-60 feet reported for the species, it seems best to identify it only tentatively. 98 Hazel R. Ellis NESTING OF FRUIT-CROW 99 slightly beyond the body of the incubating bird. It was possible to see the head or tail of the bird when she was on the nest. I think that the nest was as well hidden from above as from below. It is of interest to note that the bird was nesting during the rainy season, which corresponds with a report of the Penards (1910. “De Vogels van Guyana,” Marinius Nijhoff, The Hague, 2:174) that the species breeds during the small rainy season in Surinam. According to Haverschmidt this period is from about February 15 to about April 15. I began close observation at 9 a.m. on June 28. The pair made six trips to the nest in the next three hours. On four of the trips the male carried vines and twigs. The female always accompanied her mate and once I saw her fly to a perch with a twig and try to remove its leaves by passing the stem through her bill. She gave up her efforts and flew to the nest to arrange the material that the male had brought. Although the male brought much of the nesting material, the female appeared to do all of the construction and shap- ing of the nest. During their cooperative nest-building activities one bird frequently uttered two or more soft coos that were answered by two or more harsh caws from its mate. The only evidence of courting that I saw was the male puffing out his throat-patch so that it projected laterally beyond the sides of the neck like a hummingbird s gorget. Mr. Eisenmann saw a male, presumably the same in- dividual, do this in front of a female in a nearby tree on June 21, a week before the nest was found. On June 29, the second day of my observations, the Fruit-crows showed greater activity. I observed eleven trips with nesting material in a four-hour period in the morning. Mornings seemed to be the time for work. The Fruit- crows often made extended trips away from the nest in the afternoon, return- ing for short visits. With the increased building activity, both birds carried in longer vines and twigs and once I saw the male get a piece of vine en- tangled in the branches of the nesting tree. He dropped it and then tried, but failed, to recover it before it reached the ground. Once both birds carried a vine about three feet long for a short distance. The female first appeared with the piece which was giving her some difficulty. The male flew to the dangling end and picked it up in mid-air and flew with it to within a few feet of the nest. He then dropped the end he was carrying and the female carried it to the nest. On June 30, I observed the nest from 7:10 a.m. until noon. The pair made six trips to the nest but carried nesting material on only three trips. Ap- parently the nest was about completed and the egg-laying period was ap- proaching. The birds were more vocal than they had been for two days and 100 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 they stayed in the area. The female spent a longer time on the nest when she entered it and occupied herself by shaping the nesting material. The next two days the Lruit-crows stayed in the area and visited the nest less frequently. On two trips on July 2, I saw the male bringing in small pieces of nesting material. There was little courting and I never saw the birds taking food, although they visited the cecropia trees each day and worked among the branches. I made no visits to the nest again until July 9. There was no activity after I arrived at mid-mcrning and I feared that the nest had been broken up by toucans or other predators, but I was mistaken. I heard the birds in the vicinity uttering the soft cooing that bespoke a harmonious existence. The next four mornings the birds were seen early near the nest. The female went to the nest and remained for a short time. After that they left and stayed away for a long period. Doubtless these four days comprised the egg-laying period but I was unable to determine the number of eggs in the clutch or to see an egg. I have found no reference in the literature to Lruit-crow eggs. There was a change in behavior on July 14. The female was seen on the nest for several periods of thirty to fifty minutes each. She was still on the nest at 5:00 p.m. which was the latest in a day that I had observed. My judgment is that incubation began that day because the next morning the bird was on at 6:30 a.m., when I arrived, and remained for most of that day. The male was perched near and made short flights away from the area but I never saw him go to the nest. I left Barro Colorado Island on July 16, and was not able to follow the fate of the Fruit-crow’s nest. I believe there were several pairs nesting on the island during my stay, for on one occasion I heard two pairs calling at the same time from different di- rections. Other times I encountered small groups of five or six. One wonders whether these small bands were family groups. Birds that frequented the nesting area were sometimes tolerated and some- times driven away if they came close to the nest. I never saw the Lruit-crows show great ferocity. The bird that excited them most was the Chestnut- mandibled Toucan I Ramphastos swainsonii) . I am indebted to Dean Amadon, American Museum of Natural History, and to Eugene Eisenmann for searching the literature on egg collections of neo- tropical birds. Er. Haverschmidt and Alexander Skutch both shared with me their knowledge of Querula purpurata. Keuka College, Keuka Park, New York, November 21.1951 GENERAL NOTES Birds seen on a trip to Labrador. — For three weeks in the autumn of 1950, J was a passenger on the Canadian National Railways ship, S. S. Kyle, as it made its last trip of the season to ports in Labrador. The Kyle left St. John’s, Newfoundland, on October 14, and stopped at Newfoundland ports of Carbonear, Catalina, Wesleyville, Twillingate, and St. Anthony. We then sailed north, passing west of Belle Isle, to reach the Labrador coast at Battle Harbour. Numerous small ports as far north as Hopedale were visited. On the return trip, we sailed up Lake Melville to call at Northwest River and Goose Bay before returning to the Atlantic Ocean and going south. As a rule, the Kyle moved close to shore, usually within several hundred yards of land, and went especially close to land when entering the many small harbors in Labrador or when threading its way among the numerous rocky islands and shoals which lie off the coast of Labrador. However, we were several miles from land when crossing Conception Bay, Trinity Bay, Bonavista Bay, Notre Dame Bay, the open sea east of the Grey Islands, the strait of Belle Isle, and Hamilton Inlet. The wind was generally moderate to strong; it blew from the west or northwest except for a severe easterly gale on two days (Oct. 21 and 22). Daytime air temperatures were 30-40° F. in Newfoundland waters and 20-30° on the Labrador coast. There was snow on the ground after the first day in Labrador. I devoted about five hours a day to observing the birds of the region. Except for the stop at Cartwright, Labrador, I made my observations from the ship since it was usually difficult or impossible to go ashore. Seven-power (7X50) binoculars were used in scanning the water and shore. I have summarized the results in Table 1. Exact deter- mination of species was not always possible for a variety of reasons, including poor light, distance, snow flurries, and rough water. The larger and rounded-off numbers in Table 1 are, of course, mostly estimated values. Nearly all of the Fulmars ( Fulmarus glacialis) seen were within a few miles of Hawke Harbour, Labrador, the site of a whaling factory. They were especially numerous in Hawke Harbour itself. I saw over a hundred there on each of two occasions, some on the water but most in flight about the harbor. The unidentified ducks were nearly all female eiders; exceptions were the ducks seen on Lake Melville, 12 on Oct. 26 (probably White-winged Scoters [ Melanitta /uscn], ac- cording to a missioner at Northwest River) and 80 on Oct. 30 (apparently Goldeneyes [Glaucionetta clangula or G. islandica ] but very far distant). 1 saw no Black Ducks ( Anas rubripes) , Old-squaws ( Clangula hyemalis ), Harlequin Ducks ( Histrionicus histrionicus) , Surf Scoters ( Melanitta perspicillata) , or Red-breasted Mergansers ( Mergus serrator) . They might reasonably have been expected since they all appear to breed in Labrador and the recorded late dates of their departure are close to the time that I was in the region ( Austin, 1932. Mem. Nuttall Ornith. Club, No. 7: 40-61; Bent, 1923. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 126:1-68; 1925. Ibid. 130:1-151). I saw no Gyrfalcons ( Falco rusticolus ) although 1 was informed by a resident of southern Labrador that Gyrfalcons become fairly common there in December and that many are killed in pole traps in winter. I saw only one Duck Hawk ( Falco peregrinus) . It flew shorewards across our bows when we were several miles off the Grey Islands. This bird was probably a migrant from Labrador where it is a common summer resident (Austin, op. cit .: 69). Peters and Burleigh (1951. “The birds of Newfoundland,” Hough- 101 Table 1 Bird Counts in Newfoundland and Labrador Waters 102 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 > O CO Z > O CM Z w H <! Q > o , Z W I— I O ^ u o O ^ O vo O CM O lO O ^ o ^ o CO O ^ o CM O ^ o 1—1 o M o o O ^ o ^ O ^ « co O ^ o t— G ^ o vo G ^ U UO G U ■ct c ^ m o LO CM ON TT< o O LO no o LO o CO CO o CO On CM CM CO CM O o o CM o o o CO CM NO o o CM o o CO CO CO CO LO u- o O' LO o CO o LO LO LO NO o LO u- LO CM o CO CM co C Cj © 22 *3 © <L> C ■"G "5b 'T1 O a CO <V c cL CD co £ — co v CO © -Ci CD O c C c -o o C O z in a rz C 2 q, C oO u £ cd £ k, O 'O gp _£ c 5 ^ CJ W £ c C o £ E c r- CO a; _ bC.-^ .5 5 > c c — w ^ O bUCO G w — CD C ^ Qj cj c ; cd c/) <u a -X : o o u -o •2 bU~g G ^ 20 O Vh © o ^ "O o cd CO co sj © -© , — I CL> o a O- c £ o V O = ~J cd — ' O June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 GENERAL NOTES 103 O CO LO r— I CM r-H r— I CO o o CM CO o CM On O CM © © or 5 O ^ o © ' o cd ■ © o ^ Cd or, PQ £ o vO LO VO o CM LO rr O CM O LO CM vO CO O CO CM ON O LO LO O cm e- e- lo O On CO O oj) lo O LO O CM CO rf' CM CM CM CM CO LO CM CO O CO CO LO CM ON o o r-H CO ^ ON O O CO i— I CM CM CM CO CO o CM rf1 CM CM O LO rH r— < E- CO CM CM o o o r? rt O CM o o CM CO © bJD ~2 © © < © ip^H b/D © ^ © « 2 ^ © O s o o CO o CM o o LO CM o o CO o o o LO CO o CO CM VO CM O CO o o CM O CO ON CO CM CM CO CM CO CO CM CM CM O CO IS* ^ VO VO o Tf1 CO o b £ ^ © c/3 © © © © cd kJ 13 w cd CD ' — ’EH © w o ^ N O cd tlan © 6 X X C #© .© *£ '© PP o roi ca m c£ £ u X ’Zl © £ ^ © © - i-a © •- <! _ cd P CO o o :s> O w- © < > cd P 'oD © • 5 H ■o © £ s PP 53 s£: C/2 CO CM © © i-h cd OCJ £ 20 © r— C/3 VO .5P s MCQ © © o ~ S £ o . O »H P CJ ^ 13 . £ © On © r*"1 r— ( r~j P -Q oj 03 o r-O a © *J w r-1 r* ©Td o S-4 S3 ® in 2 d « 2-2^ ca g -s U o"S .U ? lo -c r_l ® c . ca £ O O C/3 -r; n • IT 13 © cd z, 03 ^ O 0 *-( ^ n O-Q P c c cd cd 5 0 ^ *j 00 cd -o c *: S -O 03 £ = oi ^ . © ^ © c o t rt-S ci • K © d 0.2, 1 G « J: SO © © © P "C 1 O c © (H 1 =3 tf) O C/3 © ^ 03 2 0 -s ®i •E= S so ca - clcc Pi 2^2 o ao gO 'C •C . £ g li o ^ 3 2 1 — I {J ca C/3 © © c/3 © *SPQ o CM 03 £ O © Cd -r © rs h Run-by-Guess Island to Maccovik. Oct. 24, Turnavik to Hopedale and back to Turnavik. Oct. 25, Holton Harbour to Emily Harbour, back to Holton Harbour and returning to Emily Harbour. Oct. 26, Northwest River to Goose Bay. Oct. 27, 28, 29, anchored at Goose Bay; only Iceland and Herring Gulls were seen, in about same numbers as on Oct. 26. It was not possible to go ashore. Oct. 30, Goose Bay to Rigolet. Oct. 31, Indian Tickle to Rocky Bay. Nov. 1, Spotted Island to Comfort Bight. Nov. 2, Comfort Bight to Williams Harbour. Nov. 3, Battle Harbour to St. Anthony. 104 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 ton Mifflin Co., Boston, p. 146) describe the Duck Hawk as a rare summer resident and transient in Newfoundland. They give only four records of this species. The late occurrence of shore-birds in Labrador was interesting. These birds were apparently not merely stragglers since I saw 115 White-rumped Sandpipers (Erolia fuscicollis) in a walk along a two-mile stretch of the rocky beach at Cartwright on Oct. 20; the water was then thinly frozen over in the shallow places. It is apparent from Table 1 that the migration of White-rumped Sandpipers from Labrador was still taking place in November. Bent (1927. U. S. Natl. Mas. Bull. 142:192) gives the late date of this species at Battle Harbour as Oct. 29. Austin (op. cit 98) states that scattered individuals linger on in Labrador through October although most birds have passed through by the end of September. Hantzsch (quoted by Austin, loc. cit.) observed a White-rumped Sandpiper at Hopedale on Nov. 2, 1906. 1 found both White-rumped Sandpipers and Sanderlings ( Crocethia alba ) to be rather common on Nov. 10, 1950 at Searston in southwestern Newfoundland. Peters and Burleigh (op. cit.: 199) give Nov. 22 as the late date for White-rumped Sandpipers at St. Anthony. They also give (op. cit.: 209) Oct. 1 as the late date for Sanderlings in Newfoundland. I saw no Purple Sand- pipers ( Erolia maritima) on the trip although we passed much apparently ideal habitat. Since the winter range of Purple Sandpipers extends as far north as Greenland (Austin, op. cit.: 95; Bent, 1927:151), it might be presumed that relatively few migrants of this species had reached Labrador and Newfoundland by Nov. 3. Peters and Burleigh (op. cit.: 197) described the Purple Sandpiper as an uncommon winter resident and transient in Newfoundland. The unidentified small shore-birds I saw were neither Purple Sand- pipers nor White-rumped Sandpipers; they appeared to be other species of the genus Erolia. The scarcity of Glaucous Gulls ( Larus hyperboreus) was somewhat surprising. Coues (quoted by Austin, op. cit.: Ill), who spent July and August, 1860, on the coast of southern Labrador, thought Glaucous Gulls were rather rare in this region. Others (cited by Austin, loc. cit.) reported them common throughout the interior and north of Cape Harrison. Austin says that Glaucous Gulls are most common between Hamilton Inlet and Nachvak but are never so common as Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) and Great Black-backed Gulls (Larus marinus) . It should be kept in mind that these reports were made by persons present in Labrador only during the summer months. Peters and Burleigh (op. cit..: 221) state that Glaucous Gulls are fairly common winter residents in Newfoundland, becoming most common in fall, winter, and spring when drift ice is just offshore. Austin gives only one record of an Iceland Gull (Larus leucopterus) for Labrador. As he remarked, this is doubtless due to the absence of observers during the autumn, winter, and spring months, when this species would be expected. Peters and Burleigh (op. cit.: 223) describe the Iceland Gull as an uncommon winter visitant in Newfoundland. I found that the white-winged gulls in Labrador always occurred with Herring Gulls and, in salt water, with Great Black-backed Gulls also. Because of this, I was able to estimate comparative wing-spread and relative heaviness of bills, critical field marks for the separation of Glaucous Gulls from Iceland Gulls. On the basis of these observations, the species identifications of Table 1 were assigned. It will be noted that the only white- winged gulls seen on Lake Melville and Goose Bay were apparently Iceland Gulls and that only two Glaucous Gulls were seen on the coast of Labrador. A man living near Hawke Harbour told me that Glaucous Gulls (apparently known locally as “slob gulls”) do not become common there until December, when ice is forming in large amounts in the ocean. Since he seemed to have observed wild life closely and June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 GENERAL NOTES 105 with interest, I felt that his statements were accurate. I also gathered from his remarks that Ivory Gulls (“ice partridges”; Pagophila eburnea ) are seen at Hawke Harbour with the appearance of sea-ice in December. The difference in habitat of the various alcids was rather sharply marked. Black Guil- lemots (Cepphus grvlle ) were seen in the sheltered harbors and close to shore, Dovekies ( Plautus alle ) in deeper and less sheltered waters and the Murres ( Uria aalge and U. lomvia ) and Razor-billed Auks ( Alca torda) in still deeper water and further from shore. Puffins ( Fratercula arctica) were either uncommon in Labrador at the time or else pre- fer regions further from shore than the Kyle ordinarily sailed, for I saw very few of these birds. Austin (op. cit . : 140) remarks that Puffins stay among the outer islands and al- most never come into the hays, at least during summer, the time of his observations. The migration of Snow Buntings ( Plectrophenax nivalis ) from Labrador was apparently complete after the fourth week in October, since I saw none of these birds after Oct. 20. According to Austin (op. cit.: 200), they are rarely found in Labrador during the winter. — John G. Erickson, 611 North Lilac Drive, Minneapolis 22, Minnesota, September 18, 1951. Closely associated nests of Bronzed Crackle and English Sparrow. — The Bronzed Crackle (Quiscalus quiscula) has been considered to be an enemy of nesting birds, destroying both the eggs and the young. Specifically, it has been recorded as killing and partly eating English Sparrows (Passer domesticus) (Forbush, 1929, “Birds of Mass, etc., Part 2,” pp. 458-459). The English Sparrow is said to rob and kill many native birds, and destroy their nests, eggs, and young. Allegedly, sparrows have driven all the smaller hole-nesting birds from cities and villages, and many that nested among the branches of trees. Supposedly sparrows kill birds as large as the Robin ( T urdus migratorius ) or Flicker (Colaptes auratus ) by attacking in numbers or follow native birds about until the latter leave the neighborhood (Forbush, op. cit.. Part 3:42). This reported mutual antipathy makes it advisable to record an example of extreme tolerance. In a trumpet vine on our garage in Chesterton, Indiana, in 1948, an English Sparrow had its bulky, untidy, domed nest but a short distance below the eaves. In April, a grackle used this nest for the foundation of its own nest. When the nests were examined on May 8, each contained young. On May 16, when still poorly fledged, the first young grackle climbed out of the nest, along interlacing twigs and branches, and away into the trees. The last one left the nest on May 19. The young sparrows left the nest on May 20 and climbed and fluttered into the neighboring trees. While the adult grackles appeared oblivious to the sparrows, the sparrows sometimes appeared perturbed when a grackle visited its nest, and waited until the grackle had left before going to their nest. Sometimes when a grackle flew to its nest when the sparrow was at its nest directly below, the sparrow flew out. But this was not always true, and sometimes the sparrow, at its nest entrance, would simply look up at the grackle arriving just above it. Often on their way to or from their nests, both adult sparrows and grackles perched close together in a nearby elm tree and completely ignored each other. This is a case of two species, each ordinarily thought of as antagonistic to other nesting birds, raising their young in nests in close proximity. The grackles apparently built on top of the sparrows’ nest because it offered a suitable, solid foundation. The total lack of interest of each species in the young of the other was striking and surprising. The close nesting of two aggressive predatory species, however, or of a predator and a 106 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 weaker or a prey species is not uncommon, indicating that about nests there is some- times a change in interspecific intolerance. Bent (1938. U.S. Natl. Mils. Bull., 170:22) quotes Decker and Bowles as reporting Ravens ( Corvus corax ) and Prairie Falcons ( Falco mexicanus) nesting on the same cliff without discord. Murphy (1936. “Oceanic Birds of South America, Vol. 2, p. 933) notes that boobies ( Sula ) and man-o-war-birds ( Fregata ) nesting a meter or two apart pay less attention to each other than either does to members of its own species. The change in behavior when the boobies are returning to the nesting grounds well laden with fish is most extraordinary, for then apparently the man-o-war- birds rob the boobies. Barnacle Geese < Branta leucopsis) have been recorded nesting un- disturbed close to a Gyrfalcon’s ( Falco rusticolus ) nest (Bent, op. cit.'A) . Nests of English Sparrows, Starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris), or grackles are commonly built in convenient niches among the sticks of Osprey’s ( Pandion haliaetus) bulky nests, and even House Wrens ( Troglodytes aedon ) and the possibly competing Black-crowned Night Herons ( Nycticorax nycticorax) have been admitted by Ospreys as “basement tenants” (Bent, 1937. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull., 167:370-371). Other examples of a less aggressive species nesting near a more aggressive species, in India, have been given by Major General Hutson (1947. Ibis, 89:569-576). Durango (1949. Ibis, 91:140-143) has reviewed at some length the nesting associations of birds of different species with many additional examples, especially from Europe. In his opinion several factors which often reinforce one another may be involved as follows: (1) Similar or identical habitat preferences; (2) The nest of one species is a suitable nesting site for another; (3) Food available in nests or territories of certain species en- courages other specialized feeders to nest there; (4) Sociability; (5) Protection af- forded by the more aggressive species. Factor 2 seems to have been the important one in the grackle-sparrow instance. Durango also points out that some birds of prey appear to avoid disturbances in the vicinity of their own nest, a point that Brewster (1937. “Concord River,” p. 177) after noting a Blue Jay ( Cyanocitta cristata) , Robin ( Turdus migratorius) , and Red-eyed Vireo ( Vireo olivaceus) in fairly close proximity, wrote as follows: “I begin to believe that there is some truth in the statement (made originally by I know not whom) that predaceous animals seek their victims at some distance from their own homes.” — A. L. and R. M. Rand, Chicago Natural History Museum, February 17, 1950. Songs of the Western Meadowlark. — To those fortunate folk who have lived in almost daily association with the Western Meadowlark ( Sturnella neglecta ) there are several matters regarding its song that become pretty well established. In addition to its incomparable joyousness one will soon recognize a certain format to each performance, i.e., it is a form song. Unlike the song of many birds, the Meadowlark’s station song (but not its soaring song) is one that is commonly repeated as exactly as though it were a phonographic recording (unhappy simile). To be sure there may be quite an album of discs and I have closely watched a single performer change to a new disc without clatter or prolonged delay, still each recording seems to be pretty sharply cut upon the wax of his psychic complex. Individual birds certainly have their favorite “arias” which are rendered often enough to characterize the singer and his territorial stage setting. Furthermore, I have not actually traced more than three discs to a single performer though color handing might extend this number appreciably. Within the combined ter- ritories of a number of individuals, however, the variety becomes quite extensive. Another fact that soon becomes evident to the “bird listener” is the impossibility of J une 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 GENERAL NOTES 107 transcribing the song in the clumsy medium of musical notation. Like a violin virtuoso, he does things that set the five line staff completely at a loss. Nor is it necessary that he conform to a man-made sequence of whole and half tones which our system of musical notation is designed to express (not all peoples’ do). Still, there may be recognized in some of the bird’s performances a sequence of intervals that do fairly closely conform. With a degree of compression and resultant distortion, the fundamental structure of the song may be noted on the musical staff. The result is a mere ‘‘black and white still” of a rainbow-colored fountain of sound that defies capture and imprisonment, hut the record does aid the memory and perhaps it will extend our appreciation of its variety. 6 7 & 9 10,11 One spring my class in biology had a goodly sprinkling of music majors among its members. The project of notation of Meadowlark songs was therefore undertaken as a scheme for “correlation of subjects” in the curriculum. One of my colleagues has strong- ly urged that some of the results of this effort be made public. Hence the following notes are offered. Observations were made during the spring semester and were restricted to an area of approximately forty acres in a newly annexed district of level land within the city of Los Angeles. Open fields and native vegetation were hut slightly modified — just enough to supply ideal “singing posts” for an abundant Meadowlark population. Nine distinct “melodies” were noted (see figure). On two occasions during my own contacts with the species I have heard perfect melodic sequences that suffered no distortion when spread upon the musical staff. In both cases there was extreme simplification through reduction of grace notes and glides. They are recorded in Nos. 10 and 11 of the figure. Both were delivered at the height of the breed- ing season and were therefore presumably birds of at least one year’s age. One of the records is the simplest Meadowlark song that has come into my experience. — Loye Miller, University of California, Berkeley, May 13, 1951. The song of the Alder Flycatcher. — I have known the Alder Flycatcher < Empid - onax traillii traillii ) for many years — since 1885, when I called it Traill’s Flycatcher, to be exact — and I have heard its song as recently as this summer of 1951. I was much interested in Mr. McCabe’s description of its flight song in The Wilson Bulletin (1951, 108 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 63:89-98) — something I have never been so fortunate as to hear. I was also interested in his discussion of the regular song, and. not being acquainted with it as it is given by Midwestern birds, I have no reason to disbelieve in his main thesis as to the difference between Eastern and Midwestern singers. My observations have been confined to the East — Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec Labrador — but 1 think I am in a position to criticize McCabe’s table of phonetic expressions of the song because I have paid particular attention to the syllabification of birds’ songs since 1895. In that year my journal recorded that hitherto I had been content with William Brewster’s ke-iving (perhaps learned in conversation with Mr. Brewster), but on hearing the song near at hand in June at Londonderry, Vt., 1 found Dr. Dwight’s rendering in Chapman’s ‘"Handbook of Birds . . .” very nearly exact, though I amended it to wee-zee-up with the up very faint. I recorded this in The Auk (1902. 19:84-85). I also summarized this note in a communication to Bent’s “Life Histories” (1942. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 179:210). In McCabe’s search for published "phonetic expressions,” which was by no means exhaustive, it is not strange that this note of mine shoidd have been overlooked. I mention it here only because 1 think it important to note that the final so-called syllable is faintly uttered. This leads me to ask just what constitutes a syllable in a bird’s song. In studying Mc- Cabe’s table I could not help thinking that the difference between his three-syllable and two-syllable songs was sometimes a mere matter of the use of a hyphen by the human recorder. As an example, there is Saunders’ tick-weeah, which McCabe calls a two- syllable song, though if the describer had happened to insert a hyphen after the ee — - where one would really have expected to find one, weeah not constituting a normal syl- lable in the English language — he would have placed it in the three-syllable category. It seems to me that these so-called third syllables of this bird’s song are really only downward inflections in the second syllables. In almost every case quoted this so-called syllable begins with a vowel, without the sharp break that would be indicated by a consonant, such as w'e hear in the chick-a-dee-dee of Parus atricapillus. I am convinced that as most of us hear the Alder Flycatcher’s song it is largely a matter of distance how we render it. On the island of Cape Breton, N. S., in the summer of 1951 1 heard this song many times. It seemed to be always a two-syllable song, but it was too far away and in a place too difficult of access for me to hear it distinctly, and I feel pretty sure that if I had been nearer, I should have heard that downward inflection that some have called a third syllable. Another element enters into the situation. In all syllabifications of birds’ songs the personal equation enters, and McCabe sums this up very well in the first paragraph of his Summary. It has always seemed to me that some syllabifiers are too prone to rest content with what strikes them at first as a fairly good rendering, and do not listen again and again to the song to make sure they cannot improve upon it. This was my own case in my earlier years of observation. As a matter of fact, of course, birds do not sing in human syllables. Their consonants do not begin or end what we call syllables. When they exist at all, they run all the way through them. Nevertheless, this syllabification is an important adjunct to our descriptions of certain songs. Our attempts at imitation of the originals will assist our own memories and may often help other observers. Unfortunately there is a rather disturbing number of inaccuracies in McCabe's table of “Phonetic Expressions.” Some of these are in the localities named, where he seems to have assumed that the place of publication or the residence of the authority was the locality of observation. In other cases he has failed to go back to the original record, and .1 une 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 GENERAL NOTES 109 in still other cases no explanation is evident. 1 am not sure that I have caught them all, hut such as I have detected with the help of my own small library I must note here. The authority for ee-zee-e-up is really Dwight in Chapman’s “Handbook of Birds . . (1895 and later editions) and the locality must have been New York or New England or both, not Washington, D. C. The Minot reference should be to H. D. Minot’s “Land-Birds and Game-Birds of New England" ( 1876, Salem, Mass., and second edition edited by Brewster, 1895, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston and New York), with New England for locality. Widmann’s locality was presumably Missouri, where he lived, instead of Indiana. The greadeal of Miller should be greadeal (with the apostrophe), and his original publication of it was in The Auk (1903. 20:68), where he says he adopted it from P. B. Peabody, who lived in Minnesota, while Miller himself lived in New Jersey. Silloway’s post of observation at the time seems to have been Illinois, not Massachusetts. Saunders’ locality must have included New England as well as New York. Hoffmann’s name is misspelled, and his locality was New England, where he lived, as well as New York. Bent lives in Massachusetts, but his ornithological work has not been confined to that state. I am sorry to have to call attention to these minor errors. I leave it to readers of McCabe’s paper to consider how seriously they affect his general conclusions if at all. To my mind they are of little importance in comparison with my more fundamental criti- cism of this part of his paper, but their occurrence in what seems to be an important contribution to ornithology needs notice as a warning to readers — and also as a warning to other workers in the vineyard! To close these comments on an affirmative note, I should like to call attention to the renderings of the song by the describer of the subspecies E. t. alnorum, and author of the present vernacular name, William Brewster, in his posthumous "Birds of the Lake Umbagog Region of Maine,” (1937. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 66 (pt. 3 ) :496 ) . Here we have quee-quee and quee-queer, and it should be remembered that Brewster was a New- Englander to whom the final r would be silent, contributing only the falling inflection to that second syllable. This might take the place of the ke-wing attributed to Brewster earlier in this note. And it is interesting that these records of Brewster’s were made in the type locality of the subspecies that may have to be restored to the Check-List. —Francis H. Allen, 9 Francis Ave., Cambridge 38, Massachusetts, October 22, 1951. Swainson’s Warbler in Prospect Park, Kings County, New York. — I n recent years Swainson’s Warbler ( Limnothlypis swainsonii ) has been recorded as breeding in Mary- land (Stewart and Robbins, 1947. Auk, 64:272), Delaware (Meanley, 1950. Wilson Bul- letin, 62:93-94), and West Virginia (Brooks and Legg, 1942. Auk, 59:76-86). As with many other species, the extension of a breeding range is frequently concurrent with casual observations in areas where the bird has never before appeared. I wish to report the bird from southeastern New York. On May 5, 1950, during a drizzling rain, Geoffrey Carleton discovered a Swainson’s Warbler on the muddy margin of a small pond in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. Knowing that it was an unusual species, he watched it for some time. In its search for food it turned up dead leaves in the manner of a Rusty Blackbird ( Euphagus carolinus) . Carleton telephoned Dr. W. T. Helmuth 3rd, who rushed to the scene and observed the interesting bird from about 6:30 p.m. until dark. The warbler infrequently gave a thin, sweet tsip but it did not sing. The following morning several observers carefully searched for the bird in the im- mediate vicinity of the pond. Eventually, Robert Grant and 1 relocated it about 500 yards 110 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 away, at the base of a bushy slope. To us its behavior seemed like that of a Worm-eating Warbler ( Helmitheros vermivorus ) as it investigated the leaves, twigs, and other debris beneath the thick brush. We had a chance to observe it for about fifteen minutes when a passing truck frightened it into flight. No one could find it again. The weather on May 5 and 6 was mild and rainy. On the 6th there was considerable fog. Weather reports described winds of hurricane force in the Midwest on May 5. The area affected by a large cyclonic low the night before included southern Indiana and West Virginia, a part of the northern edge of the Swainson's Warbler’s breeding range. — Irwin M. Alperin, Linnaean Society of New York, 2845 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn 35, New York, January 1, 1951. Clay-colored Sparrow in Massachusetts. — The Clay-colored Sparrow ( Spizella pal- lida) was added to the list of birds known from Massachusetts when two specimens were collected by Oliver L. Austin, Jr., on September 20, 1930. Since that time, two more Clay-colored Sparrows have been collected and twelve have been banded. All of these records are listed below. Eleven sight records, from 1940 to 1951, have not been included below because the difficulty of identifying fall Clay-colored Sparrows makes sight records unreliable. These sight records were published in Records of New England Birds. I am indebted to Oliver L. Austin. Jr., Dorothy E. Snyder, Curator of Natural History at the Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, and Aaron M. Bagg for their help in gathering the records presented here. Specimens September 20, 1930. Two adult males collected by Oliver L. Austin, Jr. (1931. Auk, 48:126-127), at North Eastham. Specimens now Nos. 17837 and 17838 in the Boston Museum of Science. Identification checked in 1951, by James L. Peters, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. March 24, 1950. An immature, sex unknown, was taken by James Baird at Amherst. The bird was first observed at Amherst by Robert Smart at his feeder on January7 17, 1950. The identification was confirmed by J. L. Peters. It is now No. 231 in the col- lection of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. September 20. 1950. One immature male taken by Oscar M. Root at North Andover. The specimen, identified by J. E. Peters, is now in the Peabody Museum, Salem. Birds banded The first 11 of the following 12 birds listed were handed at the Austin Ornithological Research Station, North Eastham. October 11, 1930. One adult, C80003, by O. L. Austin, Jr. Repeated October 11 and 12 (twice), 1930 (Austin, loc. cit.) . November 3, 1930. One immature, C80542, by O. L. Austin. Jr. Repeated November 3, 4, and 5, 1930 (Austin, loc. cit.). September 29, 1934. One immature, L64783, by O. L. Austin, Jr. and Seth H. Low. Repeated October 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16. 1934. October 3, 1934. One adult, L64913, by O. L. Austin, Jr. and S. H. Low. Repeated October 4, 5, 7. and 8, 1934. October 3, 1934. One immature, L64918, by S. H. Low. Repeated October 3 and 4, 1934. October 17, 1934. One adult, 34-81301, hv S. H. Low. Repeated October 17, 1934. June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 GENERAL NOTES 111 October 19, 1936. One, 37-24055, by L. J. Brewer. Repeated October 21, 1936. October 20, 1936. One, 37-24059, by L. J. Brewer. October 18, 1940. One, 239-6821, by L. J. Brewer. Repeated October 23, 24, and November 19, 1940. September 20, 1941. Two, 140-20987 and 140-20992, by L. J. Brewer. November 21, 1940. One immature, 139-56997, by George j. Wallace, at Lenox. The Clay-colored Sparrow has been known to be a summer resident in southern Ontario since 1924. In 1950, it was found breeding there by T. Swift, D. Scovell, and D. West (Baillie, James L., 1950. Audubon Field Notes, 4:274). Perhaps the birds recorded in Massachusetts in fall are migrants or wanderers from the southern Ontario population. Because of the difficulty of identifying the Clay-colored Sparrow in fall plumage in the field, it may be more regular in autumn in Massachusetts than the records given above would indicate. — Oscar M. Root, Brooks School, North Andover, Massachusetts, March 15, 1952. Notes on nesting Traill’s Flycatcher in eastern Arkansas. — During the summer of 1951 I had the opportunity to observe the nesting of Traill’s Flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii) in the Grand Prairie region of central-eastern Arkansas, it may be recalled that it was along the prairies of the Arkansas River that Aubudon collected the type specimen of Traill’s Flycatcher (see discussion by Aldrich, 1951. IFilson Bulletin, 63:193-194) ; in fact the type specimen was actually taken at the Fort of Arkansas on April 17, 1822 (Arthur, 1937. “Audubon: An intimate Life of the American Woodsman,” p. 251). The Fort of Arkansas, located about 50 miles south of Stuttgart, was better known in Audu- bon’s time as it is today, as Arkansas Post, and was the territorial capital of the state at the time of Audubon’s first visit there. Audubon reported in his “Ornithological Bio- graphy” (Edinburg, 1831:236) that although he was unable to discover the nest in that area, he suspected that the species nested there. A female collected by him contained five eggs “about the size of green pease” in the ovary. While it does seem unusual that the species would be nesting as early as April in this area, in early summer it is a common breeding bird wherever suitable habitat occurs on the prairie. Arthur H. Howell (1911. U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. 38:54), collecting near Stuttgart in May, 1910, found Traill's Flycatcher “fairly common, living in orchards, dooryards, and about small clumps of trees on the prairie.” The northern boundary of the Grand Prairie is somewhat tangent to a line drawn from Memphis, Tennessee, to Little Rock, Arkansas, while its southern boundary borders the Arkansas River. It is the major rice producing area of the state, with the city of Stuttgart in its center. Ecologically it is a true prairie land and was the home of the Prairie Chicken ( Tympanuchus cupido) before the introduction of rice in the early 1900’s. Traill’s Flycatchers observed by Howell were probably representative of the local breeding population; however, the first definite evidence of breeding from this area is based on the writer’s record of two fledglings just out of the nest and being fed by a parent bird on July 18, 1951. Other nesting records from the state are reported by Baerg (1951. “Birds of Arkansas,” Univ. Arkansas Coll. Agric. Bull. 258:98-99). Traill’s Flycatcher nests mainly in two habitat types on the Grand Prairie: (1) slashy thickets bordering drainage areas, and (2) “islands” of scrub vegetation, usually small trees, out on the prairie. The area selected for nesting studies in 1951 was an 18-acre thicket of haw ( Crataegus ) and persimmon ( Diospyros virginiana ) with openings, all surrounded by rice and lespedeza fields. 112 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 I saw the first pair of summer resident Traill's Flycatchers in the study area on May 10, on which date they had already established territory. By June 1, 17 pairs had estab- lished territories on the 18-acre tract of thickets. On May 28, I found three nests ready for eggs, and on May 31, one of these three nests held two eggs. In all, I found 15 nests in the territories of nine pairs of flycatchers. This indicates that individual pairs of Traill’s Flycatchers in this study area were either renesting or attempting to raise a second brood in a new nest after successfully completing the first hatch. In one individual territory this second or later constructed nest was only 23 feet from the first nest. The average clutch for the 15 nests was 3.0 eggs, and the maximum number of eggs found in any nest was 4. The average number of young fledged per nest was 2.2, and at least one bird was fledged from each of 11 nests. The locations of the 15 nests were as follows: 13 in haw trees, 1 in a persimmon, and 1 in a dogwood ( Cornus) . The "Yellow Warbler ( Dendroica petechia ) type” of nest was placed at an average of 7.5 feet from the ground. Fifteen of the 17 territories were lo- cated on the edge of the study area 1 18-acre tract of thickets), ten nests being on its western side. The nests of three pairs, each on individual territories, were located in a single acre of the 18-acre study area. Two pairs of young still in the “stub-tail" stage were noted near their nests on August 10. — Brooke Meanley, \J. S. Fish and ff ildlife Service, Stuttgart, Arkansas, October 15, 1951. Notes on Mexican bird distribution. — A comparison of the data contained in a "Distributional Check-List of the Birds of Mexico” (Friedmann, Griscom, and Moore, 1950. Pacific Coast Avifauna, No. 29, Part I), with my field notes on Mexican birds revealed that some of my observations extend the known ranges, as given in the Avifauna. I submitted a list of probable species range extensions to Mr. L. Irby Davis for re- view. He informed me that most of the ranges, though unpublished, have been known for some time to many persons studying Mexican birds, but that four of the records (Wood Duck, Whooping Crane, Bonaparte Gull, and Black-billed Cuckoo) should be of interest to many field workers. These four records probably are the major contributions among the following data. Black-bellied Tree Duck ( Dendrocygna autumnalis) . — Six were flying up the Rio Naranjo at El Salto, San Luis Potosf, early on the morning of February 25, 1951. They returned downstream about one hour later. The elevation here is about 1500 feet above sea level. On March 5, 1951, one was standing beside a small reservoir in southern Coahuila along the railroad between Saltillo in Coahuila and Avalos in Zacatecas. Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) . — One pair on the Rio Naranjo, downstream from El Salto, San Luis Potosi, at an elevation of about 1300 feet, February 24, 1951. Wood Duck ( Aix sponsa) . — One female was on a roadside pond 73 miles southwest of Matamoras, Tamaulipas, along the highway to Victoria, February 23, 1951. Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) . — On March 6, 1951, one was flying over an ore mill tailing dump which contained water at Terminal, northern Zacatecas. Local hunters stated that Canvasbacks were sometimes shot during the hunting season in this area, although the Green-winged Teal was the most common duck. Black Vulture ( Coragyps atratus) . — Jn Hidalgo, north of Jacala, one was found at an elevation of about 5000 feet, February 28. 1951 ; in Chihuahua, there were several between Hidalgo Parral and Chihuahua, March 9, 1951. Gray Hawk ( Buteo nitidus) . — One northeast of Saltillo, at Ramos Arizpe, Coahuila, March 4, 1951. J unc 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 GENERAL NOTES 113 Harris Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus) . — On February 24, 1951, one at El Salto, on the Rio Naranjo, San Luis Potosf. On March 9, 1951, one between Jimenez and Chihuahua, Chihuahua. Caracara ( Caracara cheriway) . — Three south of Saltillo, southern Coahuila, March 5, 1951, and one about 15 miles south of Hidalgo Parral, Chihuahua, March 9, 1951. Pere grine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) . — We watched one, of two, obtain a White-col- lared Swift from the evening flight to the falls at El Salto, San Luis Potosf, February 24, 1951. Also, one falcon at Terminal, northern Zacatecas, March 6, 1951. White-throated Falcon ( Falco albigularis) . — One between Guerrero and Ebano, San Luis Potosi, February 28, 1951. Pigeon hawk ( Falco columbarius) . — Two at an elevation of about 5000 feet along the Pan-American Highway north of Jacala, Hidalgo, February 28, 1951. Whooping Crane ( Grus americana) . — On February 23, 1951, about 58 miles southwest of Matamoras, Tamaulipas, one pair was seen flying north at a height of 300 to 400 feet, occasionally calling as they passed. Coot ( Fulica americana) . — One on the Rio Naranjo below El Salto, San Luis Potosi, February 24, 1951. Hudsonian Curlew ( Numenius phaeopus) . — Between Gomez Palacio and Bermejillo, Durango, one was in an irrigated alfalfa field near the highway, March 9, 1951. Bonaparte Gull ( Larus Philadelphia) . — One was flying over, and resting on, the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, off the end of the Rio Panuco jetty, Tampico (Madera), Tamauli- pas, March 1, 1951. Ground Dove ( Columbigallina passerina) . — One or two at Terminal, northern Zacatecas, March 5 and 8, 1951. Black-billed Cuckoo ( Coccyzus erythropthalmus) . — One was active early on the morning of February 26, 1951, at Tamazunchale, San Luis Potosi. White-collared Swift ( Streptoprocne zonaris) . — A few along the Pan-American High- way in Hidalgo, to the southwest of Tamazunchale, San Luis Potosi, at an elevation of about 3500 feet, February 26, 1951. White-throated Swift ( Aeronautes saxatalis) . — Several near the north base of Mt. Timarosa, northern Zacatecas, at an elevation of about 7300 feet, March 7, 1951. — Fred G. Evenden, jr., Sacramento, California, October 14, 1951. Ducks killed during a storm at Hot Springs, South Dakota. — Newspaper accounts of wildfowl striking wet pavements, buildings, or other obstructions in a city are common, but it is unusual to be able to verify the statements. According to the local paper of Hot Springs, Fall River County, South Dakota, about 500 ducks were killed or injured on the night of October 25, 1951, when fog, rain, and snow prevailed. Through the courtesy of Harry R. Woodward, Naturalist, and Superintendent of Schools at Hot Springs, the following information was received: Ducks are frequently killed at Hot Springs when certain weather conditions prevail. Hot Springs is unusual in that it has a warm stream running the full length of the city. The water never freezes and when the atmospheric temperature is low, the water steams a great deal. About 100 Mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) live on the river permanently. The main paved street of Hot Springs is lighted and when a snowfall occurs the lighted street appears like the stream itself. The ducks apparently do not see the main stream on account of the fog and the quacking of the local ducks seems to add to their 114 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 confusion. As a result they try to alight in the street. In attempting to alight on the concrete pavement, they fly into the adjacent buildings, nearby bluffs, telephone poles and wires, trees, or other obstructions. Many ducks are stunned or killed. I estimated that of the ducks killed during the storm of October 25 about 75 per cent w'ere Red- heads (Aythya americana) , 10 per cent Mallards, and the remainder Scaups iAythya sp.), Shovellers {Spatula clypeata) , and Ruddy Ducks ( Oxyura jamaicensis) . — A. W. Schorger,, Department of Wildlife Management, University of W isconsin, Madison, November 29, 1951. Mourning Dove nests in unusual site. — On July 14, 1950. Charles C. Carpenter, David E. Delzell, John D. Goodman, and I observed an adult Mourning Dove ( Zenaidura macroura ) on a nest which appeared unusually large for this species. After flushing the bird 1 noticed that the nest containing two eggs was built on top of an empty Robin ( T urdus migratorius) nest which apparently was at least a year old. The nest was partly between and partly on top of two steel bracing beams, one hori- zontal and one upward diagonal, where they met the vertical side of a main steel support beam under a concrete highway bridge across Alvin Creek about five miles southeast of Delaware, Ohio. Reports of Mourning Doves building nests near or over water and their use of old Robin nests as supports are frequent in the literature, but this Phoebe-like situation ap- pears unusual to me. — H. Lewis Batts, JR., Biology Department, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, Michigan, September 6, 1951. Breeding status of the White-necked Raven in Kansas. — Although the White- necked Raven ( Corvus cryptoleucus) was alleged to have disappeared from Kansas many years ago (see A.O.U. Check-List, 1931, p. 226; Long, 1940. Trans. Kansas Acad. Set., 43:448; and Goodrich, 1946. Rpt. Kansas State Bd. Agric., 44, No. 267:247) this bird is June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 GENERAL NOTES 115 now a fairly common nesting resident on the high wheatland plains of western Kansas. Richard and Jean Graber (1950. Wilson Bulletin, 62:207) reported these birds in Hamil- ton and Kearny counties in the spring of 1950. During the nesting season of 1951, I observed forty-six nests of this species in 14 western Kansas counties and was told that they nested in still another county. The number of nests observed in each county is as follows: Cheyenne, 3; Ford, ?; Finney, 12; Greeley, 1; Hamilton, 4; Haskell, 3; Hodgeman, 4; Kearny, 2; Rawlins, 1; Scott, 6; Sherman, 5; Stanton, 1; Thomas, 2; Wallace, 1; Wichita, 1. In this area the nest is distinctive in that it is made almost entirely of wire mixed with a few coarse weed stems and lined with sheep wool. This nest almost invariably is placed in the open away from streams, wooded areas, and human dwellings. Twenty-one of the nests observed were in windmill towers, five were on highline or telephone poles, and the remaining twenty were in isolated trees. They varied from six to fifty feet in height above the ground. The first nest containing eggs was observed March 31; it contained four eggs. Because White-necked Ravens closely resemble crows ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ) in many of their habits and actions, they are called crows by the local inhabitants. The differences between the two birds can be detected in the field by close observation. The ravens are somewhat larger than crows and their wingbeat is slower. The call is a hoarse kraak instead of a high-pitched caw. In the hand, White-necked Ravens are easily distinguished from crows by the white basal portions of the feathers of the neck, lower throat, and breast in the former. Further, the raven’s bill is more massive and wider at the base. Young White-necked Ravens, when nearly fledged, sit conspicuously on the edge of the nest and are often shot by gunners. — Marvin D. Sch willing, Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission, 310 Washington St., Garden City, Kansas, October 19, 1951. Ppndulinus a prior name for nectar-adapted orioles. — Both Melvyn A. Traylor, Jr. and Kenneth C. Parkes have called my attention to an error on my part in designating Bananivorus Bonaparte, 1853 (type, by orig. desig., Oriolus bonana Linn.), as the first available generic name for the nectar-adapted orioles (Beecher, Wilson Bull., 62:51-86). Pendulinus Vieillot, 1816 (type, by subsequent desig., Oriolus spurius Linn.), is clearly a prior name, ft was not until long after I had fixed upon the availability of Bananivorus for the nectar-adapted line of orioles that I realized spurius belonged in it. The shift was made without focusing attention on the fact that it called for a change in the generic name. — William J. Beecher, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, Decem- ber 11, 1951. EDITORIAL James Bond, of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, recently has been awarded a Musgrave Medal by the Board of Governors of the Institute of Jamaica, B.W.I., with the following citation: “In recognition of your contributions to West Indian ornithol- ogy, and particularly in recognition of the stimulus and assistance which you have given to the study of birds in Jamaica.” At the recent meeting in Gatlinburg, the Executive Council of the Wilson Ornithological Club decided that since the Canadian dollar has now come to parity, or better, with the United States dollar, the need has vanished for the Club to have a Canadian bank account and a Canadian assistant to the Treasurer for the service of Canadian members. The Council authorized discontinuance of the Canadian account. William W. H. Gunn, who served as Canadian assistant to the Treasurer, was thanked by the Council for help- ing out in this financial problem which existed only a few months ago. The Illinois Audubon Society has established recently a Junior Wildlife Management Award. This will be awarded not only for a good plan for sound management practices but also for results obtained through putting the practices into effect. Members are reminded again of the Club's urgent need for extra copies of the March, June, and September issues of The Wilson Bulletin for 1951. These copies should be sent to the Wilson Ornithological Club Library, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. If you don't keep a file of the Bulletin, please help out the Club in this way. Psittacosis at Cape Cod. — A recent article in the journal oj the American Medical As- sociation (Chapman, 1951:1343-1344) reports a case of psittacosis in a human at Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The patient had had no direct contact with birds, but had twice cleaned a bird-feeding station; each time she had brushed disintegrated bird-droppings toward her with a whisk broom. “During the period when infection might have occurred, a family of purple finches were frequent visitors to the station. Finches are known to be carriers of psittacosis. In the course of the summer a catbird, a robin, and a finch were found dead but showed no signs of injury” (p. 1344). The disease was characterized by a prolonged convalescent period after the disappear- ance of fever. — K.R.K. Report of Treasurer for 1951 Balance as shown by last report, dated December 31, 1950 $1,560.87 Receipts Dues: Associate 1,564.00 Active 2,287.00 Sustaining 775.00 Subscriptions to “The Wilson Bulletin” 222.50 Sale of hack issues and reprints of “The Wilson Bulletin" 195.26 116 June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 THE WILSON BULLETIN 117 Gifts: Color Plate Fund 250.50 Mrs. Sarah L. Hilton Gift for Dr. David Clark Hilton Memorial Color Plate Fund 1,898.00 Henry J. Nunnemacher Gift for December Gertrude A. Nunne- macher Memorial Issue 1,250.00 Miscellaneous 67.41 Proceeds of auction of paintings at Davenport, Iowa, meeting 399.96 Transferred from Endowment Fund (interest on bonds, etc.) 191.25 Total receipts ..$10,661,75 Disbursements "The Wilson Bulletin” — printing, engraving, mailing ..$5,408.99 Color plates for "The Wilson Bulletin”.... 2,430.64 Editor’s expense — printing, postage, secretarial aid 146.75 Secretary’s expense — printing, postage, clerical aid 23.41 Treasurer’s expense — printing, postage, clerical aid 427.49 Membership Committee expense — printing, postage 45.69 Annual Meeting expense 110.73 Purchase of books from Book Fund 5.50 Bank charges, foreign exchange, corporation papers and miscellan- eous expenses 8.64 Transferred to Endowment Fund a/c Edward L. Chalif and Special Research Grants 300.00 Total disbursements $ 8,907.84 Balance on hand in Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Company, Louis- ville, Kentucky, December 31, 1951... $ 1,753.91 Endowment Fund Cash balance in Savings Account December 31, 1950 $ 668.65 Received during year: Interest on U. S. Bonds and on Savings Account $ 171.70 Life Membership payments 1,100.00 Gift of Edward L. Chalif for Research Grant 200.00 Transfer of Special Research Grants from checking account 100.00 Transfer of reserve from Louis Agassiz Fuertes Research Grant Fund (1951) 100.00 Total receipts $2,340.35 Disbursed during year: Transferred to checking account (interest on bonds, etc.) $ 191.25 Louis Agassiz Fuertes Research Grant payment 100.00 Edward L. Chalif Research Grant payment 200.00 Bank charges a/c State Tax 1.81 Total disbursements $ 493.06 Balance cash in Savings Account, December 31, 1951 $1,847.29 Securities Owned ** U. S. Postal Savings Coupon Bonds, dated July 1, 1935 $ 780.00 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “G”, dated September 1, 1943 (matur- ity value $1,000.00) 967.00 118 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 61, No. 2 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “G”, dated September 20, 1944 (matur- ity value $1,500.00) . 1,441.50 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “G”, dated June 1, 1945 (maturity value $500.00) 479.00 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “G”, dated July 1, 1945 (maturity value $900.00) 862.20 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “G”, dated October 1, 1945 (maturity value $1,400.00) 1,337.00 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “F”, dated February 1, 1947 (maturity value $2,000.00) 1,572.00 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “F”, dated April 1, 1948 (maturity value $2,000.00) 1,534.00 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “F”, dated October 1, 1948 (maturity value $1,450.00) ..... 1,102.00 U. S. Savings Bonds, Series “F”, dated April 1, 1950 (maturity value $1,000.00) 745.00 Total securities owned**... $10,819.70 Total Endowment Fund $12,666.99 ** Bonds carried at redeemable value December 31, 1951. In reserve: Louis Agassiz Fuertes Research Grant Fund (special gift) $ 125.00 S. Morris Pell Fund (special gift) 75.00 Respectfully submitted, Leonard C. Brecher, Treasurer December 31, 1951 Approved by Auditing Committee: Burt L. Monroe Mrs. Herbert E. Carnes Frederick V. Hf.rard, Chairman. THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB LIBRARY The following gifts have been recently received. From: Elizabeth B. Beard — 1 reprint William H. Behle — 8 reprints Ivan L. Boyd — 6 magazines John Davis — 49 reprints Ralph W. Dexter — 7 reprints Eugene Eisenmann — 1 pamphlet Betty Carnes — 1 book Henry S. Fitch — 1 book F. J. Freeman — 9 magazines Richard Graber — 2 reprints Karl W. Haller — 1 book. 1 bulletin Wm. A. Lunk — 1 translation (of article from a German serial) Margaret M. Nice — 1 book, 8 reprints, 4 magazines Frank A. Pitelka — 2 books, 11 reprints Hustace Id. Poor — 22 magazines T. Wayne Porter — 1 reprint Georg Steinbacher — 11 reprints Josselyn Van Tyne — 1 book Alexander Wetmore — 5 pamphlets L. R. Wolfe — 21 pamphlets and reprints Howard Young — 3 reprints Dale A. Zimmerman — 1 reprint ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE Mexican Birds . . . First Impressions . . . Based upon an Ornithological Ex- pedition to Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and C'oahuila . . . with an Appendix Briefly Describing all Mexican Birds. By George Miksch Sutton. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1951:7 X 10 in., xvi + 282 pp., with 16 color plates and 65 pen-and-ink drawings. $10.00. This attractively composed book is a record of Sutton’s first field expedition to Mexico. The jacket-flap, with more than usual accuracy for jacket-flaps, states that “the first part is an informal account of the author’s day-to-day experiences in the field, his intense- ly subjective thrill at finding a new species, and his cool, objective, and detailed descrip- tions of the birds he saw . . . Mr. Sutton has written Mexican Birds in the form of a personal narrative 'because students of Mexican birds will most likely go through much that I went through in adjusting myself to the fact that many birds there are the same as, or closely related to, those of the United States . . ” The text is a diary-type account introducing the reader to several ecologic groupings of birds in northeastern Mexico. One of the high points is the experience with the Faisan Real {Crax) , in which the reader gains insight into the bird and into the knowledgeable Mexican guides, the author, and the small drama of the hunt. From the popular and explicit style of the text, I assume that the author addresses himself to readers with non-technical interest, and it therefore seems quite unnecessary to pepper the pages with scientific names. These are given again in the appendix any- way, along with vernacular names. The text woidd read more smoothly without the Latin names. The author makes a considerable effort to suggest vernacular names for Middle Amer- ican birds poorly named or as yet without such names. This he does in a constructive and sensible way. The topic is one always leaving room for difference of opinion, and recognizing this I would take exception to only one of his usages. Why should the familiar Carolina Wren, the species Thryothorus ludovicianus, be called Berlandier’s Wren when one watches it in Nuevo Leon? This name is used by Hellmayr and, like so many others of his, should be ignored. Among other names used by Sutton, some very apt species vernaculars are suggested, and the reviewer believes ornithologists should try to use them. The second part of this book, an appendix of 71 pages, is a summation of Mexican bird-life, with brief descriptions and clues to field identification, all especially useful now because no other guide is available. For the “tough” families, like the hummers, fly- catchers, and finches, the appendix concisely reviews the fauna so that the student can meet the challenge of each family a little more optimistically. Although the title states that all “Mexican” birds are mentioned, at least the following are omitted: Pipilo rutilus, Xenospiza baileyi, Aechmolophus mexicanus, and Amaurospiza relicta. And of these, the first three are probably not so rare or so restricted in distribution as first thought to be. Sutton does list other poorly known species, such as Neochloe brevipennis. Certainly the omitted four ought to be included in the appendix if one bothers to mention, as Sutton does, Vireo bairdi from Cozumel Island or Minwdes graysoni from Socorro Island. Any traveller-ornithologist is less likely to go to some of these islands than to the heart of the mainland, where he stands a chance of meeting Xenospiza or Aechmolophus. In the appendix, various problems of distribution and taxonomy are reflected from the 119 120 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 sources, such as Ridgway and Hellmayr, on which the author has relied, and he ventures opinions here and there which point up interesting problems. In the jays, I agree with his comments on Psilorhinus , but not with those on Cissilopha, in which the species sun- blasiana and beecheii occur together in Nayarit, a fact evidently not known to Sutton. To some extent Sutton has slighted, unintentionally I think, the southern part of Mexico, about whose geography his text is vague. He gives the impression that the term Mexican plateau applies to all highland Mexico west of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. At any rate, Atlapetes pileatus is said to be “restricted to the Mexican plateau” (page 57), whereas it occurs in the Sierra Madre del Sur, south of the Mexican plateau proper, in Oaxaca and Guerrero. Both the Scrub and Mexican jays are said to occur “throughout most of the plateau” (page 232), whereas the former also occurs farther south, in the Sierra Madre del Sur. Like the small boy saving a bit of decorative cake frosting till last, I come to the illustrations. These are superb. The color plates are well reproduced and display the high level of Sutton’s ability and versatility. The pen-and-ink sketches catch the spirit of the living bird remarkably well. They have an ease and simplicity of line that indi- cates Sutton’s first-hand, competent acquaintance with birds as subjects. The confidence shown by his drawings is fully justified. — Frank A. Pitelka. The Development of Ornithology. From Aristotle to the Present. (Die Entwick- lung der Ornithologie. Von Aristoteles zum Gegenwart.) By Erwin Stresemann. F. W. Peters, Berlin W15, 1951: xiv -f- 431 pp., 15 plates. 32 DM. For many years Dr. Stresemann has contributed articles to journals in his own and other countries on the history of ornithology. Now he presents the fruits of his extensive studies in an impressive and scholarly volume. The first section of the book deals with the period from the foundations of ornithology to the seventeenth century, the second and longest section with the development of systematics and the study of evolution, and the final section with the development of bird biology. Aristotle raised bird study to the level of a science; for two thousand years he remained the chief authority. No significant new contribution was made until the thirteenth century when Frederick II of Hohenstaufen composed his remarkable “Art of Falconry,” which, to the great loss of ornithology, remained unknown due to the hostility of the Church. Albert us Magnus, in the Middle Ages, and Gesner, in the Renaissance, tran- scribed the information of their predecessors from the Ancients down; both possessed the spirit of inquiry and omitted or questioned much that was fabulous. At first biology and systematics traveled together; from the time of Aristotle ornith- ologists had tried to classify birds according to biological characters and thus they learned much about ecology and habits. This system, however, became increasingly unsatisfactory, especially because of the exotic species that were being discovered. In 1676, Willughby and Ray presented their system based, not on function, but on form, namely, structure of bill and feet and size of body. The history of many schemes of classification from that time to the present is traced in fourteen chapters with much attention given to explorations and amassing of collections, special chapters being devoted to Levaillant, Temminck, Bonaparte, and Finsch. The profound effect of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is described. There is an outline of the history of trinomial nomenclature as it was instituted by Schlegel, adopted by the American Ornithologists’ Union in 1885 June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE 121 through the influence of Baird, Ridgway, J. A. Allen, and Coues, then reintroduced into Europe, despite opposition, by Hartert. Attention is drawn to two little known eighteenth-century pioneer students of the living bird, Pernau and Zorn. Both were ideologists, but teleology had given rise to more advances in knowledge than the causal school, because chemistry and physiology were largely undeveloped. It was Darwin who was able to reconcile Aristotelian teleology and mechanism; instincts were as important as bodily form and depended on inherited modification of the brain; inherited variation and selection brought about fitness. During the nineteenth century field study advanced, then stagnated again. The last chapter deals with present day research: the study of migration and populations with the aid of banding; study of life history and behavior with color banding; experiments on orienta- tion and homing; laboratory experiments on physiology, metabolism, and the migratory impulse; ecological investigations and the researches in behavior of Lorenz. Systematists and geneticists are now occupying themselves with biological problems. Dr. Stresemann has presented a vast amount of information, most interestingly written with quotations from works of the writers’ and vivid characterizations of the different men. His book is far more than a narrative; the quality of an individual's work and its influence are appraised and the various philosophical points of view described. There are six pages of selected bibliography, thirty-five pages of appendix containing 126 notes, indices of subjects and persons, and fifteen well-chosen photographs. This is a masterly work, an illuminating history of our science; it gives a background to present day students and an appreciation of the problems that confronted our pred- ecessors. It will serve as an incentive to be worthy of our heritage, an inspiration to a keen and dedicated search for truth. — Margaret M. Nice. Crip, Come Home. By Ruth Thomas. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1952: 5^4 X iV-i in., 175 pp., 1 plate. $2.50. This charming book is based on the most comprehensive study that has been made of the behavior of the Brown Thrasher ( T oxostoma rufum) . It contains much material not known previous to Mrs. Thomas’ observations of color-banded individuals that returned to her home for many successive years. Written in part in diary form, it has warmth, pathos, and beauty. The reader glimpses the members of the household, the wildlings and domestic creatures, and the environment of a hill-top country home in Arkansas. The narrative centers around Crip, the first Brown Thrasher the author banded in April 1937, and then watched through ten summers and four winters. For the first three seasons he returned with the same mate. In his fourth summer, he suffered a broken wing which healed in an abnormal position. Although he escaped predators and eventual- ly regained awkward flight, he did not migrate the following two autumns (1940, 1941). He migrated in October of 1942 and 1943, returning in March. But he spent the winters of the next two years (1944, 1945) at the Thomas home, disappearing finally in October, 1946. In addition to the detailed story of this remarkable bird, other Brown Thrashers that lived as neighbors or mates of Crip make pertinent bird history. Red, another male, lived on Crip’s Jhlill five seasons; Greta also lived there five seasons, the first two as Crip’s mate and the other three as Red’s mate. In late summer, after nesting, she became a pre-migration companion of Crip in the latter years. Of particular interest is the final 122 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 Mrs. Crip who was his mate in 1944, 1945, and 1946. She was a late arrival each spring. In 1945 and 1946. Crip had already won a mate and was busy with nest-building when Mrs. Crip came from the south. In both years, she drove off the newcomer and resumed her place as Crip's mate on the old nesting territory. In 1945, she laid her eggs in the completed nest of the vanquished female. Details of Brown Thrasher territorial and mating behavior, care of the young, severance of the pair bond in summer or early autumn, and arrival and departure dates are given. Types of song are described including the introduction by Crip of songs of other species into his repertory, and the singing of the female. Also described is a territory-boundary- line maneuver or dance like that of the Mockingbird, the wing-lifting display of juveniles, and the wing-lifting of adults at sight of a dead snake. The book may be read for enjoyment of a beautiful piece of nature writing, then used for study or reference. The frontispiece is a photograph of Crip; end papers show sketches of Crip’s Hill. — Amelia R. Laskey. An Analysis of the Distribution of the Birds of California. By Alden H. Miller. University of California Publications in Zoology, Vol. 50, No. 6. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1951 : 6% X 1014 in., pp. 531-644, plates 32-40, 5 figs, in text. $1.50. The birds of California have been studied intensively over a period of several decades with a wealth of data having accumulated. The last summary of the distribution of the species geographically within the state was presented in 1944 by Grinnell and Miller ( Pacific Coast Avifauna, No. 27:1-608). At that time it was projected that some gener- alizations and analyses arising from the work should be included. This, however, did not prove to be practicable. They appear at long last in the present publication. Inci- dentally, since the two are companion volumes, the names, both vernacular and scientific, are, with few exceptions, the same. A synopsis of the few changes in taxonomy and distri- bution is given in an appendix of the present work. With respect to certain difficulties encountered in an effort to develop broad distri- butional principles, the author comments ( p. 531) that “wre are unable to resolve distributional patterns into a neat system comparable to the periodic table of chemistry, the chromosome map of genetics, or even the imperfect phyletic taxonomy of the system- atist. There is no single sequential organization of distributional data. We are confronted with the end results of an array of delicate and complicated equilibria, in which the spatial balance of each species is a phenomenon peculiar to itself because of heritable differences interacting with the influences of many other species and of inorganic factors.” The three general plans for handling distributional information on the terrestrial animals in North America are the life zone, biome, and biotic province systems. An evaluation is given of each of these and their applicability to California birds is considered at length. As a result some modifications of the plans are suggested and some coordination effected. As pertains to life zones, 260 species are tabulated, being placed in the one or more zones where they are known to occur. Comparisons between the avifauna of the various adjoining zones are made on several bases. It is concluded that “for purposes of showing zonal relations and importance in California we may justifiably group the three cool zones (Canadian, Hudsonian, and Alpine-Arctic.) as subzones of an inclusive Boreal Zone, as has frequently been done, but heretofore without well-defined basis.” A major division occurs in California between the Upper Sonoran and Transition zones. .) cine 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE 123 In classifying and describing avian distribution in terms of ecological formations there is the problem of the degree to which subdivisions would lie useful. Miller has selected 21 situations which are intermediate between the broad plant formations or Monies and the plant associations. His selections are based more on the life form of the plant cover or physical aspects of rock and aquatic habitats than on succession. The characteristics of each formation and its zonal and geographical distribution in the state are given and those birds known to occur in each formation are listed. Based on known conditions of their summer habitat 274 species are so classified ecologically. Since most occur in more than one ecologic formation, all these formations that a particular bird is known to occur in are indicated by abbreviations of the name of the formation. Further- more a superior number is used to show whether the affinity to the particular formation is of first, secondary, or lesser importance. The ratings are “based on the greatest concentrations of the species and on the provision of the most critical and limiting factor from the standpoint of existence of the bird concerned.” The author fully realizes the subjective nature of the ratings and the lack of precise equivalence and comments that in the earlier book I Grinnell and Miller, op. cit .) the true picture of ecologic occurrence is given individually by species in the description of habitat. Miller has devised a rela- tionship score to show something of the affinity of one formation to another with respect to their significance to birds. These are tabulated and expressed graphically as well as discussed. Comparisons are made of zones and formations from which Miller concludes that “zonal and formational systems are partly independent, each expressing a set of distributional facts, one often supplementing the other. For one group of species one appears more adequate than the other and for another group the opposite is true. More precision in general is registered by the formational system, partly because it is more finely divided, as here employed, and partly because it reflects climatic factors in addition to temperature; but its greater utility is not universally true. If, as contended, each system has its values and its set of factors to register or emphasize and the two are in a measure supplementary, there is little point in debating which is superior. The im- portant thing is to know the values of each and to avoid improperly magnifying them.” In his discussion of faunal groups, the author refers to an earlier critique of the biotic province concept (Johnson, Bryant, and Miller, Univ. Calij. Publ. Zool., 48, 1948:221- 376). The present analysis is based on four major avifaunas “delimited admittedly some- what arbitrarily, on the basis of strong or repeated association of species which have similar centers of distribution and probably often similar areas of origin.” Three (Boreal, Great Basin, and Sonoran) center in areas beyond the state and are intrusive in Cal- ifornia. The other, which he terms California, is endemic. Each of these groups contains subfaunas which occupy different areas within the state. The avifaunas of each are de- scribed and the species and races occurring in each are listed. The subfaunas are evalu- ated objectively by determining the actual degree of difference in make-up between them by matching lists of members of the fauna from two areas on a numerical basis. The total count is an index of difference reflecting not only limits of occurrence within boundaries but also the forms that have differentiated within the areas. This objective test of the distinctness of the geographic biotic provinces led to the recognition of dif- ferent ranks of areal subdivision, so that provinces, districts and areas are units of de- creasing importance. A list of species that do not fit into t his scheme is attached. It in- cludes chiefly species of marine environments and forms of continental or holarctic distribution. In his concluding discussion, Miller relates the wealth of data pertaining to California 124 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 to the ultimate objective of the study of distribution which is to explain the mechanism of avian evolution. He correlates the zonal and formational ranges with differentiation, weighs the role of historic factors operative in California and discusses the factors of climate and isolation in relation to microevolution. Thus not only is this paper a summary and supplement to the earlier work on the distribution of the birds of California, but it contains a scholarly presentation of the concepts of evolution of birds in the state, f urthermore the data are expressed in an objective form that will allow comparisons with distributional features in other areas when such are similarly summarized. All those ornithologists who have worked on the birds of California can take pride in this work, for even though it is a rare individual who has the comprehension and skill for such an undertaking, the summary is made possible only by the gradual accumulation of facts of distribution by many individuals over a long period of time. This treatise shows the complexity of the problem of distribution and the value in greater or lesser degree of the several distributional concepts. It would appear that extreme positions such as re- nouncing life zones are untenable. — William H. Behle. Gr0nlands Fugle. The Birds of Greenland. Part 3. By Finn Salomonsen. Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1951: 9 X 13 in., pp. 349-608, 15 color plates and numerous black and white sketches by Gitz-Johansen, and a separate map, 15% X 22% in., in color. $42 for the three volumes and map. Decorative bindings obtainable at extra cost from the publisher. This, the final part of Salomonsen’s opus, contains full writeups on seven alcids, one eagle, two falcons, two owls, and ten passerine birds; a systematic list of all Greenland birds (224 numbered forms) ; an extensive bibliography; and an index of scientific, Danish, Eskimo, and English names. The writeups on the Great Auk ( Pinguinus impen- nis) , Atlantic Guillemot ( Uria a. aalge) , Short-eared Owl (Asio ). flammeus) , Fieldfare (T urdus pilaris ), American Water Pipit ( Anthus spinoletta rubescens) , Meadowr Pipit (A. pratensis) , and White Wagtail ( Motacilla a. alba ) are rather short — evidence that these birds have never been very common on the island. The last four of these actually breed in small numbers, however; Uria aalge also breeds very locally; and the Great Auk “possibly bred in mediaeval times.” The Short-eared Owl, contrary to popular belief (see A.O.U. Check-List, 1931, p. 171), does not breed; the 33 records for it fall into spring (May-June) and autumn (October-December) groups, just as do records for the two races of Green-winged Teal ( Anas crecca ) and the two golden plovers, Pluvialis apricaria and P. dominica. The author’s treatment of Acanthis flammea is exceptional: although regarding all redpolls as one species he nevertheless presents a full writeup on each of the two sub- species found in Greenland — Acanthis flammea rostrata (Greenland Redpoll) and A. f. hornemanni (Hornemann's Redpoll). He believes that the “life habits ... in the breed- ing season” of these two forms (of all redpolls, for that matter) “are identical.” Calling them the same species does not, however, seem to satisfy him completely. He is aware of the fact that in certain other parts of the Arctic the range of the stub-billed, white- rumped form does not strictly complement that of the proportionately longer-billed, streaked-rumped form, and that in these areas the two birds “behave like sympatric species, breeding together in the same locality without interbreeding.” Having witnessed this sympatric breeding myself at Churchill, Manitoba, 1 cannot help believing that the two are full species; that their ecology is not precisely the same; and that behavior dif- ferences will come to light as careful field observations continue. Salomonsen’s treatment June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE 125 of the gyrfalcons is quite different from that which he accords the redpolls. Although believing that three “phases” of Falco rusticolus inhabit the great island, he nevertheless discusses them all in one major writeup. Whether he considers these “phases” to he actual subspecies is not quite clear; he discusses the dark, gray, and white “phases” as, respectively, the obsoletus, holboelli, and candicans types. The dark and gray phases are southern, “being gradually replaced by the white phase to the north. However they do not form an ordinary cline, but what may be called a trimorph ratio cline.” As in Parts 1 and 2, much space is given details of distribution. Particularly is ibis true of the alcids. The whereabouts of virtually every Razor-bill (Alca torda) , Little Auk ( Plotus alle ), Puffin ( Fratercula arctica) , and Briinnich’s Guillemot (Uria lomvia) colony in Greenland is given, together with careful estimates as to the size of many of the colonies. The Black Guillemot ( Cepphus grylle) breeds so widely and often in such small colonies that it receives more general treatment. The Razor-bill, we are told, “always joins colonies of other sea-birds, either auks or gulls.” In these mixed colonies there usually is no real competition for nest sites because the several species nest in different sorts of places — the Razor-bill in fissures, the Puffin in burro wrs in turf, the Little Auk among piles of rocks, the gulls on open ledges, etc.; but “on the coast of small islands, in rough talus of large blocks or in crevices in the firm rock, usually near the water’s edge,” Alca, Plotus, Fratercula, and Cepphus all may breed “indiscriminately amongst each other, apparently without competition.” Of interest are the discussions of food habits — the strikingly different ways in which the various alcids bring food in for their young; the Gyrfalcon’s virtually exclusive use of lemmings when that mammal is abundant; the Peregrine’s ( Falco peregrinus ) method of holding a puffin back-down when feeding, and of leaving the wings (often also the head) untouched and attached to the clean-picked sternum. It will surprise many readers to learn that young Briinnich’s Guillemots, when about three weeks old and still wholly unable to fly, jump “out from the ledge at the call from the parents, which swim in the water below the cliff.” Though the ledge may be three hundred feet high, down the young ones go. Usually they strike the water. Some “end the jump on rocks . . . but this does not apparently hurt them.” Regrettably, Salomonsen does not discuss the flightless period adult alcids presumably live through while undergoing their postnuptial molt. Having myself collected flightless Black Guillemots in northern Hudson Bay, I know something about the behavior of that species during this molt. But what of the Little Auk? Does it pass the flightless period in rafts composed of thousands of birds out at sea — or does it, indeed, become flightless at all? Another matter I had hoped to find information on: the behavior of resident birds at high latitudes in the dead of winter. The Black Guillemot, Gyrfalcon, Snowy Owl ( Nyctea scandiaca) , and Raven (Corvus corax ) are known to winter, at least to some extent, very far north. How do they behave when darkness shuts down? What is their 'daily routine’ at this season? Finally, a word about the color plates. From the standpoint of technique 1 find them remarkably satisfying. Obviously primitive, they look as if they might have been drawn on the walls of caves. My enthusiasm for them must not be interpreted as professional generosity or mere broadmindedness. Some art critics glory in proclaiming their power to see beauty where the “layman” certainly cannot see it; balance where no weight of any sort seems to exist; “dynamic symmetry” where all one can see is a lot of meaningless shapes. This sort of mumbo-jumbo I abhor. But I do admire any artist with drive and bravery enough to put down unconventional concepts he considers worth recording. Gitz- 126 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64, No. 2 Johansen could never have done this long series of drawings without loving Greenland and its birds. With an eye for color and color-contrasts, and with great skill in laying down paint and keeping it fresh, he made these pictures in Greenland. As a group, I like them. But comparing them with “average” bird illustrations would be silly. They were not made as charts of birds, i.e., detailed studies on which descriptions could be based. They are not bird portraits in any ordinary sense of the phrase. I hey are Green- land, seen by a lover of birds through Greenland air. — George Miksch Sutton. PREDATOR CONTROL IN THE LIGHT OL RECENT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS Control of predators, both avian and mammalian, has long been predicated on the hypothesis that a “good" predator was a dead predator and that each one killed meant the certain survival of additional numbers of the prey species for the everlasting en- joyment of the naturalist or the increased bag of the hunter. This belief dominates the thinking of many — both administrators and ornithologists — and controls the action policy of many state and federal agencies. Let us examine three specific cases in point: American mergansers gather in winter on waters providing the best fishing for them, and sometimes these are the best waters for man’s fishing as w'ell. Hence, thousands are to be found on the reservoirs of the arid Southwest. Their fish-eating activities on these bodies of water, especially Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico, have caused the state department of conservation to secure federal permits to kill them by the thousands with shot guns fired from motor boats. This legalized slaughter of a species protected elsewhere as game has been justified by brief, unpublished studies of merganser food habits, which leave some doubt as to how' conclusive are the data concerning the pro- portion of game fishes being taken, the ages of these fishes, and the significance of their numbers. With overwhelming evidence accruing on every side showing that most im- poundments are teeming with slow-growing, stunted fishes resulting from overcrowding with fish too small to be catchable, the significance of fishes taken by such predators as mergansers, herons, and pelicans is completely changed. Perhaps the productivity of many waters would profit in actual pounds of catchable fish if significant predation on the lower age-classes could be induced. Evidence for this has been shown by George Bennett of the Illinois Natural History Survey (Trans. 12th. North Arner. Wild!. Conf., pp. 276-285). He points out that Reelfoot Lake which has taken from it over 400,000 pounds of fish per year by birds alone also provides an average daily take per fisherman of five pounds, a yield exceeded by few, if any, other lakes in this country. Perhaps in the future we may learn that to manage for an increase of fish-eating birds by attracting nesting colonies is also the best fish management. It should further be pointed out that the merganser slaughter on Elephant Butte Reservoir has not accomplished any noticeable reduction in the number of mergansers found there. This means that more birds must be moving in and replacing the thousands killed. It then seems very doubtful that the control is accomplishing the claimed re- duction in the numbers of fish eaten. Futhermore, what is the effect on the merganser population of the flyway? Is this lake, teeming with fish, to serve as a permanently baited trap to eliminate mergansers? Or. is this increased harvest more likely to stimulate the reproductive success of the mergansers so that the population may actually increase, or at least keep its present level of numbers? William H. Elder and Charles M. Kirkpatrick CONSERVATION SECTION 127 This suggestion is not just a far-fetehed possibility for it has been shown that among many populations of vertebrates the rate of increase following a breeding season is great- est when the species is in a low and that this rate of increase falls off in years when the species is in a high, or has an abundant spring breeding population. For a thorough review of the evidence concerning this concept of inversity see Errington (Quart. Rev. Biol, 21:144-177, 221-245). If some of the mergansers slaughtered could be put to some biological use, perhaps we would know the minimum age of breeding in this species, the percentage of juveniles in the population, and be able to compute their reproductive rates and, therefore, be in a better position to judge the effects of control measures. Techniques for these investiga- tions have been worked out by game researchers and stand ready to be applied. We only wish to point out here that the supposed functions and the actual results of merganser control are unknown. Must we go on condoning action programs with such a dubious basis? Another possible example of the functioning of inversity induced by man’s control measures is the tremendous and persistent upsurge in coyotes as witnessed by their spread into hundreds of miles of new range. Not only has the taxpayer’s money, wasted by this policy, proven ineffectual over the last 150 years in the United States, but also one wonders whether the upsurge in coyote populations may not have been induced in part by the harvest! We do not wish to imply that the causal relationships are either clear or simple for it is apparent that the same control efforts have almost completely elimi- nated the coyote’s cousin, the timber w'olf, as well as driven the mountain lion from much of its former range. But now the specter of airplane-distributed new poisons, such as “1080,” looms on the horizon for all predators and this latest blasphemy against nature provides the means for wiping out the coyote on the Great Plains. Are we again to see plagues of jackrabbits overrunning our cattle ranges as they did in the 1920’s? Already early reports of jack- rabbit increases in the Dakotas and elsewhere suggest that the shift is on the way. We may face a rabbit-controlled landscape such as England has experienced as a result of extreme predator control on her East Anglican heaths. Are we again to trade one problem species for another, and in the name of a “conservation action program”? Recent studies by Lyle Sowls, at the Delta Waterfowl Research Station in Manitoba, have demonstrated the significance of renesting, primarily second nesting attempts made by ducks. Prior to this, Cartright (Trans. 9th North Arner. Wildl. Conj., pp. 324—330) clearly explained how important predation on early nests was to actual species survival in upland game birds. He reasoned that if such single-brooded species nested unmolested by predators, a synchronized early nesting would result ; this would make the production of the entire year vulnerable to complete destruction by severe late spring weather such as sleet, hail or flooding. In short, the best insurance against such a catastrophe is a pro- longed and staggered nesting season forced by destruction of a goodly proportion of first nests by predators. Cartright has recently cited similar evidence from waterfowl popula- tions (Trans. 17 th North Arner. Wildl. Conj.). In the light of this new concept, the wisdom of mass bombings of crows in winter roosts is seriously challenged as a means for better- ing duck nesting. Several state game departments in the Middle West have long pointed with pride to their organized slaughter of crows accomplished by night bombing in winter roosts and by shooting contests. But how many states can demonstrate that the crows they kill come from duck-nesting regions or otherwise are detrimental? Again we are having action programs of destruction thrust upon us by slate agencies. It is time to 128 THE WILSON BULLETIN June 1952 Vol. 64. No. 2 test the need for these actions since the predators eliminated may actually insure a higher average productivity in ducks or upland game. In some outstanding waterfowl areas we have visited, crows are now comparatively scarce but skunks seem to have reached an all time high. Instead of being continuously classified and treated as vermin perhaps we may learn that this four-footed nest robber has only replaced in function his avian counterpart, the crow, in ensuring a staggered nesting season. In this way a crop of young ducks is never completely vulnerable to destruction by spring climatic catastrophies, such as the hail storms Alberta suffered in 1947 or the floods so destructive to duck nesting in Manitoba the same year. Now that we have been provided with the concept of inversity as a widely operating population phenomenon, as well as some new angles of the predation equation, it be- comes increasingly clear that the old dichotomy of “harmful” and “beneficial” is a mean- ingless and fallacious classification of living things. This division of all plant and animal species into two exclusive categories supposedly having an economic basis is deeply rooted in many fields of biology. That it is still used by authors of student texts, in botany, in entomology, in Farmers’ Bulletins, etc., seems most deplorable. Unless we insist upon the forcible excision of this relic of past thinking from all our biological books, we will continue to raise generations which classify living things only on an economic standard. This may be disastrous. At the rate our human population is expanding in the United States and the resulting increased rate of demand for room for public developments (now taking one-fifth of all our acreage) naturalists will be in no position to justify the preser- vation of any species or any area on an economic basis alone. If we are to have and to enjoy birds and to harvest wildlife on a permanent basis, we must provide the next genera- tion with criteria other than monetary for judging the recreational, educational and esthetic value of landscape and wildlife. — William H. Elder and Charles M. Kirk- patrick. Second Cooperative Study of Nocturnal Bird Migration Studies of the nocturnal migration of birds, using small telescopes directed at the moon, are being continued this fall on a greatly expanded basis. Interested persons who have access to a small telescope are urged to write at once to Robert J. Newman at the Museum of Zoology. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Details regarding project and procedure will be promptly supplied. — George H. Lowery, Jr. This number of The If ilson Bulletin was published on June 16. 1952. Editor of The Wilson Bulletin HARRISON B. TORDOFF Museum of Natural History University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Associate Editor KEITH R. KELSON Chairman of the Illustrations Committee ROBERT M. MENGEL Suggestions to Authors Manuscripts intended for publication in The Wilson Bulletin should be neatly type- written, double-spaced, and on one side only of good quality white paper. Tables should be typed on separate sheets. Before preparing these, carefully consider whether the material is best presented in tabular form. Where the value of quantitative data can be enhanced by use of appropriate statistical methods, these should be used. Follow the A. 0. U. Check-List (fourth edition) and supplements thereto insofar as scientific names of United States and Canadian birds are concerned unless a satisfactory explanation is offered for doing otherwise. Use species names (binomials) unless specimens have actually been handled and subspecifically identified. Summaries of major papers should be brief but quotable. Where fewer than five papers are cited, the citations may be included in the text. All citations in “General Notes” should be included in the text. Follow carefully the style used in this issue in listing the literature cited. Photographs for illustrations should be sharp, have good contrast, and be on glossy paper. Submit prints unmounted and attach to each a brief but adequate legend. Do not write heavily on the backs of photographs. Diagrams and line drawings should be in black ink and their lettering large enough to permit reduction. The Illustrations Committee will prepare drawings, following authors’ directions, at a charge of $1 an hour, the money to go into the color- plate fund. Authors are requested to return proof promptly. Extensive alterations in copy after the type has been set must be charged to the author. A Word to Members The Wilson Bulletin is not as large as we want it to be. It will become larger as funds for publication increase. The Club loses money, and the size of the Bulletin is cut down accordingly, each time a member fails to pay dues and is put on the ‘suspended list.’ Postage is used in notifying the publisher of this suspension. More postage is used in notifying the member and urging him to pay his dues. When he does finally pay he must be reinstated on the mailing list and there is a publisher’s charge for this service. The Bulletin will become larger if members will make a point of paying their dues promptly. Notice of Change of Address If your address changes, notify the Club immediately. Send your complete new address to the Treasurer, Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Drive, Louisville 5, Kentucky. He in turn will notify the publisher and editor. Members are reminded of the Club’s urgent need of spare issues of Numbers 1, 2, and 3 of the 1951 volume of the Bulletin. For further details, see Editor- ial section of this issue. Aj-W VOL. 64, No. 3 September 1952 PAGES 129-192 ®4)e Wilson bulletin Published by ®fic Gibson (©rnttfjological Club at MS. COMP. Z001 Lawrence, Kansas LIBRARY OCT 3 1952 |J : The Wilson Ornithological Club Founded December 3, 1888 Named after Alexander Wilson, tlie first American ornithologist. President — Maurice Brooks, West Virginia University, Morgantown. First Vice-President — W. J. Breckenridge, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Second Vice-President — Burt L. Monroe, Ridge Road, Anchorage, Ky. Treasurer — Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Drive, Louisville 5, Ky. Secretary — Harold F. Mayfield, 2557 Portsmouth Ave., Toledo 13, Ohio. Membership dues per calendar year are: Sustaining, $5.00; Active, $3.00. The Wilson Bulletin is sent to all members not in arrears for dues. Wilson Ornithological Club Library The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, housed in the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, was established in concurrence with the University of Michigan in 1930. Until 1947 the Library was maintained entirely by gifts and bequests of books, pamphlets, re- prints, and ornithological magazines from members and friends of The Wilson Ornith- ological Club. Now two members have generously established a fund for the purchase of new books; members and friends are invited to maintain the fund by regular contributions, thus making available to all Club members the more important new books on ornithology and related subjects. The fund will be administered by the Library Committee, which will be glad for suggestions from members on the choice of new books to be added to the Library. George J. Wallace, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, is Chairman of the Committee. The Library currently receives 65 periodicals as gifts and in exchange for The Wilson Bulletin. With the usual exception of rare books, any item in the Library may be borrowed by members of the Club and will be sent prepaid (by the University of Michigan) to any address in the United States, its possessions, or Canada. Return postage is paid by the borrower. Inquiries and requests by borrowers, as well as gifts of books, pamphlets, reprints, and magazines, should be addressed to “The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.” Contri- butions to the New Book Fund should be sent to the Treasurer, Leonard C. Brecher, 1900 Spring Dr., Louisville 5, Ky. (small sums in stamps are acceptable). A preliminary index of the Library’s holdings was printed in the September 1943 issue of The Wilson Bulletin, and each September number lists the book titles in the accessions of the current year. A brief report on recent gifts to the Library is published in every issue of the Bulletin. The Wilson Bulletin The official organ of The Wilson Ornithological Club, published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December, at Lawrence, Kansas. In the United States the subscription price is S3. 00 a year, effective in 1951. Single copies 75 cents. Outside of the United States the rate is $3.25. Single copies, 85 cents. Subscriptions, changes of address and claims for undelivered copies should be sent to the Treasurer. Most back issues of the Bulletin are available (at 50 cents each for 1950 and earlier years, 75 cents each for 1951 and subsequent years) and may be ordered from the Treasurer. All articles and communications for publication, books and publications for review should be addressed to the Editor. Exchanges should be addressed to The Wilson Ornithological Club Library, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Entered as second class matter at Lawrence, Kansas. Additional entry at Ann Arbor, Mich. THE WILSON BULLETIN A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY Published by The Wilson Ornithological Club KltS. COMP. ZOOL LIBRARY OCT 3 1952 Vol. 64, No. 3 September, 1952 Pages 129 19%’!»EQS1TY CONTENTS The President’s Page W. J. Breckenridge 130 Green Kingfisher, Painting by George Miksch Sutton opp. page 131 The Green Kingfisher Dwain IT. Warner 131 Extra-parental Cooperation in the Nesting of Chimney Swifts Ralph W. Dexter 133 A Check-List and Bibliography of Hybrid Birds in North America North of Mexico E. Lendell Cockrum 140 General Notes SNOWY EGRET AND LITTLE BLUE HERON BREEDING IN OKLAHOMA Wallace Hughes 160 NESTING-HEIGHT PREFERENCE OF THE EASTERN KINGBIRD Harold Mayfield 160 NORTHERN MOCKINGBIRD ON MONA ISLAND, PUERTO RICO .... Vlrgilio Biaggi, Jr. 161 loggerhead shrike with malformed bill Bernard and Emilie Baker 161 post-juvenal winc molt in the bobolink Kenneth C. Parkes 161 LITTLE BLUE HERON AND SANDHILL CRANE IN CENTRAL NEW YORK Richard B. Fischer 163 obstruction on the bill of a mockingbird ... Emerson A. Stoner 163 WINTER MORTALITY OF BARN OWLS IN CENTRAL OHIO.. Paul A. Stewart 164 HAIL DAMAGE TO WILDLIFE IN SOUTHWEST OKLAHOMA Glenn Jones 166 A POSSIBLE HYBRID BETWEEN THE HOODED MERGANSER AND THE RED- BREASTED merganser _ ... ..... John G. Erickson 167 Editorial 168 Ornithological Literature .... 170 Frank A. Pitelka, Speciation and Distribution in American Jays of the Genus Aphelocoma, reviewed by Allan R. Phillips; Herbert Brandt, Arizona and its Bird Life, reviewed by Gale Monson; Althea R. Sherman, Birds of an Iowa Dooryard, reviewed by Ruth Thomas. Conservation Section: Outdoor Education Cook County Style Robert. A. McCabe 174 Wilson Ornithological Club Library. Books: Complete List 2 176 Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting Harold F. Mayfield 186 THE PRESIDENT’S PAGE A .O.C. members who have never attended an annual meeting of their organization are missing the enjoyable experience of mixing socially with other members and of listening to papers and the discussions following the papers. These members realize the existence of the organization almost exclusively through The Wilson Bulletin. They peruse the papers that appear in each Bulletin and perhaps wonder who the people are who carry on such studies and under what circumstances they work — probably college professors or enthusiastic college students with full time to devote to their work and with excellent, expensive equipment at their elbows to aid in the work. This is by no means always the case. Consider, for example, the indefatigable Lawrence H. Walkinshaw, a practicing dentist in Battle Creek, Michigan. He has his dental practice, a wife and family, and yet he finds time to do exhaustive work on several species, including Chipping Sparrows (1944. Wils. Bull., 56:193-205), Prothonotary Warblers (1941. Wils. Bull., 53:3-21), and Sandhill Cranes (1949. Cranbrook Inst. Sci., Bull. No. 29, x + 202 pp.), not to mention a large number of other shorter articles. Although few of us are endowed with the time, initiative, and energy to accomplish so much in our spare time, no doubt many readers of the Bulletin have pet problems they would like to pursue further, and would, with some encouragement and perhaps some financial aid. Even the simplest problems usually re- quire, for special field equipment or travel, funds which are not always available, especial- ly to younger workers. In this connection, two research grants are available this year through the W.O.C. The first, the Louis Agassiz Fuertes Research Grant of $100 annually, coming from an anonymous friend of ornithology, has as its basic requirement that work to receive aid must deal with some phase of ornithology. One need not be connected with an educa- tional institution nor have extensive formal education to be eligible. This is the one of the two grants which presents possibilities for helping W.O.C. members in their local bird research problems. The Pell Fund makes $25 annually available to assist promising young bird artists to develop their art. This fund was given in honor of the late S. Morris Pell. These grants are awarded through our W.O.C. Research Committee. Dr. John Emlen (Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 6, Wisconsin) has accepted the chairmanship of this committee for another year, and applications or requests for further information may be sent to Dr. Emlen. For amateurs and students in small institutions, may J also suggest the research funds from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which are distributed to recipients through the state academies of science. Funds to state academies are allotted according to the number of members of the particular academy who are also members of the A.A.A.S. In Minnesota, for instance, during 1951 this fund amounted to $112. Applications for such aid should be sent directly to your state academy of science. For those interested in knowing what types of work are being carried on and which might be appropriate studies for which to apply for research aid, I suggest reviewing the listing entitled “Graduate Research in Ornithology” by Ragg and Swanson (Wils. Bull., 1951, 63:62-64; 1952, 64:60-63) as well as the note on lists of research in progress at 16 Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit schools (1951. Wils. Bull., 63:212). Undoubtedly the great majority of W.O.C. members are simply interested in hireling as an enjoyable hobby and have no publication ambitions. However, here and there is the capable person with initiative who can make outstanding contributions to ornithology. Such persons, we hope, can be located and given aid in case the financial barrier is proving an effective block to their accomplishments. W. J. Breckenridge. GREEN KINGFISHER (Chloroceryle americana) From a drawing in watercolor made in Mexico by George Miksch Sutton. Third in the Hilton memorial series of color plates. THE GREEN KINGFISHER BY DWAIN W. WARNER r^HE Green Kingfisher ( Chloroceryle americana ) inhabits watercourses and X shores from southern Texas and Arizona to the northern tributaries of Hudson’s La Plata, from the brackish water of mangrove-fringed lagoons to mountain streams 7000 feet above the sea. The two extremes of habitat are the exception, however; it prefers smaller rivers and streams and quiet pools of lowlands. Water it must have, and in the water must be small fish upon which it feeds; but the land surrounding these waters may reflect, in various parts of this kingfisher’s range, a wide range of climatic conditions. In the semi-arid coastal plain scrub of Tamaulipas I have found it in August along nearly dry arroyos where the only water was in depressions whose sides lay baked hard and cracked deeply under a torrid sun and whose contracting shore line was muddied by constant visitors of many kinds, especially flocks of White-winged Doves ( Zenaida asiatica) . Three weeks earlier I had found this little king- fisher perched in flooded scrub forest near Alta Mira over water four to ten feet deep and turbid with floating debris. In contrast I recall seeing it in January of 1944, along backwaters at the edge of tropical rainforest in Panama. Again, in Puebla, Mexico, in December of 1951, one individual was found at a still, dark pool in tropical evergreen forest at the brink of a hundred foot precipice overlooking the Rio Cazones flowing nearly a thou- sand feet below. At all of these places these little kingfishers perched quietly and for long periods, or changed positions on the perch, or flew rapidly in a direct manner to another perch. When startled, they occasionally gave a rattling twitter, sharper than that of the Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) . I noted little other activity during the non-breeding season. In spring it becomes less solitary, calling increases, and with the approach of the mating period fight- ing for territories becomes a common sight where the birds are fairly numerous. What the limitations to its distribution within its geographic range are is not known, but surely food must be one of the most important, and nest sites and competition with other birds possibly are limiting factors also. Its small size precludes its taking anything but small fish and perhaps other small aquatic animals. The prey, taken by short drops to the water, must be near the surface. The body weight (41.0, 42.8 grams; December males) prohibits a deep plunge from a low perch. Mr. Rezneat Darnell, who is completing a study on the fishes of the Rio Sabinas in southwestern Tamaulipas, has in- 131 132 THE WILSON BULLETIN September 1952 Vol. 64, No. 3 formed me that several species of Gambusia are the only small fish living near the surface of the river and its arroyos, and that they are probably the principal food of the Green Kingfisher there. In winter I have not found more than a single bird at one place. By early December the families have apparently dispersed. A. C. Bent (1940. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 176) reported that the Belted Kingfisher has been seen driv- ing the Green Kingfisher from feeding grounds. But in Veracruz Robert Mengel and I found this small species inhabiting during July a part of the Rio Jamapa where the Ringed ( Megaceryle torquata ) and the Amazon King- fishers ( Chloroceryle amazona ) also occurred. When considering other bird associates of the Green Kingfisher one can- not restrict the list to water birds alone. At the dark pool on the brink of the Mesa de San Diego in Puebla there were no other water birds, hut forest species were common. The little kingfisher living there at the time paid no attention to the sound and activity about, but sat immobile for long periods, staring downward, where its own reflection was mirrored perfectly in the still waters. Minnesota Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, July 28, 1952 EXTRA-PARENTAL COOPERATION IN THE NESTING OF CHIMNEY SWIFTS BY RALPH W. DEXTER OVER a period of years, the interrelationships of individuals in a nesting colony of Chimney Swifts ( Chaetura pelagica ) are closely knit. In an effort to understand these relationships, 1 have carried on banding and life history studies of the breeding colony of this species inhabiting the campus of Kent State University in northeastern Ohio since 1944. The general methods, objectives, and some of the results of this study have already been published (Dexter, 1950a, 1950b, 1951, 1952). The present paper is concerned with observations on nesting procedure in which one or two additional birds joined the parents for the nesting season. These visitors live in harmony with the family throughout the nesting period and share in the responsibilities of nesting. A few instances of such behavior have been mentioned previously in connection with life history studies of certain individuals (Dexter, 1951, 1952). The only other known references to such observations are two brief reports. Day (1899) wrote that (after hatching occurred in a nest she had under observation), “From this time forth a third Swift was seen to enter into the care of the nestlings, taking its turn at brooding and feeding.” Sherman (1924:87) described the relation- ship, “Gentle and devoted to one another, they show similar amiability and courtesy to the adult stranger that comes into their home to share the work of feeding and brooding their young.” She called the visiting bird a “nurse maid.” Extra-parental cooperation in three other species of birds has been described by Skutch (1935). In the preparation of this report, the assistance and encouragement of Mrs. Margaret M. Nice has been valuable. During eight years of observations, I studied 22 threesomes and six four- somes. Ordinarily, only one pair of swifts occupies any one of the 88 air shafts available to the birds of this colony. Each year there has been an average of 13 pairs, the majority of them (91 per cent, on the average) having returned from past years’ residence. There has been an average of three threesomes and one foursome each year. Altogether a total of 40 swifts (38 per cent of the breeding birds) have been involved in a threesome arrangement. Of these, two were involved five times, two others four times, five three times, and three involved twice. Eighteen swifts have lived in a foursome, one of them three times and four of them twice. Nine birds have been at one time or another in both a threesome and a foursome. Seven of these nine have been in multiple cases of one or the other. Not only is there 133 134 THE WILSON BULLETIN w hJ ffl <! C/2 H > r" C/l >- w S 5 cj H C/3 W c*- o C/2 z O H < £ 02 s o CJ l-J < H £ W cc < a. -i cc H X W 1951 cm CO o po >• cv' PO ^ Of o+ CH- El ; SI VI 1950 CO r “H LO o po po <N- Po PO po po Of PO Of Of 041 Of Of D4; El C4; M7 Q2 1949 Tf* i“H TT rH cv • po po PO PO PO po po PO <<3 Of Ot Of Of OJ 1)1; P3 Q2; SI r— H W 1948 TT CO r— 1 po po po po po po po po p o Of Of Of Of O' A' x < CO X 1947 U- rH rH CM *o CV. ^ *° *° „ f-o po Of Of Of Z Ql; Q2 1946 i —H CM rH *o *° °+ po Of Of Of 1)1 ; D4 rH 1945 rH CM rH po PO PO Po Of Of Po Of Of Of D1 ; D4 ^H 1944 CO CM o IN- PO *° Of OP Of D1 ; 04 o CJ C/2 cj Cl, C/2 0/ C/2 OJ O c/2 S-. o z X V C/1 c/2 c (L X o C/2 13 -a c/i September 1952 Vol. 64, No. 3 Ralph W. Dexter NESTING CHIMNEY SWIFTS 135 a tendency on the part of certain individuals to participate in such a social organization, but they repeatedly choose the same air shafts for their co- operative nesting. One shaft has been thus occupied five times and another one four times. Three have been used three times and two twice. A total of thirteen shafts have been used. Males seem to be more inclined than fe- males to take part in such behavior although both sexes participate. Since sex identification depends upon the dissection of dead birds and the indirect evidence of mating combinations, the sex of all individuals in the colony has not yet been determined. Fortunately, the sex of several key birds has been obtained through dissection, and one female was discovered which laid an egg after being abandoned by her mate (Dexter, 1950b). Knowing these facts, I could ascertain the sex of many individuals; 12 threesomes contained an extra male and five had an extra female. Five cases remain unsettled. Three of the foursomes had two extra males while the other contained one extra male and one of unknown sex. The data are summarized in Table 1. I thought at first that the extra birds residing with the mated pairs were either immature or too old for breeding. There is evidence, however, that Chimney Swifts can breed in their first year, and some of the multiple com- binations remain intact for two consecutive years. Also, I have known combinations to dissolve after a year or two and all individuals take part in active breeding with one mate. Some, but not all, combinations are the result of the attachment of a yearling or an old bird in its last year of life to a mated pair. Generally during the early stages of the nesting season mated birds of a pair roost for the night side by side on the wall of the air shaft; the extra bird roosts a few inches away or on an adjacent wall, but usually at the same level. After the nest has been completed, one bird may roost on the nest and two just below it, or two on the nest and one either below or beside it. Oc- casionally all three will roost side by side below the nest, especially just before the clutch of eggs is completed during which time the eggs are seldom incubated. After the nesting season is over and the juveniles have left, a threesome or foursome will sometimes remain roosting together nightly in the same shaft. At times all three or four will roost side by side. The mated pairs do not remain together any longer or in greater frequency than the multiple groups once the juveniles have left the home shaft. The combinations of three and four birds for nesting seem to be an agreeable arrangement, and all apparently assist with incubation of the eggs and care of the young. I he histories of certain combinations follow. Observations were made with a flash- light at night and a mirror during the daytime. The birds were trapped for banding in the standard traps used for Chimney Swifts. 136 THE WILSON BULLETIN September 1952 Vol. 64, No. 3 In 1944, a female (42-196912) nested with two birds of undetermined sex in shaft Dl. The following year the female returned to the same place, but in the absence of the other two she nested with a young male (42-196934 ) which I had banded as a fledgling the previous year. They were joined by a female (42-196915) which had nested the previous year in shaft jl. In 1946, nos. 12 and 34 returned again to nest in Dl where they were joined by a male (42- 184486) . The latter was probably the functional male since no. 34 left the group before nesting was completed. Late in September, 1946, when many of the swifts had already left the campus,