Sanh ' ma Serene = Sones = Sig seem Ey, ve me iste es AAAS te , ante Rs ‘3 ae BE ‘ eK on at Henge Write giving ee i in Shaiya Lae MORT AMER AW SUR Tatts, Yrs ios, Ag) a Ne A ee i y iH . ny 7 AOD iy sl ai ee 7 es p PedWicel Uc? day ae CL a; oe i i aa “9 a ES - re oa re ae 7 aete AL A aT : any a | 7 re Me poate .! a | i ae Le iw iy os oy Lees oy i ise rN ene a iy) ue - o : : ~ a ree BL ' ae 7 7 pie - a SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM ButueTin 197 LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN WAGTAILS, SHRIKES, VIREOS, AND THEIR ALLIES ORDER PASSERIFORMES BY ARTHUR CLEVELAND BENT Taunton, Massachusetts UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1950 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. - Price $1.50 ADVERTISEMENT The scientific publications of the National Museum include two series known, respectively, as Proceedings and Bulletin. The Proceedings series, begun in 1878, is intended primarily as a medium for the publication of original papers, based on the collections of the National Museum, that set forth newly acquired facts in biology, anthropology, and geology, with descriptions of new forms and re- visions of limited groups. Copies of each paper, in pamphlet form, are distributed as published to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects. The dates at which these separate papers are published are recorded in the table of contents of each of the volumes. The series of Bulletins, the first of which was issued in 1875, con- tains separate publications comprising monographs of large zoologi- cal groups and other general systematic treatises (occasionally in sev- eral volumes), faunal works, reports of expeditions, catalogs of type specimens, special collections, and other material of similar nature. The majority of the volumes are octavo in size, but a quarto size has been adopted in a few instances in which large plates were regarded as indispensable. In the Bulletin series appear volumes under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium, in octavo form, published by the National Museum since 1902, which contain papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum. The present work forms No. 197 of the Bulletin series. ALEXANDER WETMORE, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. CONTENTS Page Tiana eCoYe Ab Kyi CO) Oye a Ae PE eg ee Vil COLO LE) Be EY NSPS Og GON oF ONS ee i ge te eg ca Bera 1 Familyserimellidac:.Accentorst: 2220 2 es su on Me See ee er ee ee 1 Prunellaymontanellay Mountain accentor:-.—-— 92 -=- 222252225222 _- 1 abit see ae eee nee Linu: Be toe 2 ten ee Ne ey Ae See ee Pee i TED RSH ei OLE G90) Oe re ag ea 3 Family Motacillidae: Wagtails’and pipits-2= 9-9 Y0)!2 2-2-2 ese eel ce 3 Motacillajalbavalbas White -wactaile== === ee 3 TEM ea 1S as eet ee np EA IRAP ee TANCES SHE MINS SPN ed 3 ADB) YS E58 LO Ua Tse ne tng al ne Ue RT 11 Motacilla alba ocularis: Swinhoe’s wagtail________________-_------ 12 AFA BGS Secs Ser Once tree Se py oe eA et ee a 12 MTS ET Ui ti Tne ee a ee oe een ee wee een eS 16 Motacilla alba lugens: Black-backed wagtail______._____-_-------- 16 1 OG os ie ne ee ee a 16 MO ISCEUO UGC Tas teeter Bi 2 ee Rte Rey ele es bs meg AE ere Sh 2 18 Motacilla flava alascensis: Alaska yellow wagtail_----_------------ 19 APET Sa BGS ey ait ne cen ope 9B eta Be 8 ele RT 19 Distributions aes ss es eee er ee Oe Os 24 Anthus spinoletta rubescens: American pipit..._....__-..---------- 25 EV 1S sees ea a eh tee A Re ee 2 ee a ee 25 LB SELS gl ODN AC 0) DE eget teh ik cane ga Pe che Re, eM ie 35 Anthus spinoletta japonicus: Japanese pipit._.._____.-_-.---------- 38 TFET Sh LT GS ees ete re pete nae mca ng SATO Vs Ce teed YD ee ee, pal 38 NEVES GT: UTE OTN ee ae eB TNR Rear Bn a ec Ses a ye at 40 Anthusspratensiss- Meadow piplts 22 2222s Soe Ee 40 SUED op i lec ie SS Re Rea ea i UL ORE aU A Ot FES a 40 JEL ESG Rar OLN CO 0 5 Ai re on i Ry oe a ee Ren Rigg epee al gree 47 Anthusicervinus? Red-throated *pipit.22 22 2-4 Pel ens See Se 48 TFET Sa BD Tit reer rr ns eI Ee te PL ain ri eee tS pes ee Ry 48 SGP UE EEO Repro ye TE RRO eR. eae PONS ae TE Se Ra 52 Anthus spragueiscopragie Ss pipit= 254. es eo 52 TEATS ELS iy te IN os en eel Ae ANRITSU 52 1S Grd UG ee ey oy ee se at Boge An ee en, Sek ef 61 Family -Bombycillidacs Waxwitg@s.s.25 627s ee re ee 62 Bombycilla garrulus pallidiceps: Bohemian waxwing- -------------- 62 MEET Sh 1 G3 eee re er, Se Pan oe esi pe nS See tris he at ce! 62 Distributions 2s aes Sas ee BEERS OMA JOUINUE22 77 Bombyeilla;cedrorum: |Cedar waxwint< 22-5. 2222 sss 79 AFAV63 E15 eee om ot aera Bile ce Dericrar oc eee AN BIE CERNE Bae A pt 79 Distrib UtliO Mesos soon Re a ee aon ee we on RR 99 PamilyPtilogonatidae:/silky fiycatchers=s92 2222 eee 102 Phainopepla nitens lepida: Phainopeplas 5. 2522-22222 25. S20 102 1S oy Ud eee ee ee Pee eee, ee eee Lae ae 102 DistribUtlon seas eas sk SE BRE OST 2a) 113 IV BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM = Page Ramily, haniidae?Shrikes=-2 520-2 3428 - ee 114 Lanius borealis borealis: Northern shrike_-_-________._____-__-__- = aks 1a Oy hoe oe et ee eS i ae Sn ol SE Soe 114 Distribution] 2s22as e852 5306 saa eee ete ee eee ee 126 Lanius borealis invictus: Northwestern shrike_____________________ 128 Habitss2 22522526) ee ie ee ee 128 Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus: Loggerhead shrike_______________ 131 Pa Ditaes see eee cer a NE re a We Sy ee ge 131 MD IStTUOUCLO WS Sse Se ye aa a a ee 146 Lanius ludovicianus migrans: Migrant shrike________._____________ 148 WMabitss ose stb S ese cee Rae ee a ee ee 148 Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides: White-rumped shrike____________ 155 FET Sh TA GS ts Se ae eg a 155 Lanius ludovicianus gambeli: California shrike____________________ sep Habitasi2. 2522282 582 2 et en re ee a ae 157 Lanius ludovicianus nelsoni: Nelson’s shrike_____________________-_ 179 Habits 2: = bi2 oe 822 cos Seer See Se eee 179 Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi: Island shrike____________________-- 180 Habits Ses oo ee ce Le ee ee ee 2 2 180 amily; Ssurnidae> Starlings. =.= o> See ees. 2 ee 182 SEUTNUS VU SATIS cVUE SATIS sO GA TMT) ee ye ee ey ee ee 182 Ealbits 32S re es a = ee ee ee 182 Distributions 222 Shia hee ee Dee ae ae ee ee a eo oe 211 Aethiopsar cristatellus cristatellus: Crested mynah________________- 215 Pa bitse sea see ie Bye tre ar ee oe oe ee ee en 215 Distributions ssa ce sae ae eee ae 221 amily Vireonid aes: VireOs= =.= ss ae eee ee ee 222 Vireo atricapillus: Black-capped vireo__________-..__..-.-.-------- 222 PV abits xc s0 se ee at ee Ae iis raat pepe See 222 Distribution sss 22-8 = Sea a a 226 Vireo griseus griseus: White-eyed vireo_____________-___--__------ 227 Wablise se ea soos Se See en eh ee 227 Distributions -26. = ULE 2 oe eee a a ee 235 VEreOreTiseUs May NAT eye WiEStnVATeO meee eee 237 NGA Oy i ee eee eae eer oe Ur ee ea ne eh es eee ee pe SS 237 Vireo griseus bermudianus: Bermuda vireo___________________-__-- 239 Mabits.a- 2225225 s hes eae See eee es oe eee 239 Vireo eriseus micrus: Rio Grande vireo... - 2-2 =) = ee eee 240 Ma bitses oe a2 oe oe oe Coes eke ae Le 2 240 Wireorhuttoni buttons vElatbOm:s vie Om a ee 242 Habits _ 8 oh es Ie Bee Se ad ee 242 Distribution2e 225252522 22 anos 2. Se ee ae ee 248 Vireo huttoni stephensi: Stephens’s vireo_____________________-___-- 249 VAD IG6 oe oot ae pee ae gr the a ee 249 Vireo huttoniicopnatuss Brazen Sivire Ome ee ee 252 1S AW oy (spe yeas ae Oe Rn ce ee Ree en OG NS eres AUNT TN SO 252 Wireo) belligbelliceB ellesi vires eee 253 Est itis en ae ee Ce ee ee rr 253 Distribution] Ss - S22 2 Se 5 fees Se er pe 261 Wireoubellii me dius ex.s) vil .e 0 sees aaa a 263 Pabitees 22.8 Sein Sa tee cee eae ne en 263 Wareoupellivari zona se Ariz ONS vir Ome ae 263 CONTENTS Vv Family Vireonidae—Continued Page Vireo, bellispusilius: beasts vireo. 22> oo. 22) ee ees ee 265 DET eg ERGs eee a nye ee Or) eR iu See re ar 265 WATCORVICIINOL GTA Y WILTCOm aN Soe sas ee Pe eee eee 268 Ea i Sieee ee se Se ee ey eye ee a ee Smee CI a ee ae ea 268 DISET UCL O Tee eee ee ey ee ee ae oe 276 Vireo ftlavitrons: Vellow-throated: vireo. 22-22-45 22-22 2 ee ee 276 TB GENO NI RSI a yO Ca le I 2 ER eg) Py eee my Te 276 BE) TSS GrRS ED UN G1 © Ma ee eee ares eee eet ee rere ee ar Re eee eS 288 Vireo solitarius solitarius: Blue-headed vireo__-_---------- SOS ee 290 ARETE Sse ee ae cir ek EA ee Ps eS 290 WD iStrilow tio ape es ee ee ee Ah io NE ae a 302 Vareo solitarius alticola: Mountain vireoo=_— = -- 222-24 305 1 OY Ot AS seo Cee Si ke AL ms et DU ER eS oh ee im BE 305 Vireo solitarius plumbeus: Plumbeous vireo_--___-_------------- eae ~~ 309 Fay NGS re ey ine ee a re ce eR Nek Se Se ro Se pe Bi 309 WATCORSOLLATIOUS CASSINT == eae es ee ae er eae are 312 Wabits==-sess-2--c a= Ne a nee NYO Se et ea 312 Vireo solitarius lucasanus: San Lucas vireo____-___-------- py ve 315 JE Oy (its ol oa ae cs diye ee apices hares HE ARE Ree Pye EI, Ne OUR SPR I 315 Vireo calidris barbatulus: Black-whiskered vireo_____-_-___-_-_-_-_- 316 VS CSS] OT ESI gg te lo A eS. ia ate IE pL = Ri ey ee 316 DI SETI UGIO Meee eee oe ee ee Oe ae 321 Vireo flavoviridis flavoviridis: Yellow-green vireo__-_-_---_----_---- 321 IEA Ey 1 CS er a a ot are arr oe ere md See Mae Se a BS 321 ESET DOU ETO RNS eet ten eae re ces es ew Oe a oe Seg eae 334 Wireorolivaceus. Red-evyedVireO- = 2 22s 5 ee ee ek ee 335 TB UA OS Rey a Sa ap SR aa ae ee Sh tne tt cee rh sv ay eRe Ein 335 JO FYS{B ws OVOL CO) 0 eg wa A ae ok ae Ee ey ce ee te ee te 346 Vireo philadelphicus:Philadelphia ‘vireo=+-.-.2_-==- 3-.- 2=-===-2-. 348 10) OE aN a eek Rapa os py On pO Geese op Sl ean 348 ISG rib Ut O Messe ea Ses te See tat ls eee ey Es 360 Vireo gilvus gilvus: Eastern warbling vireo___...._.__.------------- 362 Rab itsie sae otha Mee Fe POS ket PE he ee a a 362 DISET U TION see Sey eee Pee a ee ae i Me py Lo Re Pg eT ee 370 Vireo gilvus swainsoni: Western warbling vireo____-_-------------- ote 1 BY) 0) Gs peat Cems mo) ON MO ICI ie Pe pe I eo Cea 373 Coereba bahamensis: Bahama honeycreeper--_-_--_------------------ 379 18 O55] OT espe a SN ae ea aah lye A CRE tT ie Se a ae 379 DIS tri tiOi eee ee ee es ae) On Pee Ne A Me eee 382 ICEL AE UTEy CLEC Ce melee eee re ai ee apaemeelly Ba A ope te a ee wd 383 TREY Cl anne a ete ry RP Sen ee wld ap arg aN et ML lp 401 INTRODUCTION This is the eighteenth in a series of bulletins of the United States National Museum on the life histories of North American birds. Previous numbers have been issued as follows: 107. Life Histories of North American Diving Birds, August 1, 1919. 113. Life Histories of North American Gulls and Terns, August 27, 1921. 121. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies, October 19, 1922. 126. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl (part), May 25, 1923. 130. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl (part), June 27, 1925. 135. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds, March 11, 1927. 142. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds (pt. 1), December 31, 1927. 146. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds (pt. 2), March 24, 1929, 162. Life Histories of North American Gallinaceous Birds, May 25, 1982. 167. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey (pt. 1), May 3, 1937. 170. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey (pt. 2), August 8, 1938. 174. Life Histories of North American Woodpeckers, May 23, 1939. 176. Life Histories of North American Cuckoos, Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds, and Their Allies, July 20, 1940. 179. Life Histories of North American Flycatchers, Larks, Swallows, and Their Allies, May 8, 1942. 191. Life Histories of North American Jays, Crows, and Titmice, January 27, 1947. 195. Life Histories of North American Nuthatches, Wrens, Thrashers, and Their Allies. July 7, 1948. 196. Life Histories of North American Thrushes, Kinglets, and Their Allies, June 28, 1949. The same general plan has been followed and the same sources of information have been utilized as in previous bulletins, to which the reader is referred. As this and the previous bulletin were prepared simultaneously and were originally intended to be published as one bulletin, the list of contributors is the same for both volumes and need not be repeated here. Eighteen complete life histories were contributed especially for this volume; eight were written by Bernard W. Tucker and five by Dr. Winsor M. Tyler; Dr. Alden H. Miller, Wendell Taber, Alexander F. Skutch, Alexander Sprunt, Jr., and Robert S. Woods contributed one each. The same valued assistance was rendered by Dr. Winsor M. Tyler, in indexing, and by Wm. George F. Harris in preparing the egg data and measurements. The manuscript for this volume was completed in 1948. Contribu- tions received since then will be acknowledged later. Only informa- tion of great importance could be added. The reader is reminded again that this is a cooperative work; if he fails to find in these volumes anything that he knows about the birds, he can blame himself for not having sent the information to— Tue AUTHOR. vir Hee ft a 7 ‘4 1, Oke ‘ip thy - ' in . of 7 : i a ‘es ' _ | o a rut t ie oa & 7 to rT i LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN WAG- TAILS, SHRIKES, VIREOS, AND THEIR ALLIES ORDER PASSERIFORMES (FAMILIES PRUNELLIDAE, MOTACIL- LIDAE, BOMBYCILLIDAE, PTILOGONATIDAE, LANIIDAE, STURNI- DAE, AND VIREONIDAE) By Arraur CLEVELAND BENT Taunton, Mass. Order PASSERIFORMES Family PRUNELLIDAE: Accentors PRUNELLA MONTANELLA (Pallas) MOUNTAIN ACCENTOR CONTRIBUTED BY BERNARD WILLIAM TUCKER HABITS There are two records of this Siberian bird in Alaska, the first referring to a specimen taken by C. G. Harrold on Nunivak Island on October 3, 1927, and recorded by Swarth (1928). The second is of a male taken at Camp Collier, St. Lawrence Island, on October 13, 1936, and is recorded by Olaus J. Murie (1988). It was obtained by Mrs. Murie in 1937 from an Eskimo, Jimmie Otiyohok, whose wife had learned to prepare bird skins and who had recognized this as an unusual visitor. It is only in the more southern parts of its range that this species, like a number of other Arctic forms, is confined to mountains. Far- ther north, as Seebohm (1901) has pointed out, it is essentially a bird of the Arctic willow swamps. Dybowski (in Taczanowski, 1872) states that in southeast Siberia, though it is tolerably common in spring, only a few remain to breed in the more elevated portions of the mountains. He met with old birds in company with fledged young in the forests of cedar mingled with firs at the foot of the Chamardaban Mountains at the south end of Lake Baikal. More recently Stegmann 1 2, BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM (1936), writing of the Baikal Mountains, has described the species as mainly characteristic of the subalpine scrub zone and mentions meeting with it in two places in scrub of Pinus pumila. He states that the birds were shy and secretive. Nesting—Popham (1897), who found six nests in the forests of the Yenisei Valley at Yeniseisk, states that these were “sometimes placed as high as eight feet from the ground in the fork of a willow, and at others quite low down in the stump of a dead tree, and composed of small twigs and dry grass lined with moss and a few hairs.” Farther north on the Yenisei, Seebohm (1879) found the species mainly fre- quenting the willow scrub near the banks of the river and took a nest in latitude 7014°, which was built within a foot of the ground. Eggs.—The eggs are a uniform, rather deep blue and are doubtfully distinguishable from those of the European hedge-sparrow (Prunella modularis) , though they are said to tend to be rather paler and smaller. The clutch is 4-6. Jourdain (in Hartert, 1910) gives the measure- ments of 31 eggs as: average, 18.55 by 13.75; maximum, 20.6 by 14.2 and 19.1 by 14.4; minimum, 17 by 13.2 and 17.2 by 12.6 millimeters, Young.—No details are recorded. Plumages.—The plumages are described in Hartert’s great work, “Die Vogel der paliarktischen Fauna” (1910). The juvenal plumage is like the adult’s, but with colors paler and with flecks of brown on the throat and breast. Food.—The food consists of insects and other small invertebrates, together with small seeds in summer and almost exclusively in winter. Exact data seem to be almost entirely lacking, but seeds of Amaranthus are recorded. Behavior.—A quiet unobtrusive bird described as very much like its better-known relative the European hedge-sparrow in habits. Like that species it is inclined to skulk in low cover, though, at any rate in the breeding season, it will also perch in and sing from tall trees, when these are present. Seebohm seldom saw it on the wing, but in autumn Miss Haviland (1915) found that birds which were met with flitting about the bushes of the Yenisei Delta frequently took wing and flew a short distance with a jerky, pipitlike flight. Voice.—The note is a shrill triple call rendered by Seebohm (1901) as ¢éd-il-il and described by him as titlike. It has a short unpretentious but not unpleasing song, which both Seebohm and Popham (1897) describe as resembling that of the European hedge-sparrow, which is a short, high-pitched warbling strain. It may be delivered either from low cover or, within the limits of forest growth, from well up in a tree, and is at any rate of suflicient merit for the species to be kept as a cage bird by the Chinese. Field marks.—No field characters have been recorded as such, but it is a small bird of somewhat warblerlike, though fairly robust, build WHITE WAGTAIL 3 and proportions, with black-streaked brown back, conspicuous black crown and sides of head, separated by a broad pale yellow superciliary stripe, and pale yellow underparts. The striking head pattern and yellow underparts should make it easy to be recognized. Length about 6 inches. Fall and winter—David and Oustalet (1877) state that in China at the beginning of the winter cold it settles in gardens and brushwood- covered places, and La Touche (1925), quoting the experience of the Bailey Willis Expedition in 1908-4, states that in the Chili-Shansi Mountains in winter “singly or in pairs they are met in almost every gulch, flitting in and out among the boulders and rugged ledges along the brooks.” DISTRIBUTION Summer range.—Siberia from the Urals to Bering Sea, north to about 70° in the Yenisei Valley, south to the Altai, Sayansk, Baikal, and Stanovoi Mountains. Winter range.—North China and Korea. Occasional in the Ural Mountains and stated to occur on passage in the Crimea. Casual records.—Italy, Austria. Family MOTACILLIDAE: Wagtails and Pipits MOTACILLA ALBA ALBA Linnaeus WHITE WAGTAIL CONTRIBUTED BY BERNARD WILLIAM TUCKER HABITS The white wagtail is an irregular, but apparently not really very rare, visitor to east Greenland, where it has even bred occasionally, and it has been recorded once on the west coast. Winge in his “Gr¢n- lands Fugle” (1898) was able to quote three records, which include the still unique one for the west coast just mentioned. This refers to a female from Godthaab sent by Holbgll to the Copenhagen Museum in 1849. The other two refer to Angmagsalik, and it is from this locality, the site of the only considerable settlement on the east coast, that in- formation as to the status of the white wagtail in Greenland is chiefly derived. This is due in the main to the careful records of Johan Peter- sen, the colony superintendent from 1894 to 1915, which are dealt with by Helms in his account of “The Birds of Angmagsalik” (1926). Petersen first observed a white wagtail at Angmagsalik in the spring of 1895, and this constitutes one of the records quoted by Winge. “In 1899 it was seen every day during nesting time in July-August, and on August 21st Petersen saw a young bird. It appeared for the last 4 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM time on August 31st.” He observed another on June 12, 1900, and one was shot on June 10, 1915. On May 15, 1900, he was also informed by a Greenlander from Sermilik, in the same district, that three had been seen there about two days previously. It may be added that Alvin Pedersen (1930) was informed by Greenlanders that the white wagtail was often met with at Angmagsalik. F. S. Chapman (1982), orni- thologist on the British Arctic Air Route Expedition, records a nest with six eggs at Angmagsalik on June 16, 1931. He also records one identified near the expedition’s base, west of Sermilik Fjord in the Angmagsalk district, on May 10 of the same year and two on May 16, but none were seen there after May 17. Chapman remarks that the white wagtail and several other species which breed in Iceland, only a few hundred miles distant, “all appeared for a few days and then vanished, as if they had overshot their destination.” Alvin Pedersen (1926 and 1930) records white wagtails from the Scoresby Sound district, considerably farther north. One was shot at Cape Stewart on August 24, 1924, and on June 38, 1925, he saw one at Cape Hope and a little later three at a puddle of thaw water. Men working at Cape Hope knew the birds well; they had been seen daily for some days and there were thought to be two pairs. They were not seen, however, after June 9. Another was believed to have been seen and heard at Elvdal on August 15. In his 1930 paper Pedersen records that in 19238 in the second half of March young wagtails were seen in two places. “One can therefore conclude with certainty that the species has bred at Scoresby Sound.” Unfortunately, Pedersen’s statement is rather ambiguous. It seems obvious that young birds could not have been hatched in Arctic Greenland in March, which seems extraordi- narily early for any small birds except snow buntings to be present at all. If birds young in the sense of being in their first spring are meant, then it may be observed in the first place that it seems unlikely that they could have been recognized as such without shooting and secondly that they would only afford evidence of breeding if they were known to have wintered in the country. Of this there is, of course, no evidence whatever and in such a latitude it appears almost, if not quite, impos- sible. The import of Pedersen’s statement is thus obscure, and it is a pity he was not more explicit. It seems logical to suppose that his birds were early migrants. The above is, to the best of the writer’s knowledge, the sum total of published information with regard to the white wagtail in Green- land, and it has seemed desirable to deal with it fairly fully, as the status of this bird in Greenland seems never to have been adequately dealt with in American literature. The A. O. U. Check-list quotes only Godhavn (on the west coast) on the authority of a second-hand statement by Prof. Alfred Newton in the “Arctic Manual” (1875) and ignores the much more numerous records for the east coast, except WHITE WAGTAIL 5) for the rather vague statement in a footnote “said to breed on east coast (Schigler).” The Godhavn record is based on the inclusion of Motacilla alba in a list of birds obtained at that place in August 1857 by Dr. David Walker in the Ibis, 1860, p. 166, but this was an error, as Professor Newton himself subsequently showed (Yarrell’s “British Birds,” ed. 4, vol. 1, 1874, p. 549), so that the record should be deleted. Apart from its visits to Greenland the white wagtail is entitled to a place on the American list on the ground of an occurrence near Fort Chimo, northern Ungava, in August 1883. With regard to this Lucien M. Turner (1885) wrote that four individuals were seen by Alex. Brown and James Lyall, of the Hudson’s Bay Co., on August 29, 1883, at Hunting Bay, 4 miles south of Fort Chimo. He added that they described the birds accurately, stating that they were the two parents and two young of the year and that he placed the fullest reliance on their assertion. The white wagtail, or its British representative, the pied wagtail (M. alba yarrellit) , is one of the birds which an American ornithologist visiting Europe is almost sure to see, even if he has little leisure for bird observation, for it is much associated with buildings and inhab- ited places, though in no way confined to such. About farms and villages its liking for nesting in sheds and outbuildings or in crannies in walls attracts it into association with man, and it may be met with even in towns, in the more residential districts where some gardens and open ground are available. Among European small birds it is one of the species for which it is most difficult to define any clear-cut habitat or “biotope,” and so far as one can be defined at all it must be partly in negative terms. It is found in a variety of more or less open country, especially, as already noted, about farms, buildings, and cultivation, and preferably, though by no means necessarily, near ponds, streams, or other water. Large closely built-up areas, large uninhabited tracts of moor or marshland and the like, and high ele- vations in mountains are generally avoided. The same is true of closely wooded country, but here comparatively limited clearings or open ground along the banks of rivers and streams will suffice to attract it. In the high north of Europe it is found mainly near the coast, while in Iceland, according to Hantzsch (1905), it prefers the lower-lying regions especially near standing or running waters and the vicinity of the sea, and displays the same attachment to farm- steads, villages, and inhabited places that it does on the mainland of Europe. It is probable that the relatively frequent records of its occurrence at Angmagsalik are not solely due to the much more regular observation there as compared with other parts of the east coast of Greenland, but again to this liking for the haunts of man— a liking, it should be added, which, at any rate in the breeding season, 6 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM is sufficiently accounted for by the variety of suitable breeding sites they afford. The name white wagtail is too firmly established to be altered, but it is a rather absurd misnomer, for the bird has a pied pattern of gray, white, and black. The name is presumably a translation of Linnaeus’s “Alba” and has probably been the more readily accepted by English ornithologists because it does serve to express, though - in an exaggerated form, the main difference between the black-backed British race or pied wagtail and the paler, gray-backed continental bird. In fact, in this case, as in that of the white rhinoceros, it seems that it must be understood as meaning “not so black”! Courtship.—The courtship display of Motacilla alba seems more elaborate than in most small European passerines. It has been more fully described in the British form or pied wagtail than in the white wagtail proper, but there is no reason to suppose that the races differ in their behavior. The most complete account of the pied wagtail’s display is that of Boase (1926). In the early stages the female is often pursued hither and thither in a graceful, erratic, dancing flight by one, two, or more males which endeavor to induce her to pause long enough for them to posture before her with the head held high and the bill pointing upward at a sharp angle so as to display the glossy black gorget. It is somewhat curious that according to Boase’s observations this display of the throat patch appears not to occur in the display of paired birds, but only in the early stages, of courtship in the narrower sense, when males are endeavoring to attract a mate. Further observation on this point is perhaps desirable. In later stages the male frequently approaches the female in a zigzag course, posturing at the same time. Boase describes two variations of this performance. In one the head was moved with a jerky bowing action, a quick flutter of the wings accompanying each return to the normal position. In the other the bird had the head depressed and carried the wing nearest the female expanded, at the same time expanding and depressing the tail and twisting it over to the same side so as to display as much as possible of its upper surface. Displays of this general type, with variations, are not uncommon. Again, as described by Boase, the male may approach the female with wings drooping and tail spread and depressed, head held low, and the feathers of the rump raised, in a manner recalling a display posture of the European blackbird. Boase does not mention coition as following such displays, but the one just described, at any rate, is a typical preliminary to the sexual act. He does, however, describe in this connection another more striking form of posturing in which the male spreads and erects the tail vertically, with bill inclined upward WHITE WAGTAIL 7 and wings drooping or slightly spread or sometimes fluttered. The female may or may not respond but, according to Boase, is “generally inattentive, finding interest in a passing fly or in preening, and the whole business may end in a wild pursuit.” He records one case, however, where a female joined in a display. He states that he “gives the particulars as they were noted at the time, in spite of the appear- ance of an error in judging the sexes.” “The bird taken to be the male was facing the other when first seen and was bowing rapidly. In the raised position the neck was extended to its limit and the bill was held normally; in the lower position, the neck was retracted, the head being level with the back and the bill slightly uptilted. The other bird, judged to be the female, so far as the plumage gave indica- tion, crept or shuffled with wings and tail moderately expanded and head depressed around the male, which turned so as to face her.” In connection with coition the female is usually passive, merely quivering the wings and raising the tail if responsive or, if not, some- times actually dashing at and pecking the male. The above are some of the main types of behavior, but there is a good deal of variation, the displays of wagtails, like those of a good many other small passerines, being by no means stereotyped. The Rev. E. Peake (1926) describes a case, observed on April 29, thus: “The cock approached from ten feet or so away, bobbing his head straight up and down with body flattened out. Then, when he got near, he danced round with wings curved and expanded, and his tail also expanded and drooping, and singing all the time. The hen with tail raised and head lowered stood snapping her bill.” Other minor variations could be added, but the foregoing will suffice. The reader may perhaps be reminded that these observations refer entirely to the British race, since detailed observations on the white wagtail proper of continental Europe are almost entirely lacking. It so happens that the only two brief observations available differ slightly from any recorded for the pied wagtail, but the not incon- siderable variation in the latter race has already been mentioned, and it is most unlikely that there is any real or constant difference in the display behavior of the two forms. One of the two observations referred to was, it must be noted, made on captive birds. W. E. Teschemaker (1913) in an account of white wagtails which nested in an aviary writes: “The display is very characteristic and interesting. The female crouches on the ground with quivering wings and tail, and beak raised. The male standing sideways to her grovels on the ground, trailing his drooping wings; he then throws himself on that side which is farthest from the hen, the wing on this (the farthest) side drooped and quiv- ering, the other wing raised perpendicularly and also quivering.” In the “Handbook of British Birds” the Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain 8 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM (1988, vol. 1) has a note on a pair of white wagtails he saw in Rumania facing one another with the tails of both birds almost perpendicularly erected and appearing quite rigid, but unfortunately this somewhat fragmentary observation was all that he could make, as he was passing by in a boat. Nesting.—Where the white wagtail is a summer migrant the males usually arrive in advance of the females. In Helgoland males have. been passing for about three weeks before females begin to appear. The nest is generally built in a recess or cavity of some sort or at least in amore or Jess concealed position. It may be found in holes in walls and other masonry or in rocks or cliffs, in steep banks, inside sheds or outbuildings, under bridges, in hollow trees or among the roots of trees, in wood stacks, among ivy, and so forth. Commonly it is well above ground level, from a couple of feet or so to perhaps 9 or 10 feet, but it may be merely under a clod in a plowed field or among marram grass on sand dunes. Occasionally it is built in the nest of some other bird, such as a song thrush, blackbird, or fieldfare. The bulk varies a good deal according to the situation. It is made of dry grass, straws, roots, fine twigs, dead leaves, and moss with cup lined with hair, feathers, or bits of wool. It is built by the female only, with the cock accompanying her. It is evident that the female is also mainly concerned in the actual selection of the site, but C. and D. Nethersole- Thompson (1948) state that the male of the pied wagtail also examines possible sites and may “suggest” sites to the female, which she thor- oughly tests. Eqgs.—The ground color of the eggs is a slightly grayish or biuish white, closely freckled with gray or brownish, with underlying pale- gray markings often more or less distinct and sometimes with a few hairlike dark-brown streaks. White eggs occur and an erythristic variety has been recorded once. Jourdain (1988, vol. 1) gives the num- ber as four or five to seven as a rule, rarely eight, and he gives the following measurement of 100 eggs: Average, 20.4 by 15.1; maximum, 21.5 by 15 and 20 by 16.2; minimum 18 by 15 millimeters. The breed- ing season is given by the same authority as from the end of April to early in July, exceptionally later in central Europe, but in Iceland and north Europe often not before June. Eggs may sometimes be found in Iceland by the end of May. It may be recalled that the nest in Greenland recorded by Chapman and already mentioned contained eggs on June 16, but is not known when they were laid. Young.—Incubation is performed chiefly by the female, though ac- cording to Jourdain the male may take some share. The incubation period is 12-14 days. Teschemaker (1913) observed that eggshells were carried away from the nest by birds in captivity. Both parents feed the young. In the case of the pied wagtail the feces of the nestlings are carried away by the parents, at least in the WHITE WAGTAIL 9 later stages (Blair and Tucker, 1941), and it is safe to assume that this is true also of the present race. The fledging period is 14-15 days. Plumages.—The plumages are fully described by H. F. Witherby in the “Handbook of British Birds” (19388, vol. 1). The nestling (de- scribed under the pied wagtail, M. a. yarrellii, and doubtless not differ- ing in the present race) has smoke-gray down distributed on the inner and outer supraorbital, occipital, humeral, ulnar, spinal, femoral, crural, and ventral tracts, but very scanty on the last two. The mouth is orange-yellow inside, with no spots, and externally the flanges are very pale yellow. In the juvenal plumage the upperparts are brownish gray, lores and ear coverts dingy, buffish white, breast band dark, smoky brown, rest of breast and flanks buffish gray, throat and belly dull white with a yellowish tinge, wings and tail much as in adult. In the first winter the male is like the adult female, except for having usually rather more black on crown, and the female is also like the adult of that sex but does not show any white on forehead or black on crown as the adult may do. The gray crown has also usually an olivaceous tinge. Food.—The food consists mainly of insects, principally Diptera, but Jourdain (19388, vol. 1) mentions also Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, etc., as well as small snails. Behavior.—Several of the chief features of behavior are mentioned later under “Field marks.” ‘The incessant up-and-down tail motion is one of the bird’s most noticeable characteristics. Though largely terrestrial, wagtails perch readily on buildings, fences, and so forth, and somewhat less freely on trees. The mainly insect food is secured chiefly on the ground or in shallow water or in little aerial excursions after flies or gnats. The birds are much attached to the neighborhood of water and may often be seen wading in the shallows of pond, lake, or stream. This association is, however, by no means obligatory, and they may be regularly met with far from water. Farmyards are a popular resort, and the birds will follow the plow in the fields, search- ing for small worms and burrowing larvae. In the high north they have naturally less opportunity of benefiting by agriculture and cul- tivation as an extra source of food supply. In Arctic Norway they are mainly coastal birds and may often be seen, as indeed they may be in the other parts of their range, foraging for flies and other arthropods among the debris about high-water mark on the seashore. Voice-——The principal note, used both in flight and when settled, but especially in flight, is a rather shrill ¢tschizeik. There is also a rather more musical tz7-wirrp (the érr to be pronounced as in chirrup) with variants, and the alarm note of breeding birds is an incisive chick. The song is a simple, but lively, warbling twitter, consisting largely of slurred repetitions of call notes with variants and modulations. It is delivered on the wing or from a perch or while the bird is running 843290—50-—2 10 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM about on the ground and is quite often heard from birds on passage- Indeed, it has very little if any sexual or territorial significance, and ene of the major functions served by the song of most birds, that of advertisement to possible mates in spring, seems here to be discharged by the tschizzik note, which is uttered persistently from such points ot vantage as roofs, walls, or rocks. Field marks.—The white wagtail and the other races of Motacilla . alba are very easily recognized, though the separation of the races may be difficult or in some plumages impossible in the field. They are small, slim, long-tailed birds (total length about 7 inches), with a pied pattern of gray, white, and black, spending much of their time on the ground, where they walk and run actively, constantly moving the tail up and down in a very characteristic manner, and the head back- ward and forward. The flight is equally characteristic, strongly un- dulating, in a succession of long curves with the wings closed at brief intervals for perceptibly longer than in the case of most small passer- ines of similar size. The note ¢schizzik, which is freely used in flight, is also distinctive. In the white wagtail the mantle and rump are clear pale gray, nape and hind part of crown black, forehead, front of crown, sides of face, and belly white. In summer the whole throat and breast are black, but in winter plumage the throat is white bounded by a horse- shoe-shaped black bib. The wings and tail are blackish, with double white wing bar and white outer tail feathers. In the female the gray is rather duller than in the male, and young birds in the juvenal plumage are altogether duller and more uniformly grayish without the strong blacks and whites, as described under “Plumages.” Differences from /. a. ocularis and M. a. lugens, the other two races on the American list, are mentioned in the accounts of those forms. Enemies.—The white wagtail falls a victim at times to various hawks, and in the northern regions the merlin (pigeon hawk) is evidently its chief avian enemy. Greaves (1941) mentions (European) sparrow hawks and peregrine falcons attacking birds at roosts in Egypt. Four- footed marauders, such as rats and weasels, sometimes take toll of the nestlings, and owing to the association with human habitations which has already been stressed the domestic cat must be accounted an im- portant enemy. Hantzsch (1905) particularly mentions prowling cats as special enemies about the farms and settlements of Iceland. In continental Europe the cuckoo frequently lays its eggs in nests of the white wagtail, and as this means that the wagtails can rear no brood of their own, since the rightful young ones are ejected from the nest by the young cuckoo, the cuckoo must be included in the list of enemies. A list of invertebrate parasites is given by Niethammer (1937), and the same author states that not a few nestlings appear to succumb to the attacks of the larvae of the fly Protocalliphora caerulea. WHITE WAGTAIL Ala Fall and winter.—The white wagtail is a migrant in the northern parts of its range, and in fall there is a southward movement to the Mediterranean region and Africa. In the British Isles there is a reg- ular passage down the west coast of Great Britain and both east and west coasts of Ireland, consisting, no doubt, mainly of birds from Ice- land. It has been shown in Germany (e. g.,in Helgoland) that the first arrivals are young birds. Later old and young pass together (Weigold, 1926). In winter quarters, according to most observers, it seems generally to frequent the vicinity of water and may be found either singly or in small parties or in flocks, which may reach very large dimensions. It may, however, also be found well away from water. It is at roosting time that gregarious tendencies are most pronounced, for in regions where many winter, as in Egypt, hundreds and sometimes even thousands will assemble to roost together, and similar gregarious roosting takes place during migration. Reed beds and areas of tangled swamp vegetation are the sites most favored, but buildings and trees (sometimes even in towns), bushes, ivy on walls, and other sites are also made use of. Greaves (1941) has given an interesting account of roosting habits in Egypt, where enormous numbers roost in sugarcane by the Nile. He says: “The birds circle round and up and down, con- stantly changing directions and calling. It was not clear whether those already down called, but it seemed obvious that the leaders of the flocks were trying to find out the places where others were already roosting, and when the leaders went down the majority followed at once or after making another short flight. Generally, they dropped like stones, with closed wings, until just above the cane, sometimes from a height of forty feet or more. It was exceedingly difficult to assess numbers, but there was no doubt that on favourable occasions a single observer might see as many as 2000. Once down they rarely took to wing again unless disturbed.” This wasin January. The same kind of thing can be observed on a much smaller scale in Europe. Greaves further states that white wagtails wintering in Egypt “exercised a territorial habit in feeding, and regularly frequented the same garden. A male would dispute his right with another male but generally tolerate a female on his territory, sometimes two, but as observations continued it seemed clear that the association was a loose one. The female for most of the season was in close attendance on the male, and often fol- lowed him, but at other times fed alone.” DISTRIBUTION Breeding range.—Iceland, Faeroes, and practically all Europe from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean and from Portugal to the Urals, but excluding the British Isles, where the form is replaced by the pied wagtail (M. a. yarrellii). Also Kolguev, Corsica, Asia Mi- nor, and Syria. 12 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Winter range.—Southern Europe and Africa south to Kenya and Uganda, Belgian Congo (Uele River), Ubangi Shari, Sierra Leone, and Liberia; also Madeira, Palestine, southern Arabia, and Iraq. Spring migration.—Leaves Equatorial Africa in March. Present in Kgypt until early April (late date, May 2). Passage through Brit- ish Isles mid-March to early in June. Passage of males begins March in Helgoland, that of females from April 9. Reaches breeding grounds in Germany and Holland in March-April, southern Finland begin- ning of April, and far north of Europe early in May (first arrivals recorded at Vads6, northern Norway, May 4, and at Ust Zylma, north- ern Russia, May 12). Arrives southern coastal districts of Iceland at the end of April and beginning of May (early date, April 15). Fall migration—Leaves Iceland in August and September (re- corded Westmann Islands until October 10). Passage in British Isles mid-August to early in October, in north and central Europe August to October. Even as far north as south Finland some are still passing even in November. Arrives Egypt early October (earliest date, October 7). Reaches Equatorial Africa October. Casual records.—Jan Mayen, Azores. MOTACILLA ALBA OCULARIS Swinhoe SWINHOE’S WAGTAIL HABITS This is a northern Siberian race of the common white wagtail of Europe, from which it differs in having a black or dusty streak through the eye and having much more white on the wing coverts. Its known breeding range in northern Siberia seems to extend from the Yenisei and Lena Rivers eastward to Plover Bay on the Chukotski Peninsula, the nearest point to Alaska, and southward in the interior to Lake Baikal. It is an extremely rare bird in Alaska, and some of the published sight records are open to doubt. Dr. E. W. Nelson (1887) writes: “Although this bird has been taken repeatedly at Plover Bay, Siberia, and thence throughout a large portion of Northeastern Asia, including China and Formosa, to the Lake Baikal region, it appears to be almost unknown in Alaska. In fact its claim as a bird of the Terri- tory rests upon the capture of a single specimen, a young bird in sum- mer plumage, by Captain Kellett and Lieutenant Wood in ‘Northwest America’, as recorded in the Brit. Mus. Cat. Birds, X, 473.” The 1931 Check-list gives two Alaska records, Attu Island and mouth of the Yukon, both sight records. The former is based on the following statement by Lucien M. Turner (1886) : I was looking out of my window on the morning of May 14, 1881, watching the vessel, which was to take me to Unalashka Island, enter the harbor. I saw a bird SWINHOE’S WAGTAIL 13 just beneath the window and on the ground, not more than seven feet from my eyes. At the first glance I supposed the bird to be Plectrophanaz nivalis. A mo- ment sufficed to convince me that it was not. I ran to get my gun; and, as I opened the door, of the entry-way, to get out, the door opened directly on the bird, which, with a chirp precisely like that of Budytes flavus leucostriatus, flew off to a distance of 75 yards and alighted. I approached as nearly as I dared and fired at it, but failed to obtain it, as the gun was loaded with No. 3 shot. It flew off beyond the hills and was not seen again. This may, of course, have been ocularis, but it seems much more likely that it was dwgens, which is common on the nearby Commander Islands. The record for the mouth of the Yukon is based on the following statement by Dr. Louis B. Bishop (1900) : “On the morning of August 28 the Robert Kerr, on which I was a passenger, was hindered from proceeding by a gale and low water on the bar, and was made fast to the bank at the Aphoon mouth of the Yukon. As I came on deck I saw half a dozen white wagtails fly about the vessel and settle in the grass close by. While I returned for my gun they left, but a thorough ac- quaintance with Motacilla alba in Egypt, where it is abundant during the winter, leaves me no doubt that these birds were wagtails.” These probably were Swinhoe’s wagtails, but no specimens were taken. The most remarkable American record, which is supported by a specimen and so not open to question, is Lyman Belding’s (1883) Lower California record ; he reports “a single specimen shot January 9, 1882, during a cold gale from the north. It was found on a drift of sea-weed on the beach.” His specimen was an adult in winter plumage and was taken at La Paz, near the southern extremity of the peninsula. It seems hardly likely that this wandering waif could have crossed the broad expanse of the Pacific Ocean, unless it had been transported on some ship from southern Asia. It may, of course, have wandered across Bering Strait and then followed the Pacific coastline southward, but it is strange that no other specimen has ever been taken or seen anywhere along this coast south of Alaska. I’. Seymour Hersey (1916), who made two trips to northern Alaska to gather material for this work, published the following report on his experience with Swinhoe’s wagtail: “Although this bird has been considered merely a straggler to Alaska, there are reasons for believing that the species is slowly extending its range and becoming established on our coast. During the northern cruise a number of individuals were seen between Kotzebue Sound and Cape Lisburne. “At Chamisso Island, on August 1, a pair of birds were carrying food into a crevice in the rocks at an inaccessible point on the cliff. One or two were also seen at other points, and at Cape Lisburne I succeeded in shooting a bird which, unfortunately, fell on the farther side of a creek where it could not be found.” Alfred M. Bailey (1926), who spent parts of two seasons in northern 14 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Alaska, says of this wagtail: “Only one specimen was seen on the Alaska side and that at Wales on June 23. While travelling down the coast by dog sled I found a mud nest in an abandoned igloo. The native with me told me it was the nest of a little bird ‘all same snow- bird, little longer’. It was similar to the nest which I found in the cliff along Providence Bay, but I was unable to carry it with me for possible identification.” N. G. Buxton (J. A. Allen, 1905) found Swinhoe’s wagtail abundant around Gichiga and Marcova, in northeastern Siberia, where 17 speci- mens were collected; he says in his notes: “The first birds arrive the middle of May, but they do not become common before June1. Before and after the nesting time they are seen in twos and threes about the houses and along the river banks and seacoast, but they never collect in flocks like the Yellow Wagtails, and are seldom seen far back on the tundra. They nest in the crevices in the banks of the streams and along the seacoast and on the ground in the grassy places along the streams. They are good songsters, singing especially while on the wing. They begin to depart the latter part of August and are seldom seen after the middle of September.” Migration.—Swinhoe’s wagtail is evidently a common migrant through China. Tsen-Hwang Shaw (1936) records it as passing through Hopei Province in April and again in September and the first part of October. “A few of these birds winter in some warm places within the territory of Hopei province.” Vaughan and Jones (1918) write: The Streak-eyed Wagtail is an exceedingly common bird of passage at Hong Kong, Macao, and on the Kwang Tung coast generally. Although appearing as early as August 9 on migration, the latter part of September or early October is the more usual time for their advent, when immense numbers may be seen on the cricket-ground and in the Naval dockyard and elsewhere on the island of Hong Kong. The birds on their passage usually roost in the trees, and as many as fifty were observed to crowd themselves, with much bickering, into a small tree in the Naval dockyard. They leave again on the spring migration in April, and probably only breed in the far north of Asia; they do not occur inland, so that their migration is along the coast-line. Johan Koren, collecting for Thayer and Bangs (1914), reported that “Swinhoe’s wagtail arrived at Nijni Kolymsk, on May 15, 1912, and in the autumn of 1911 was observed as late as Sept. 21.” Nesting—Aside from the probable nests mentioned by Messrs. Hersey and Bailey, no nest seems to have been found in Alaska, but several have been found in Siberia. Thayer and Bangs (1914) say that “a nest with a set of six eggs was taken at Nijni Kolymsk, June 11,1912. It was built under the roof of a log cabin in the village.” Mr. Bailey (1926) writes: “A nest was found July 5 with five badly incubated eggs, in a little crevice in a crumbling rock cliff SWINHOE’S WAGTAIL 15 facing Providence Bay, about twenty feet from the ground. The nest was of grasses, plastered together with mud and lined with a few feathers, as in a robin’s nest. It was fastened rather firmly into the nesting cranny. Unfortunately, I fell with the nest, breaking the eggs. The parent birds hovered overhead all the time I was attempt- ing to climb the rotten walls, one of them having flushed from the nest when I first discovered it.” Theodore Pleske (1928) mentions a nest and six eggs of Swinhoe’s wagtail, taken on June 19, 1902, at the mouth of the Elijdep River, of which he says: “The nest is large, solidly built and thick-walled; it is made of dry grass blades of the preceding year interwoven with twigs, sometimes fairly thick, of a small shrub, probably Betula mana, and tufts of moss or lichen. The inner layer of the nest is formed of finer grass so arranged that the material becomes finer and finer toward the lining. The cavity itself is abundantly furnished with hair of the wild reindeer very skilfully selected from the finest tufts and in addition a feather of the Snowy Owl (Vyctea nyctea).” A set of five eggs in the Wilson C. Hanna collection was taken near Lake Baikal on May 30, 1898, from a nest situated on the ground, composed of roots and moss and lined with fur. Eggs.—Five or six eggs generally constitute the full set for the Swinhoe’s wagtail. Mr. Pleske (1928) describes the eggs referred to above as follows: “The eggs have a white ground color covered with small spots of a drab brown (Ridgway, Pl. 46, drab) uniformly disposed over the surface and forming a wreath at the large end and a small number of black lines on the large ends of some of the eggs.” Mr. Hanna describes his eggs as ovate in shape, slightly glossy white, and thickly marked, more heavily on the large ends, with fine markings of “buffy brown,” “buffy olive,” and “light brownish olive.” The measurements of 26 eggs average 20.1 by 15.0 millimeters; the eggs showing the 4 extremes measure 22.0 by 15.8, 17.3 by 14.5, and 19.9 by 14.1 millimeters. Plumages.—As Swinhoe’s wagtail is considered to be only a sub- species of the common white wagtail, its molts and plumages probably follow the same sequence, as fully described in Witherby’s Hand- book (1919). In Nelson’s “The Birds of Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean” (1883), facing page 63, there is a fine colored plate of an adult male in full spring plumage, which shows the characters of the subspecies very clearly. And in Turner’s “Contributions to the Natural History of Alaska” (1886), facing page 178, there is a good colored plate of the adult and young in winter. La Touche (1930) says of the immature plumages: “Young birds are entirely dull grey on the upper parts, the forehead grey of a 16 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM lighter tint, a white eyebrow and a blackish trans-ocular stripe; the sides of the head are mottled with grey, the throat feathers are edged with black and the breast has a blackish crescent-shaped patch. The face and throat are generally suffused with yellow. After the autumn moult the young bird has the forehead and the forecrown white, but the hind crown is grey like the rest of the upper parts. The black begins to appear on the head during the first winter.” Food.—Mr. Shaw (1936) says: “This bird, like several other wag- tails, is insectivorous. Its food consists of spiders, beetles, and some other insects and their larvae.” Behavior.—Mr. Hersey writes (1916) : “My failure to secure speci- mens was due to the excessively restless habits of the birds. When on the ground they were largely concealed by intervening clumps of moss and the general character of the tundra, while they were liable to take wing at a moment’s notice and usually flew long distances. Their flight was so erratic that it was exceedingly difficult to shoot them on the wing.” DISTRIBUTION CoNTRIBUTED BY BrerRNAaRD WILLIAM TUCKER Data on winter and summer ranges and migrations are summarized by Paludan (1932), whose paper should be consulted for fuller particulars. Breeding range.—Northeast Siberia from the Tchuktchi Peninsula west to the Yenisei (Turukhansk) and south to the Stanovoi Mountains. Winter range—South China, Formosa, Hainan, Indochina, Tenas- serim, Burma, Assam, West Bengal, Philippines. Spring migration —Leaves winter quarters in April; last recorded north Kansu May 8, North Chihli May 10, Amurland May 10; arrival at Nijni Kolymsk, northeast Siberia, May 15. Recorded Bering Island from May 9. Fall migration—Recorded Nijni Kolymsk as late at September 21; Chihli, September 15 to October 10; Szechwan, September—November ; Kwangtung, September. MOTACILLA ALBA LUGENS Kittlitz BLACK-BACKED WAGTAIL CONTRIBUTED BY WINSOR MARRETT TYLER HABITS A black-backed wagtail was taken on Attic, now called Attu, Island on May 4, 1913, apparently the first and so far the only record of the BLACK-BACKED WAGTAIL iv occurrence of the species in North America. John E. Thayer and Outram Bangs (1921) published the record of its capture: During the course of the expedition to the Arctic coasts of Hast Siberia and Northern Alaska in 1913 and 1914, upon which Messrs. Joseph Dixon and W. Sprague Brooks went as zoological collectors, their power schooner, the ‘Polar Bear,” put into the harbor at Attic Island, the outermost of the Aleutian chain, in early May, 1913. From the deck of the vessel here several black and white Wagtails, recognized as Motacilla lugens Kittlitz, were seen flitting about the beaches, and on May 4, one adult male was secured. This specimen, now No. 21590 collection of John H. Thayer, is the first, we believe to be recorded from North America. J. D. D. La Touche (1930) in his handbook of the birds of eastern China gives the range of the black-backed wagtail thus: This fine Wagtail summers in “Kamtschatka, Commander Is., Kurile Is., Askold Is., Hokkaido and N. Hondo (Awomori), and on the Aleutian Is. [7], and its extra-Chinese winter range includes South Japan, the Riu Kiu Is., and Formosa.’ * * * The Kamtschatkan Wagtail is quite common at Swatow during the winter, but it does not appear to have been noticed by Mell in the interior of Kwangtung or by Vaughan and Jones on the West River. At Foochow it is common enough on passage and a fair number may be seen there in winter as well. * * * At Chinkiang I saw a good many, but chiefly in spring. At Shaweishan it was observed from the 8th March to the 8th May, and in October. This Wagtalil is found on wet fields, marshy ground, and mud-fiats. I never saw it in the valley of the Min above Foochow, nor in the mountains. Sten Bergman (1935) gives the following account (freely trans- lated from the German) of the black-backed wagtail in Kamchatka and the Kurile Islands: The form of white wagtail that breeds in Kamchatka is Motacilla alba lugens. It is very common inland as well as on the seacoast, but commoner on the latter. I met it in all parts of the peninsula that I visited during the summer. The first acquaintance that I made with it was on Cape Lopatka, where our ship had a mishap. Here it was everywhere on the seashore, especially on the eastern side, on the rocky shores, where the white wings of the birds contrasted with the dark stones. On the coast of the Pacific Ocean I found it breeding in all the creekS near my camp between Cape Lopatka and Petropawlowsk. Farther north on the same coast Malaise found the black-backed wagtail breeding at Cape Olga, and I found it myself at Ust Kamchatsk. On the Okhotsk Sea I found it in family parties from Cape Lopatka to Bolsheretsk between August 20 and September 2. Malaise found it in the fall of 1921 on Kronoki Lake. In the dry woods the black-backed wagtail is naturally absent. It needs water in order to prosper, and I have never seen one on Kamchatka far from a stream or Jake. Its call seems to me identical to that of the white wagtail. Next to the iark, it is the earliest of the small migrants to arrive in Kamchatka. In 1921 I saw the first example in Petropawlowsk on April 22, but sometimes they come even earlier. They generally leave the country at the end of Sep- tember, but some remain even longer, and I saw a wagtail in Petropawlowsk on October 22. Motacilla alba lugens builds its nest in many different kinds of places. The normal one is on the shore of the sea or a river, on the ground, not far from water. but the wagtail is also fond of human society and sometimes builds its 18 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM nest about houses. Building begins in the first half of May. I found a pair on May 14th that were already busy with their nest under the projection of the roof of a house in Petropawlowsk. In Klutschi I found a nest on the roof of a native hut, another on a balagan (a drying rack for salmon), and a third on a boat drawn up on the shore of a river. The nests are large and firm, and are similar to those of the white wagtail. I collected three nests which are now in the Swedish National Museum. The three are almost entirely lined with animal hair, generally from reindeer. Scarcely a feather occurs in any of the nests. The eggs are laid at the end of May. I found two nests with freshly laid eggs ~ on the 30th and 31st of May near Klutschi. The first pair, whose nest was col- lected on the 30th of May, immediately began to build a new one about 20 meters from the site of the earlier one in a drawn-up skiff, and had on June 12th a complete nest with five eggs. The building consumed 9 days. The eggs agree in color and size with those of the white wagtail. The wagtail, except Hirundo rustica tytleri, is the only small bird in Kam- chatka that seeks human companionship, and nests in houses. This form breeds commonly on all the Kurile Islands, according to Yama- shina. The wagtail is the first of all the birds to arrive in the Kuriles in the spring. After the young have flown, the wagtails are found in family groups along the seashore. Field marks.—According to Bernard W. Tucker the male in breed- ing plumage differs from Jf. a. alba and ocularis in having a black back. He says that it is much like the pied wagtail (J. a. yarrellit) of the British Isles but differs in having the secondaries wholly or largely white and a black streak through the eye as in ocularis and that the female and the male in winter have gray backs, or largely gray, and could not be distinguished from ocularis in the field; indeed many specimens in the hand appear to him to be separable only with difficulty. Winter.—The habits are similar to those of other races of J/. alba. La Touche (1930) states that in China it is found on wet fields, marshy ground, and mud flats. DISTRIBUTION Breeding range-—Kamchatka, Kurile Islands, Sakhalin, Yezzo, and north Hondo. Westerly limits somewhat uncertain; recorded from Askold Island and the Amur; but “apparently not on the Amur,” according to Hartert and Steinbacher (19388). Winter range-—Southeast China (Lower Yangtse, Fokhien, and Kwangtung), south Japan, Riu-Kiu Islands, and Formosa. Spring migration.—Data on migration are summarized by Paludan (1932). Noted passing at Shaweishan, off the mouth of the Yangtse, from March 8 to May 8; arrives Kuriles from early March, but said not to do so in Kamchatka until April—May. Fall migration.—Gone from Kuriles by end October; recorded at Ussuria and Shaweishan in October and Lower Yangtse in November. ALASKA YELLOW WAGTAIL 19 MOTACILLA FLAVA ALASCENSIS (Ridgway) ALASKA YELLOW WAGTAIL HABITS This pretty little bird is our American representative of a wide- ranging species of northern Europe and Asia, from Norway and Sweden to northeastern Siberia. It is one of the few Asiatic species that have wandered across Bering Strait and become more or less firmly established in Alaska, but the yellow wagtail has become more firmly established than the others and is now really abundant in its limited range on this continent, from Point Barrow and Kotzebue Sound to the mouth of the Nushagak River, on the Bering Sea coast of Alaska. It probably breeds also on St. Matthew Island and per- haps on other islands in Bering Sea. On the tundra back of Nome, in July 1911, we were surprised to find the yellow wagtail to be one of the most characteristic and most conspicuous of the small land birds of the region. The young were on the wing then and were much in evidence everywhere, especially in the willow patches and around the small ponds on the tundra, but also on the outskirts of the town. Except near the town they were quite shy, especially when on the ground, but they were constantly flitting about over us, with their peculiar, buoyant, billowy flight and continuous twittering notes. Dr. Nelson (1887) says that “in the vicinity of Saint Michaels it is one of the most familiar and common land birds, and as one walks over the open tundra its familiar clinking, metallic note strikes pleas- antly on the ear. It usually has a preference for the boggy, moss- grown portions of the country.” Dr. Grinnell (1900) found it to be “an abundant summer bird of the coast region of Kotzebue Sound.” The first specimen he secured “was flushed from the weedy border of a dwarf alder thicket near a pond.” Our Alaska race of this species was once supposed to be identical with the form found in eastern Siberia, W/. 7. lewcostriatus, which is decidedly duller in coloration than the brightly colored, olive-and- yellow type form that is found in northern Europe. Our bird is now regarded as distinct from the Siberian race, and is even duller in coloration; Mr. Ridgway (1904) describes alascensis as similar to M. f. leucostriatus, “but slightly smaller, especially the bill; colora- tion duller, the yellow of the under parts paler and less pure, the chest more distinctly clouded or blotched with grayish, the olive- green of rump, etc., less pronounced.” Spring.—By just what route the Alaska yellow wagtail reaches its summer home on the Bering Sea coast of Alaska does not seem to be definitely known; and it never will be known until enough specimens 20 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM have been collected on migration in eastern Asia to separate our bird~ from the form breeding in northeastern Siberia. It probably fol- lows the same route by which the species originally invaded this continent. Dr. Nelson (1888) says that it “makes its appearance the last of May or the first of June, according to the season.” And Lucien M. Turner (1886) says: “This bird arrives about the 12th of June; a few days earlier or later, depending on the opening of the spring.” Herbert Brandt (1948) writes: “We did not observe this Palaearctic species as a transient about Hooper Bay during the migration, and it does not seem likely that such a conspicuous bird could escape us had it passed through our region in anything like the numbers that congregated in the mountains a little farther north. It seems prob- able that this wagtail arrives either from the north or directly across Bering Sea from its Asiatic winter haunts.” Courtship.—Dr. Nelson (1887) writes: When the male pays his addresses to the female in spring a peculiar perform- ance takes place, somewhat like that of the Yellow Chat. The male starts up from a bank or clump of bushes, and, rising for 20 or 80 yards at a sharp angle, suddenly stiffens and decurves his wings, at the same time slowly spreading and elevating his tail nearly perpendicularly to his body, and in this curious position he floats slowly down until within a foot or two of the ground, uttering a low, clear, and rapid medley of jingling notes which can only be compared to the sound made by lightly rattling together the links of a small steel chain. This performance is very commonly executed over a large snow-bank, as if the bird appreciated the contrast afforded by such a background. As he approaches the ground in his descent he suddenly glides away to a neighboring bush or knoll, whence he repeats the maneuver. Nesting.—Dr. Nelson (1887) says: Their nests are usually placed under the edge of a tussock or slightly over- hanging bank, bunch of grass, or in fact of any similar shelter, under which they can partially or wholly conceal the nest. Their preference, however, is for grassy borders of a rather steeply sloping bank, along the brow of which they place their nests. As one walks over the grass-covered places frequented by these birds, during the breeding season, he is likely to see a female flutter off her eggs at his feet, and, flying away a few yards, alight and glide away, mouse-like, among the grass with such rapidity that, unless closely watched, she quickly disappears. In some cases she will lie thus concealed for some time, and other times she joins the male at once and circles about overhead. He says that no two of his seven nests are exactly alike: The outer portion is usually composed of bits of grass and moss, pretty com- pactly arranged, with the central cavity well lined with some warm material, such as the hair of dogs and man, or Ptarmigan feathers, or a combination of the three. One nest is built mainly of fine grass lined with a closely felted layer of dogs’ hair. The second nest has a thin layer of moss and grass followed by one of feathers, and the six eggs it contains rest upon a layer of silky-brown club-mosses. The third is composed of a felted layer of dogs’ hair at the bottom, followed by a thin layer of feathers; this is succeeded by a still thinner layer of club-moss, and the eggs rest upon a felted layer of dogs’ hair. The fourth nest is composed of a uniform loosely joined structure of feathers and pieces of grass all mingled into a heterogeneous mass. ALASKA YELLOW WAGTAIL 21 Wilson C. Hanna has sent me the data for six sets of eggs of the Alaska yellow wagtail that came to him with the parent birds, five from the Meade River, 100 miles southeast of Barrow, and one from Wales, Alaska. Three nests were in the roots of small willows on the bank of the river, one was in long grass on the river bank, one was on a grassy knoll near some willow roots, and the nest at Wales was “sit- uated at mound at old dwelling place.” ‘The nests were made mainly of grasses and fine plant stems, with sometimes a few dead leaves, root- lets, mosses, or feathers. The three nests that he has in his collection are of “rather compact construction”; one has only the finer material for a lining, and another has a good lining of reindeer hair, mouse hair, moss, and a few feathers. The measurements of these nests vary in outside diameter from 4 to 4.5 inches, in inside diameter from 2 to 2.3, in outside depth from 2.5 to 3, and in inside depth from 1.7 to 1.8 inches. Dr. Lawrence H. Walkinshaw (1948) gives a somewhat simi- lar account of the nesting of this species near Bethel, Alaska. #'ggs.—The Alaska yellow wagtail lays four to seven eggs to a set, five and six being the commonest. Mr. Hanna gives me the follow- ing description of the 17 eggs in his collection: “The eggs are ovate to short-ovate and are without gloss. At first glance they look like some eges of the horned lark, but smaller in size. The ground color is ‘deep olive-buff’ to ‘dark olive-buff.’ The markings are fine and rather uni- form over the entire surface of the eggs, but in at least a few cases heavier on the larger end. The markings are ‘light brownish olive’ to ‘buffy olive’.” Dr. Nelson’s description (1887) is somewhat different; of a series of 37 eggs, he says: “The ground color of the eggs varies from a pale- greenish clay to a clayey white, over which extends a profuse confluent mottling, varying from slaty to reddish brown, which, in some cases, almost hides the ground color; in others the spots are large and less numerous, and do not cover the shells so completely. The eggs of the same set usually are of a similar shade and markings, and in but one set can the slightest traces of zigzag markings be found about the larger ends.” The measurements of 50 eggs average 19.1 by 14.4 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 20.9 by 15.3, 19.5 by 15.6, ‘18, 0 by 14.4, and 18.5 by 13.2 millimeters. Young.—Mr. Turner (1886) says that “incubation lasts ten to thir- teen days. The young birds are fed exclusively on insect food. They are able to fly in fifteen to eighteen days after hatching. The earliest birds sometimes hatch two broods of young in a season, as young just able to fly have been observed as late as August 18th.” When we were at Nome, around the middle of July, the young were fully fledged and on the wing; small parties were often seen about the houses on the out- 22 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM skirts of the town and on the beaches, where they evidently found an abundance of food. Plumages.—Ridgway (1904) notes no sexual difference in the juvenal plumage, which he describes as “above olive-brown, the wings and tail as in the autumnal plumage; superciliary stripe, malar stripe, and under parts pale yellowish buff, relieved by a conspicuous crescentic patch on chest of sooty black, connected laterally with a submalar stripe . of the same color along each side of the throat; bill, legs, and feet brownish.” The postjuvenal molt takes place between July and September. This involves some wing coverts and all the contour plumage, but not the rest of the wings or the tail. It produces a first-winter plumage, which is practically like that of the adult. Ridgway (1904) describes the young male in this plumage as “above plain olive, more grayish on head and rump; wings and tail as in adults; superciliary stripe, chin, and throat pale straw yellow, the first two paler, nearly white; rest of under parts pale buffy yellow or yellowish buff, paler (nearly white) on un- der tail-coverts ; chest tinged with brown, and with a distinct crescentic patch of darker brown; sides and flanks light grayish brown or olive.” He describes the young female as similar, but “chest less strongly tinged with brown and with only a few spots of darker brown.” As with some of the Eurasian races, there is probably quite an extensive prenuptial molt in birds of all ages, which involves all the contour plumage, most of the wing coverts and the central tail feathers, though we have not the material to show it in our subspecies. Adults have a complete postnuptial molt, beginning late in July and sometimes lasting through September. There seem to be no winter specimens available that are definitely known to belong to this subspecies, but the winter plumages are probably similar to those of closely allied races, which are fully described in Witherby’s Handbook (1919). Food.—Not much is known about the food of the Alaska yellow wagtail, which probably does not differ materially from that of the species elsewhere. Witherby’s Handbook (1919) says that the food of the European race consists “almost entirely of insects (coleoptera and larvae, diptera, orthoptera, larvae of lepidoptera, rhynchota, etc.). Saxby records small worms, larvae, aquatic insects, and small univalves, but these are probably exceptional and diptera constitute bulk of food.” Dr. Grinnell (1900) saw some of these wagtails feeding on salmon- berries, which grew plentifully near the alder thickets. He says also: “Several came around our tents at Mission Inlet daily for crumbs, and if I kept quiet they would come quite close. A wagtail would approach from the nearest grass-patch, sidling along, hopping daintily with ever- changing attitude and canting its head from one side to the other. At every step or two the bird would hesitate a moment before again ad- vancing, its tail nervously twitching up and down. If it spied a crumb, ALASKA YELLOW WAGTAIL 23 a quick dart and away the bird would fly to a safer rendezvous. The wagtails would also snap up lots of flies.” Behavior.—On July 18, 1911, I was exploring the tundra back of Nome, Alaska. From the top of a low hill I could see a small pond about a mile away and walked over to it, where I found three or four small ponds with wet meadows and marshy ground about them. On the way down over the tundra, as I approached a patch of low willows, I noticed a small bird, which at first I thought was a pipit, flying back and forth in front of me, going over the same space again and again until I became tired watching it and waiting for it to alight. It had a peculiar, billowy, fluttering flight, was twittering constantly, and seemed to be tied to one spot just in front of me, swinging back and forth like a pendulum. I soon saw that it was not a pipit, for I could recognize the bright yellow breast and the conspicuous white tail feathers of the Alaska yellow wagtail. It was my first experience with this lovely little bird, which was really abundant about the willow patches and around edges of the swampy ponds. The peculiar be- havior of this individual was probably due to the presence of young in that particular spot. There were plenty of fully fledged young on the wing, but there were probably others in the nests, for we saw adults with food in their bills. At low tide these birds, especially the young, resorted to the beaches to pick up bits of food left by the receding waves; here they flitted gracefully among the rocks or walked daintily over the wet ground, nodding their heads and flirting their tails after the manner of pipits or the other wagtails. They were always shy on the ground but, if flushed, would come back and circle overhead, where their restless and erratic flight made them difficult to shoot. Dr. Nelson (1887) writes: “Even during the breeding season they are ever on the alert, and the approach of a stranger to their haunts is sure to bring several of them from bush or flat to protest against the right-of-way. They may be distinguished, while yet far away, by their long, easy, swinging flight, undulating in their course like Spinus tristis, or a Woodpecker; drawing near, they circle slowly overhead, constantly uttering the sharp plé-plé-plé, or alighting for a moment upon a small bush or hummock, flirting their tails and moving rest- lessly about, apparently consumed with nervous impatience, and scarcely have they touched the ground ere they are again on the wing.” Votce.—The courtship flight song is referred to under that heading, and the call note is described above by Dr. Nelson. Dr. Grinnell (1900) referred to the latter note as a faint pe-weet, uttered at fre- quent intervals. These are the notes that I recorded as twittering notes; I never heard any very musical notes, nor anything that could be called a song. 24: BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Dr. Lawrence H. Walkinshaw (1948) observed that the “song was usually a high tzee-zee-zee, or a ter-ewee—ter-zwee—ewee-zwee. The regular rate of singing was about seven times per minute on warmer days during the morning. The birds sang periodically throughout the day, but not continuously.” Field marks.—The yellow wagtails can be recognized by their yellow or yellowish breasts, white throats, and dark cheek patches. Other- wise they closely resemble pipits in appearance and behavior. Fall.—Dr. Nelson (1887) says that “early in August the old birds commence to disappear, and by the middle of the month are seen only occasionally, although on the 18th of August they have been noted on Saint Lawrence Island. The young remain longer and are found in scattered parties all about the settlements and native houses in the same localities favored by the common Water Wagtail, which occurs sparingly along the coast at this season. The Yellow Wagtail trips daintly along the grassy margins of the muddy spots, its vibrating tail and slender form distinguishing it among the motley crowd of Savanna Sparrows, Lapland Longspurs, and common Wagtails which keep it company.” Mr. Turner (1886), probably referring to the young birds, says: By the 1st of September the birds of this species collect into small flocks, of eight to twenty in number, and remain as late as September 21st, at which date they have about all disappeared. They generally signalize their readiness to depart by assembling on the low banks, bordering the beach, and dart high into the air to return to the same, or similar, place after a few minutes time. At this particular season of the year they are extremely wary and difficult of approach. * * * JI once observed the bird on Attu Island (the westernmost of the Aleutian Chain) on Sunday, October 8, 1880. I chased the bird up and down for two hours, but was not able to get near enough for a shot, as it was very wild. It was evidently on the fall migration, and none were seen after that day. It does not remain on the Aleutian Islands during the breeding season. Like some other representatives of Asiatic species that breed in Alaska, this wagtail does not migrate down the Pacific coast of North America but prefers to retrace its steps over the ancestral route and migrate down the eastern coast of Asia to its winter haunts in south- eastern Asia and the islands beyond, perhaps across Bering Strait or through the western Aleutians. DISTRIBUTION Range.—According to the A. O. U. Check-list (1931) the Alaska yellow wagtail: “Breeds in the Arctic Zone in extreme northeastern Siberia and western Alaska from Point Barrow and Kotzebue Sound to Nushagak River; migrates through the western Aleutian Islands to eastern Asia.” AMERICAN PIPIT 25 ANTHUS SPINOLETTA RUBESCENS (Tunstall) AMERICAN PIPIT HABITS The pipit, apparently a frail but really a hardy bird, seeks its sum- mer home in regions that would seem to us most unattractive and forbidding, among the moss-covered, rocky hills on the bleak coast of Labrador, along the Arctic tundra to northern Alaska, up to 70° on the west coast of Greenland, and then far southward in the Rocky Mountains to Colorado and New Mexico, where it breeds only above tree limits on the wind-swept mountaintops. In the far north and in Labrador it breeds on low hills not far above sea level, but in the mountains its summer haunts become gradually higher as the tree limit rises; on Mount McKinley, Alaska, it breeds from 4,000 to 5,000 feet altitude, in Oregon it is recorded as breeding above 8,500 feet, in Wyoming above 11,000, in Colorado above 12,000, and in New Mexico, at the southern limit of its breeding range, we may find it above 13,000 feet. On the Labrador coast we found pipits very common all along the coastal strip from Battle Harbor to Cape Mugford, on most of the rocky islands and on the inland hilltops above tree growth. In that region the only tree growth is found in the sheltered hollows back from the coast and in the inland valleys. Elsewhere the coastal strip is mostly bare rock, with a luxuriant growth of reindeer moss, other mosses and lichens clothing the hollows; in the more sheltered places a few small shrubs and dwarfed deciduous trees struggle for exist- ence. Insect life is abundant here during the long days of the short summer, so that the pipits have an ample food supply; they seem to thrive in even the most exposed places. Spring.—The pipit, although abundant in fall, seems to avoid New England to a large extent on the spring migration, for it is compara- tively rare and quite irregular here at that season. Its northward migration seems to be mainly west of the Alleghenies. This point is well illustrated in Milton B. Trautman’s (1940) account of the migration at Buckeye Lake, Ohio. “The first migrating American Pipits,” he says, “arrived between March 1 and 25. Flocks of mod- erate or large size, 15 to 500 birds, appeared to be dominant in spring, and only during the very last part of migration were groups of less than 10 birds often observed. The peak of migration occurred from the last of March until mid-April. Then it was possible to record as many as 800 individuals ina day. * * * Throughout spring the species was found principally in recently plowed fields, in wheat fields where the plants averaged less than 5 inches in height, in short-grass pastures, and on the larger mud flats about ‘sky ponds’ or overflow puddles.” 848290—50-——3 26 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Courtship —The song flight of the pipit is the most conspicuous part of the courtship performance. This is very well described by Joseph Dixon (1938), who observed it on Mount McKinley, as follows: “On May 20, 1926, high up among the vanishing snowfields on a rocky barren ridge at 4,000 feet, we watched a male pipit in full nuptial flight. It perched on a rock, then flew almost vertically into the sky for a distance of from 50 to 150 feet, singing a single note which was repeated constantly. Then with legs extended, feet spread out, and tail sticking upwards at a sharp angle, this male bird sang steadily as he fluttered his wings and floated down like a falling leaf, usually landing near the place from whence he began his flight.” Dr. Charles W. Townsend (Townsend and Allen, 1907) observed a similar flight-song in Labrador and gives the following information about it: As he went up he sang repeatedly a simple refrain, che-whée, che-whée with a vibratory resonance on the whée. Attaining an eminence of * * * per- haps 200 feet from the ground, he checked himself and at once began the descent. He went down faster and faster, repeating his song at the same time faster and faster. Long before he reached the ground he set his wings and tipped from side to side to break his descent. After remaining quiet on the ground for a few moments he repeated the performance and we watched him go up four or five times. On one occasion he was twenty seconds going up, emitting his refrain forty-eight times. In the descent he was quicker, accom- plishing it in ten seconds and singing thirty-two bars of his song. Gayle Pickwell (1947) noticed, on Mount Rainier, Wash., that two males in the vicinity of a female “were battling violently. One of the males was on the near-by snow. The other male plunged down from above with a determination rarely to be observed in avian bat- tles. * * * These pipits fought on the ground as well as in the air. One stayed largely on the snow while the other dashed upon him from above and there was no denying the seriousness of their struggles.” Nesting.—The two nests of the American pipit that I saw on the coast of Labrador in 1912 were probably typical of the species, in that locality at least. The first nest was shown to me on July 6, in the bare, rocky hills of Battle Island, by two of Dr. Grenfell’s nurses, Miss Coates and Miss Thompkins, whom I had met in Newfoundland. The nest was very prettily located on the side of a little moss-covered ridge or hummock, in a little valley near the top of the moss- and lichen- covered island; it was sunk deeply into the soft mosses that overhung the entrance on the side of the little cavity ; the nest seemed to be made entirely of fine, dry grasses. It contained five eggs, which I did not disturb. The incubating bird was quite tame and, if quietly ap- proached, could almost be touched on the nest. The other nest (pl. 2) was shown me by an Eskimo, on July 21, near Hopedale. It was similarly located, near the top of a bare, rocky hill, AMERICAN PIPIT Dak under the overhanging edge of a moss-covered hummock; it was a larger nest than the other and was made of fine twigs and coarse grasses and lined with finer grass; the four eggs that it contained were nearly ready to hatch. There is little to be said about the nests in other localities, except that they are always placed on the ground in decidedly open situations, but they are almost always more or less sheltered under some outcrop- ping rock or projecting stones, or under the overhang of some eminence. Some dried moss may be placed in the hollow to protect the eggs against the moisture from the ground, but the nests seem to be made almost entirely of dried grasses and to have no other warm lining. A nest mentioned in some notes sent to me by O. J. Murie was “placed in the moss at the edge of a rock, back under a willow root.” Of two nests observed by Gayle Pickwell (1947), “one was in a clump of yellow heather and another beneath the leaves of a purple aster.” Eggs—tThe American pipit lays four to seven eggs; four and five seem to be the commonest numbers. They are ovate and have very little gloss. The ground color is grayish white or dull white, some- times buffy white, but it is often so thickly covered with the markings that it is hardly visible and the egg appears to be of a dark chocolate color, indistinctly marked with small black lines. In the less heavily marked eggs the spots are more distinct and are in various shades of bright or dull browns, from chocolate to hair brown, or in some shades of drab or gray. Sometimes these markings are concentrated into solid color at the larger end. The measurements of 50 eggs in the United States National Museum average 19.9 by 14.7 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 21.8 by 15.5, 17.8 by 14.2, and 19.8 by 13.7 millimeters. Young.—The period of incubation does not seem to have been defi- nitely determined, but it probably does not differ materially from that of closely related European species, 15 or 14 days. According to the observations of Hazel S. Johnson (1933), at Wolf Bay, Labrador, the young leave the nest about 13 days after hatching. The brooding is done entirely by the female, but both sexes assist in feeding the young. “While in the nest the young were fed at quite regular intervals throughout the long July days. My notes show that they were fed as early as 4:30 a. m. (I believe that feeding started even earlier) and continued as late as 8:55 p.m. Rain and fog did not seem to retard feeding activities of the parent birds.” Her table indicates that the interval between feedings varied from 5 to 19 minutes; the number of feedings for a 2-hour period varied from 5 to 19; both of these periods were late in the day. She continues: As the female spent the greater part of her time on the nest, the male brought most of the food during the first six days. Flies and small larvae were the main 28 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM diet. One large larva or from two to four smaller ones were brought at one time so that each trip represented a fairly constant quantity of food. * * * Sometimes one parent did all the feeding but more often the food was divided and both fed, placing all of it in the mouth of one young bird then removing bits which they gave to others. Very rarely did the female eat any of the food brought by her mate. After feeding both birds would look expectantly at the nest. When a mass of excreta appeared it was promptly seized and consumed or carried away. In most eases the female secured it but evidently there was some competition between the parents for this privilege. During the last few days of the nesting period excreta were carried off and the nature of its disposal is unknown. The six young hatched on July 2; the growth of the young was uni- form; on July 6 pinfeathers were through the skin, and on the 11th the feathers were out of the sheaths. They were last seen in the nest in the late afternoon of the 15th. That evening they were out of the nest but nearby. Next morning a hawk was shot near the nest site and was reported to have been attacking young birds. ‘This may account for the fact that but three of the brood were seen on the 17th, with the two parent birds. Between July 16 and August 3 the family of three young with one or both parents was often seen about the woodpile and house of a local family about 300 yards from the nest site. * * * During the first two weeks out of the nest the young birds seemed to make little effort to find food for themselves but waited until the parent birds brought food and placed it in their mouths. Sometimes the old birds would utter a twittering chirp when food was found, whereupon one or more young would go to the parent to receive it. Plumages.—Dr. Dwight (1900) describes the juvenal plumage main- ly as follows: “Above, hair-brown streaked with black, the edgings of the back pale grayish wood-brown. * * * Below, creamy buff, palest anteriorly, streaked on the throat and breast rather broadly and on the sides faintly with clovebrown. Indistinct superciliary line and orbital ring buffy white; auriculars wood-brown.” An incomplete postjuvenal molt, which involves the contour plum- age but not the wings or the tail, occurs mainly in August. This pro- duces a first-winter plumage, which is practically indistinguishable from that of the adult. Dr. Dwight describes this as similar to the juvenal plumage, but “darker above with less obvious streaking and deeper pinkish buff below, the streaking heavier, forming a pectoral band and extending to the flanks; an immaculate pale buff chin. The superciliary line extends behind the eye as a whitish band.” Ridgway (1904) says that the young in the first autumn and winter are “similar to winter adults, but upper parts decidedly brown and superciliary stripe and under parts rather deeper brownish buff, with streaks on chest, etc., less sharply defined.” Dr. Dwight (1900) says that the first nuptial plumage is “acquired by a partial prenuptial moult, in April, involving most of the body plumage which has suffered much from wear and become darker above AMERICAN PIPIT 29 with the buff tints nearly lost below. The extent of the fading is sur- prising. The new plumage is buff tinged, but wear during the breeding season produces a black and white streaked bird, the buffs being wholly lost through fading.” Ridgway (1904) says of this first nuptial plum- age: “The species breeds in this plumage, which is very different from the fully adult summer dress, * * * upper parts grayish, as in summer adults, but superciliary stripe and under parts paler (dull pale buffy or dull buffy white) than in winter adults, the chest, sides, and flanks conspicuously streaked with dusky.” Adults have a complete postnuptial molt late in summer, mainly in August, and a partial prenuptial molt, mainly in April, involving most of the contour plumage. Fall birds in fresh plumage are browner above and more buffy below, and spring birds are grayer above and paler below, the spring female being less grayish above, more brownish, and more heavily spotted below than the male; but the two sexes are very much alike in all plumages. Food.—Forbush’s (1929) account of the food seems to cover the subject quite satisfactorily, as follows: The food of the Pipit consists largely of insects, small molluscs and crustaceans, small seeds and wild berries. More than 77 percent of its food has been found to consist of insects, of which over 64 percent are injurious. The seeds are chiefly weed seeds and waste grain. Professor Aughey found an average of 47 locusts and 4 other insects in the stomachs of some Nebraska specimens. The Pipit takes weevils, bugs, grasshoppers, crickets, plant-lice and spiders. It renders valuable service to the cotton growers of the South by destroying boll weevils. Exami- nation of the stomachs of 68 birds taken in cotton fields showed that half of them had eaten 120 boll weevils. Mr. A. H. Howell says that Pipits pick up weevils throughout the winter, and in the spring they follow the plowman and capture both weevils and grubs. During an outbreak of grain aphids, these destructive insects constituted more than 70 per cent of the food of a Pipit. Mr. McAtee estimated that a flock of these birds then present must have destroyed at least a million of these pests daily. According to Preble and McAtee (1923), “this species is reported by Hanna to feed during its stay on the [Pribilof] islands in fall migra- tion almost exclusively on maggots on the killing fields. However, the contents of two stomachs, collected August 31, 1914, and September 20, 1916, contained no trace of such maggots. The food in these gizzards consisted of 10 per cent vegetable matter (seeds of a violet, Viola langs- dorfiz) and 90 percent animal matter. The components of the animal food were beetles (ground beetles, Pterostichus sp.; and weevils, Lophalophus inquinatus) , 87 per cent ; caterpillars, 33.5 per cent; plant bugs (/rbisia sericans), 8 per cent; spiders, 7.5 per cent; flies, 2.5 per cent; and Hymenoptera, 1.5 per cent.” Dr. George F. Knowlton writes to me: “On October 5, 1942, W. E. Peay and I encountered a large flock of the American pipit, extending from the Petersboro foothills in Cache Valley to Collinston, Utah. 30 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM The birds were very abundant along the road, feeding among Russian thistle. Hundreds also were feeding in alfalfa and in the wheat stubble, many alighting in plowed fields. Eighteen were collected and an examination of their stomachs revealed: 1 thysanuran; 19 collem- bolans; 102 Homoptera, 76 being aphids (of which 14 were pea aphids) and 13 leafhoppers. Hemiptera constituted the largest group with 1,527 recognizable specimens, of which 986 were adult and 291 nymphal false chinch bugs and 39 mirids. The 183 beetles included 46 weevils of which 8 were alfalfa weevils, 1 a clover leaf weevil and 19 adult clover root curculios. Ten of the 29 Hymenoptera were ants; most of the 14 Diptera were adults. In addition to the insects there were 8 spiders and mites, 92 seeds and a number of stomachs contained vary- ing amounts of plant fragments.” Practically all the pipit’s food is obtained on the ground, in short grass or low-growing herbage, on bare ground or open mud flats, on drifted sea wrack along the coast, and on the salt or brackish marshes along tidal streams. On its alpine breeding ground it has been seen picking up insects on the snowbanks, where they had been blown by the wind. In all such places it walks along daintily on its long legs, pick- ing up seeds or insects from the ground or herbage, sometimes running rapidly in pursuit of an escaping insect. Mr. Cogswell writes to me: “On January 11, 1942, at Dominguez Lagoon, south of Los Angeles, I observed pipits varying their usual ground foraging procedure by perching on the branches of tall weeds growing in the shallow water and reaching for insects (?) among heads of the plants.” Mr. Trautman (1940) reports an interesting feeding reaction: “I saw some 20 individuals of this species on a peat island near the east end of Cranberry marsh. They faced a moderate breeze, and indi- viduals from the group were flying into the air 3 or 4 feet, capturing moderate-sized flying beetles, and then dropping upon the island again. Usually 4 or 5 birds were in the air at once. The continual bobbing up and down was a strange sight, and somewhat resembled that of trout in a pool rising after insects.” Lucien M. Turner says in his unpublished notes that about the whal- ing stations in northern Ungava, where the carcasses of the white whales are left to rot, incredible numbers of flies are attracted and their maggots “fairly make the earth creep.” Great numbers of pipits resort to these places to feast on these larvae. He also saw these birds wading in the shallow pools on the tidal flats, searching for aquatic worms and larvae. Behavior.—Pipits are essentially terrestrial birds and spend most of their time on the ground, in the fields, meadows, marshes, mud flats, beaches, or on the bare rocks of their summer haunts. Some writers have stated that they never alight anywhere else, but such is certainly not so. In Labrador we frequently saw them walking on AMERICAN PIPIT 31 the roofs of tilts, where codfish was drying, or alighting on the roofs of the fish houses and even on the roofs of the dwelling houses and on the rocks around them. On migrations, we often see them perched in trees, on wire fences or fence posts, on the ridge poles of houses, and on telephone or telegraph wires. Dr. Knowlton writes to me that, in the locality where he collected the birds referred to above, “thou- sands of pipits were present over an area 6 to 15 miles wide. The birds would fly ahead of the car, alighting on fence posts and fence wires near the approaching vehicle. However, when disturbed by a man walking along the road, large numbers would sometimes fly away and alight in the field at some distance from the collector. They seldom were much disturbed by the firing of a .22 rifle or a small 44x1 bird gun.” When on the ground the pipit walks gracefully and prettily, with a nodding motion of the head, like a dove, and with the body swaying slightly from side to side as he moves quietly along; sometimes he runs more rapidly. His colors, soft grays and browns, match his sur- roundings so well, and he moves so quietly with an easy gliding mo- tion, that before we realize that he is there he rises with a large flock of his fellows, as if exploding from nowhere, and they go flying off to some safer spot, twittering as they fly. Francis H. Allen contributes the following note: “At one time I found the grass fairly ‘swarming’ with them at a fence corner, and one might have gone within two or three rods without seeing them, so closely did they creep along the ground. Here one of them stood on a large stone, spread his tail prettily, and scratched his right ear deftly with his right foot. The books seem to say that when on the ground they wag their tails constantly, but this is not literally true, for the tail is sometimes quiet as the bird walks, and extended straight behind, the whole slender bird presenting a peculiarly flat appear- ance as he steps daintily along. I thought that the tail was more constantly wagged when the bird was standing than when he walked.” Observers differ as to the amount of tail wagging and when it oc- curs, but the pipit belongs to the wagtail family and must indulge in a certain amount of it. Audubon (1841) stated that the pipit wags its tail when it stops walking; Forbush (1929) says “almost con- stantly moving the tail”; and others have referred to it as a constant habit. Probably there is some individual variation in the habit between different birds, or at different times in the same individual. Milton P. Skinner (1928) watched particularly for this habit in North Carolina and found that it was not a constant one. He noted that “their bodies and tails swung from side to side in time with each step,” and says: In every case this sidewise movement of the tail was an accompaniment of the body movement, and I did not see a single Pipit move its tail sidewise inde- 32 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM pendently of the body. But I found there was another movement of the tail, up and down, that was sometimes made. Of one hundred and forty birds watched on January 28, 1927, some tipped their tails up and down rapidly while walking and while resting on the ground but many of them did not. Ten days later, I noted that only a few of these pipits moved their tails up and down, and that even these movements were noticeable only when the birds alighted after flight, and then there were only two to five movements. On March 1, 1927, I observed that when these birds stopped walking they moved their tails more or less regularly, but the motion was not noticeable while they walked, and: disappeared altogether when they ran. The pipit’s flight is buoyant and undulating, powerful and swift, but rather erratic, as if the bird were undecided where to go or to stop. A large flock of pipits in flight is an interesting sight; they rise sud- denly and unexpectedly from almost underfoot, those nearest first and then rank after rank progressively, as if bursting out of the earth; all join into one big flock before our astonished eyes and go sweeping off in a loose, undulating bunch, some rising and some falling in a confusing mass, like so many swirling snowflakes. They swing in a wide circle over the field and back again, swoop downward as if about to alight, then off again as if undecided, and finally drop out of sight on the brown earth in the distance, or perhaps return again and settle near the spot from which they started. Dr. Witmer Stone (1937) thus describes the actions of a large flock of pipits on a burnt-over area: After circling in a large arc they came drifting back and settled down near where they were before. Several times later they flushed but always returned to the burnt area. By watching exactly where they alighted I was able to detect them scattered all over the ground, about one bird to each square foot, where thickest. Their backs had a distinct olive cast in the strong light but the streaks on the under parts were only seen clearly when the birds were breast on. They all walked deliberately or sometimes took half a dozen steps in rapid succession, almost a run, though less regular. They all moved in the same general direction and as I moved parallel with them I could see them pressing straight ahead through the grassy spots and between the grass tufts and the stems of the bushes that had escaped the fire. They kept their heads pretty well down on the shoul- ders and leaned forward, dabbing at the ground with the bill, to one side or the other, apparently picking up scattered seeds of grasses and sedges. The tail was carried parallel with the ground or tilted up a trifle while the tips of the wings hung just below its base. The tail moved a little as the bird advanced but there was no distinct tilting as in the Palm Warbler or the Water-Thrush. Voice—The American pipit is not a gifted songster, but the full song as heard on the breeding grounds is rather pleasing. It sometimes sings a weaker suggestion of this song during its spring migration in April and May. Dr. Harrison F. Lewis has sent me the following note on this song: “Pipits sing a good deal when passing Quebec, P. Q., in the spring migration. Here the song is commonly uttered while the birds are on the ground, but I have heard them sing from a tree, in which they perched freely. I do not appear to have any record of AMERICAN PIPIT 33 this species singing while in flight. The song is simple, but pleasant and attractive. It sounds like ke-tsée, ke-tsée, ke-tsée, ke-tsée, ke-tsée, tr-r-r-r-7-7-1, ke-tsée, ke-tsée, ke-tsée, tr-r-r-r-r-r-r, ke-tsée, etc., and is apparently of indefinite duration. Sometimes the little trills are introduced into it frequently, at other times sparingly. The song is not thin, like that of the black and white warbler, but pretty and tinkling, though rather weak.” The song-jlight has been described under courtship, and the flight- song, as heard on the breeding grounds, is described in the following notes from O. J. Murie: “The pipits were generally shy. When I ap- proached one he would fly off with a sharp ¢see-seep, tsee-seep, tsee-see- seep, then the impulse to sing would come over him and he would flutter his wings and go through his performance. The song was usually a repetition of syllables, see-see-see-see-see — —, a peculiar resonant kr accompanying and barely preceding each see, a quality impossible to describe adequately. This appeared to be the commonest form of the song. Sometimes it was varied, the notes being almost 2- syllabled, as ¢s7-ee, tsr-ee, tsr-ee, tsr-ee — —, and again sounding like ter-ee-a, ter-ee-a, ter-ce-a — —. Often it was a quite different form, a clear gliding sw7t-swit-swit-swit — —, or a little more prolonged swee-swee-swee-swee — — — —. Frequently a bird would break off on one form of the song and finish on another. The song was usually given on the wing, soaring upward to a height of about a hundred feet, then fluttering downward, finally sailing down to a rock with wings set and raised, and tail elevated. All this time the bird would sing his repetition of the same note, sometimes keeping it up after alighting.” The note that we hear on the fall migration, or in winter, is very short and simple, suggesting the name pipit. F. H. Allen (MS.) says of the flock he was watching: “The birds got up a few at a time generally, uttering as they arose a musical wét-wit, or wit-wit-wit-wit, with the accent, I should say, on the last syllable. When they were well a-wing, their note was a single, short prodt, very pleasing to the ear.” Mr. Cogswell contributes the following comparison of the notes of two species that are found along our shores and are likely to be confused: “The usual flight call note of the pipit is distinctive of this species, and helpful in separating a distant flying flock from horned larks inhabiting similar areas and with somewhat similar calls. The pipit’s note is a sharp tsip tsip, tspt-et, or just tstp— tsip-it; the lark’s is lower in pitch and much more rolling, not given so sharply—thus, sleek, slik-seeezik, or slik-sleestk, or just a sleek, sslik, slik.” Field marks.—The American pipit is a plainly colored, gray and brownish bird with no conspicuous markings, except the white outer tail feathers; and even these are not distinctive, for several other 34 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM birds have them, notably the juncos, the vesper sparrow, and, to-a less extent, the longspurs. The juncos are not often seen in the haunts of the pipit, and if they were, the color patterns of the different juncos are quite distinctive. The sparrow and longspurs are not so slender as the pipit; they have short, conical bills, and they hop rather than run. The white tail feathers of the pipit show only in flight, but its slender form and sharp bill, together with its habit of walking or running, the nodding of its head, and the frequent up-and-down mo- tion of its comparatively long tail should distinguish it from the others. Fall.—As soon as the young are able to care for themselves the pipits gather into flocks and begin to drift away from their breeding grounds before the end of August. We begin to see them in New England in September, in flocks of varying sizes from a dozen to a hundred or more, mainly coastwise on the salt marshes, on the mud flats, or along the beaches, but often farther inland along tidal streams, in open fields, and on wind-swept hills. They are commoner here in fall than in spring and usually remain to enliven the brown and dreary landscape until the frosts of late November drive them farther south. By this time the eastern birds have entirely deserted their northern breeding grounds. In the meantime the western birds have drifted down from their alpine heights, above timberline, and are spread out over the plains and lowlands. Migrating birds are often seen in enormous flocks, as some continue their migration beyond our borders into Mexico and beyond. Winter—Although the American pipit extends its winter range as far south as Guatemala, most of them spend the winter within the limits of the United States, fairly commonly as far north as Cali- fornia and Ohio; farther north it is rarely seen in winter. Dr. Stone (1937) draws the following pen picture of winter pipits in New Jersey : On some day of midwinter when there has been no blanket of snow such as sometimes covers the landscape, even at such a supposed ‘semi-tropic’ region as Cape May, we gaze over the broad monotonous expanses of plowed fields and conclude that here at least bird life is absent. We contrast these silent brown stretches with the swamp edges and their bursts of sparrow conversation or with the old pasture fields where Meadowlarks are sputtering. But let us start to cross these apparently deserted fields and immediately with a weak dee-dee, dee-dee, a small brown bird flushes from almost beneath our feet, then another and another, displaying a flash of white feathers in the tail as they rise. In a moment they have settled again farther on and are lost to sight against the brown background as suddenly as they appeared. We advance again and now the ground before us seems fairly to belch forth birds, as with one accord, the whole flock takes wing, and with light, airy, undulating and irregular flight, courses away over the fields, now clearly defined against the sky, now swallowed up in the all pervading brown of the landscape. AMERICAN PIPIT 35 In the sand hills of North Carolina Mr. Skinner (1928) saw pipits “only in the largest hay fields, winter-wheat fields, old cornfields where the stalks are all down, and in old cowpea fields.” He did not find them in plowed fields. In Florida it is a common winter resident, abundant in the more northern parts; we found it on the Kissimmee Prairie and on old fields and marshes elsewhere; A. H. Howell (1932) says that it is occasionally seen on sand dunes and sea beaches. M. G. Vaiden tells me that it occurs in Mississippi as a migrant in both spring and fall, and “occasionally in winter in great numbers. They are usually found on the slopes of the levee; I have noted flocks of at least 200 feeding on the levee.” Mr. Cogswell (MS.) says of the winter status of the pipit in southern California: “This species is a common winter visitant in all suitable localities below snow level; I have found it most abundantly on wet pasturelands and in the fields bordering coastal marshes, but they are also present in any fields with short or no vegetation. On Febru- ary 10, 1940, they were particularly abundant in the Chino Creek Valley and all over the nearby rolling hills, where flocks of hundreds foraged on the ground between the rows of growing grain, which completely hid them from view until they flew.” DISTRIBUTION Range.—The species is circumpolar, breeding in Europe, Asia, and northern North America and wintering south to northern Africa, southern Asia, and Central America. Breeding range.—The breeding range of the American races of the pipit is in the Arctic-Alpine regions north to northern Alaska (Meade River, about 100 miles south of Point Barrow, and Collison Point) ; northern Yukon (Herschel Island) ; northern Mackenzie (Kittigazuit, Franklin Bay, and Coronation Gulf) ; southern Somerset Island (Fort Ross) ; northern Baffin Island (Arctic Bay and Ponds Inlet) ; and about 75° north latitude on the west coast of Greenland (Devils Thumb Island). East to west coast of Greenland (Devils Thumb Island and Upernivik) ; eastern Baffin Island (Eglinton Fjord, Cumberland Sound, and Frobisher Bay) ; Labrador (Port Burwell, Hebron, Okkak, and Battle Harbor) ; Newfoundland (Cape Norman, Twillingate, and Cape Bonavista). South to Newfoundland (Cape Bonavista and the Lewis Hills), southeastern Quebec (Grosse Isle, Magdalen Islands rarely; Mount Albert and Tabletop, Gaspé Peninsula); northern Maine (summit of Mount Katahdin) ; northern Ontario (Moose Fac- tory) ; northern Manitoba (Churchill) ; central Mackenzie (Artillery Lake and Fort Providence) ; southwestern Alberta (Banff National Park) ; western Montana (Glacier National Park, Big Snowy Moun- 36 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM tains, and Bear Tooth Mountains) ; Wyoming (Big Horn Mountains, Wind River Mountains, and the Medicine Bow Mountains) ; Colo- rado (Longs Peak, Mount Audubon, Seven Lakes, Pikes Peak, and Medano Creek) ; central northern New Mexico (Taos Mountains and Pecos Baldy) ; northeastern Utah (Uintah Mountains) ; central Idaho (Salmon River Mountains) ; and northern Oregon (Wallowa Moun- tains and, possibly, Mount Hood); has also been found in summer near the summit of Mount Shasta and Mount Lassen, Calif., but not surely breeding. West to Oregon (Mount Hood) ; the Cascades of Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mount Adams, and Mount Rai- nier) ; British Columbia (mountains near Princeton, near Doch-da-on Creek, Summit, and Atlin; southwestern Yukon (Burwash Landing and Tecpee Lake); and the Aleutian Islands and western Alaska (Frosty Peak, Unalaska, the Near Islands, Nunivak Island, Wales, Kobuk River, and Meade River) ; has been found also on St. Law- rence Island. Winter range.—The pipit occurs in winter north to southwestern British Columbia (southern Vancouver Island, occasionally) ; western Washington (Tacoma, Nisqually Flats, and Vancouver); Oregon (Portland, Corvallis, and along the Malheur River); Utah (Ogden Valley, Utah Lake, and St. George) ; central to southern Arizona (Fort Whipple, Fort Verde, and Tucson) ; southern New Mexico (San An- tonio and Carlsbad) ; southern and eastern Texas (Fort Clark, Kerr- ville, Austin, Waco, and Commerce) ; occasionally central Arkansas (Van Buren); northern Louisiana (Shreveport and Monroe) ; Tennessee, uncommon (Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville, and Johnson City); and southern Virginia (Blacksburg, Naruna, and Virginia Beach) ; occasionally north to northern Ohio (Huron and Painesville) ; New Jersey (Seaside Park) ; Long Island (Long Beach and Orient) ; Connecticut (Saybrook) ; and Massachusetts (Newburyport). East to the Atlantic Coast States from southern Virginia (Virginia Beach) to southern Florida (Fernandina, St. Augustine, and Daytona Beach, Kissimmee, and Key West rarely). South to Florida (Key West, Fort Myers, and St. Marks) ; the Gulf coast to southern Texas (Rockport and Brownsville) ; eastern Mexico (Rodriguez, Nuevo Leon; Puebla; and Huajuapam, Oaxaca); Guatemala; and northern El Salvador (Volein de Santa Ana), the southernmost place that it has been re- corded. West to Guatemala (Duenas); Oaxaca (Tehuantepec) ; Sinaloa (Mazatlin) ; Lower California (a Paz and San Quintin) ; the valleys and coast of California (La Jolla, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Napa, and Eureka); western Oregon (Coos Bay and Netarts) ; western Washington (Nisqually Flats) ; and southern Van- couver Island, British Columbia. The range as outlined applies to all the North American races, of which three are now recognized. The western pipit (A. s. pacificus) AMERICAN PIPIT oi, breeds from southeastern Alaska through the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia and in the Cascades to Oregon; the Rocky Mountain pipit (A. s. alticola) breeds in the Rocky Mountain region from Mon- tana to New Mexico; the eastern pipit (A. s. rubescens) breeds from Alaska to Greenland south to southern Yukon and Mackenzie to Quebec, Newfoundland, and Mount Katahdin, Maine. In winter the races are mingled. Migration—Late dates of spring departure are: EK! Salvador— Volean de Santa Ana, April 16. Lower California—San José del Cabo, May 8. Sonora—Granados, May 6. Florida—Pensacola, April 27. Georgia—Athens, May 9. South Carolina—Charleston, April 22. North Carolina—Pea Island, May 16. District of Columbia— Washington, May 14. Pennsylvania—Erie, May 12. New York— Potter, May 16. Mississippi—Biloxi, April 29. Louisiana—Lobdell, May2. Arkansas—Lake City, April29. Kentucky—Bowling Green, May 8. Oberlin, May 24. Michigan—McMillan, May 28. Ontario— Rossport, May 29. Missouri—St. Louis, May 2. Minnesota—Lake Vermillion, May 27. Texas—Somerset, May 1. Kansas—Onaga, May 23. Alberta—Genevis, May 26. British Columbia—Okanagan Landing, May 17. Early dates of spring arrival are: District of Columbia—Washing- ton, February 16. Pennsylvania—State College, February 28. New York—Ithaca, March 15. Massachusetts—Amherst, March 27. Maine—Auburn, May 2. New Brunswick—Chatham, May 6. Que- bec—Kamouraska, May 6. Ohio—Oberlin, March 4. Ontario— London, May 1. Michigan—Detroit, March 81. Wisconsin—Mil- waukee, April 20. Kansas—Lawrence, March 12. Nebraska— Hastings, March 10. South Dakota—Sioux Falls, March 27. North Dakota—Charlson, April 238. Manitoba—Aweme, April 15; Churchill, May 25. Saskatchewan—EKastend, April 21. Wyoming— Laramie, April 9. Utah—Brigham, April 4. Montana—Helena, April9. Alberta—Stony Plain, April 8. Mackenzie—Simpson, May 2. British Columbia—Chilliwack, April 6. Alaska—Ketchikan, April 26; Fort Kenai, May 6. Late dates of fall departure are: Alaska—Wainwright, September 28. British Columbia—Comox, November 9. Mackenzie—Simpson, October 16. Alberta—Glenevis, October 4. Saskatchewan—Eastend, October 16. Montana—Fortine, October 27. Wyoming—Laramie, November 6. Manitoba—Aweme, October 28. North Dakota—Ar- gusville, October 28. South Dakota—Lake Poinsett, November 2. Nebraska—Gresham, November 1. Kansas—Onaga, November 25. Minnesota—Minneapolis, October 31. Wisconsin—North Freedom, November 1. Illinois—Chicago, November 3. Michigan—Sault Ste. Marie, November 8. Ontario—Toronto, November 13. Ohio— Youngstown, November 22. Quebec—Montreal, November 4. 38 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Maine—Machias, November 2. Massachusetts—Harvard, Novembér 9. New York—New York, November 27. District of Columbia— Washington, December 23. Early dates of fall arrival are: Alberta—Glenevis, August 19. Mon- tana—Missoula, September 4. Minnesota—Hallock, September 4. Wisconsin—Madison, September 19. Ontario—Ottawa, September 9. Michigan—Blaney, September 19. Illinois—Hinsdale, Septem- ber 14. Kentucky—Lexington, October 10. 'Tennessee—Memphis, October 10. Mississippi—Ellisville, October 19. Louisiana—New Orleans, October 10. Massachusetts—Danvers, September 14. New York—Orient, September 2. Pennsylvania—Doylestown, September 9. District of Columbia—Washington, September 23. Virginia— Wytheville, October 24. North Carolina—Greensboro, October 17. South Carolina—Sullivans Island, September 10. Georgia—Round Oak, October 16. Florida—Fort Myers, September 26. Texas— Somerset, October 7. Chihuahua—Chihuahua, October 9; Lower Cal- ifornia, San Andrés, September 21. Very few pipits have been banded, and the 10 recovery records are all of birds retrapped at the place of banding one or two years later. Casual records.—In November 1848 a flock visited Bermuda, from which two birds were shot, the date of one specimen being given as November 26. The American pipit has been twice collected on the island of Helgoland, an immature on November 11, 1851, and an adult on May 17, 1870. An immature bird was collected on Septem- ber 30, 1910, on the island of St. Kilda, Outer Hebrides, Scotland. Egg dates—WLabrador : 21 records, June 10 to July 23; 12 records, June 18 to 30, indicating the height of the season. Alaska: 10 records, June 8 to 28. Colorado: 12 records, June 22 to July 26; 9 records, June 25 to 30. ANTHUS SPINOLETTA JAPONICUS Temminck and Schlegel JAPANESE PIPIT CONTRIBUTED BY WINSOR MARRETT TYLER HABITS A single specimen of the Japanese pipit, the only individual known to have occurred in the Western Hemisphere, was taken on Nunivak Island, Alaska, on September 10, 1947. Harry S. Swarth (1934) de- scribes the event of its capture thus: Harrold’s [the collector’s] note-book contains the following entry : “September 10, 1927, Cape Etolin, Nunivak Island. A pipit with bold spotting on a cream (rather than buff) breast and belly taken on the rocky shore of the Cape. It struck me that its flight and actions were not quite typical of the American Pipit, but its note was not heard. It is nearly one-half inch shorter by measure- ment than the average American Pipit.” The capture of this bird (C. A. S. No. JAPANESE PIPIT 39 30778, an immature female), the first in North America, has already been recorded (Swarth, 1928, p. 250). Upper mandible brown; lower mandible brown, basal half brownish yellow; iris brown; tarsus and toes yellowish brown. Swarth (1928), in an earlier paper, reports the taking of this speci- men and points out that a previous published record of the Japanese pipit in the Western Hemisphere is erroneous. He says: “There is a prior record for this bird in North America, based upon the capture of one on St. Paul Island, in the Pribilof group, on August 29, 1916. That specimen is in the United States National Museum, and being examined by Dr. Wetmore and Mr. Riley during their scrutiny of the bird here recorded, it proved to be not japonicus but a somewhat unusu- ally colored example of Anthus spinoletta rubescens. The present is therefore the first recorded occurrence of the Japanese Pipit within the confines of the A. O. U. Check-List.” Swarth refers to the record of the St. Paul Island bird (G. Dallas Hanna, 1920) and to its refutation (Riley and Wetmore, 1928). The Japanese pipit breeds far to the north in the Eastern Hemi- sphere—eastern Siberia, Kamchatka, and the Kurile Islands. It is closely related in appearance and habits to the American pipit. Its breeding grounds lie farther westward than our bird’s, extending in Siberia as far west as the Lena River, while the western limit of the breeding range of the American pipit reaches only the northeast corner of Siberia. Little has been published concerning the Japanese pipit. J. D. D. La Touche (1930), writing of the bird in eastern China, says: This is a much smaller and darker bird than Blakiston’s Pipit. It has a loud double note of alarm, different from the single ‘pee’ of the Red-throated Pipit. It occurs in flocks in winter on the marshes and wet fields of South-Hast China of the Lower Yangtse, and in spring is found in green corn at Chinkiang. It moults in April in the latter locality, and may be seen there until about the middle of May and until the end of that month at Chinwangtao. It is purely a marsh and wet-field or meadow bird. * * * This Pipit appears to only straggle down to India in winter, but it is common in the Shan States and other parts of Burma and has also, according to Baker, been taken in other Indo-Burmese countries. * * * The bird was originally described from Japan, and Dr. Hartert gives Kamtschatka, East Siberia, and the Kirile Is. as breeding-range, Japan being only part of the winter-quarters. The nidification is apparently unknown. La Touche (1920) remarks further: “It migrates in autumn in company with the Wagtails and Swallows, many flocks of which fly by in late August and September. I have seen it in the marshes in Octo- ber until the 25th of that month. The first arrivals in spring are still in winter dress but soon assume the summer plumage, dark ashy- grey, upper parts obscurely spotted, and buffish vinous under parts with a few drop-like spots on the breast and flanks.” A handlist of Japanese birds (Ornithological Society of Japan, 1932) gives the island of Sakhalin as a breeding ground of the Japanese pipit. 40 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Riley and Wetmore (1928) point out the distinguishing characters in the plumage of the Japanese pipit as compared to the American pipit. They say: “It is paler below, with heavier markings, duller, less buffy above, has the wing bars more prominently white, and differs in the coloration of the sides of the head.” Austin Hobart Clark (1910), in his report of the cruise of the steamer Albatross in the North Pacific Ocean, says: “I found this bird common in the grassy lowlands near Milne Bay, Simushir, but very shy and hard to get. The males were in full song at the time of our visit, June 23.” Nesting—Bernard W. Tucker contributes the following note: “The nesting of this race, which was originally described from winter birds in Japan, was long unknown, but in recent years many eggs have been obtained by the Japanese in the Kurile Islands, as noted by Yama- shina (1931). In this connection Yamashina gives a reference to a paper by him, ‘On a Collection of Birds from Paramushiru Island, North Kuriles’, in the Japanese journal Tori, but as this is entirely in Japanese I am unable to state what particulars about nest or eggs are there given. Again, Hartert and Steinbacher (1938) state that in recent years it has also been studied on its breeding grounds by Rus- sian ornithologists, but I have not had access to any Russian data, and the authors quoted give no references.” DISTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTED BY BERNARD WILLIAM TUCKER Breeding range.—FKast Siberia westward at least to the Lena, Kam- chatka, and the Kurile Islands. The Sakhalin bird has been distin- guished as A. s. borealis Hesse, but Hartert and Steinbacher (1938) do not consider this separable. Winter range—Japan, Yangtse Valley, Fohkien and Kwantung, Formosa; occasionally in Turkestan. ANTHUS PRATENSIS (Linnaeus) MEADOW PIPIT CONTRIBUTED BY BERNARD WILLIAM TUCKER HABITS The meadow pipit is a common European species breeding regularly in Iceland and occurring casually, but evidently not very rarely, on the east coast of Greenland, where it seems certain that it breeds oc- casionally, though the actual finding of a nest with eggs or young has not been recorded. The earliest record from Greenland is of one re- MEADOW PIPIT 4] ceived by J. H. Paulsen (1846) taken in 1844 and recorded by him in a footnote to his German translation of Holbgll’s “Ornithologiske Bidrag til den grénlandske Fauna.” This was the record referred to by Prof. Alfred Newton in the Arctic Manual (1875), which the A. O. U. Check-list quotes. Johan Petersen, who was superintendent of the east-coast colony of Angmagsalik from 1894 to 1915 and whose careful bird observations are quoted by Helms (1926), met with the species repeatedly in that district, though by no means every year. He first observed it in 1903, when four or five were seen by houses in the colony on May 21 and one was shot and sent home to Denmark for identification. The birds remained about in May and June and were seen with young in July. Birds were also seen on a trip to Sermilik Fjord, west of Angmagsalik, at the beginning of June. Petersen records that they were in pairs “and to all appearances they had nests in the vicinity.” After this his notes do not mention the species until 1908, when one was seen on May 9 and 12 and was heard singing. In 1912 one was seen on May 5 and one was singing on the mountains on June 11. The latter bird was seen again on July 13, carrying food and behaving in such a way that it obviously had young. On August 10 old and young birds were seen near the colony. In 1913 one was seen on May 12, and finally, on a return visit to Angmagsalik in later years, Petersen again met with the species in August and again on October 10, 1923. F. S. Chapman (1932), the ornithologist of the British Arctic Air Route Expedition of 1930-31, also met with meadow pipits in the Angmagsalik district. The species was first recorded on May 24, 1931. After this none reappeared till May 28, when, in the observer’s words, “a pair started nesting.” It is a pity that Chapman was not more ex- plicit on this point and does not state his evidence, since although Petersen’s observations leave no reasonable doubt that the species does sometimes breed, it appears, as has already been noticed, that no actual nest has yet been recorded. Considerably farther north, at Cape Dalton, Bertram, Lack, and Reberts (1934) on August 20, 1933, saw a meadow pipit that was probably breeding on rocky ground well cov- ered with vegetation. Just previous to flushing the bird a nest was found composed of grass on the ground in a site typical for this species. H¢rning (1939) has recently added two more autumn records, a male shot at Kingmiut, north of Angmagsalik, on September 6, 1933, and a juvenile female at sea off Cape I. A. D. Jensen on Blosseville coast on August 28 of the same year. The meadow pipit, a somewhat smaller and more boldly marked species than the American pipit, is a bird of rough grasslands, moors, heaths, sand dunes, and other open country in the breeding season. Though it may be found frequently enough breeding on suitable rough ground in the lowlands, it is more especially a bird of hill country and 843290—50——4 42 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM upland moors. In many parts of the British Isles and Continentai Europe there are large tracts of country where the meadow pipit is not only the dominant small bird but almost the only one to be met with at all commonly. As one walks over the moors one may often traverse large areas that are saved from almost complete birdlessness only by the meadow pipits, which from time to time rise ahead of one with their shrill alarm notes, fly a little way with a flitting, jerky . action, and drop to the ground again. From about April to June these same moors are enlivened by the dancing forms of the male birds in the air, as each flutters up with his tinkling, feeble, yet cheery little song, which is completed as he glides to the ground again with wings some- what raised and tail spread. On the heathy barrens of the high north of Europe beyond the tree limit, the meadow pipit is just as prominent a member of the bird population as on the moors of Great Britain, and it is common, too, in Iceland, whence came, no doubt, the birds that have reached the American Continent. In Iceland, writes Hantzsch (1905), it is characteristic of the hilly grasslands, upland moors, and heathy tracts, and in the mountains ascends as high as it can find a continuous ground vegetation. The bleak lands of the far north are deserted in winter, and even from temperate regions like the British Isles many emigrate, though many remain. The high ground is, however, mostly deserted, and the species becomes common in the lowlands in places where it does not breed. In the more southern parts of its breeding range it is met with chiefly on grasslands in the mountains. Courtship.—The meadow pipit is one of those small passerines that seem to have no very well defined or regular pattern of display. Miss 8. M. Butlin (1940) has recorded the behavior of a male which ran four or possibly five times in front of the female “with stiff, very upright gait, wings slightly away from body and head held rigid and rather bowed while he sang quietly.” The female was crouching in the solicitation posture, but the male finished the performance by flying off to a heather clump a few yards away, and coition did not take place although the birds were not disturbed. Miss A. Morley (1940) has witnessed a type of display which has not been recorded by any other observer. She describes how a male which had been moving round the female with slightly drooped wings and cocked-up tail “picked up a large piece of flowering grass and flew with it in his bill for a short way low over the grasses, with a rather slow flight and rapid quivering wings,” and this behavior was twice repeated. Droop- ing of the wings by the male, a common action in sexually excited birds, has also been noted by Caroline and Desmond Nethersole-Thompson (1940), who add that by a dipping action he displays the white beneath the tail. These observers also find that “courtship feeding” of the female by the male is regularly practiced during incubation either on MEADOW PIPIT 43 or just off the nest. Whether this behavior also occurs, as in some birds, before incubation begins, when it can be regarded as solely and un- equivocally a courtship action, since the utilitarian element entailed in the feeding of the female while she is sitting is lacking, does not appear to have been established. The same observers note that during the pairing period sex chases, although less sustained than those of many passerines, are frequently seen. Nesting.—The nest of the meadow pipit is built in the open in a depression in the ground—which appears to be often a scrape made by the birds themselves—among grass or in a tuft of rushes or heather, and may be very well concealed or fairly open. It is a cup built of dry grasses and bents lined with finer material and some horsehair. The nest is built chiefly by the female, though the male assists her; she has been seen examining possible nest places some days before beginning to build, but site selection and building may occur on the same day (C. and D. Nethersole-Thompson, 1943). E'ggs.—The eggs are thus described by Jourdain in the Handbook of British Birds (1938, vol. 1): “Ordinary types brown or grey in general appearance, finely mottled or more boldly marbled with vary- ing shades of brown and ashy grey; others are almost uniform ochre- ous or pale leaden-grey, with dark hair-streaks, and some sparsely or unmarked on pale blue ground. An erythristic type recorded. Average of 100 British eggs: 19.77 x 14.63. Max.:21.4x 15.7. Min.: 18.7 x 14.5 and 19.1x 14mm.” The usual number of eggs in Britain is four or five, sometimes only three and seldom six. But in more northern regions clutches average larger; Blair (1936) found six the usual number in the far north of Norway, and clutches of seven were found on several occasions. In Iceland Hantzsch (1905) found no complete clutch of less than five, a number of six, and one of seven. The experience of other observers in northern regions is similar. In England the season for eggs is from the latter part of April on, though clutches may rarely be found earlier in the month. In Ger- many it averages rather later; according to Niethammer (1937) it extends from the beginning, or often only from the middle, of May, or not infrequently even from the end of April, to the end of June or occasionally even July. In northern Norway Blair found that the first eggs in a large series of nests examined were laid between June 2and 19. In Iceland also the first eggs are usually laid at the end of June, though rarely they may be laid at the end of May (Hantzsch). These data are selected as representative from a large amount avail- able with regard to this common European bird. In temperate re- gions the species is double-brooded, and this appears to be at least sometimes the case even in Iceland, as Congreve and Freme (1930) found fresh eggs on May 28 and also on July 5. Young.—Only the female incubates. She is regularly fed on or near 44 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM the nest by the male, though she may occasionally get some food for herself. Incubation begins, according to the Nethersole-Thompsons (1948), with the penultimate or antepenultimate egg, and the period is 138-14 days. When the young hatch the shells are removed, and large fragments have been found away from the nest from which they are presumed to have come (C. and D. Nethersole-Thompson, 1942). Both parents feed the young ones, and the feces are carried away by - the parents and dropped in flight or after the bird settles. The latter observation we owe to Lt. Col. B. M. Ryves, an indefatigable observer of the details of the breeding economy of British birds, and Dr. H. J. Moon, whose notes are quoted in a paper on nest sanitation by R. H. Blair and the present writer (1941). Jourdain gives the fledgling period as 13-14 days, but the young are often not fully capable of flight when they leave the nest. Plumages.—The plumages are fully described by H. F. Witherby in the Handbook of British Birds (1938, vol. 1). ‘The brownish-gray down of the nestling is fairly long and plentiful, distributed on the in- ner and outer supraorbital, occipital, humeral, ulnar, spinal, femoral, and ventral tracts, but is very scanty on the last two. The mouth in- side is carmine, and the flanges of the bill are pale yellow externally. There are no tongue spots, but the tongue spurs are whitish. The juvenal plumage is much like that of the adult, but the dark central streaks of the feathers of the upperparts are more distinct and the brown edgings smaller. The first-winter plumage is like the adult’s. Food.—The food consists almost exclusively of insects and other small invertebrates obtained on the ground. Jourdain (1938, vol. 1) mentions: “Coleoptera (Byrrhus, Athous, Cercyon, Longitarsus, Oxy- telus, Tachyporus, Limnobius, etc., and larvae), small Orthoptera, Diptera (Tipula, Fristalis, Calliphora, and larvae), Hemiptera, Hy- menoptera, and larvae of Lepidoptera. Also earthworms (Saxby), spiders, and occasionally seeds.” Behavior.—Something has been said about general behavior on the breeding ground in the introductory remarks. This is a terrestrial species, the ordinary gait, as in other pipits, being a fairly deliberate walk, though it can also run on occasions. The tail tends to be moved slightly up and down as it walks. It has often been alleged that it seldom or only exceptionally perches in trees, but this is altogether too sweeping a statement. ‘Though admittedly it perches in trees much less regularly than its European relative, the tree pipit, it is not particularly unusual for it to do so in places where trees are pres- ent, and this is especially true on migration. It would, however, be fair to say that when the meadow pipit settles in trees it is more often than not only a passing expedient adopted because something [) MEADOW PIPIT 4 has disturbed it on the ground. And, true to its characteristic love of the open, it rarely if ever perches in the cover of foliage. The flight as a rule is rather flitting and jerky, rising and falling in a somewhat erratic fashion rather than regularly undulating as with a good many small birds. Outside the breeding season the species is inclined to be gregarious, though the members of a party or flock generally maintain only a somewhat loose contact. V oice.—The note when the bird is flushed is a feeble, thin, squeaky tseep or tsiip, or in point of fact more usually an unbroken string of these shrill notes uttered in quick succession. The call note, heard chiefly on the breeding ground, is a more sibilant and slightly fuller, but still shrill tisstp or tésp, the disyllabic form being typical though not invariable. The opening notes of the song have much the same quality. The tinkling sequence of simple notes gathers speed as the bird flutters up from the ground to, at most, a hundred feet or so and as it planes down again passes into a succession of slightly more mus!- cal notes finally becoming a trill, which continues till the singer reaches the ground. On the descent the bird glides down with wings partly spread and inclined somewhat upward and the tail fanned, but there are minor variations in this song flight. At the top of the ascent it may fly a little way more or less level before beginning to drop, or it may even sink a little and rise again, prolonging the song accordingly. The length of the song and the relative duration of the two parts, the rise and fall, vary a good deal. Timings of the total length quoted by EK. M. Nicholson (1936) range from 12 to 25 seconds. Shorter, more imperfect versions may be given from bushes, fences, or other low perches or even from the ground. In the south and midland parts of England the period of regular song is from about mid-March to early in July. Occasional song may be heard from mid-February and after the regular song period is over until the beginning of August. As an exceptional occurrence it has been noted as late as mid-September and even October. Field marks.—An obvious pipit, but rather smaller than the Ameri- can species, and much more strongly marked, both back and breast being boldly streaked with black. The exact coloring of the upper- parts varies from olive or greenish gray to browner shades and the white outer tail feathers are conspicuous when the bird is flushed. It is a bird of open country, little given to perching on trees, though it will do so at times. In Europe it requires to be distinguished from the very similar tree pipit (Anthus trivialis), which, as the common name suggests, perches in trees habitually and has a different song. However, as this species has not occurred in America and does not appear likely to do so, it need not detain us further. In the nonbreed- ing plumage the red-throated pipit also much resembles the present 46 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM species. The distinctions are given under the field marks of the former bird. Enemies.—As a bird of open country and a common one at that the meadow pipit is largely preyed upon by hawks. Reference to Jour- dain’s account of British birds in the Handbook of British Birds (1939, vol. 3) shows that it has been definitely recorded in the dietary of every British-breeding bird of prey that takes birds at all, with the. exception of the marsh harrier and the kite. Even the bold peregrine (duck hawk) and the stately golden eagle will condescend to take a meadow pipit on occasions, while it may be said to constitute the main food in the breeding season of the merlin (pigeon hawk), which fre- quents similar country. It is also largely taken by the hen and Mon- tagu’s harriers, near relatives of the marsh hawk of America, also birds of open country, and it quite frequently falls a victim to the European sparrow hawk, which though primarily a woodland bird regularly hunts over open ground. The meadow pipit is one of the species most commonly parasitized by the European cuckoo. A list of invertebrate parasites of the species is given by Niethammer (1987). Fall and winter.—F all is a time of active movement among meadow pipits, and the movements in the British Islands illustrate on a smaller scale those that take place over the general range of the species. Birds from the northern and more elevated regions abandon these for the winter, and, though many emigrate, some are contented to spread over the lower ground at no very great distance from their breeding haunts, so that the species becomes common in many places where it does not nest or does so only sparingly. It is evident, how- ever, that many of these wintering birds are migrants that have come in from abroad. They are now to be found in flocks and parties on open fields and rough grasslands of all sorts and on waste or culti- vated land, with a noticeable liking for wet or partially flooded ground, which also attracts them to the borders of lakes and inland waters and to coastal salt or other marshes. They are also often found feed- ing on arable land among root crops such as rutabagas or turnips and may be observed picking over debris along tide marks on the seashore. The flocks are largest at the migration period in fall. Later, partly no doubt because many of those in the fall flocks were birds of pas- sage that have passed on, but also as the result of a general tendency to dispersal, the parties are generally smaller. They do not main- tain any close coherence; the birds scatter rather widely over their feeding grounds and when approached rise in ones and twos or little groups rather than as a body. At night they roost on the ground, making use of such shelter as offers. It may be provided by the over- hanging leaves in a turnip field or by other broad-leaved plants in a MEADOW PIPIT 47 marsh or piece of waste ground, by tussocky grass or rushes in the open, or by a young plantation of conifers. Again, birds may some- times be found roosting off the ground in hedges, but this appears generally to happen in severe or snowy weather. In the Mediterranean countries, where the species breeds only spar- ingly on high ground or not at all, meadow pipits are common in winter on essentially the same types of ground described above, and I recall particularly watching many of them, with a sprinkling of water pipits—the European racial form of the pipit of America from the neighboring mountains—feeding on partially flooded land in the precise area north of Naples where at the moment of penning these words the Anglo-American armies are fighting. In North Africa it occurs also in the hills in winter. DISTRIBUTION Breeding range.—Iceland, Faeroes, British Isles, and Continental Europe south to the Pyrenees, central France, northern Italy, Yugo- slavia, Rumania, and south Russia, east through northern Siberia to the Yenisei. Winter range.—F ar north deserted and range extends to all Euro- pean Mediterranean countries and North Africa and to southwest and west-central Asia. Spring migration —The return passage of birds that have wintered farther south is recorded from mid-March to mid-April on the south coast of England and from as early as mid-February on that of Ireland (Ticehurst, 1988, vol. 1). In Germany passage is described as tak- ing place from March to May, but on Helgoland Giitke (1895) records it as beginning as early as February 24. On the Arctic coast of Norway the first arrivals were not noted by Blair (1936) until May 15, but the first birds reach the south coastal districts of Iceland by the end of April, though the inland regions are not occupied until well into May (Hantzsch). Meinertzhagen’s (1930) latest record for Egypt is March 20, but on the north side of the Mediterranean birds are present in some numbers until much later. Alexander’s (1927) last date for the Rome district of central Italy is April 13, and this agrees closely with the present writer’s for the Naples dis- trict, April 12. Fall migration —Southward movement of northern birds in Britain from about mid-August to late in October. Emigratory movements from late in September to late in November. From early in September to late in October or November large numbers of immigrants arrive from abroad, some to winter, others to pass on (Ticehurst). In Ger- many the passage is described as lasting from September to Novem- ber (Niethammer). Most leave Iceland by the middle or end of Sep- 48 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM tember (Hantzsch). Earliest dates in Rome district of Italy, October 4 (Alexander), Naples district, October 5 (B. W. T.), Egypt, end of October, but once September 29 (Meinertzhagen). Casual records—Madeira, Canaries. ANTHUS CERVINUS (Pallas) RED-THROATED PIPIT CONTRIBUTED BY BERNARD WILLIAM TUCKER HABITS The red-throated pipit is a mainly Siberian species that has occurred accidentally on the west side of the American Continent. The earli- est authority for its occurrence quoted by the authors of the A. O. U. Check-list, namely Zander (1854) in the Journal fiir Ornithologie for 1853, says no more than that its range extends through Asia as far as the islands near America (“bis zu den Inselin bei Amerika”), and although it may be assumed that such a statement was based on actual specimens no other particulars are given, nor has the present writer been able to trace any. Turner (1886), however, records a specimen taken at St. Michael, Western Alaska, in 1867, and Ridg- way (1883) another taken at San José del Cabo, Lower California, on January 26, 1883, a rather surprising time of year. Recently Fried- mann (1937) has added a third record, of a bird taken on St. Law- rence Island, Alaska, in July 1936, by an Eskimo collector. The range of the species extends west from Siberia into northern Russia and northern Scandinavia, where it overlaps with that of the meadow pipit, previously described. But whereas the meadow pipit is a widely distributed species in Europe, extending northward to the coasts of the Arctic Ocean, the red-throated pipit is exclusively an Arctic species whose range barely overlaps the northern limits of the forest belt, but on the other hand extends north of Continental Europe to embrace the Arctic islands of Kolguev, Novaya Zemlya, and Waigatz, which the meadow pipit does not reach. In Arctic Norway, though the habitats of the two species are not rigidly separated, the red-throated pipit appears on the whole to like somewhat bushier and damper ground than does the meadow pipit. In the south of its range it is found on high fells above the tree limit, but in the north it is confined to lower levels, especially near the sea. As described by Blair (1936), “swamps overgrown with dwarf birch and willow and damp grassy flats are the favourite haunts of this pipit,” but it also, as he mentions, has a marked predeliction for cul- tivation and the neighborhood of farmsteads and habitations, where such are available. Thus at Vadso in Arctic Norway it is common RED-THROATED PIPIT 49 about the little cultivated meadows and damp patches with scrubby growth of Saliw and birch close to the little towns. I have, however, found it plentiful in a quite different type of habitat from those above mentioned, on the island of Vard6, off the same coast. Here its chosen terrain consisted of a certain amount of grass pasture, a cer- tain amount of heathy ground with the usual Arctic heath association dominated by crowberry (Z’mpetrum nigrum), and considerable out- crops of rock with no scrub at all. Nesting.—The nest is built on the ground in a recess in the side of a hummock in marshy localities, often sheltered by scrub growth of dwarf birch, willow, or other plants or sometimes, as I have seen it, on the grassy verge of a roadside or near the borders of a meadow near small farmsteads or villages. It is built of dry grass and bents lined with similar but finer material, with occasionally some hair, but without feathers. The owners tend to show up more than in the case of the meadow pipit and, Maj. W. M. Congreve (1936) describes the male as noisy and conspicuous, always giving away the fact that he has a nest in the vicinity. Eggs.—The eggs are described by Jourdain in the Handbook of British Birds (1938) as variable, ranging from types with evenly freckled markings on a blue-gray ground to an almost uniform ochreous with a dark hair line, or with rich mahogany-red cloudings or bold sepia markings on an olive-gray ground. He gives the fol- lowing measurements of 100 eggs: average, 19.2 by 14.2; maximum, 21 by 14.3 and 18.1 by 15.1; minimum, 17.1 by 138.9 and 18 by 13.4 minimum. Congreve (1936) considers them less variable than those of the meadow pipit and states that they commonly have blackish spots sometimes with a “penumbra” and to a limited extent bunting- hike streaks. According to Jourdain the clutch is usually six, some- times five, rarely four or seven, and the season is from about mid- June to early in July. Congreve in Arctic Norway found the earliest nest in 1985 (c/7, fresh) on June 20, and fresh or slightly incubated eggs until the end of the month, and Blair (1936) in the same region records full clutches from June 16 to 24, while Williams (1941) ina late season found no full sets until early in July. The experiences of other observers, to much the same effect, are summarized by Pleske (1928). Young.—Only the hen has been found incubating, and Congreve states that she is fed by the male both on and off the nest. Both parents feed the young, of which, in the short Arctic summer, only one brood isreared. “Injury-feigning” by a bird off a nest is recorded by Williams (1941). An exact fledging period is not recorded. Plumages.—The plumages are fully described by H. F. Witherby (1938, vol. 1) in the Handbook of British Birds. The nestling has 50 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM fairly long and plentiful down of a dark gray-brown color distributed on the inner and outer supraorbital, occipital, humeral, ulnar, spinal, femoral, and crural tracts. The inside of its mouth, as I have myself noted in northern Norway, is colored a raw-flesh red without spots and the flanges externally are very pale yellow. The juvenal plu- mage much resembles that of the adult female in winter, but the pale edgings of the feathers of the upperparts are rather smaller and more. buffish and the buff of the underparts more yellowish. The chin is buffish white. In the first winter the male is much like the adult fe- male in winter but may have the chin and throat tinged with buflish pink. Food.—Like other pipits the species is mainly insectivorous. Exact data are not extensive, but Jourdain (1938, vol. 1) mentions Diptera, Coleoptera, etc., small worms, and in winter also fresh-water mollusks and grass seeds. Haviland (1915) mentions especially mosquitoes, and indeed it is difficult to see how these pests could fail to figure largely in the diet of any insectivorous bird on the tundra in summer. Behavior. —The carriage, gait, and general behavior are those of a typical pipit. It perches freely on bushes and fences or, where they exist on telegraph wires and buildings and on trees. Miss Maud Haviland (1915) in Siberia found it a quarrelsome bird. In winter it is found in large parties and flocks, which scatter rather widely over the feeding grounds. Voice.—The distinctive character of the call note has already been mentioned. It is a comparatively full, quite musical, and rather abrupt chiip (the “ii” sound to be pronounced like the French “u”), quite different from the thin, shrill notes of the other pipits. It is used both in flight or when flushed and while perched, and habitually by migrants as well as on the breeding ground. A note used by breeding birds which seems to be more definitely an alarm is a rather hoarse, shrill tsweerp, and from birds chasing one another I have heard a more rippling tsrrrrrup. The species has a pleasing song superior to that of most pipits. In Lapland I found it to be built up of three main types of component, which, so far as such sounds can be represented crudely by words, might be rendered as twee (repeated about four times, shrill and prolonged), irrrrrrrrr (a little bubbling trill) , and ¢wize-wize-wizz-wize (more sib- ilant and usually repeated several times, thus: twee-twee-twee-twee, trrrrrrrrr, twi22-wize-wize-wiz2, twize-wiee-wize-wize, twize-wiz2- wize-wize. When the song is given from a post or bush it may consist of a single such sequence, but the fullest and best song is given in the air, as the bird rises and then parachutes down again with wings half spread and tail fanned. It is then more prolonged, consisting of much the same sequence of three main phrases or types of note repeated two or RED-THROATED PIPIT 51 more times, with variations, and sometimes linked up with minor warblings or twittering passages. While it is useful to attempt such a necessarily rather prosaic analysis for descriptive and comparative purposes, it conveys little of the general quality of the song. Miss Haviland’s description of the bird’s “glorious parachute from the upper air to the accompaniment of a rain of melody” seems to the writer rather highly colored, but the song of a good performer is musi- cal, lively, and pleasing, with some rich and rather canarylike notes, and these qualities tend to be enhanced for the hearer in the solitudes where the song is often heard. Field marks.—The red-throated pipit resembles the meadow pipit, previously described, much more than it does the American pipit; that is to say, it is a distinctly smaller and much more boldly marked bird, with broad black centers to the feathers of the upperparts and prominent black streaks on the breast and flanks. To an experienced European observer it is perhaps even more like the tree pipit (Anthus trivialis), but as that species and the meadow pipit are themselves very much alike this refinement need not concern us here. The red- throated pipit, then, is a rather small pipit with the characteristics just mentioned and in spring and summer is easily distinguished from any other by the feature that gives it its name. It must be stressed, however, that this is neither a sharply defined bib nor of a strong red. It is a pale rusty red or rufous tint over the throat and face, generally distinctive enough at fairly close range but varying in its intensity and least developed in some females. In autumn and winter this coloring is lost or much reduced, and there is then little to dif- ferentiate it from the meadow pipit except that it is rather more boldly marked above and that the ground color of the upperparts is a warmer brown without the tendency to grayish or greenish shades that so many, but not all, meadow pipits show. About the only really clear-cut difference is that the broad black streaking of the back ex- tends over the rump and upper tail coverts, whereas these parts are practically uniform and unstreaked in the meadow pipit. Obviously this is a difficult character to be sure of in the field, though not im- possible if a really good and close view can be obtained. Fortunately, however, a far better field character is provided by the note, which is quite different from that of any of the other pipits, Anthus spinoletta included, and should at once attract the attention of anyone with a fair ear for bird calls. It is described under “Voice.” Fall and winter.—In winter quarters the species shows a marked attachment to wet localities, such as damp or partially flooded grass- lands, borders of rivers and lakes, marshes, and wet cultivation, though it may be observed more rarely ondry and even arid ground, includ- ing coastal sand dunes and the borders of deserts. As a migrant it is generally gregarious in habits. 52 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM DISTRIBUTION Breeding range.—North Scandinavia, north Finland, north Russia (Archangel government), Kolguev, Waigatz and Novaya Zemlya, and across Siberia to Kamchatka, but not the Tchuktche Peninsula. Winter range.—Africa south to Lake Chad and Lagos in the west, but principally east Africa, south to Kenya and northern Tanganyika; . southern Asia, including northwest India, Assam, Burma, the Indo- Chinese countries, South China, and a few even to the Malay islands. Spring migration Leaves Kenya and Uganda from end of March to third week April (latest date April 19). Passage in Egypt from late March till at least April 18 and a few till late in the month (ex- ceptionally late date May 6), and at the mouth of the Yangtse, China, from beginning of April to mid-May. Arrival recorded: Vadsd, northern Norway, June 2; Murman coast, May 20-27; Arctic Circle in Yenisei Valley, June 6. Arrival on western shore of Taimyr Strait on April 18 (Pleske, 1928) presumably abnormal. Fall migration.—Departure recorded from Golchika at the mouth of the Yenisei, August 15. Passage at mouth of the Yangtse in Octo- ber. First arrivals noted: Egypt, October 23; Sudan (Darfur) October 25. Early date: Nairobi, Kenya, August 28. ANTHUS SPRAGUEI (Audubon) SPRAGUE’S PIPIT HABITS Sprague’s pipit, or the Missouri skylark, was discovered by Audubon on the Upper Missouri and named for one of his companions, Isaac Sprague, who shot the first specimen near Fort Union on June 19, 1843. Audubon (1844) described and figured it near the end of his great work, and remarks: “On several occasions my friend Edward Harris sought for these birds on the ground, deceived by the sound of their music, appearing as if issuing from the prairies which they constantly inhabit; and after having travelled to many distant places on the prairie, we at last looked upwards, and there saw several of these beautiful creatures singing in a continuous manner, and soaring at such an elevation, as to render them more or less difficult to discover with the eye, and at times some of them actually disappearing from our sight, in the clear thin air of that country.” Audubon’s type specimen remained unique until Captain Blakiston, 16 years later, found this species to be quite common on the plains of Saskatchewan and published an account of it in The Ibis for 1863. One of his specimens and Audubon’s type were deposited in the Smith- sonian Institution. These two specimens were the only ones known to Dr. Coues (1874) until he discovered it while on the survey of the in- SPRAGUE’S PIPIT Bs ternational boundary in 1878, of which he wrote at that time: “It is one of the most abundant birds of all the region along the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, from just west of the Pembina Mountains to as far as the survey progressed this year—about four hundred miles; I had no difficulty in taking as many specimens as J desired. They were particularly numerous at various points along the Souris or Mouse River, where, during our marches or while we were encamped, they were almost continually hovering about us.” The 1931 Check-list gives its breeding range as “from west-central Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba south to western Montana and North Dakota,” but it has been reported in recent years as breeding in some localities outside of thisrange. In 1942, A. D. Henderson told me that Sprague’s pipit was then “a rather scarce breeder at Belvedere,” Alberta. About the same time, Frank L. Farley, of Camrose, wrote to me: “This splendid aerial songster is a regular summer resident of the open prairies of central Alberta, and in recent years it has ap- peared in fair numbers in scattered parkland areas that have been cleared and brought under cultivation. It also delights in the open, short-grass plains that surround many of our alkaline lakes and sloughs. The most northerly point at which I have found this pipit was on the south side of Lesser Slave Lake, approximately in latitude 55° N., where a pair was undoubtedly nesting.” Dr. Thomas S. Roberts (1932) states that Sprague’s pipit “was once a nesting bird in the southwestern and westcentral parts of Minne- sota, but the breaking up of the prairies probably caused it to leave that region many years ago.” It is now probably restricted in that State to the Red River Valley, in the northern half of the western border. Dr. Roberts visited that valley in 1928 and says that “it was something of a surprise to find that Sprague’s Pipit was one of the common birds of the Valley, its tinkling song being heard high overhead everywhere.” An interesting Michigan record is published by Trautman and Van Tyne (1935), who collected a singing male in Crawford County on June 26, 1935: “On the three days it was observed the bird occupied a territory about a quarter of a mile square of barren ‘jack pine plain,’ sparsely covered with coarse grasses, sweet fern, and a few small pine and oak saplings.” This habitat, if I understand it correctly, seems to be quite different from the normal haunts of the species, such as the open prairies and the short-grass, rolling plains of Saskatchewan where we found it. Perhaps, with the gradual breaking up and cultivation, as well as the extensive burning, of the virgin prairies, which is rapidly reducing the ranges of all the prairie birds, Sprague’s pipit, like the upland plover, is learning to adapt itself to the next-best type of country, such as the above and the parkland areas mentioned by Mr. Farley. When I visited the prairies around Quill Lake, Saskatchewan, in 1915, 54 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM I found that the grassy plains had been thoroughly burned over to improve them for grazing purposes; the long-billed curlew, formerly abundant there, had entirely disappeared, and the beautiful little chestnut-collared longspurs were nearly gone. The prairies and their fascinating bird life will soon be merely a delightful memory! Sprague’s pipit, therefore, is probably disappearing from most of its former habitat. William Youngworth, of Sioux City, Iowa, tells. me that he spent a few days during the summer of 1939 near Cando, N. Dak., to learn something about this pipit. He says that, although Dr. Roberts (1932) found it so common in the Red River Valley a few years ago, it is not common any more. “One can drive now for hundreds of miles in North and South Dakota and never hear or see a pipit.” Nesting.—¥ rank L. Farley says in his notes: “For years I tried to find the nest of this bird by careful searching but was never success- ful. Later, however, I stumbled onto several nests by accident. <A few years ago, when sitting in my car on the large open flat on my farm on Dried Meat Lake, my attention was directed to the songs of several of the pipits that were soaring and singing some hundreds of feet above me. It looked up and, just as my eye met one of them, the bird instantly started its downward plunge to earth. On reaching a point about 20 feet from the ground, its mate flew out to meet it. My suspicion that the female had just left its nest was correct as, on going over to where I had first seen it, I had no trouble in locating the nest with five eggs. It is quite probable that further investigation might prove that this meeting of the birds in the air just above their nest is a regular habit.” Audubon (1844) was the first to discover the nest of Sprague’s Missouri lark, as he called it; the nest, he says, “is placed on the ground and somewhat sunk in it. It is made entirely of fine grasses, circularly arranged, without any lining whatever.” Dr. J. A. Allen (1874) seems to have been the next to find the nest, of which he says: “The only one found by me was arched over, and being placed in a tuft of rank grass was most thoroughly concealed. The bird would seem to be a close sitter, as in this case the female remained on the nest till I actually stepped over it, she brushing against my feet as she flew off.” Several others have described the simple nests of Sprague’s pipit, but the nests are not essentially different from those described above. The most elaborate account of the nesting life of this pipit is furnished by R. D. Harris (1933), who found a nest near Winnipeg, Manitoba, on August 24, 1931, after the young had hatched. The nest was placed on the shoulder of a grass-grown roadway across a pasture field, in a hollow made in muddy weather by passing cattle. Mr. Harris writes: SPRAGUE’S PIPIT 55 In a cavity thus formed the nest was placed. Being six inches deep and six inches in diameter, the cavity was much too large for the purpose. The birds had met the situation, however, by filling in the unwanted space to a depth of three inches with dead grass, thus forming a kind of platform beside the nest which undoubtedly was found useful during nesting operations. The nest proper was composed of dried grasses two to six inches long. Unlike the filling, it was packed and woven into a firm structure. The rim was placed level with the filling three inches from the bottom, and the interior measured (after the young had left) three inches in diameter and about one and one half inches deep. It occupied the position farthest from the entrance, with one side resting against the earth wall of the cavity. Overhead, the nest was shielded by a frail roof of dead grass anchored in the plants that stood at the edge of the depression. The entrance hole was barely more than two inches in diameter, and as the grass filling was interposed between it and the nest, the latter could be seen only from a very low angle. This arrangement thus aided concealment. Eggs.—The set of eggs seems to consist generally of either four or five; rarely a set of six is laid; reported sets of three are probably in- complete. The five eggs found by Dr. Allen (1874) “were rather long and pointed, being 0.90 of an inch in length by 0.60 in diameter. The ground color is dull grayish white, thickly and quite uniformly covered with shall blotches of purplish brown, giving to the eggs a decidedly dark purplish tint. In color the eggs thus somewhat resemble those of Anthus ludovicianus.” The Macouns (1909) quote Walter Raine as saying that “they are something like eggs of the prairie horned lark but are smaller. Some have a pale buff ground, others greyish-white ground, minutely speckled with buff and purplish grey. The eggs can be easily told from small prairie horned lark’s eggs by the fine dark brown lines at the largest end of the eggs.” There is a set of four eggs in the Thayer collection in Cambridge. These are ovate and only slightly glossy; the ground color is grayish white; and they are evenly sprinkled over the entire surface with small spots and fine dots of pale olive-brown. The measurements of 44 eggs average 20.9 by 15.3 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 22.6 by 15.7, 21.0 by 16.7, 19.2 by 14.0, and 20.5 by 13.5 millimeters. Young.—The incubation period for Sprague’s pipit does not seem to have been learned. Mr. Harris (1933) found that the female did all the brooding over the young; probably she assumed all the duties of incubation also. The young that he watched remained in the nest for at least 10 or 11 days: The work of caring for the young in the nest appeared to be assumed entirely by the female. The male was never observed to take part in it. Indeed, the male was detected near the nest only twice, and on both these occasions the female drove it away. The male had ceased its singing rather abruptly about the beginning of August, and was not heard during the course of this nesting. On August 24, the day the nest was found, it was seen with one well-grown young bird, which was presumed to be of the first brood. From this it was concluded 56 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM that, as in many other species, the male takes charge of the young after they leave the nest while the female proceeds to build another nest and lay the next set of eggs. The young birds of the first nest were noted with the male as late as August 28, but they were doubtless independent of their parents by that time. The day after the nest was found, Mr. Harris set up his blind 214 feet from the nest, and the next day he entered it for observation. The bird was shy at first but soon became accustomed to the blind and even. the man init. The birds were supposed to have hatched on or about August 20 or 21 and were watched off and on up to the time that they left the nest on the 31st. The results of his observations on the de- velopment of the young are given in too much detail to be included here; only a few points can be mentioned. When the nest was found, on the 24th, he estimated that the young were 3 or 4 days old; their eyelids were separated but incapable of movement; they kept huddled together in the nest and the sense of fear had not developed; a small wingless grasshopper was fed to one of them. On the 26th, when the blind was occupied for the first time, one of the parents “kept arriving at the nest with food at an average rate of once every four and a half minutes throughout the three hours that I remained in the blind. This bird was presumed to be the female. The other one could be heard circling overhead, uttering the typical pipit ‘squi-qui-quick’, for fifteen minutes after I had entered the blind, there- after it was silent.” On the 26th, when the young had been hatched 5 or 6 days, “down was becoming scanty, and the juvenal plumage was quickly supplant- ing it. * * * The parent did not brood either on this occasion or at later times. * * * The parent maintained sanitation in the nest by carrying away the faeces in its bill and probably dropping them while in flight. If, however, there were two sacs in the nest at once, one was eaten and the other wascarried away. Small sacs were usually eaten.” On August 27 and 28, “heavy rains fell, accompanied by strong wind and low temperatures. When examined on the latter day, the birds appeared unharmed by the severe drenching they had re- ceived. Their eyes at this date were fully open.” During the next two days, the young became increasingly more active and restless; and on the 31st the young left the nest. Three had already left when Mr. Harris entered the blind at 10 a. m.; during the next two hours, the parent came without food several times, as if trying to entice the remaining two young to leave. Finally, at 12.13, one of the two suddenly scrambled out of the nest and crawled away into the grass, boring forward with its bill and picking its way round the thick clumps. After progressing for about three feet, it squatted down to rest. Here the adult, with a grasshopper in its bill, came upon it and fed it. The young one then moved on for another two feet before resting again. At this point the remaining bird left the nest, and the two were now caught and examined for the last time. * * * The young birds were now very SPRAGUE’S PIPIT 57 active, and they seized in a flash any opportunity to escape. Although they exerted a remarkable strength at times, they soon became exhausted and were forced to rest frequently. They had as yet found no use for their wings, save as additional limbs with which to balance themselves. Even when the birds escaped from my hand and dropped to the ground, their wings hung limp at their sides. Legs and feet were strong, but the birds could not yet stand Uprightiyi Mo: Fe1 * Once the young were out of the nest, the adults changed their attitude com- pletely, reverting to their former secretive habits. They were now almost wholly silent. Ali flying necessary in the care of the young was done unob- trusively low over the grass. * * * Although the area round the nest was searched diligently, it was not until September 10 that the young birds were again seen. On that date, two of them were flushed from the grass about 100 feet from the nest. One flew for some 200 feet, and the other for 100 feet, before they returned to the ground. A faint ‘squick’ was uttered by one of them. They had grown amazingly, and were comparable in size and actions to their parents. Plumages.—Mr. Harris (1933) describes the natal down as “light grey in colour, long and dense; on head, 3 to 10 mm. long, beginning in two rows close together on forehead but diverging gradually to pass over tops of eyeballs; on occiput, in two small clumps 10 mm. long, one on each side; about 10 mm. on scapular region, between elbow and wrist, and on spinal tract—two short clumps on crural tract; one tuft on each side of caudal tract.” At the time of nest- leaving, down was still “remaining only on sides of crown, on back and on secondary coverts.” He gives a detailed account of the juvenal plumage at this age, to which the reader is referred. The following briefer description by Ridgway (1904) seems more suitable for this work: “Pileum broadly streaked with black and pale buff, the former predominating; scapulars and interscapulars black edged with buff and conspicuously margined terminally with white; rump similarly marked, but terminal margins to feathers buff instead of white; wings and tail as in adults, but whitish or pale buffy terminal margins to middle and greater wing-coverts broader and more sharply defined; under parts as in adults, but white of chin and throat more strongly contrasted with the pale buff or chest, ete.” A postjuvenal molt, involving the contour plumage but not the wings or the tail, occurs in August and September. This produces a first- winter plumage practically indistinguishable from the winter plumage of the adult. The winter plumage of both young and old birds is more strongly tinged with buff everywhere than is the spring plumage; the breast, sides, and flanks, especially, are strongly suffused with deep, rich buff in fall. March specimens are generally in badly worn plumage, and April birds show much fresh plumage about the head and breast, indicating a partial prenuptial molt. The complete postnuptial molt occurs in August and September. The sexes are alike in all plumages. 843290—50——_5 58 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Food.—Very little seems to have been published on the food of Sprague’s pipit. Dr. Gabrielson (1924) examined 11 stomachs and found that 2 were filled with seeds of spurge and goatweed; 6 con- tained grasshoppers and crickets, 75 percent; and the remainder of the food consisted of Hymenoptera, mostly ants, Coleoptera, Hemip- tera, and caterpillars. Mrs. Nice (1931) mentions weevils, stink bugs, and false chinch bugs. During a period of 8 hours Mr. Harris (1933) saw the parent bird make 91 trips to the nest with food for the young. In 21 cases the food was not identified; of the remaining 70 trips, 7 were made with crickets, 4 with moths, and 59 with grasshoppers. “Crickets and moths were brought one at a time, while grasshoppers were brought at an average rate of 1.58 per trip.” Behavior.—Sprague’s pipit is a fascinating but very elusive bird. We overlooked it in North Dakota and during our first season in Saskatchewan, probably because we did not know where and how to look for it or realize the difficulty of seeing or even hearing it. But, on the plains of southwestern Saskatchewan, thanks to Dr. Bishop’s keen ears, we found it really quite common in 1906, though more frequently heard than seen. The males spend much of their time way up in the sky, almost out of sight; it is only occasionally that one can be seen, as a mere speck against some white cloud ; against the blue sky it is almost invisible. When it comes down to the ground, as it does at long intervals, it is very shy and difficult to approach, flying off to a great distance in long, bounding, erratic flights. We succeeded in collecting very few birds, although we spent considerable time in fruitless chasing. I secured only one, shot on the wing at long range. Dr. Roberts (1932) says of its behavior: Sprague’s Pipit is a bird that may easily be overlooked. It should be looked for high overhead rather than on the ground. In the nesting-Sseason the charac- teristic song of the male, floating down from far up in the sky, is the surest indication of its presence. The performer may not be easy to locate, but the song can belong to no other bird. On the ground it disappears completely in the prairie grass, walks or runs nimbly away without showing itself and, if flushed, flies quickly off, appearing much like a Vesper Sparrow. When it springs into the air and mounts higher and higher in ascending circles to deliver its nuptial song and then plunges directly to earth again, it may be mistaken for a Horned Lark by the casual observer. The performance is just the same, but the bird usually goes higher, stays up much longer, and the song is different. A good glass may show the large amount of white in the tail and the absence of black markings on the head and breast. If a glimpse be had of the bird after it alights on the ground, it will be seen to walk in the manner of the Horned Lark but with a more dainty, lighter step. The ordinary flight of the Pipit is sharply undulatory and erratic, a series of dips and upward springs, now this way and now that. When startled from the grass it goes off in this manner and at the end of the flight turns suddenly backward in its SPRAGUE’S PIPIT 59 course and drops abruptly to concealment again. It rarely, if ever, alights except on the ground. Its behavior in these respects is characteristic enough to dis- tinguish it among the other prairie birds with which it is associated. As to its behavior about the nest, Mr. Harris (1933) discovered that— the female used a definite route in entering and in departing from the nest. After securing food from an adjoining patch of open grass, it would fly low over the ground directly to about six feet north-west of the nest. Here it would alight and walk along a curving path to enter the nest finally from the south. On leaving, the bird would stand for a few moments on the edge of the depression to watch and listen. Then it would move directly west for abcut two feet—cross- ing its path of approach—and again pause at another “listening post.” From here it would mount into the air and fly off in search of more food. The path used was always the same, and once known, it could just be discerned because of its slightly trodden appearance. Rarely did the bird depart from the nest without first standing for several minutes at both “listening posts.’ At these times, the bird’s ear coverts were frequently seen te be raised slightly, showing how keenly alert it was. Preening occasionally took place at these intervals also. Dr. Coues (1874) writes: In August, after all the broods are on the wing, and through September, I have seen it in considerable flocks ; and often, when riding along the prairie road, numbers would fiy up at my approach, from the ruts ahead, where they were feeding, to settle again at a little distance further on. These wheel tracks, where the grass was worn away, seemed to be their favorite resorts, where they could run with the greatest ease, and perhaps gather food less easily discovered in the thick grass. They tripped along the tracks with swift and dainty steps, never hopping, and continually vibrating the tail, just like our common Titlark. They were usually associated at such times with numbers of Chestnut-colored Lark-buntings, which seemed to fancy the same places, and with a few Baird’s Buntings. These were the only circumstances under which the Larks could be procured without the great quickness and dexterity required to take them on the wing; for the moment they alight in the grass of the prairie, be it scanty or only a few inches high, they are lost to view, their speckled-gray colors blending completely with the herbage. Voice.—The marvelous flight song of Sprague’s pipit has been re- ferred to above. It is one of its most striking characteristics and quite different from the flight songs of other birds. Aretas A. Saunders says, in part, in his notes: “As it flies around, its flight rises and falls. Each time it rises the bird sings; when it falls, he is silent. So the song is heard at intervals as the bird flies about its circle. The song consists of a series of 2-note phrases, each phrase with the first note of the two higher in pitch and each phrase beginning on a little lower pitch than the previous one. I once measured the drop in pitch of a particular singer and found that it was half a tone less than an octave and that the bird sang seven 2-note phrases. But, knowing the amount of variation that exists in the songs of most species, I would not be sure that this song was typical. The song is clear, sweet, and musical but, perhaps because of the distance, sounds rather weak. In some locali- 60 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM ties choruses of these birds may be heard and, to the lover of bird music, the effect is exceedingly pleasing.” Dr. Roberts (1932) gives a very good description of the song, quoted from some notes of H. W. Gleason, as follows: At first could be heard three or four sharp “chips” with very decided intervals, followed by a musical repetition of blended, very high-pitched notes sounding like the jingling of a set of tiny sleigh-bells. The accented notes came in regular. beats or throbs and gradually diminished in volume until lost to the ear, re- sembling a very high, fine Veery song but lacking the inflection and given a little slower. The birds being at such a great elevation while singing made it diffi- cult to determine the coordination of the song and flight. It seemed, however, to begin during a short sail on set wings, followed by an ascent in short flights like the Horned Lark, during which came the throbbing part of the song. During the sail the tail was spread and the wings upcurved like those of a singing Bobolink. The song was repeated at short intervals for a period of 15 to 25 minutes as the bird drifted around in wide ecireles. At the end it descended like a plummet, spreading its wings when almost to the ground and alighting like a Horned Lark. With the aid of a crude triangle and an assistant several rough estimates were made of the height at which the bird sang, which varied from 210 to 325 feet, with a minimum record of 110 feet during a misty rain. It would appear that the average singing height is about 300 feet. Dr. Allen (1874) says: “Their notes resemble the syllables jingle, jingle, jingle, jingle, rapidly repeated, beginning loud and high, and decreasing rapidly in strength and loudness, and are remarkable for their clear metallic ring, their song reminding one of the jingling sound of a light chain when slowly let fall into a coil.” Dr. Coues (1874) gives the following appreciation of the song: “No other bird music heard in our land compares with the wonderful strains of this songster; there is something not of earth in the melody, coming from above, yet from no visible source. The notes are simply indescribable; but once heard they can never be forgotten. Their volume and penetration are truly wonderful; they are neither loud nor strong, yet the whole air seems filled with the tender strains, and de- lightful melody continues long unbroken. Thesong is only heard fora brief period in the summer, ceasing when the inspiration of the love season is over, and it is only uttered when the birds are soaring.” Ernest Thompson Seton (1891) writes: On May 14, I watched a skylark that was singing on high with great devotion ; he had trilled his refrain from beginning to end at least twenty times when it occurred to me to time and count his songs. The whole of each trilling occupied 15 seconds, and after I began to count he repeated it from beginning to end 82 times; just as he should have entered on the eighty-third, his wings closed, his tail went up, and down he fell headlong. * * * This singer had serenaded me for about an hour, and I do not think he ranked above his fellows in staying power. * * * When the skylark feels the impulse to sing, he rises from the bare prairie ridge with a peculiar bounding flight, like that of the pipit; up, in silence, higher and higher he goes, up, up, 100, 200, 300, 500 feet; then, feeling his spirits correspondingly elevated, he spreads his wings and tail and pours SPRAGUE’S PIPIT 61 forth the strains that are making him famous. * * * Once only have I observed this species singing his full song on the ground. Singing on the ground is evidently seldom indulged in by Sprague’s pipit ; most observers have never heard it doso; but Trautman and Van Tyne (1935) “on several occasions” in Michigan heard this pipit “sing from the ground and once” they “watched it sing from the top of a small telephone pole. These songs, while identical in pattern with the flight songs, were much less loud and clear.” Field marks.—Sprague’s pipit is not easily recognized. Its shyness and its secretive habits when on the ground make it difficult to approach. It has no distinctive and conspicuous field marks except its two pairs of white outer tail feathers, which show only in flight and are shared by some other birds with which it is likely to be associated. It is often associated with vesper sparrows, which have about the same amount of white in the tail; the pipit is a slender bird with a sharp-pointed bill, and it walks or runs; whereas the sparrow is a stockier bird, has a short, conical bill, and it hops instead of walking. The horned lark, one of its frequent companions, also walks, but it has less white in the tail, is not so slender, and has con- spicuous black markings on head and breast. The horned lark has a somewhat similar flight song, but, with a good glass, its head and breast markings can be seen. Sprague’s pipit closely resembles the American pipit in form and behavior, but it is lighter in coloration and more buffy, less grayish. Fall.—After the breeding season is over and the young are strong on the wing, these pipits gather into flocks, sometimes of immense size, mingled with horned larks and longspurs, and drift slowly south- ward to spend the winter close to our southern border, or farther south in Mexico. DISTRIBUTION Range.—Interior of North America from southern Canada to south- ern Mexico. Breeding range.—Sprague’s pipit breeds north to central Alberta (Edmonton and Athabaska) ; central Saskatchewan (Prince Albert and Quill Lake) ; and southern Manitoba (Aweme, Shoal Lake, and Hillside Beach on southern Lake Winnipeg). East to southeastern Manitoba (Hillside Beach and Winnipeg) ; and western Minnesota (Muskoda and northern Wilkin County). South to central western Minnesota (northern Wilkin County) ; northern South Dakota (Grand River Agency, northern Stanley County, and Harding County) ; and central Montana (Lewistown and the Belt Mountains). West to western Montana east of the Rocky Mountains (Belt Mountains, Great Falls, Teton County, and Browning); and west-central Al- 62 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM berta (Red Deer River east of Banff National Park and Edmonton). Winter range.—Sprague’s pipit winters north to central Texas (San Angelo, Dallas, and Corsicana) ; southern Louisiana (Lobdell and Mandeville) ; and southern Mississippi (Biloxi). South to southern Mississippi (Biloxi); southern Louisiana (New Orleans, Avery Island, and Jennings) ; southern Texas (Galveston, Port O’Connor, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville) ; through eastern Mexico to Vera-. cruz (Veracruz), Puebla (Puebla), and Guerrero (iguala). West to Guerrero (Iguala); Michoacan (La Salada); and central Texas (Laredo and San Angelo). In fall and winter it has also oc- curred near Charleston, S. C.; Cumberland Island, Ga.; and Lake Miccosukee, Lukens, Lake Tohopekaliga, and Charlotte Harbor, Fla. Migration —Late dates of spring departure are: Louisiana—New Orleans, April 19. Texas—Gainesville, April 14. Kansas—Stock- ton, April 26. Nebraska—Lincoln, April 26. Early dates of spring arrival are: Oklahoma—Caddo, February 18. Missouri—Kansas City, March 20. South Dakota—Vermillion, April 14. North Dakota—Jamestown, April 29. Minnesota—Mus- koda, April 27. Manitoba—Aweme, April 8. Wyoming—Laramie, April 17. Montana—Great Falls, April 23. Saskatchewan—LEKast- end, April 7. Alberta—Alliance, May 2. Late dates of fall departure are: Alberta—Edmonton, September 30. Saskatchewan—Eastend, October 10. Montana—Fallon, Sep- tember 19. Wyoming—Laramie, September 20. Manitoba—Mar- garet, October 20. South Dakota—Forestburg, October 30. Early dates of fall arrival are: Nebraska—Monroe Canyon, Sioux County, October 1. Oklahoma—Kenton, October 2. Texas—High Island, October 31. Louisiana—Lobdell, November 5. Casual records.—On April 4, 1905, a specimen was collected at Fort Lowell, Ariz.; it was recorded in Yellowstone Park, Wyo., on July 10, 1929. One was present June 21 to 26, 1935, near Lovells, Crawford County, Mich., and was collected on the latter date. Egg dates —North Dakota: 3 records, June 7 to 30. Saskatchewan: 5 records, May 19 to June 28. Family BOMBYCILLIDAE: Waxwings BOMBYCILLA GARRULUS PALLIDICEPS Reichenow BOHEMIAN WAXWING HABITS The Bohemian waxwing is an elegant bird, a well-dressed gentleman in feathers, a Beau Brummel among birds. He is not so gaudily dressed in gay colors as many other birds are, but his sleek and silky plumage, in softly blended, harmonious shades of modest grays and BOHEMIAN WAXWING 63 browns, clothes his shapely form in a most pleasing combination of colors; and the band of white across the wings, the yellow-tipped tail, the chestnut under tail coverts, the black chin, and the red wax tips rather accent than spoil the harmony of the whole; and, above all, the jaunty crest gives the final touch of aristocracy. He is a gentleman in appearance and a courteous gentleman in behavior, as all who have seen him in association with his fellows, or with other species, will attest. To most of us, these Bohemians are birds of mystery; we never know when or where we may see these roving bands of gypsies. They come and they go, we know not whence or whither, in the never-ending search for a bounteous food supply on which to gorge themselves. On infrequent occasions, far too infrequent in New England, from the vast timbered wilderness of northern Canada small groups, or immense flocks, of these fascinating and erratic wanderers swoop down upon us in winter in the Northern States, and more regularly in the Rocky Mountain regions. According to Dr. Coues (1874), “Prof. Baird mentions that Mr. Drexler saw ‘millions’ on Powder River, in flocks ‘rivalling in extent those of the Wild Pigeon.’ ” Whence come these vast hordes? It is only within comparatively recent years that a few small breeding colonies have been discovered in different parts of northern Canada. But the total of all these colonies will not begin to account for the enormous numbers of these waxwings that some- times flock into the States in winter. There must be many more of these, or larger, colonies scattered through the broad expanse of coniferous forests, dotted with muskegs, that extend from Hudson Bay almost to the Pacific slope, most of which region still remains un- explored. A 30-mile trip that I made into the wilderness north of Prince Albert gave me a glimpse of what this country must be like. Perhaps the opening of the Alean Highway may throw some light on the subject. Sir John Richardson (Swainson and Richardson, 1831) writes: This elegant bird has only lately been detected in America, having been dis- covered, in the spring of 1826, near the sources of the Athabasca, or Elk river, by Mr. Drummond, and by myself the same season at Great Bear Lake, in lati- tude 65°. * * * It appears in flocks at Great Bear Lake about the 24th of May, when the spring thaw has exposed the berries of the alpine arbutus, marsh vaccinium, &c., that have been frozen and covered during the winter. It stays only for a few days, and none of the Indians of that quarter with whom I con- versed had seen its nests. * * * TI observed a large flock, consisting of at least three or four hundred individuals, on the banks of the Saskatchewan, at Carlton House, early in May, 1827. They alighted in a grove of poplars, settling all in one or two trees, and making a loud twittering noise. They stayed only about an hour in the morning, and were too shy to allow me to approach within gunshot. This species is circumpolar in its distribution, and our bird was, for a long time, supposed to be identical with the European bird, but it has 64 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM since been shown to be subspecifically distinct from the latter, B. g. garrulus, as well as from a closely related Asiatic race, B. g. central- asiae. Dr. Harry C. Oberholser (1917) has pointed out the differences between the forms. He says that our bird is similar to the Asiatic bird, “but decidely more grayish (less cinnamomeous) both above and below”. And he adds: “The North American representatives of this species constitute a well-marked and readily recognizable subspecies which differs from Bombycilla garrula garrula in its paler, very much more grayish (less vinaceous or cinnamomeous), coloration both above and below.” The type race has occurred as a straggler in Greenland. The 1931 Check-list implies that the Bohemian waxwing nests wholly north of the United States, but Dr. Walter P. Taylor (1918) has pub- lished several records that indicate that it “occurs, probably rarely, as a breeding bird within our borders in the coniferous forests of the northern Rocky Mountain region, in a district embracing north- western Montana, northern Idaho, and northern Washington.” Harry S. Swarth (1922) found a colony of these waxwings breed- ing in the lowlands near the upper part of the Stikine River, in northern British Columbia. Just why they were restricted to this limited area, when conditions were apparently equally favorable far- ther down the river, was not apparent. The terrace or plateau where he found them “extends westward a mile or more, is quite level, and but sparsely covered with forest growth. A year or more before our visit it had been swept by fire and a large part of the timber destroyed. As we saw the place there was very little underbrush of any sort, a great many dead trees, mostly pines with some poplars, and a scat- tering growth of live trees that had escaped destruction. ‘The coni- fers were the lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and were all small trees.” Fifty miles or so down the river, at Doch-da-on Creek, he found the waxwings breeding under slightly different conditions. “This tract was composed mainly of balsam firs of rather large size, with an admixture of cottonwoods and poplars, and with but little under- brush.” These woods, though fairly open, were much denser than those mentioned above. Courtship.—The following short statement by Mr. Swarth (1922) is all that I can find on this subject: “On one occasion one of a pair of waxwings, presumably the male, was seen strutting about and ex- hibiting his beauties to his mate. Considering that the two sexes are alike in every respect, it seemed rather a superfluous performance, but at any rate the one bird was hopping excitedly about from branch to branch, while the other sat still and looked on. The active performer kept the tail partly spread, wings drooping, and crest raised, and the whole body was held stiffly upright. After several minutes the BOHEMIAN WAXWING 65 other seemed to tire of the performance and flew away, followed at once by its mate.” Nesting.—Many years ago, Professor Baird (1865) made the fol- lowing announcement as to our first knowledge of the nesting habits of this species: For many years authentic eggs of the Bohemian Chatterer were greatly sought after, but it was not until 1856 that they were brought to the notice of the scientific world, when the late Mr. H. Wolley discovered them in Lapland. Early duplicates from his collection were sold at five guineas each, and although a good many have since been obtained, they are yet considered as great prizes, A nest, with its eggs, of those collected by Mr. Wolley, has been presented to the [Smithsonian] Institution by Mr. Alfred Newton. The only instances on record of their discovery in America are of a nest and one egg by Mr. Kennicott, on the Yukon, in 1861, and a nest and single egg on the Anderson River, by Mr. MacFarlane, both of which, with the female parents, are in the possession of the Institution. Mr. Swarth (1922), in his excellent account of the breeding colony on the upper Stikine, mentions several other breeding stations that have been discovered since the above-mentioned early records and prior to his own discovery, and gives much interesting information about other phases of the life history of these little-known birds, which will be taken up later. But first I want to include some con- tributed notes on more recent nestings in some other localities. Frank L. Farley writes to me: “Bohemian waxwings are apparently as erratic in their selection of nesting territory as they are in their annual wanderings to and from their summer homes. During my early visits to the muskeg country, lying between the Athabaska and the Pembina Rivers, about 100 miles northwest of Edmonton, Alberta, I was not successful in locating nesting pairs, although occasional birds were seen, and the country seemed suitable for such purposes. On such occasions the birds all disappeared before our departure for home. When I visited the region in May 1938, waxwings appeared daily in fair numbers, and several pairs were found nesting toward the end of the month about our camp. On May 28 two nests were located in tall jack pines. One of these contained four and the other six eggs. The nesting trees were about 100 feet apart and were close to an old logging trail that traverses the country between the two rivers. The nests were built on horizontal branches close to the main trunk and about 35 feet from the ground. The nests were made of dry pine and tamarack twigs, intermixed with coarse grasses and tree mosses. The lining is of finer grass, bits of soft black moss, and a fluffy white down, the product of some native plant. The ex- terior is more or less covered with moss and lichens. The diameter outside is 6 inches and the depth 4 inches. The cup is nearly 3 inches deep and the same in width.” A. D. Henderson contributes the following account: “This beautiful 66 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM bird is a rather common breeder in the muskeg and sand-hill country north of Fort Assiniboine, with its growth of spruce, tamarack, and pines, and its abundant crop of blueberries, cranberries, and kinni- kinnick berries. It nests in spruce and tamarack trees in the muskegs, usually at low elevations. It also nests in pines growing on the high ground. The nests are placed near the top of the tall, slim pines and are so difficult to secure that it is necessary quite often to lash two or more pines together, or pull the tree with the nest into a larger pine nearby. ‘Three nests taken in pines were at heights of 40, 50, and 50 feet. The highest nest of 11 taken in muskegs was 18 feet up and the lowest 4 feet; the rest ranged from 8 to 16 feet up. The birds also nest in the wide-branching pines growing in open situations, and in this case the nests are saddled on the horizontal limbs well out from the trunk. “The nests are rather fiat, and made on the outside of tamarack or spruce twigs, grass, usnea moss, and cocoons; they are lined with a lit- tle fine grass, usnea moss, cocoons, and plant cotton, or with tamarack leaves, feathers, or pine needles; some of this lining is, of course, not present in every nest. “Some pairs breed by themselves, but quite often two or more nests are in the same muskeg at no great distance from each other. On one trip to the muskegs, the birds were entirely absent from their usual haunts. I attribute this to lack of the usual crop of berries, the blossoms evidently being caught in a hard frost the previous season. These birds are also great flycatchers, and, in another season which was very cold and windy and little insect life available, they were not breeding at the usual time and only one nest was found. Few nests are found as compared with the numbers of birds present. They do not breed in the poplar woods around Belvedere.” Wilson C. Hanna has sent me the data for two sets of eggs of the Bohemian waxwing, taken by him at Atlin Lake, British Columbia, on July 14, 1931. Both nests were in balsam firs, 14 feet above the ground ; one was at a fork in the main trunk of a small fir, and the other was on a downward-sloping limb against the trunk. The materials used in the construction of the nests were not different from those mentioned above. ‘The larger nest measured 6 by 7 inches in outside diameter by 2.7 inches in depth; the inner cavity was 3.25 inches in diameter and 1.5 inches deep. (PI. 7.) Mr. Swarth’s (1922) eight Telegraph Creek nests were all in lodge- pole pines; one nest was 25 feet, one 10, and one 15 feet from the ground; the others were only 6 or 7 feet up. All the nests but one were on small limbs against the trunk; this nest, found June 24, “was in a lodgepole pine of larger size than most in this locality, in the fork of one of the larger branches, about three feet from the trunk. Both birds were building here at 1 p.m. At 4 p. m. both birds were seen BOHEMIAN WAXWING 67 hard at work carrying the nest material elsewhere. When we ceased watching there was very little of the nest left. On July 5 we hap- pened to pass this place and were surprised to see the nest intact and a bird upon it. It yielded a set of five eggs.” Of the first nest he says: “Found June 19, nest just begun; June 21, nest completed; June 22, contained one egg; June 24, 3 eggs; June 25, 4 eggs; June 26, five eggs, set taken.” Of the nests in general, he says; The building material was always the same, an outer structure of dead twigs, lending support to a mass of black moss and white plant fiber. Dry grass was used as a lining sometimes but not always. The black moss was the one material that was used in the greatest amount, and it appears in all but one of the nests. This moss grows abundantly on the conifers of the region, depending from the branches in great masses, like coarse hair. The white plant fiber that is also so conspicuous in the nests is from the seed pod of the previous year’s dead “fireweed” (Lpilobium angustifolium). There was one additional feature in which the nests were all alike, something that could not be preserved. Invariably there was a mass of stuff depending six or eight inches below the nest proper, so loosely attached as to seem on the verge of dropping away. This stuff was mostly the moss and the white plant fiber; usually additional tufts of these materials were adhering to nearby branches. Of the two nests found at Doch-da-on Creek, 50 miles down the river, he says: “Each was near the top of a fir, about twenty-five feet from the ground, supported upon a branch and by surrounding twigs, and close to the trunk. On July 15 one of these nests was taken, to- gether with a set of three eggs. The other contained two eggs, and was left undisturbed. No more eggs were laid in this nest, the female being still incubating the two eggs some days later.” Several other accounts of the nesting of the Bohemian waxwing have been published, but they are not sufficiently different from some of those mentioned above to warrant quoting them here. Some of them are quoted in Mr. Swarth’s (1922) paper, to which the reader is referred. Eggs.—Mr. Swarth (1922) found one of these waxwings incubating on two eggs for “some days,” but usually the set consists of four to six. The eggs are almost exactly like those of the cedar waxwing but de- cidedly larger. Mr. Swarth describes his eggs as follows: “In color, three of the sets are much alike, a pale glaucous blue, close to Ridg- way’s ‘pale dull glaucous-blue,’ but more washed out. This ground color is marked rather profusely with blackish dots and with a few fine, irregular lines, the dots mostly quite small and occurring over nearly the entire egg, though less numerously at the smaller end than elsewhere. There are also obscure underlying spots of bluish, but faintly seen. The fourth set (No. 1821) is more olivaceous, the ground color close to Ridgway’s ‘mineral gray.’ The spots are fewer in num- ber than in the other sets, larger, and more sharply defined.” The measurements of 50 eggs average 24.6 by 17.4 millimeters; the 68 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM eggs showing the four extremes measure 27.5 by 19.2, 27.3 by 19.4, 21.5 by 17.7, and 22.9 by 15.2 millimeters. bas) Young—Apparently no one who has found a nest of the Bohemian waxwing has been willing to allow the eggs to hatch; hence we know nothing about the period of incubation or about the development and care of the young. The eggs were considered worth more than the information. ‘The only hint we have as to the altricial period is that: Mr. Swarth found five young in a nest on June 24, which he thought were not more than two or three days old; on July 5, 11 days later, these young birds fluttered from the nest when disturbed; they might not have left the nest voluntarily for two or three days. Plumages.—Mr. Swarth (1922) shows a colored plate of the young birds, drawn by Maj. Allan Brooks, which gives a better idea of them than any description ; the brood consisted of four males and one female. He gives the following interesting description of them: These young waxwings presented a most striking appearance in life, for to my surprise they exhibited all the characteristic markings of the adult. Not only that, but the yellow tip to the tail was much brighter, more of an orange yellow, than it is in any of the old birds. The wax tips to the secondaries were present in each of the four males but not in the female. Two of the birds had four such tips, one had five, and one had seven, as many as are seen in any of the adults. These wax tips are as large as in many old birds. * * * The four young males are very much alike in color and markings, the only differences in appearance being those arising from the slight difference in stage of development. The marginal primary markings are present, sharply defined, and in each ease bright yellow. In many adults these markings are white. In the young males the terminal tail band is orange-buff, the primary tips, light orange-yellow. In the brightest adult at hand the tail band is light cadmium, the primary tips, lemon chrome. In the young female the tail band is somewhat paler than in the males, though still more orange than in any adult. The pri- mary tips are but slightly tinged with yellow. A still more remarkable feature in the young males is the fact that in each one the rectrices are distinctly tipped with red. These red tips are not fully developed sealing-waxlike scales such as are on the secondaries, but are produced by red coloration of the terminal portion (4 or 5 mm. in length) of the feather shaft of the rectrix. * * * While the young birds possess all the markings of the adults, they are appreci- ably different in general body color. They have a somewhat streaked appearance, though not as much so as in the young cedar waxwing; the whole body is of a duller, darker gray than in the adult, and the young bird has none of the vinous coloring about the head that is seen in the adult. The crest is present but only slightly developed. The young has a dull black line from the nostril to the eye and posteriorly on the head, in resemblance to that on the adult, but in our specimens of young there is just an indication of the black throat. This may be due to the fact that in these birds the feathers of the chin and upper throat are but partly developed. In full juvenal plumage, according to Ridgway (1904), the malar region, chin, and throat are dull white, the chin is margined on each side by a dusky streak, and the under tail coverts are vinaceous- BOHEMIAN WAXWING 69 cinnamon; and Dwight’s (1900) description is substantially the same. The latter says that the first winter plumage is acquired by a partial postjuvenal molt, “which involves the body plumage and wing coverts, but not the remiges nor rectrices.” He describes it as “everywhere rich drab, grayer below and on rump, fawn-color about the head. A large black chin patch, the black extending to lores and forehead and bordered everywhere by rich walnut-brown.” There seems to be no prenuptial molt in the Bohemian waxwing. One-year-old birds and adults have a complete postnuptial molt, either very late in summer (last of August) or in fall; E. S. Cameron (1908) says this occurs in October; and Witherby’s Handbook (1919) says October to November. Dwight (1900) says that young birds become indistinguishable from adults after their first postnuptial molt, adults being somewhat grayer than first-winter birds, with more extensive white markings in the wings and brighter yellow tail band and primary tips. Except for the smaller and duller black throat, there seem to be no constant sexual differences in plumage, but there is much individual variation in both sexes. The coloration of the female is said to be duller than that of the male, but the most brightly colored bird in the series examined by Mr. Swarth (1922) is a female. “In size (but not in number) of wax wing tips, in ‘return margins’ of primaries, in yellow on primaries, and in size of white spots on secondaries, it is superior to any of the males. In this bird the wax secondary tips are 7 mm. in length, a size attained by only one or two males.” The female parent of the brood of young is a highly plumaged bird. “It has six secondaries of one wing, five of the other, with wax tips, the primary margins are bright yellow, the tail is broadly tipped with yellow, and there is a faint suggestion of red in one or two of the tail feathers.” The presence of wax tips, or their number, did not seem to be de- pendent on age, sex, or season; they were almost evenly divided between the sexes; out of 45 specimens examined, just 1 (a female) had no trace of a wax tip; in a series of 22 males, 2 had 3 tips, 8 had 6, and 1 had 7 tips, the others being intermediate in this respect; in a series of 16 females, 1 had no tips, 1 had traces of 2, 2 had 8 tips, 7 had 6, and 1 had 7 tips, the others being intermediate. Food.—On its northern breeding grounds, in summer, the Bohemian waxwing is largely insectivorous, though even there its presence seems to be governed to some extent by the available supply of berries. It has sometimes been referred to as an expert flycatcher ; it must be very smart at this, for it has been known to capture such swift and strong fliers as dragonflies. Mr. Swarth (1922) writes: Waxwings were seen feeding on insects and also on berries and other vege- table matter. About Telegraph Creek, the first week in June, they were usually 70 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM seen perched on bare branches and making short sallies after flying insects in true flycatcher style. Early in July a berry-bearing shrub (Shepherdia canadensis) of general distribution in the region came into bearing, and the waxwings, as well as other species of birds, fed upon the berries of this plant to a great extent. The young waxwings we took from the nest had also been fed upon these same berries. Dr. Thomas §. Roberts (1932) says: “The Bohemian Waxwing is fond of tree sap, especially that of the sugar maple, and when the sap’ begins to run in early spring, a leaking tree-trunk will attract a whole flock. * * * With the warm days of early spring, it becomes a ‘flycatcher’ and may be seen sallying out from the tree-tops in pursuit of the tiny flies and beetles that fill the upper air even before the snow and ice have disappeared. ‘The stomach at such times will be found packed with many hundreds of these minute insects.” He gives a long list of berries and fruits eaten, and adds that, in times of stress, it will feed on “rotten apples and cranberries gleaned from garbage cans and dumping places in the rear of residences and stores.” Mr. Farley sends me the following note: “I am told by trappers in the mountains that, in summer, these birds begin to eat the wild rasp- berries just as soon as they show any signs of ripening, and from that time on, until the berries fall off, the bills and the faces of the birds are smeared with the red juices. During their stay in central Alberta, beginning late in October, their chief food in the country consists of chokecherries, hawthorn, and rose hips, all of which remain on the trees late. As long as these fruits can be had the birds will remain. In the towns and cities, where the shrub Cotoneaster is now grown com- monly, the Bohemians feed on the blue berries produced on this bush and prefer them to any other food. When feeding on these, their faces and bills are always colored by the blue juices.” Although there is a long list of berries and fruits on which these waxwings feed, the most important two are the berries of the mountain- ash and those of the cedars or junipers; at least these are the foods most often mentioned, and they are probably decided favorites. The moun- tain-ash berries are so popular with these birds that they will flock to a tree in fruit day after day until it is entirely stripped of its berries and until all those that have fallen to the ground have been picked up. A mountain-ash tree in fruit is sure to attract all the waxwings in the vicinity, provided it has not been stripped of its fruit by starlings, robins, or other birds before the waxwings arrive, for it is one of the most popular of berry-bearing trees or shrubs. The cedars are more widely distributed and there are many more of them; they provide an abundant food supply for the waxwings. Mr. Cameron (1908) says that, in Montana in winter, these waxwings sub- sist “entirely on cedar berries, which have a sweet taste and tinge the excrement of the birds red, so that familiar roosting places in the high pines are infallibly marked by the red-stained snow beneath.” BOHEMIAN WAXWING 71 Other vegetable foods of the Bohemian waxwing include highbush cranberries, buffaloberries, bearberries, blueberries, wolfberries, snow- berries, hackberries, barberries, and the berries of the black alder, American holly, madrona, buckthorn, ivy, asparagus, smilax, kinni- kinnick, bittersweet vine, mistletoe, peppertree, dogwood, sumac, laurel, woodbine and the matrimony vine, and doubtless other berries. They also eat frozen apples that hang on the trees or fall to the ground, Russian olives and wild olives, rose hips, wild grapes, persimmons, and figs. They will come to the feeding stations for raisins, dried currants, or minced prunes, and probably for other kinds of dried fruits or berries. They are said to eat the buds of poplars and the seeds of boxelder, black birch, locust, and hollyhock. Bohemian waxwings are voracious, almost gluttonous feeders; they gorge themselves with all the food their crops will hold, then fly down and take a drink of water or snow and return to the feast; when filled to capacity they fly up into a tree and sit quietly to digest their food, so as to be ready to fly down and eat more. They swoop down in flocks onto the berry-bearing trees or shrubs and keep almost con- stantly at it until the supply is exhausted. Dr. Harrison F. Lewis has sent me the following note on a flock that he watched near Quebec City, on February 22, 1920: “At this point two fields were partly separated by a rugged row of thorn bushes (Crataegus) of considerable size, on which hung much frozen fruit. Among these bushes and rising high above them stood three or four tall spruce trees. Some of the waxwings were in the spruces, some were in the bushes, and some were on the wind-packed snow beneath. There was much activity, and birds were continually flying back and forth between trees, bushes, and snow. I was able to reach a position among the bushes, at the foot of one of the spruce trees, without disturbing the flock much. I could then see plainly that the waxwings were feed- ing on the frozen fruit of the thorn bushes, for they would come un- concernedly to within about two rods of me while they were feeding. They swallowed the fruits whole but did so with great difficulty. It seemed as if a bird made five or six unsuccessful attempts to swallow a fruit for every one successful attempt. After failing in one or two attempts to swallow a particular fruit, a bird would drop it and try another, then perhaps drop that and try a third one, and so on. The birds working in the bushes apparently dropped most of the fruit which they pulled from the twigs, but these fallen fruits were immedi- ately mouthed over and some of them finally swallowed by the birds on the surface of the snow. Sometimes the birds, with fruit in their mouths, flew up into the spruces to swallow what they had secured.” Behavior—The Bohemian waxwing is a well-behaved bird with a gentle and inoffensive disposition, sociable and friendly among its fellows and not hostile toward other species, even in competition for (2 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM food. Waxwings are often vigorously attacked by robins that try to drive them from the berry-bearing bushes, where they are peace- fully feeding, but the waxwings do not retaliate; the angry attacks by the hostile robins only cause them to step quietly aside and await their turn. Audubon (1842) published an interesting account, given to him by Thomas McCulloch, which illustrates the devotion of one of these birds to its wounded companion; it returned again and again to its fallen friend, uttering notes of alarm and warning, and flying against it in its efforts to urge it to escape from danger, until it paid with its life for its friendly solicitude. It is very tame and confiding in the presence of human beings, being quite unsuspicious and easily approached, as illustrated by the follow- ing observation by Thomas D. Burleigh (1930) : The birds on the University campus have gradually increased until now there are fully eight hundred of them there; they feed on the ground or in the thickets where the bushes are full of berries, and are remarkably tame, allowing anyone to walk up within a foot of them; two lit on me as I stood watching them, one on my shoulder and one on the top of my head, the latter bird remaining there for several minutes; a few minutes later, I held out my hand full of berries and one bird actually lit on my arm and standing on the sleeve of my mackinaw ate the berries without paying the slightest attention to me. The Bohemian waxwing shows its sociability by its pronounced flocking habits; even on its breeding grounds it is often seen moving about in flocks, and it seems to prefer to nest in communities. S. F. Rathbun has contributed the following notes on flock behavior: “December 22,1919. This morning we again heard these waxwings and found them in the same locality where we had seen flocks on two other occasions. The flock was a large one, a majority of the birds be- ing perched in or near the top of a large maple tree; all were headed directly into the wind, which seems to be customary when any appreci- able wind is blowing; individuals were constantly dropping down to feed on the berries in some adjacent mountain-ash trees. As usual, there was a constant movement in the flock, birds continually leaving and returning to it; and, to judge from the sound, the greater number were uttering their soft, rolling notes that are so pleasing to hear. “A striking and very noticeable feature of a flock is that, when dis- turbed, nearly all the birds will take wing and circle around a number of times until they come together in a close and compact body; then it appears as if at the same instant all were impelled by the same impulse to alight, and the flock will sail up to the chosen spot on stiffly extended wings, this action being uniform on the part of each individual; and during these various evolutions the soft, lisping notes of the birds are always much in evidence. “In these flocks of waxwings other species will sometimes be found in limited numbers, robins and cedar waxwings most commonly. It is BOHEMIAN WAXWING 73 amusing to see the robins resent the presence of the Bohemians feeding upon the berries; the former would frequently make a dash at them and try to drive them away, but this was futile, as the latter simply shifted their positions and resumed feeding. “On another occasion we saw a large flock that numbered nearly 2,000 birds, the majority occupying the tops of several small trees. Near the base of one of the trees, grew a tall, decorative rosebush, and as the bush had many hips, numbers of the birds attempted to alight therein to feed, but its branches, being too weak to sustain them, would continually give way, causing a constant commotion; the birds kept fluttering and interfering with one another and dislodging many hips, which fell to the walk beneath, to be eaten by the birds alighting there. The sight of these many birds in active motion reminded one of bees swarming about a hive.” Bohemian waxwings are seldom seen singly, though one or two may be seen occasionally in a flock of cedar waxwings, with which they seem to be on friendly terms and to have similar habits. Mr. Rathbun mentions in his notes one that he saw entirely alone and a long way from home; while he was crossing the Gulf of Alaska, and was some 20 miles offshore, one solitary individual came aboard the ship and perched on one of the stays of the stack for nearly half an hour and then flew off low over the water toward land. P. M. Silloway (1908) says of their flight behavior: They were continually fluttering upward or outward from the tree-tops, hover- ing in air like kingbirds capturing insects a-wing. Their aerial movements were much like those of swallows over water, as they sailed, fluttered, or hovered with expanded tail, or mounted obliquely upward with rapidly beating wings. Fre- quently a crowded company of them would fly outward from some tree in which they had been sitting, keeping together in undulating flight, veering abruptly upward or downward or sidewise in capricious evolution. Voice.—As a vocalist the Bohemian waxwing is no star performer. Mr. Swarth (1922) says of it: Under ordinary circumstances the only sound uttered by the waxwing is a sibilant call note much like that of the more familiar cedar bird. While notes of the two species are of the same character, still they are distinguishably different. This difference may, perhaps, be indicated by describing the cedar bird’s call as a hiss, the Bohemian waxwing’s call as a buzz. The note of the latter is somewhat coarser; the listener has an impression of hearing a series of very slightly separated notes, rather than of a continuous sound such as the cedar bird utters. Mr. Cameron (1908) says that “when flying the birds keep up an incessant twittering, so that high passing flocks are immediately recog- nized by their call of 2¢7-r-r-r—a sort of trill. * * * The weak voice of a single waxwing is inaudible except at very close quarters, but hundreds together produce quite a volume of sound.” Ralph Hoffmann (1927) remarks that the note, ‘given when the birds wheel 843290-—50—-6 74. BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM off in flight is a low rough scree, with more body than the sibilant call of the Cedar Waxwing.” Dr. Harrison F. Lewis (MS.) watched a flock, near Quebec, that “seemed to be ‘all talking at once’, and the result was a continuous and fairly loud noise. The ordinary note seemed to resemble that of the cedar waxwing but was shriller and lighter in tone, resembling also the loud sibilant note often uttered by the robin. Besides a continual shower of these notes, there seemed to come from the flock an unceasing, jumbled twitter, much like the twitter of a large flock of slate-colored juncos, contentedly feeding.” Field marks——A. Bohemian might easily be mistaken for a cedar waxwing. It is a larger bird, but size is sometimes deceptive where there is no direct comparison. The underparts of the cedar waxwing are largely yellowish, but decidedly grayish in the Bohemian, and the latter has a black chin and a conspicuous white bar across the wing, and the under tail coverts are a rich brown. Enemies.—F rank L. Farley writes to me: “Pigeon hawks must take a heavy toll of the Bohemian waxwings while they are gathering in the Rockies and foothills to commence their wanderings to the south. On several trips after big game into these regions, I have seen large flocks of a hundred or more birds, sitting motionless and apparently fearful, on the top branches of a solitary leafless tree, out in an open- ing. If one looks about, he is almost certain to see a pigeon hawk perched in a nearby tree top, patiently watching the waxwings. The birds seem to know that they are safe, if they remain in the tree, but, if one puts them to flight, the hawk is off in a flash and easily takes one before the flock gets a hundred yards from the tree.” Mr. Cameron (1908) says that, in very severe weather, when the waxwings were somewhat stupified by the cold— they became the prey of ranch cats. A very fine male which our cat brought to me on Feb. 13, 1899, was quite fat after eighteen days of a cold wave during which 45° below zero was registered. I do not think that many Waxwings fall victims to Prairie Falcons, as they betake themselves to thick cover when the latter are about. On March 6, 1904, my wife and I approached within two yards of a flock of Waxwings, which refused to leave a low cedar when a Rough-legged Hawk was sailing above. Winter.—It is probably failure of the food supply, rather than cold weather, that sends the Bohemians southward in winter. Mr. Cameron (1908) reports them as abundant winter residents even during the most severe winters, when the temperature goes down to 31° or 45° below zero. Given food enough, they seem to be able to stand the most intense cold. This species seems to be present regularly, in varying numbers, but apparently every winter, in Montana and in the Rocky Mountain region as far south as Colorado. It appears less regularly, and usually BOHEMIAN WAXWING ao in smaller numbers, in Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and New England, these localities being far removed from its breeding grounds. Where food conditions are favorable, its winter sojourn may begin early in October and continue beyond the middle of April; the exact dates for different localities will be given under “Distribution.” There have been several well-marked invasions recorded, in which these waxwings appeared in unusual localities and in enormous num- bers. ‘The most conspicuous flights occurred in the winters of 1908- 09, 1916-17, 1919-20, and 1930-31. ‘The first of these reported inva- sions covered such widely separated localities as New England, Iowa, and Colorado. The New England records are given in detail by Horace W. Wright (1921), to which the reader is referred. For Iowa, Miss Althea R. Sherman (1921) reported that— on December 29, 1908, the day the Bohemian Waxwings arrived, a vast flock of birds was seen by two observers at points a half mile apart. * * * The first observer was Mr. Jerome Jones, who stated that soon after daylight a vast flock of birds flew over his head, “millions of them” he estimated; that they covered the sky and were several minutes in passing. * * * The other ob- server was Mrs. D. A. Wright, whose description of the flock was written down soon after it passed and was substantially as follows: About eight o’clock in the morning she saw a flock, containing thousands of birds, fly northeast. They flew as closely together as birds ever do and covered a space from two hundred to three hundred feet in width and were two or three minutes in passing. She believed they were Bohemian Waxwings, nine of which for the following eighteen days frequented her mountain ash tree. There seems to be no other species to which to assign the birds of this great flock. During the winter of 1916-17 there was a great invasion of these waxwings throughout the western part of the country, at least from Washington to Colorado. Mr. Rathbun has sent me the following account of the birds that visited Seattle: “The great incursion of the winter of 1916-17 will long be remem- bered, for many, many thousands of individuals of the species were in the region at that time. As nearly as can be ascertained, this species made its first appearance about December 10, in flocks of considerable size; but, on the 26th or 27th, the great body of the birds arrived num- bering thousands of individuals, which thereafter for some consider- able period could be observed almost every day within a comparatively restricted area some six miles in length along the eastern border of the city, adjacent to Lake Washington. This was accounted for by the fact that within this particular section there was an abundant food supply in the form of the berries of the madrona tree (Arbutus men- ziesti), which had fruited with unusual abundance the past season, and of which the waxwings appeared very fond; it was not uncommon at times to count in one of the larger trees upward of five hundred of the birds. 76 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM “Always associated with the waxwings were flocks of the western robin (Z'urdus migratorius propinquus) ; of this species the individ- uals numbered several thousands; and at times when suddenly startled, this immense body of birds would arise, scattering in every direction, and then begin to congregate in flocks. On some occasions, they would all amalgamate into one vast flock and, after flying about, would again break up into small flocks; these would alight in the berry-laden trees. and immediately resume feeding, until again disturbed, when these evolutions would be repeated. At all times the soft, rolling chatter of the many waxwings could be heard, which added to the interesting spectacle. On one particular occasion apparently all the individuals in a large portion of the section became associated, forming a flock that by careful estimate was an eighth of a mile in length and of consider- able width. “Many times, in these flocks of Bohemian waxwings, we observed a few cedar waxwings and, in the same locality, small flocks of pine siskins and willow goldfinches, which would sometimes mingle with the former in flight, but disassociate when the waxwings alighted. “About January 25, the supply of madrona berries in this section became practically exhausted, and thereafter the waxwings were seen in smaller flocks and became scattered throughout the city in quest of suitable food. On many occasions the birds were seen in the parks of the city and about the residences where there was shrubbery that might bear berries; this continued until about February 15, after which date we have failed to note them.” Several observers have commented on the abundance of Bohemian waxwings in Colorado during that winter, where the species may be a fairly regular winter visitor in the mountains, but is rarely seen in large numbers in the foothills, towns, and cities. Frederick C. Lin- coln (1939) writes: The most impressive invasion of this bird to be recorded in the history of Colorado ornithology occurred in February 1917, at which time I estimated that at least 10,000 were present within the corporate limits of the city of Denver. Large flocks were to be found in all of the city’s parks, where they frequented fruit- bearing shrubbery particularly the Russian olive. Many citizens tried to feed the visitors and after vainly offering bread crumbs and seeds of various kinds, finally discovered that canned peas were very acceptable. The last previous occurrence of the species in large numbers in that section was in 1908. The most widespread and perhaps the greatest invasion of all came in the winter of 1919-20. Mr. Rathbun refers to this in his notes from Seattle; the first waxwings were seen there on November 25, and they increased in numbers from then on, reaching their maximum in Decem- ber and January and decreasing in February; the last one was noted on March 1. Gabrielson and Jewett (1940) write: “The Bohemian waxwing is an BOHEMIAN WAXWING Gd irregular winter visitor over most of the State but appears most regu- larly in the mountain valleys about the base of the Blue Mountains. * * * In the winter of 1919-20 there occurred a big invasion of these birds, and they were present in numbers in Portland, Corvallis, and other points in western Oregon as well as over most of eastern Oregon, reaching at least as far south as Adel, Lake County, where Gabrielson collected a bird out of a flock of approximately three hun- dred on April 3, 1920.” This invasion extended to Nebraska, where large flocks were seen all over the State. Many hundreds were seen also in northern Illinois. This flight also reached New England, as far south as Massachusetts, but in comparatively small numbers. According to Horace W. Wright (1921), there had been a somewhat heavier invasion of New England during the latter part of the winter of 1918-19. ‘There wasa marked spread of Bohemian waxwings in Colorado in the winter of 1930-31, but it was not nearly of the magnitude of that which occurred in 1916-17. Gabrielson and Jewett (1940) report that the birds ap- peared again in numbers during the winter of 1931-32, “going far south into California, according to published reports.” DISTRIBUTION Range.—The Bohemian waxwing breeds in wooded sections of the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, wandering irregularly southward in winter, sometimes in immense flocks. Breeding range—Vhe Bohemian waxwing is a vagrant and is ir- regular in its occurrences, Comparatively few nests of young have been found, and the outlining of the range where they may be found breeding in North America depends to a large extent on records of birds seen in the breeding season. This area extends north to north- ern Alaska (Kobuk River, Fort Yukon, and the Porcupine River above Coleen), northern Mackenzie (Aklavik, Fort Anderson, Leith Point on Great Bear Lake, and Fort Reliance) ; northeastern Sas- katchewan (Theitaga Lake); and northern Manitoba (Churchill), the easternmost point. South to northern Manitoba (Churchill and Cochrane River) ; southern Alberta (Flagstaff, Buffalo Lake near Alix, Red Deer, and Banff) ; northwestern Montana (Glacier Park and Granite Park) ; northern Idaho (Sandpoint) ; and central Wash- ington (Lake Cle Elum). It has also been found in summer near the east base of Mount Evans, Colo., at about 12,000 feet altitude. West to central Washington (Lake Cle Elum) ; central British Columbia (mountains near Alta Lake, Quesnel, Hazelton, Telegraph Creek, and Atlin) ; southwestern Yukon (Burwash Landing) ; and to central and 78 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM western Alaska (Chitina Moraine, Mount McKinley National Park, Nulato, and Kobuk River). Winter range.—The winter wanderings of the Bohemian waxwing are very irregular, probably influenced to a large degree by food supply. They may be present by the thousands in one year and then not be seen again for a long time. These “winter” occurrences frequently are not until late in winter or even spring. ‘The area over: which the species has occurred in winter or spring extends north to southeastern Alaska (Juneau); southwestern Mackenzie (Fort Liard) ; central British Columbia (Francois Lake and Puntchesakut Lake) ; southern Alberta (Buffalo Lake and Sullivan Lake) ; south- ern Saskatchewan (Eastend, Regina, and Yorkton) ; southern Mani- toba (Brandon, Portage la Prairie, and Selkirk) ; southern Ontario (Lake Nipissing, Algonquin Park, and Ottawa); southern Quebec (Montreal and Quebec) ; Prince Edward Island (‘Tignish) ; and Nova Scotia (Pictou). East to Nova Scotia (Pictou and Halifax) ; south- ern Maine (Bangor and Auburn) ; and eastern Massachusetts (Bolton and Taunton). South to eastern Massachusetts (Taunton) ; Connecti- cut (Torrington) ; Pennsylvania (Atglen); central Ohio (Delaware and Quincy) ; central Indiana (Richmond and Indianapolis) ; south- ern Illinois (Villa Ridge) ; northwestern Arkansas (Fayetteville and Winslow) ; Kansas (Topeka, Wichita, and Hays) ; a single record in northwestern Texas (Palo Duro Creek, Randall County) ; Colorado (Colorado Springs, Salida, and Grand Junction) ; one record in cen- tral northern New Mexico (Gold Hill); northern Arizona (Grand Canyon and Mojave; and a single occurrence in the Baboquivari Mountains in southern Arizona) ; and southern California (Danby, Daggett, Victorville, and Claremont). West to western California (Claremont, Berkeley, and Eureka) ; western Oregon (Carlton and Portland) ; Washington (Olympia, Seattle, and Bellingham) ; British Columbia (Esquimalt, southern Vancouver Island; and Vancouver) ; and southeastern Alaska (Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Juneau). Migration—The Bohemian waxwing is not migratory in the ordi- nary sense of the term, but a few dates of fall arrival and spring de- parture may be useful to show the erratic nature of its movements. Dates of fall arrival are: Quebec—Montreal, November 23. New York—Ithaca, November 28. Michigan—Sault Ste. Marie, October 26. Illinois—Waukegan, November 26. Minnesota—St. Paul, Octo- ber 24. South Dakota—Yankton, November 29. Colorado—Fort Morgan, October 18. Wyoming—Yellowstone Park, October 27. Montana—Fortine, September 11. Dates of last seen in spring are: Montana—Great Falls, May 14. Wyoming—Laramie, April 5. Colorado—Denver, May 20. North Dakota—Fargo, April 18. Minnesota—Duluth, April 25. Wiscon- sin—Madison, March 23. Illinois—Chicago, April 18. Ohio— CEDAR WAXWING 79 Youngstown, May 14. New York—Rochester, March 26. Massa- chusetts—Boston, April 27. New Brunswick—Scotch Lake, April 28. Quebec—Quebec, April 12. Banding records.—During an invasion in March 1932, several Bo- hemian waxwings were banded at Waukegan, Ill. One banded on March 23 was found dying on April 11 at Milwaukee, Wis., and one banded on March 25 was caught alive on April 15 at Craik, Saskatche- wan, where it was kept until it died on May 1. A bird banded at Summerland, British Columbia, on February 15, 1933, was killed on March 20, 1934, at Silver City, S. Dak. During an invasion of Bohemian waxwings in Denmark in 1944, a bird was captured that had been banded on Helgoland in December 1941, during the previous invasion. Casual record.—A specimen of the Old World race (B. g. garrulus) was collected June 14, 1931, from a flock of four at Cape Tobin, Liver- pool Land, near the outlet of Scoresby Sound, East Greenland. Egg dates.—Alberta: 24 records, May 24 to June 13; 17 records, May 29 to June 6, indicating the height of the season. British Columbia: 39 records, June 11 to July 24; 20 records, July 8 to 16. BOMBYCILLA CEDRORUM Vieillot CEDAR WAXWING CONTRIBUTED BY WINSOR MARRETT TYLER HABITS Cedar waxwings impress us as being unlike most of the birds we know. We see them commonly in flocks or small companies through the greater part of the year, but we never know just when they will appear, or how numerously, for the movements of these flocks do not conform to the regular northern and southern swings of migration that the majority of North American birds make to and from their breeding grounds. Moreover, unlike most birds, there is no close relationship between the time of their arrival on their nesting grounds and the commencement of breeding. When we become well acquainted with the waxwing we look upon him as the perfect gentleman of the bird world. There is in him a refinement of deportment and dress; his voice is gentle and subdued; he is quiet and dignified in manner, sociable, never quarrelsome, and into one of his habits, that of sharing food with his companions, we may read, without too much stress of imagination, the quality of politeness, almost unselfishness, very rare, almost unheard of, in the animal kingdom. His plumage is delicate in coloring—soft, quiet browns, grays, and pale yellow—set off, like a carnation in our button- hole, by a touch of red on the wing. 80 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Alexander Wilson (Wilson and Bonaparte, 1832), writing of this attractive decoration, says: “Six or seven, and sometimes the whole nine, secondary feathers of the wings are ornamented at the tips with small red oblong appendages, resembling red sealing-wax; these ap- pear to be a prolongation of the shafts, and to be intended for preserv- ing the ends, and consequently the vanes, of the quills, from being broken and worn away by the almost continual fluttering of the bird. among thick branches of the cedar. The feathers of those birds which are without these appendages are uniformly found ragged on the edges, but smooth and perfect in those on whom the marks are full and numerous.” Spring.—Spring begins late with the cedar waxwings, for although many move northward into New England in January and February and often linger for weeks, sometimes in great numbers, attracted by a plentiful supply of food, these apparently are merely wandering flocks (noted under “Winter”). The breeding birds of the Transition Zone, the real spring birds, do not arrive, it is thought, until well into May, and even then they do not start nesting until long afterward. William Brewster (1906) ably summarizes their movements in the region about Boston, Mass., during the first part of the year. He says: The seasonal movements of the Cedarbird are somewhat erratic and not as yet fully understood. There is apparently a double migration northward, the first flight—which is much the heavier of the two—reaching eastern Massa- chusetts anywhere between the last of January and the first of March. The birds which compose it appear suddenly, often in very large flocks, and make themselves peculiarly conspicuous by roaming restlessly over the country, fre- quently visiting densely populated localities to feast on the berries of the mountain ash, the English hawthorn, Parkman’s apple and other cultivated trees. They also eat asparagus berries, and they are especially fond of the berries of the red cedar or Virginia juniper. They disappear almost completely before the end of April, presumably going further north to breed, although this has never been definitely established. The second flight, which arrives in May, is believed to be made up chiefly, if not wholly, of the birds which pass the summer with us. They appear in pairs or in small, scattered flocks which are seen almost everywhere but most fre- quently in apple orchards. Courtship.—Cedarbirds spend so great a portion of the year gathered together in flocks, and when thus assembled, contrary to the custom of most birds, pay so much attention to one another, that it is often difficult to decide whether to regard some of their actions as indicating courtship or to consider them an expression of the comradeship or courtesy that seems to pervade their behavior. The passing of a berry back and forth between two birds, or along a line of birds, a procedure we may watch sometimes even in winter, may have developed from courtship feeding, and the delicate little dance, in which one of two birds hops close to the side of the other, then takes one short hop away, and back again, over and over, may have its origin in courting be- CEDAR WAXWING 81 havior developed in an unusually social species, although the dance may take place long before the breeding season. Aretas A. Saunders (1938) says: “In early July one sometimes sees what appears to be courtship in these birds. At such a time, the action of the one I suppose to be the male suggests a young bird wishing to be fed. His wings tremble and whirl about, suggesting the wing motions with which a starling often accompanies its songs. The notes at such times are the beady, somewhat rattlelike ones, rather than the clear whine that this species uses most commonly.” P. M. Silloway (1904) reports: “Two waxwings were sitting near each other on a lower branch of a fir, about twenty feet from the ground. They were evidently courting. He would sidle over to her, rub his breast against hers, rub his bill caressingly upon hers, and then sidle back to his former place. Then the other bird would go through 9. similar performance.” Margaret Morse Nice (1941) describes the behavior of a pair of wax- wings while they were building their nest: “I first became aware of the parents of my birds on June 19,” she says, “when I heard what I took to be incessant begging from a baby bird; it proved to be the female waxwing begging from her mate with voice and violent wing movement. He fed her four times, but she continued to beg, crowd- ing against him. Later I saw a waxwing take a piece of nesting material to a near-by cedar. On the 20th she was again begging for ten to fifteen minutes at a time.” The two following quotations are charming, clear descriptions of the courtshiplike play, one between a pair of birds, the other between members of a large flock. Speaking of a day early in summer, Har- riet McCoy (1927) says: AS we came up to some sumac and other shrubs, we saw a slight movement, as of birds, near the ground. Looking closer, we were delighted to see two Cedar Waxwings perched together on a branch in a little space clear of foliage. We saw after a moment, that they seemed to be engaged in a dance or game, and we watched, half doubting our eyes. One bird had a tiny flower or very new leaf in its bill. The other, standing perhaps 6 inches away, all at once hopped Close, took the leaf, and with one hop came back to its position. There it stood, straight, its posture being perhaps a cue to the other bird, who now approached and, to our wonder, received the leaf, gave one hop back and stood erect. There was rhythm and precision about the little exercise which made it appear a conscious performance on the part of the birds and one which they seemed to enjoy greatly. We thought we had never seen anything with such a pretty grace and delicacy of movement and color. They repeated it several times and when they flew off at last, we were left with a feeling of having been audience to a scene in a fairy play. Caroline M. Stevens (1911) writes: Coming through an apple orchard one noontime in May, 1909, I stopped to watch a large flock of Cedar Waxwings feeding on the apple blossom petals, and then it was my good fortune to see as pretty a sight as could be imagined 82 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM among birds. The attention of the birds seemed about evenly divided between eating petals and playing a sort of game. Looking from tree to tree I saw it going on all around me. It was a game for two. One bird, taking the initiative, with a petal in his mouth, suddenly flew to his chosen playmate, alighting close beside him on the twig, at the same instant offering the petal (once it was a bit of green leaf). The other bird, though apparently taken unawares, was quick enough to catch it on the instant it was offered. Immediately, with the petal, he hopped side- wise just one small hop away from the first bird. After a pause of perhaps @ second, back he came close to the bird and offering the petal, which the first bird on the instant caught from his bill, hopped away with it just one hop, paused a second, then very suddenly hopped back, offering the petal, all just as the other bird had done. And so they passed the petal back and forth, not three or four times, but twelve and fifteen times, until, tiring of the play, they flew apart, or the petal, with much hasty snatching from bill to bill becoming tattered and too small for use, was indifferently eaten by one of the birds. In the moments of pause before the always sudden re-offering of the petal, each bird looked straight ahead; the one with the petal as if trying to conceal from the other the instant he meant to come back with it, and the one awaiting the petal as if the rules of the game forbade his watching to see when it was coming. Yet he was plainly tense and watchful, and only once did I see a bird fail to get the petal. In that instance the other bird gave him another chance at it, when he got it all right, and the game continued. But for this element of competition, this apparent keenness to take the other bird unawares, which gave the spirit of a sport to the performance, it would have more the aspect of a “dance,” for it was measured, dignified, and dainty, with the quality of an old-time minuet. Certainly throughout the time I watched, it had no observable connection with courtship, however indirectly the mating season may be responsible for it. The choosing of a partner seemed wholly casual and disinterested, and when the game palled, the birds separated as casually. Nesting—We in New England think of the cedar waxwing’s nest as rather large, made of twigs, dry grass, and stalks of weeds, with perhaps a few feathers and bits of twine put together loosely and clumsily, but Forbush (1911) states that “in the South it is com- paratively small and compact,” a structure more in accord with its dainty owner. Thomas D. Burleigh (1923) describes two nests found in Idaho: “The first * * * was fifteen feet from the ground in the top of a small slender larch at the edge of some underbrush at the side of a road. It was compactly built of larch twigs, grasses and moss, lined with the dry needles of the western white pine. The second * * * was six feet from the ground in a small Douglas fir at the edge of a field, and was built of weed stems and wool, lined with wool and dry pine needles.” Albert W. Honywill (1911), speaking of nests in Minnesota, says: “Nests were sometimes located in the Norway pines, from the noise made by the young in calling for food. Usually these nests were placed upon the extreme ends of the branches and were inaccessible. They were generally composed almost entirely of usnea moss.” CEDAR WAXWING 83 O. M. Bryens (1925) points out the cedar waxwing’s preference for wool as nesting material: The material composing the nests of the Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla ced- rorum) in this locality [Michigan] consists chiefly of wool and moss. Their nests also contain a considerable amount of small twigs, and if they are near hemlocks, they are largely of the twigs of that tree. One hemlock tree in par- ticular that I saw Cedar Waxwings getting twigs from one summer, stands nearly on top of a hill, and was nearly killed by fire. Many of the lower branches had died, and thus there was a large amount of twigs. Cedar Wax- wings were observed coming to this tree for twigs and returning to the nests, just as birds come and go from a drinking fountain. Before there were sheep on the grounds where these observations were made, the Cedar Waxwings used the moss that hangs in rather long strings, and is found especially on tamarack, balsam, fir, and other conifers, but also on maple and birch. After sheep were present the moss was found to be used very little in the construction of the nests. Much wool was available from the barbed wire fences and some from low bushes. On the lane fences the three lower wires held wool that sheep had lost when reaching through the fences, and it was no uncommon sight to see Cedar Waxwings along the fences gathering this material during the nesting season. The past two years the grounds have not been pastured to sheep, and thus there has been no wool, and I find that the waxwings are again using the moss in their nests. Thus it appears that wool is the substance that will be used if the birds can secure it. The nests are at times lined with short stems, such as those that bear the seeds of the maple. Mary B. Benson (1920) relates her experience in supplying twine and strips of cloth for the cedarbirds’ use. [I] began putting out string, as usual hanging it upon a clothes line on the back porch. Within half an hour the Waxwings spied it and began carry- ing it to the apple tree. They made no efforts to collect twigs or any other nesting material. * * #* My supply of twine threatening to become exhausted, I began tearing old cloth into strips about one-half an inch wide and from five to twelve inches in length. This, the birds liked even better; and they at once redoubled their efforts. How fast they worked, and what yards of cloth they used. * * #* I experimented with colors, and although they apparently preferred white, they did use several strips ot bright pink outing flannel when the supply of white cloth was low. * * We called it [the nest] “The Waxwing’s Rag Bag’”’. Edward R. Ford writes to Mr. Bent of the “habit of the cedar waxwing of taking material from active nests of other species of birds for use in its own nest.” “On three occasions,” he says, “I have seen it take bits from kingbirds’ nests; in two instances the nests were abandoned by the owners (in one case the structure was rendered so flimsy as to allow the eggs to fall to the ground) ; the third nest, how- ever, did not suffer so much, and the iene ive did not desert it. I have also observed cedarbirds taking material from the nest of a yellow-throated vireo.” The height of the nest above ground varies considerably. Thomas D. Burleigh (1925) describes one in Georgia “forty-five feet from the 84. BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM ground at the outer end of a limb of a large white oak,” and another “fifty feet from the ground in the top of one of the larger trees.” A. Dawes Du Bois records in his notes four nests, found in Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin; the Price County, Wis., nest was 8 feet from the ground in a fork and between upright branches of a small plum tree in a garden; the other three were in apple trees, at heights ranging from 6 to 20 feet above ground; the highest nest was near the- end of a branch of a large, old apple tree on a constantly traveled, dusty, public road. A nest in an orchard was built chiefly of grass blades and stems, with a few slender, woody twigs, the longest 614 inches; a coarse, stiff straw of grass measured 714 inches, but most of the material was comparatively soft; one very slender grass stem, folded twice, was 15 inches long; there were numerous long shreds of grass and a few weed stems were intermingled. Outwardly this nest had a slovenly, rather formless appearance, but the inner portion was a well-formed and compactly-woven cup, lined with long, fine rootlets, together with grasses and a very few small bits of plant down. It measured externally 5 to 6 inches in diameter by 3.5 in height; the internal diameter was 2.5 and the depth 1.95 inches. He says of another nest: “On the 7th of September I lifted this nest from the branch with the intention of dissecting it. Feeling something squirming within, I placed it on the ground and a white- footed mouse came out through a hole in the side, with a family of very young, blind sucklings clinging to her teats.” Dr. Paul Harrington mentions in his notes a nesting colony of cedar waxwings in a clump of white pines near Toronto, Ontario. “There were 11 nests in all within a radius of 25 feet, on horizontal pine limbs, all within 20 feet from the ground. One nest had four fresh eggs, one held two, and two others had one egg each; five other nests were more or less complete, and two were half finished. I returned to examine these nests a week later and all were deserted.” On an- other occasion he found a nest containing five fresh eggs, on which both parent birds were incubating; “they were sitting in the same direction, and this apparently had been a common practice, as the nest was quite markedly shaped, so as to allow both birds to sit com- fortably in the nest.” Charles W. Richmond (1888) says: “The Cedarbird does not nest till late in the season, and is sometimes eccentric about choosing a nesting place. A nest found within the city limits [Washington, D. C.] was situated ina lamp post. * * * It will forsake its nest on the slightest provocation, even after laying one or more eggs.” Aretas A. Saunders (1938), writing of Allegany State Park, New York, says: “Nests of the cedar waxwing are found in various trees or shrubs in and about the school grounds, chiefly in the Aspen- Cherry and camping grounds areas, but sometimes in Maple-Beech- CEDAR WAXWING 85 Hemlock. The nests are mostly rather high up. * * * Oc- casional nests are lower down. One in 1927 was only six feet from the ground in a staghorn sumach (hus typhina). One in 1935 was in a willow and about four feet from the ground.” James E. Crouch (1936) states: “The measurements of a typical Cedar Waxwing’s nest are as follows: Outside depth, 4-414’’; inside depth 3-334’’; outside diameter, 444-5’’; inside diameter 38-314’’; and thickness of walls 3/4-1 3/4’’.. The nest is completed in five to seven days and egg laying starts immediately. * * * One egg is Jaid each day until the complement is completed, and incubation starts at the laying of the first egg. Regardless of this fact they all hatch at the same time.” Mr. Crouch’s observations were made in the vicinity of Ithaca, N. Y. Aretas A, Saunders (1911) reports on an interesting study of an unusual nesting, “ten nests of the Cedar Waxwing [at West Haven, Conn.] in a small tract of about five acres,” an instance of the close association characteristic of the bird being carried into the nesting season. Even when flying off to procure food, the birds traveled in small companies. Mr. Saunders says: “The parent birds from the different nests made trips for food in small flocks, usually of four or five. The cherry trees where most of the food was obtained grew along the shore about a quarter of a mile from the nests. The small flocks usually gathered in the tops of a few dead stubs that stood above the thicket, and left these in a body for the cherry trees, returned in the same manner when the food was obtained and then scattered slowly to their respective nests.” Mr. Saunders (1911) adds: “Late in November, after the leaves had fallen, I visited the thicket again to see how many Waxwing nests in all were there. I found seven more nests evidently of this species, making a total of seventeen. These other nests were some distance from the ones I studied and much more scattered. All of the seven- teen, however, could be included within a radius of 150 yards.” Mr. Saunders (1911) says: “I watched incubating birds for some time and so far as I could tell, only the female performs this duty.” James E. Crouch (1936) concurs with this statement, saying, “Incu- bation was performed entirely by the female,” but Dr. Arthur A. Allen (1930) states that both birds “take turns sitting on the eggs.” Crouch (1936) describes thus the building of the nest: Nest building is an interesting process. I watched the construction of one nest placed in the forking branch of a willow tree. The birds worked very vigorously both in bringing material and in shaping the nest into form. Although they both carried materials, one bird seemed to do most of the shaping and weaving to- gether of the nest. As nearly as I could tell, it was the female which did this shaping. However, because of the similarity of plumage, it may be that I was mistaken in this observation. Inasmuch as there is contradiction in the litera- 86 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM ture on this point, it must be studied further. The birds work very close to- gether. They both come to the nest with their bills full of cattail down or small twigs. The male deposits his on the nest and the female then follows with hers. She stays and by much twisting and turning of the entire body and use of the bill, the material is woven into the nest. When this is finished, she ealls and is joined by the male, who usually waits nearby, and they then fly off together for more materials. Speaking of the return of waxwings to a former nesting locality, Saunders (1911) says: Evidently Waxwings do not necessarily return to the same locality in which they have nested before. It is evident that the presence or absence of Waxwings in a given locality is due to the abundance or lack of a supply of the berry or fruit that forms the major part of their food. A later experience in the vicinity of Bozeman, Montana, confirms this. During the summer of 1908 there were no Waxwings that I ob- served in the vicinity of Bozeman. The next year, however, they appeared in June and were abundant throughout the summer. During this time I found two Waxwing nests in shade trees along the streets of Bozeman and could doubtless have found many if I had had time for search. In this region the service berry (Amelanchier alnifolia) forms the principal article of food. This berry was very abundant about Bozeman in 1909 and correspondingly scarce in 1908. During the summer of 1910, in a few short visits to Bozeman, I again found Waxwins quite common and service berries fairly abundant. The waxwing breeds later in the season than most birds do, at a time when many of the berries and fruits, which the bird uses as food for its young, are ripe. Normally it breeds in July or early August, but sometimes much later. W. J. Hamilton, Jr. (1933) re- ports a bird incubating four eggs on September 27 near Ithaca, N. Y. Hggs.—| AutrHor’s NOTE: The cedar waxwing lays three to five eggs, rarely six. These are usually ovate and have little or no gloss. They closely resemble the eggs of the Bohemian waxwing, having the same peculiar coloration, but they are, of course,smaller. The ground color is pale bluish gray, pale “mineral gray,” or “glaucous-gray.” They are sparingly marked with dots or small spots of black, or blackish brown, scattered more or less irregularly over the surface. Some eggs show underlying spots or blotches of pale shades of drab. The measurements of 50 eggs in the United States National Museum average 21.8 by 15.6 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 24.4 by 15.8, 22.4 by 16.3, 18.8 by 15.2, and 20.3 by 14.7 milli- meters. | Young.—The length of the cedar waxwing’s incubation period is given by various writers as follows: Saunders (1911), 12 days; Burns (1915), 10 to 12 days; Knight (1908), about 14 days; Forbush (1911), about 14 days; Crouch (1936), 12 to 16 days. Aretas A. Saunders (1911) gives a careful description of the development of young waxwings. He says: CEDAR WAXWING 87 The young when born are perfectly naked, without the natal down found in most young birds. The first few days they grow in size only. By the fourth day a row of small black pimples shows along the middle of the back where the first feathers are starting through. In six days the feathers of the back and the wing quills come through and pimples begin to show on the breast. By seven or eight days the eyes begin to open and more pimples appear on top of the head. In eight or nine days the head and breast feathers appear, the feathers and the wing quills come through and pimples begin to show on the breast. By ten to twelve days the throat and tail feathers appear, the wing quills and head feathers break their sheaths, and the creamy white streak above the eye, a mark of the young birds only, begins to show plainly. By twelve to fourteen days the eyes are wide open and all the feathers are unsheathed or unsheathing except those forming the black patch on the forehead and about the eyes. These feathers are last of all to appear and do not break the sheaths till about the fifteenth day or later, sometimes after the young have left the nest. This fact appears to have led some writers to state that young Waxwings do not have this black mark. By fourteen to eighteen days the young are fully fledged and leave the nest shortly, being able to fly a little as soon as they leave. For a few days after leaving they may usually be found in the vicinity of the nest, the whole brood perched together in a row, with necks stretched and bills pointing up in the air in the same manner as the adults. Of brooding he says: “After the young hatch the female broods closely for several days until they become partially feathered and the eyes begin to open. During this time she seldom leaves the nest and never for more than an hour at a time. After this she broods but little in the daytime but continues to brood at night until the young are about twelve days old. I believe the male does not brood at all.” Mr. Saunders states that the young birds left the nest when approxi- mately 16 days old, and that the parents “feed the young only at long intervals, rarely as short as fifteen minutes and usually of from three quarters of an hour to an hour or more.” George G. Phillips (1913) illustrates the tameness of young cedar waxwings by a personal experience he had with a brood whose parents had disappeared. He raised them by hand, feeding them with berries and later on bread and milk. They became very tame, and even after he liberated them they came to him like pets. “Wherever I was about the place,” he says, “they were liable to appear. Each morning as I stepped on the porch their cry greeted me, and instantly four little monoplanes would be coming full speed toward me. I always threw up my arm for a perch, and they would suffer me to carry them thus about the grounds and to the house.” Two other writers, Mrs. Whittle (1928) and Mrs. Nice (1941), re- port in detail studies of captive young cedar waxwings to which readers are referred. The juvenal cedar waxwing seems rather disheveled in comparison with its spruce parent: the streaks on the breast and the restriction of the black about the eye detract from the trim stylishness of the adult. 88 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Plumages.—[Auruor’s norm: Dr. Dwight (1900) describes the juvenal plumage of the young cedar waxwing as follows: Above, including sides of head and wing coverts, olive-brown. Below, paler with darker broad fused stripes on the throat, breast, sides and flanks, the chin paler, the abdomen and crissum dull white often yellow or buff tinged. A crest not well marked is found on the crown. Anterior frontal feathers, lores and partial orbital ring dull black; posterior quadrant of orbital ring, submalar, streak and narrow superciliary line white or pale buff. Chin bordered laterally by dull black. Wings and tail slate-black, the primaries ashy edged, occasionally some of the secondaries tipped with bright vermillion wax-like appendages, the tail terminated with a lemon-yellow band, the rectrices also occasionally but in- frequently tipped with similar red appendages. A partial postjuvenal molt, involving the contour plumage and the wing coverts, but not the rest of the wings or the tail, begins in Sep- tember. This produces a first-winter plumage, which is practically indistinguishable from that of the adult, the brown being much lighter, the crest well marked, and the breast not streaked. The red append- ages on the wings and tail are usually more frequent in adult than in young birds. The nuptial plumage is acquired by wear, which is not very obvious, and a complete postnuptial molt occurs in both one year old birds and adults, usually beginning in September. The sexes are practically alike in all plumages, though the female usually has less black on the chin, and perhaps fewer red appendages. | Food.—Waldo L. McAtee (1926) gives the following comprehen- sive summary of the cedar waxwing’s food: The Cedar-bird gets five-sixths of its food from the vegetable kingdom and at times is destructive to flowers of fruit trees, and later to the ripening fruit espe- cially of cherries. Sometimes local control measures are necessary to preserve the crop. Destruction of cultivated fruit is an index to the natural feeding habits of the bird, wild fruits being decidedly favored. Those most frequently taken are juneberries, strawberries, cedar berries, and the various wild cherries. The only other vegetable food of importance in the diet of the Cedar-bird is flowers. The animal food (one-sixth of the whole) comprises quite a variety of items, of which beetles probably are most important. Leaf beetles, including the locust leaf beetle (Odontota dorsalis), and weevils are forms detrimental to the forest. Carpenter ants, sawfly larvae, caterpillars, cicadas, and scale insects are other tree pests eaten. The other noteworthy items of animal food are crane-flies, spiders, mayflies, dragon flies, and stone flies. The Cedar-bird in some places is called Cankerbird, on account of a marked fondness for cankerworms, and it has a great reputation also as a foe of the elm leaf beetle. In New England it has several times been observed to clean up local infestations of this pest. The species has been observed to clear orchards of the tent caterpillars and to feed also on larvae of the forest tent caterpillar, the willow sawfly, the basket-worm of cedar, and the spotted willow leaf beetle. Except in the orchard of ripening cherries, the Cedarbird is a desirable visitor. Although ordinarily it may not be highly useful, at times evidently it attacks some pests in a wholesale way. ‘Then, just as it is able to do much harm by feeding CEDAR WAXWING 89 in flocks on buds or fruit, it is able to do much by massed attack on some destruc- tive insect. Its record in this respect is excellent. H. H. Kopman (1915) speaks of the cedar waxwing’s feeding in Louisiana: “At New Orleans, little is seen of it until about Feb. 1, when it arrives to feed on the fruit of hackberry and Japan privet, and the flowers of the elm. It later feeds on the blossoms of the pecan, and finally on the fruit of the mulberry.” The voracious appetite of the cedarbirds has attracted many com- ments. Forbush (1911) exclaims: “Such gourmandizers as they were! They ate until they could eat no more, only to sit about on the branches or play with one another awhile, and then eat again.” And Audubon (1842) remarks: The appetite of the Cedar-bird is of so extraordinary a nature as to prompt it to devour every fruit or berry that comes in its way. In this manner they gorge themselves to such excess as sometimes to be unable to fly, and suffer themselves to be taken by the hand. Indeed I have seen some which, although wounded and confined in a cage, have eaten of apples until suffocation deprived them of life in the course of a few days. When opened afterwards, they were found to be gorged to the mouth. Charles H. Rogers (1907) mentions cedarbirds drinking the sap flowing from broken maple trees, and Prof. Maurice Brooks, writing to Mr. Bent, says: “We were in the spruce belt on Gaudineer Knob, Randolph County, W. Va., searching for red crossbills. ‘The spruces were in bloom, the carpels hanging with tiny drops of a sweetish gum. ‘This is a favorite food of the crossbills, and we saw, on one occasion, a large flock of cedar waxwings feeding steadily on these flower carpels. It was not a case of eating insects in the flowers; with glasses we watched the birds strip off and swallow the flower parts themselves.” There are several records of cedarbirds eating the petals of apple blossoms. William Brewster (1987) speaks of the birds thus, as he watched them on May 14, 1905: The apple trees at the Farm were in full bloom to-day. On one of them we found a party of 5 Cedar Birds * * * ali of which were busily engaged in picking off and devouring the petals of the blossoms. I watched them at close range (about 20 feet) for fully 15 minutes. During this time each bird must have eaten a dozen or more petals. These were sometimes swallowed whole (not without some difficulty), sometimes torn into halves before being swallowed. As the birds remained nearly motionless the whole time, simply bending down and taking the petals within easy reach without exercising any apparent choice, I was convinced that they were eating only the petals and not selecting those that may have had insects on them. This habit of the Cedar Bird (if it be really a habit) is quite new to me. Among others, Ben. J. Blincoe (1923) has also observed this habit repeatedly, and Ralph Hoffmann speaks of it in his manuscript notes. Cedar waxwings are adroit flycatchers. We frequently see them, 84329050 ——7 90 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM generally in small companies, flying out from a high perch, oftenest, perhaps, over a river or pond, to snatch up insects gathered in large assemblies. The birds appear as adept as the true flycatchers and, like them, return as a rule to a perch after each capture. William Brewster (1906) speaks of their turning their flycatching skill to the snapping up of tiny snowflakes floating in the air. He says: “When no insects are on wing Cedarbirds sometimes practise the art of fly- catching on inanimate but rapidly moving objects. Thus on March 1, 1866, I saw the members of a large flock engaged in chasing and cap- turing whirling snowflakes, at which they launched out in quick suc- cession from the upper branches of atallelm. * * * Probably the birds were only amusing themselves, although they may also have en- joyed slaking their thirst with snow fresh from the clouds.” At first the young are fed on insects, presumably by regurgitation, but early in their lives, within a few days after hatching, berries are added to their diet. The adults bring the berries to the nest several at a time, stored temporarily in the gullet. W. E. Shore, of Toronto, Ontario, writes to Mr. Bent an amusing account of their delivery: “Having set up the camera at a nest in an apple tree, I retired to the blind to wait and was surprised to find that within 15 minutes both parents were back in the tree, but apparently empty-mouthed. How- ever, one bird hopped to the side of the nest, and the two well-feathered young shot their heads up and opened their bills, action which I con- sidered overly optimistic. But they apparently knew their business, for, as I watched through the binoculars, the adult gave a slight jerk of his head, and to my surprise a ripe, unbroken cherry appeared in his bill. This was promptly dropped into the bill of a young one, and again the head jerked, and another cherry appeared. This happened seven times; then the bird flew off, and the mate came to the nest and went through the same performance. The whole thing so resembled a magician producing cards out of thin air with the time-honored twist of the wrist and jerk of the hand that I could almost hear the word ‘Presto’ emanating from the solemn-faced birds as they continued to produce cherry after cherry.” Howard L. Cogswell says in his notes from Pasadena, Calif.: “This species is often very abundant throughout the cities in winter, especially in sections where camphortrees and peppertrees are planted. Of late years the peppertrees, long a recognized favorite for berry-eat- ing birds, have been yielding poorer and poorer crops in the Los An- geles area. As a consequence, in the Pasadena area at least, the wax- wings and their often-present associate, the robin, are now to be seen chiefly in the camphortrees used extensively to line the streets of resi- dential districts. From their arrival in numbers in November until about February 1, the small cherrylike drupe of this tree seems to be the chief food of the waxwings. Then, when these are gone, they turn CEDAR WAXWING 91 to the various berries on ornamental bushes in gardens, such as Pyracantha, Cotoneaster, and Hugenia. Many times I have also seen waxwings eating from persimmons and apples allowed to remain on the trees until overripe. Outside the city, they feed on toyon, mistle- toe, coffeeberries, the fruits of the sycamore tree, and wild grapes in the lowland willow regions.” Mr. Du Bois (MS.) watched some cedar waxwings that “were feed- ing on geometrid caterpillars, which were defoliating the trees. They picked the caterpillars from the leaves, and sometimes they struck them against a twig or branch before eating them. They were par- ticular to wipe their bills on the branch after eating. Sometimes a bird would make a little fluttering jump to get the caterpillar, or oc- casionally would taken one in midair. One bird flew out from a branch and seized a caterpillar that was hanging by a gossamer thread several feet away. He lighted on a branch, with the caterpillar in his bill, before eating it.” Behavior.—One of the most conspicuous features in the behavior of the cedarbird is its tameness. Albert W. Honywill, Jr. (1911), gives a striking instance of this trait in a wild bird he met in Minne- sota: “On Aug. 4, 1908, four young birds were found that were not quite able to fly. While arranging them to be photographed one of the old birds came and fed them. The old birds appeared to be fearless, and fed the young ones blueberries and wild cherries while I held them enclosed in my hands, and even tried to get to their young when I pushed them gently aside.” There are several records showing how readily the young birds adapt themselves to confinement. As an example, Mrs. E. A. Matte- son (1924) says of a fledgling waxwing, injured soon after leaving the nest: He became the joy of the household. He was given a large, roomy cage, with the door left open by day. * * * Very soon he began to sit cn a paper in. my friend’s lap, unthread the machine when she sewed, peep into the work- basket to pull bits of threads, snap his bill quite sharply and pick at one to assert his rights, and, in his playful mood, when one tells him to dance he prances all along the perch with wings drooped, with a very graceful movement of the head and his erest erect. * * * He will hop upon the shoulder of the master of the house and drink milk from a spoon. He is perfectly happy, will pass an open window never thinking of going out—in fact, is afraid of the outside world. * * * Dandy is a little over eight years of age, and still active and bright. Alexander Wilson (Wilson and Bonaparte, 1832), in his inimitable manner, points out the indifference with which the cedarbird regards a scarecrow : “Nor are they easily intimidated by the presence of Mr. Scarecrow; for I have seen a flock deliberately feasting on the fruit of a loaded cherry tree, while on the same tree one of these guardian angels, and a very formidable one too, stretched his stiffened arms, 92 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM and displayed his dangling legs, with all the pomposity of authority.” The berry-passing habit is mentioned under “Courtship.” Be- tween two birds, back and forth, it is common enough, but the passing of a berry along a row of birds is much more rarely seen. We may watch a flock of cedarbirds for days and see no trace of it; in fact many authors, Wilson and Audubon, for example, do not mention the habit at all. Nuttall (1832), however, on the authority of “my friend S. Green, Esq., of Boston,” says: “This friendly trait is carried so far, that an eye-witness assures me he has seen one among a row of these birds seated upon a branch dart after an insect, and offer it to his associate when caught, who very disinterestedly passed it to the next, and each delicately declining the offer, the morsel has pro- ceeded backwards and forwards before it was appropriated.” One hundred years later Dr. Thomas §. Roberts (1932), an un- questioned authority, describes the habit thus: “Even more surpris- ing, they may be seen to pass some titbit, a ripe cherry most likely, from one to the other all along the line and then back again, several times in succession without any bird being impolite enough to eat it!” Of the birds in the air Dr. Dayton Stoner (1932) says: “In their flights a close order is maintained and sometimes a large flock will suddenly wheel, the members behaving as a unit and, darting down- ward, alight as a group in the top of a tree, whence thereupon a chorus of low, tremulous whistles soon proceeds.” Crouch (1936), writing of the relations of cedar waxwings toward other birds, says: They always seem to be friendly. While I was watching the birds on July 15, another Waxwing made its appearance. It happened that the female was off the nest at that time, and instead of there being a fight, as one might expect, there was nothing of the kind. The female merely flew quickly to the nest and covered the eggs, while the other two birds sat on a branch about eight feet away. This same procedure is followed when other species come close to the nest. A Catbird approached to within two feet of the nest one day. There was no fight. They merely flew at him, and one bird went on the nest. The other sat close by for a few minutes and then flew off. Similarly, a Chicka- dee visited the nest and hopped right into it and picked around. The owner came onto the nest directly, but did not chase the Chickadee away. He stayed within a few inches of the nest, peering about with curiosity. Dr. Arthur A. Allen (1930) makes the point that cedarbirds have nothing to gain by fighting, for their food is of such a nature that there is either more of it than they could consume before it spoils or else there is none at all. Since they can fly long distances to feeding places, they do not need to defend a feeding territory about their nests. Charles H. Feltes (1936) gives an interesting account (summarized also in Bird-Banding, vol. 6, p. 104, 1935) of trapping and banding 4,010 cedar waxwings in California. He attracted the birds with a CEDAR WAXWING 93 bait of dried raisins and was especially successful when he left live birds in the traps as decoys. Arthur E. Staebler and Leslie D. Case (1940) note an instance of “community bathing of the Cedar Waxwing,” another example of their social behavior. They say: “Between 55 and 60 Waxwings were in a smal] aspen tree next to a pool of stagnant water in a depression on the beach of Lake Michigan. Some of the birds were bathing in the water while others were sitting quietly or preening themselves in the tree. Periodically one or several of the bathing birds would fly up into the tree and almost immediately they would be replaced at the pool by others from the tree. Thus there were always about 15 or 20 birds from the flock bathing at any one time.” Bradford Torrey (1885) gives us this delightfully dainty snap-shot of the cedarbird: “Taking an evening walk, I was stopped by the sight of a pair of cedar-birds on a stone wall. They had chosen a convenient flat stone, and were hopping about upon it, pausing every moment or two to put their little bills together. What a loving ec- stasy possessed them! Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sounded a faint lisping note, and motioned for another kiss. But there is no setting forth the ineffable grace and sweetness of their chaste behavior.” Voice——The cedar waxwing’s voice is very high in pitch, something hke a hiss with very little tone quality, except when the note is uttered at its highest pitch and given with increased intensity, when it be- comes almost a long, clear whistle. Even then the voice is not loud and does not carry far, but when heard from near at hand it is sharply piercing. Generally we detect an effect of vibration in a prolonged hiss, owing doubtless to the breaking up of the note into many minute parts. The division is so coarse, sometimes, as to give the note a rattling effect, sometimes so fine as to be nearly imperceptible. The variability of this simple sound enables the bird, in our imagination at least, to express different degrees of emotion—content, excitement, or alarm. Thus Helen Granger Whittle (1928), who for 18 months cared for a young cedarbird, whose flight feathers never developed, found that it had a wealth of notes. “Only one was loud,” she says, “a piercing danger note, and even that was sibilant in quality. A modi- fication of this note, softer and reiterated, was a complaining note, his only tiresome vocalization. His ‘dinner’ note called for food; he had a bedtime note, and what I called a ‘nesting’ note.” Mrs. Whittle also reports that her bird, which on post-mortem examination proved to be a female, used to sing. “On November 6th,” she says, “as his cage stood in a sunny window and I was busy at a little distance, I was delighted and amazed to hear from him a little song. * * * This first song was not long, and not at all loud, but it was distinctly 94 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM musical and pleasing. It was made up of little trills, interspersed with his usual soft single notes. * * * It was a nearly continu- ous warbling, a varied arrangement of short trills, some higher, some lower, with a few connecting or finishing single notes, and occasionally a glide. One needed to be rather near to get all the modulations, as the voice was soft.” N. S. Goss (1891) mentions thus a similar song: “They are gen- erally spoken of as birds without a song, and their feeble attempt is hardly worthy to be called one; they do, however, at times, utter low, warbling notes, with tremulous wings, in a manner expressive of love and joy; in sound very similar to their lisping call notes, but much softer. It is evidently not intended for outsiders, for its voice is scarcely audible twenty paces away.” William Brewster (1906) calls attention to a note, evidently of rare occurrence. He says: Various writers have asserted that the Cedar Waxwing has no vocal utterances other than the thin, hissing calls which are familiar to everyone. I have heard it give a succession of loud, full notes, rather mellow in quality and not unlike some of those which Tree Swallows use in spring. On several occasions I have known them to be uttered by a single Waxwing that had just left a feeding flock and was circling rather high in air, over a field, performing what looked like a song flight. I suspect, however, that these swallow-like calls represent cries of alarm or of apprehension, rather than song notes, for sounds very like them are often made by wounded Waxwings. Aretas A. Saunders (1935) records a striking note, saying: “Only once have I heard any other sound [beside the common note] from this species. Then, when I found and caught a bird that had broken its wing against a wire, it literally shrieked with fright. The sound was high-pitched, loud, and strident, strongly suggesting the voice of the Kingbird.” In his studies of “Vibration Frequencies of Passerine Bird Song,” Albert R. Brand (1988) says: “The difference in frequency between the first three [birds showing highest frequency], Blackpoll, Grass- hopper Sparrow and Cedar Waxwing, is only about a half a note, and is so small and the pitch so high, that an ear would have to be remarkably accurate to recognize the pitch difference.” Margaret Morse Nice (1941) points out the usefulness of the cedar waxwing’s voice. She says: “A peculiarity of the Cedar Waxwing was its habitual use of the characteristic note whenever it took flight. This species has nothing in its plumage resembling ‘banner mark- ings’; its “flight note’ is evidently an important device for keeping the flock together, and it must be particularly valuable with this bird that is apt suddenly to take off on long flights.” Field marks.—There is no mistaking the cedarbird—a little, pale- brown bird with a conspicuous crest—for any other species except the Bohemian waxwing. This larger bird has a white patch in the wing and is chestnut under the tail, whereas the cedarbird has no white in the wing and has a white crissum. CEDAR WAXWING 95 Enemies.—The cedar waxwing has no special enemies, only those that prey commonly on most small birds. In the time of the older ornithologists, however, the bird was shot for food, and the slaughter of great numbers was made easy by their habit of flying in close flocks. Audubon’s (1842) remarks on the subject are interesting in these days of wildlife conservation. He says: “They fatten, and become so tender and juicy as to be sought by every epicure for the table. I have known an instance of a basketful of these little birds having been forwarded to New Orleans as a Christmas present. ‘The donor, however, was disappointed in his desire to please his friend in that city, for it was afterwards discovered that the steward of the steamer, in which they were shipped, made pies of them for the benefit of the passengers.” Herbert Friedmann (1929) speaks of the cedarbird as “an uncom- mon victim” of the cowbird. He says: “This is to be expected when we consider that this bird starts nesting after the laying season of the Cowbird is well past its height. There are cases on record from various places—New York, Connecticut, and Montana. Aside from these few records there are no data available.” In a later paper on this subject, he (1934) adds two records, both in western Canada. Falil.—lf we look for the waxwings in New England in the fall, after their late breeding season is over and the young are fully grown, say in mid-September, we often find them collected in a small flock of a dozen or so, perched high in a dead tree or in the top of a leafless bush. For a time they sit erect, silent, and motionless; then, in a body—a half dozen or more perhaps—they start out into the air on a steady flight, flying with a few rapid flips of the wings, then a short pause, a flight slightly undulating like that of English spar- rows. At first we may surmise that they are flycatching, pursuing the insects that are abundant in the air at this season of the year, but as we keep the birds in our eye we see that they neither turn nor pause, but hold straight onward in a protracted, uninterrupted flight. They may even pass out of sight, 200 or 300 yards away, flying all together, but in a loose flock, and if we wait, watching for their possible return, we see that they do return, back to the same tree, even to the same branches they left not 5 minutes before. Here they rest for a while, standing straight up on their perches, like little falcons, silent as before. Some few, however, may not have flown with the others but stay behind at their temporary headquarters; on the next flight, however, every one may fly away, leaving the tree empty while they make a circuit far out and back. In these long flights the birds are nearly silent—we hear from them only an occasional faint, hissing whisper. 96 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM The flights are perhaps taken for exercise in which the young birds join, and they may serve as a preparation for a long migration later in the season. Winter.—Cedarbirds appear to us at their best advantage when they arrive in New England in the late winter months or early in spring and gather in large flocks in the trees where there is a bountiful food supply. The “cedar pastures,” to use an old New England term, furnish one of their favorite foods, and the cultivated rowan trees, the European mountain-ash, laden with red berries, supply another. One of these trees, which stood for years in my front yard in Lexing- ton, Mass., was a rendezvous of the cedarbirds almost every winter and spring. Long before my time the tree had been famous for its cedarbirds, which by their numbers and tameness often attracted the attention of merely casual passersby. From my windows I could study the birds at short range for hours at a time, and the following glimpses of them, adapted and condensed from the records in my journal written with the birds only a few yards away, show their behavior at this season of the year. A company of the birds often drops into the tree from high in the air, way above the surrounding elms, coming down almost perpendicu- larly with wings closed until just before they come to rest in the ash tree. They begin at once to pick off the berries. They seem in a hurry, as if ravenously hungry, and eager to get at the food. They Jean downward to reach the berries hanging in a cluster below them, snatch one, and, pulling it free, straighten up, and, with the bill almost vertical, manipulate the berry until they get a good hold on it. Sometimes in throwing the head back, they give the berry a little toss and catch it again; sometimes, but very rarely, they drop a berry in this way. When feeding they almost always remain near to- gether, often side by side, not scattered widely in the tree, but they are restless and move constantly from one branch to another. They eat their fill, then fly up to the branches of an overhanging elm where they remain quiet for many minutes. In spite of the strong wind they appear not to seek shelter from it but between their visits to the ash tree sit in little groups, often in rows, high on the exposed elm branches, facing the blustering, biting wind, riding the swaying branches. When perched thus they squat down close to their perch and lean forward so that their backs are almost parallel to the ground, their heads drawn backward and downward close to the body between the shoulders. Sometimes they drop to the ground and drink from a puddle of melted snow, then fly back to the ash tree, pulling off the fruit again and tossing the berries about before swal- lowing them. There isa constant restlessness in the flock. There may be 75 or more birds in the tree, all busily feeding, and five minutes later not a bird is in sight. Sometimes as many as half the flock, 30 or CEDAR WAXWING 97 more, will leave the tree suddenly, twist rapidly around the tops of the elm trees, then, rising clear of the branches, steer straight north- ward and disappear in the distance. The restlessness so characteristic of these winter flocks sometimes mounts toseeming panic. Yet this feeling, apparently, seldom spreads to all the members of the gathering. Even when a large proportion sweeps away into the air, the remainder may continue to feed on, uninfluenced by the exodus of the others. Also, those that leave the tree in these precipitous flights do not start necessarily from adjacent branches, but quite the reverse: one flies from here, near us, another from the opposite side of the tree. Indeed, one of two birds sitting side by side may fly, leaving the other undisturbed. Very different from the behavior of a flock of sparrows in this regard! And all the time, whether they are feeding or resting between meals, the birds keep up their gentle, hissing whisper. Nathan Clifford Brown (1906) describes an impressive migration of cedarbirds and robins that he saw at Camden, S. C., on February 4,1905. He says: When I first looked out of doors, Robins and Cedar-birds were flying over in large numbers, going about west-northwest. It soon became evident that the flight was unusual, and at twenty minutes to nine o’clock I took up a position at a window from which I had an unobstructed view for long distances towards the east, north and west. Here for an hour and a half, pencil and paper in hand, I endeavored to count the passing birds. The Robins flew in open order and were little more numerous at one time than another. The Cedar-birds, however, though many of them also went by in open order, were mostly gathered in masses containing from twenty to four hundred birds or more each. They swept along very rapidly. Their largest masses suggested scudding clouds and were decidedly impressive. The Robins moved a good deal more slowly. Both species flew at altitudes varying from twenty to one hundred yards from the ground, and most of the birds passed within a distance of one hundred and fifty yards from my window,—none, I think, farther away than about an eighth of a mile. At ten minutes past ten o’clock I was obliged to take up some work which was awaiting me. But I frequently looked out of the window after that hour, and could detect no diminution in the number of passing birds until after one o’clock p. Mm. All the afternoon they flew by in gradually diminishing numbers, a good many Robins tarrying for brief periods in the fields before my window. Throughout the day the direction of the flight was the same, and there was prac- tically no retrograding: altogether I saw less than a hundred birds coming back, all Robins. I found that I had counted a total of twenty thousand four hundred birds in the hour and a half, at least fourteen thousand of which were Cedar-birds. These figures are much inside the mark. Between ten minutes past ten A. M. and one o’clock p. M. twice the number of birds that I had previously counted must have gone by. A multitude had passed before I began counting. Ten thousand, at the lowest estimate possible, must have followed during the re- mainder of the afternoon. In the course of the day, therefore, many more than sixty thousand birds passed over that part of Camden which I overlooked. I believe that seventy-five thousand—fifty thousand Cedar-birds—would be too 98 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM low an estimate. The path of the flight also extended south of my position at the window. I cannot say how far it extended, and I can offer no estimate of the number of birds which passed on that side. R. H. Palmer (1922) speaks of meeting the cedarbird in winter in various parts of Mexico: at Tehuantepec, which is “but a hundred feet or so above sea-level, is very hot, and has an abundance of irri- gated tropical vegetation”; at Mexico City, which “is at 7,600 feet elevation, and has a cool climate; its vegetation is of the Oregon or northern California type”; at Monterrey, which “but a few hundred feet above the sea, is very hot, and has the floral and faunal aspect, as well as the climate, of southwest Texas. All of which goes to show that the Cedar Waxwing in winter shows little choice among different climates and surroundings.” Wilbur F. Smith (MS.) reports waxwings lingering in large num- bers, estimated at 5,000 birds, on St. Armands Key, Fla. Under date of March 26, 1943, he writes to Mr. Bent: “The flocks of waxwings are still about Sarasota. They completely cleaned up the fruit of the cabbage palms on the key and then moved to the mainland and fed on the palm berries there. The mulberries are ripening, and the birds eat these also. Today I watched a fiock of several hundreds gathering the fruit from one of these trees.” A. F. Skutch (MS.) sends to Mr. Bent the following account of the waxwings in their winter quarters in Central America: “The cedar waxwing is a regular winter visitant to Central America, fairly abundant in the Guatemalan highlands, increasingly rare far- ther southward and at lower elevations. It reaches its southernmost known limit in Costa Rica, where it is not often seen. One of the latest of the immigrants to arrive, it rarely appears before January. In my two years in the Guatemalan highlands, I failed to see a single bird during the closing months of the year, although during these months 1 was constantly afield, in 1933 on the Sierra de Tecpan (7,000-10,000 feet), in the Department of Chimaltenango; while during the follow- ing year I traveled widely, largely by horseback, over the western mountains. Yet in February 1933 the birds suddenly appeared in large flocks on the Sierra de Tecpan and were repeatedly seen until the fol- lowing May 12. They frequently linger well into May and even in Costa Rica have been recorded as late as May 7. “The sociable nature of the cedar waxwing is not altered by its so- journ between the Tropics. The birds are almost always found in flocks, containing from a dozen to perhaps 100 individuals, although groups of more than 50 are in my experience rare. Occasionally a lone bird is seen, or two or three together. As in the more northerly parts of their range, they perch close together in exposed positions well up in the trees, delivering their low, far-away, lisping notes, each so slight an utterance, yet so stirring in its multiplication by scores of voices. CEDAR WAXWING 99 If the flock be divided between neighboring trees, some of the birds will constantly be passing back and forth between them; and of a sudden, with a whir of wings, the entire company take the air, wheels about, and comes to rest again in some more distant tree. At higher elevations in Guatemala, the resting flocks of waxwings are often joined by a group of silky flycatchers (Ptilogonys cinereus), which usually choose the topmost twigs as their perches. Of all the resident birds of the country, these gray, slender, restless creatures are the waxwings’ near- est—although still distant—relations; and the birds themselves seem to recognize the fact! “While many migrants, once they have reached their winter range, appear to become as sedentary as the local birds, the cedar waxwing is inveterately a wanderer, rarely remaining long in one locality, but suddenly appearing, lingering a few days or a week or two, then roam- ing away again. These movements bring them into the most varied sorts of country : heavy forests of the upper levels of the Tropical Zone as well as the pine and oak woods of the highlands, arid as well as humid districts. They are as fond of berries in their winter as in their summer home. “Central American dates are: Guatemala—Sierra de Tecpan, 7,000- 10,000 feet, February 5 to May 12, 1933; Finca Moca, 3,000-4,000 feet, January 5, 1935; Antigua (Griscom), May 15. Costa Rica—Basin of El General, 3,000-4,000 feet, March 1 to May 7, 1936; Vara Blanca, 5,500 feet, April 16-24, 1938.” DISTRIBUTION Range.—F¥rom central Canada south to western Panama. Breeding range.—The cedar waxwing breeds north to southeastern Alaska (Ketchikan; has occurred north to Juneau) ; north-central British Columbia (Kispiox Valley, mouth of the Ingenika River, and McLeod Lake) ; northern Alberta (Peace River, Lesser Slave Lake, and McMurray) ; northern to central eastern Saskatchewan (Methye Portage, Island Lake, and Cumberland House); central Manitoba (Chemawawin, Grand Rapids, and Berens Island) ; central Ontario (Kenora, Lac Seul, Kapuskasing, and Moose Factory); southern Quebec (Lake Mistassini, Godbout, Seven Islands, and Natashquan) ; and central eastern Newfoundland (Glenwood). East to Newfound- land (Glenwood and Searton) ; Nova Scotia (Cape Breton Island, Halifax, and Yarmouth) ; the Atlantic Coast States south to Maryland (Easton) ; Virginia (Lynchburg and Roanoke) and in the mountains to extreme northern Georgia (Cornelia). South to northern Georgia (Cornelia and Tate) ; western Tennessee (Athens) ; central Kentucky (Eubank and Bardstown) ; southern Indiana (Wheatland and New Harmony) ; southern Ilinois (Mount Carmel, Olney, and Odin) ; cen- tral Missouri (St. Louis, St. Charles, and Warrensburg) ; eastern 100 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Nebraska (Falls City, London, and Fort Calhoun) ; eastern and north- ern South Dakota (Yankton, Sioux Falls, Aberdeen, and Harding County) ; Montana (Terry and Billings) ; northern Utah (Ogden and Lehi) ; and northern California (Eureka). It has bred occasionally in Colorado (nest found near Fairplay and spotted young found in the Denver region). West to northwestern California (Eureka) ; western Oregon (Fort Klamath, Corvallis, and Portland) ; western Washing- ton (Cape Disappointment, Shelton, Seattle, and Bellingham) ; west- ern British Columbia (Vancouver Island, Francois Lake, and Hazel- ton); and southeastern Alaska (Ketchikan). Within this area the cedar waxwing is irregular in occurrence, sometimes present one year and absent in other years. Because of its late time of breeding, the species sometimes migrates so late that it is reported to breed farther south than it does. Winter range.—Roving flocks of cedar waxwings have been found in winter to southern Canada (Toronto and Ottawa) and well toward the northern boundary of the United States. The area in which they are found in winter with some regularity is north to northwestern Washington (Lake Ozette and Seattle); northeastern Oregon (Weston); central California (Grass Valley, Fresno, and Death Valley) ; southern Arizona casually (Phoenix and Tucson) ; central northern New Mexico (Arroyo Seco) ; northeastern Colorado (Denver and Fort Morgan) ; southern Nebraska (Red Cloud) ; central Missouri (Warrensburg) ; southern Illinois (Odin and Mount Carmel) ; south- ern Michigan (Grand Rapids, casually, and Ann Arbor) ; northern Ohio (Toledo, Cleveland, and Youngstown); and through central] Maryland to Delaware (Smyrna). East to Delaware (Smyrna) ; Maryland (Cambridge and Crisfield) ; and the Atlantic coast south to central Florida (Titusville) ; rarely southern Florida (Royal Palm Hammock and Upper Matecumbe Key) ; western Cuba, occasional in winter or migration (Matanzas and Habana); Quintana Roo (Cozumel Island) ; central Honduras (La Ceiba and Siquatepeque) ; Costa Rica (Volcan de Irazu and Guayabo) ; and western Panama (“Chiriqui”), the southernmost record. West to Costa Rica (valley of the Rio General); western Nicaragua (San Rafael del Norte) ; El Salvador (Volcan de Conchaqua) ; western Guatemala (Duenas, Tecpam, and Finca Moca on the Pacific slope); Oaxaca (Puerto Angel) ; Guerrero (Acapulco) ; Jalisco (Ameca) ; Nayarit (Tepic) ; Lower California (Cape San Lucas, Comondu, and La Grulla) ; west- ern California (San Diego, Buena Park, Catalina Island, San Fran- cisco, and Eureka) ; western Oregon (Medford and Portland) ; and northwestern Washington (Lake Ozette). The cedar waxwing occasionally visits the West Indies, where it has been reported from Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, and the Domini- can Republic; also in the Bahamas and Bermuda. CEDAR WAXWING 101 Spring migration—Late dates of spring departure area: Costa Rica—basin of Rio General, May 7. Guatemala—Antigua, May 15. Puebla—Tehuacan, May 7. Lower California—San Telmo, June 4. Florida—Pensacola, May 30. Alabama—Autaugaville, May 25. Georgia—Athens, May 27. South Carolina—Charleston, June 3. Mississippi—Pass Christian, June 2. Louisiana—Shreveport, May 26. Arkansas—Rogers, May 31. Texas—Kerrville, May 23. Okla- homa—Tulsa, May 24. Kansas—Harper, May 21. Arizona— Phoenix, May 25. Early dates of spring arrival are: Massachusetts—Essex, March 8. Vermont—Wells River, March 25. Maine—Presque Isle, April 20. New Brunswick—Fredericton, April 18. Quebec—Quebec, March 29. Ontario—Ottawa, February 22. Indiana—La Fayette, March 11. Michigan—Houghton, March 138. Jlowa—Iowa City, February 21. Wisconsin—Milwaukee, February 17. Minnesota—Red Wing, Feb- ruary 28. Manitoba—Brandon, April 3. Saskatchewan—KEKastend, May 9. Wyoming—Guernsey, May 6. Montana—Billings, May 17. Alberta—Carvel, May 17. British Columbia—Courtney, May 15. Fall migration.—Late dates of fall departure are: British Colum- bia—Chilliwack, October 20. Alberta—Camrose, October 3. Mon- tana—Fortine, October 22. Wyoming—Laramie, November 22. Saskatchewan—Y orkton, October 27. Manitoba—Aweme, October 8. North Dakota—Fargo, October 20. South Dakota—Faulkton, No- vember 15. Muinnesota—Minneapolis, November 6. Wisconsin— Superior, November 5. Michigan—Jackson, November 19. Illi- nois—Rantoul, November 9. Ontario—Toronto, October 11. Que- bec—Quebec, October 31. Prince Edward Island—Charlottetown, October 21. New Brunswick—Scotch Lake, October 10. Maine— Portland, October 21. Massachusetts—Boston, November 15. Early dates of fall arrival are: Texas—Corpus Christi, October 20. Louisiana—New Orleans, October 10. Mississippi—Edwards, Octo- ber 20. Georgia—Round Oak, September 25. Alabama—Montgom- ery, October 20. Florida—Daytona Beach, October 22. Guatemala— San Lucas, October 26. Banding records.—Since 1934 several thousand cedar waxwings have been banded at Modesto, Stanislaus County, Calif. Recoveries of these birds have shown migration northward through California to Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and also some very erratic move- ments. One bird banded in February was captured the following winter near Redlands, Calif. Many birds banded in the Prairie Provinces of Canada and the Upper Mississippi Valley have been found the following winter in the Gulf States from Texas to Alabama. The recoveries of seven birds banded in eastern Massachusetts show a wide winter distribution: one was found in Texas; three in Louisiana; and one each in North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. 102 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM A bird banded at Modesto, Calif., on February 17, 1935, was killed on January 8, 1938, at Phoenix City, Ala., and another banded at the same place on April 14, 1935, was killed at Meridianville, Ala., on March 29, 1937. Both of these records were carefully verified. An- other Modesto bird banded on April 23, 1939, was killed the following fall at Holden, Utah. One banded at McMillan, Mich., on the Upper Peninsula, on July 2, 1986, was found dead on March 19, 1937, at Muscogee, Fla. Casual records.—Early in 1850 two specimens were collected at Stockton-on-Ties, England. On September 19, 1925, a young cedar waxwing came on board a ship at latitude 41°58’ N., longitude 59°34’ W.; this was more than 300 miles from the nearest land. Egg dates—New York: 65 records, June 2 to September 27; 36 records, June 15 to 24, indicating the height of the season; 14 records, July 2 to 30. Illinois: 11 records, June 7 to August 19. Maine: 14 records, June 11 to August 7; 9 records June 19 to 28. Oregon: 12 records, June 6 to July 28; 7 records, June 20 to 28. Family PTILOGONATIDAE: Silky Flycatchers PHAINOPEPLA NITENS LEPIDA Van Tyne PHAINOPEPLA HABITS CONTRIBUTED BY ROBERT S. Woops On the deserts of the Southwestern United States, the glossy black phainopepla, with its arboreal and aerial habits, contrasts strikingly with its prevailingly tawny or grayish neighbors, which scurry over the sun-baked soil or seek the shelter of the sparse shrubbery. The phainopepla, however, also finds congenial surroundings in parks and estates whose semitropic verdure somehow seems a more appropriate setting for the bird’s graceful, refined beauty and gentle manner. The range of this subspecies extends from central California, southern Utah, and central western Texas southward through Lower California and northwestern Mexico, the typical form occurring far- ther south in Mexico. Some of the birds winter locally within the United States, principally in the southern deserts of California and Arizona. On the coastal slope of southern California the phainopepla is ordinarily found neither in the mountains nor in the lower valleys, but rather on the oak-covered mesas near the foothills and long water- courses where arborescent shrubs are common. It has, however, been reported by James Stevenson (1933) from an altitude of 6,200 feet near Mount Pinos, on June 12, 1982, and, more surprisingly, a female PHAINOPEPLA 103 was seen by L. E. Hoffman (1933) at an altitude of 5,500 feet in the San Gabriel Mountains on December 80, 1932, with a foot of snow on the ground. East of the principal mountain ranges of southern California the phainopepla occurs mainly in the mesquite associa- tion, though W. E. D. Scott (1888) reported meeting with it at every point in south-central Arizona visited by him up to an altitude of about 5,000 feet. In connection with his studies of the Lower Colo- rado Valley, Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1914) wrote: “Everything indi- cated that this bird was common as a permanent resident of the region. It was, however, closely restricted to two narrow belts paralleling the river, one on each side; namely, as constituting the mesquite asso- ciation. The close coincidence of the range of the bird with the plant association in question was here clearly due solely to the preferred food afforded in constant and abundant quantity by the berries of the mistletoe parasitic upon the mesquite. * * * Incertain places, as on the Arizona side above Mellen, and on the California side op- posite Cibola, this bird was, within the riparian strip, the most abun- dant single species.” The outstanding attributes of this bird, in the eyes of those who named it, are revealed by a translation of its scientific name: Phaino- pepla (fa-i’ no-pép’la), from two Greek words meaning “shining robe”; nitens, a Latin word also meaning “shining”; depida, from the Latin and meaning “charming.” Probably no one has more vividly expressed the general impression produced by the phainopepla than did Bradford Torrey (1904), after making its acquaintance in south- ern Arizona: What I call the Phainopepla’s elegance comes partly from its form, which is the very perfection of shapeliness, having in the highest degree that elusive quality which in semi-slang phrase is designated as “style; partly from its motions, all prettily conscious and in a pleasing sense affected, like the move- ments of a dancing-master; and partly from its color, which is black with the most exquisite bluish sheen, set off in the finest manner by broad wing-patches of white. These wing-patches are noticeable, furthermore, for being divided into a kind of network by black lines. It is for this reason, I suppose, that they have a peculiar gauzy look (1 speak of their appearance while in action) such as I have never seen in the case of any other bird, and which often made me think of the ribbed, translucent wings of certain dragon flies. Doubtless this peculiar appearance was heightened to my eyes, because of the mincing, wavering, over-buoyant method of flight (the wings being carried unusually high) to which I have alluded, and which always suggested to me the studied movements of the dance. I think I never saw one of the birds so far forget itself as to take a direct, straightforward course from one point to another. No matter where they might be going, though the flight were only a matter of a hundred yards, they progressed always in pretty zigzags, making so many little, unexpected, indecisive tacks and turns by the way, butterfly fashion, that you began to wonder where they would finally come to rest. Spring.—On the Pacific slope of California, where few of the phainopeplas winter, they make their appearance in numbers during 104 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM the latter half of April, as a rule. They are usually first noticed as small companies of males, which perch on the tops of trees and make frequent, seemingly aimless flights. This would suggest some type of courtship activity, except that few females are seen at that time. At no time during the season, in fact, are the females nearly as much in evidence as the males; unless the former are actually much fewer in numbers, they are comparatively quiet and inconspicuous in their habits. Nesting.—On the deserts nesting begins 2 to 3 months earlier than on the coastal slope. At Palm Springs, according to M. French Gil- man (1903), “it would seem that most of the young are hatched in March and April and that in some instances nest building must begin in the latter part of February.” Dr. Grinnell (1914) found both eggs and young in April in the Lower Colorado Valley. West of the moun- tains, on the other hand, nesting begins during the latter part of May, while June witnesses by far the greatest portion of this activity, which seems to end in July, with but one brood raised. It has been surmised that a first nesting might take place on the desert and a second in the coastal region, but Mr. Gilman continues: “Possibly some of the birds rear two broods a year, but from the fact that some adult birds fail to pair and nest in this vicinity [Banning], I am inclined to think that but one brood is raised. Probably those hatched in March on the desert return there to nest the following March; while those hatched in the San Gorgonio pass, in June and July, nest there the following summer.” Dr. Alden H. Miller (1933) doubts that any coastward migration occurs after the early desert nesting period, re- marking: “In my experience I have been unable to detect any general exodus of breeding Phainopeplas from the deserts even in May when adults and young are common in these regions.” In the desert portion of the phainopepla’s breeding range, nests have been reported in mesquites, cottonwoods, hackberries, and wil- lows, for the most part. In coastal California, sycamores, oaks, and orange trees are frequently used, together with many other trees and tall shrubs. Near the Papago Indian Reservation in southern Ari- zona, Herbert W. Brandt (MS.) says “it preferred for its nesting tree the densely foliaged hackberry, where an abundance of concealment is offered for its comparatively small, well camouflaged nest. The latter is saddled on a small fork near the outer margin of the foliage, usually in the middle third of the tree. In the drier areas small mesquites may be occupied, especially if the tree contains a dense clump of mistletoe. Then the bird builds down in the center of this common parasite, mounting its home astraddle of the supporting limb.” In orange trees about 10 to 15 feet high the nests are placed in the upper third of the tree, in the outer foliage but usually well concealed from an observer on the ground. Twenty-one nests at PHAINOPEPLA 105 Azusa, Calif., most of them in orange trees, were situated at heights of 6 to 11 feet, averaging 814 feet. Mrs. Harriet Williams Myers (1908), who watched the building of many nests in sycamore trees, observed that nearly all of them were in upright crotches. A large proportion of the nests mentioned by others are described as placed in forks, either vertical or horizontal. Reporting on San Diego County observations, F’. E. Blaisdell (1893) says: “The nests are placed at varying distances from the ground, from four to even fifty feet. The materials used are prickly or viscid. The fruit and leaves of some of the members of the Borage family have the preference, together with the leaves and down of species of G'na- phalium, all being bound together by spiders’ web; the interior of the nest is thinly lined with bits of wool, hair and down.” Also in San Diego County were the nests described by Florence Merriam Bailey (1896) : By following the birds as they flew from the pepper trees, I found four nests. They were all on the border or in the midst of dense chaparral. * * * all were built in low oaks, two not eight feet above the ground, and two under five. One was in a narrow socket between two small branches, and another was placed on a horizontal limb. All the nests were broken up, and the three that I took after they were deserted were made of about the same materials: small bits of plant stems, oak blossoms and other small flowers. The materials were so fine that, although I sat within a few yards of the nests when the birds were at work, I rarely saw them bring anything, except in the few instances when they came with grass dangling from their bills. As soon as I began to watch the Phainopepla’s nests, I discovered that the males did almost all the building. This was especially surprising because in direct opposition to the laws of protective coloration, for their black plumage and white wing markings made them striking figures as they went about their work. As Mrs. Bailey states, nest-building seems to be almost exclusively the duty of the male. The female may occasionally visit and care- fully inspect the unfinished nest, but according to most observers she seldom offers any active assistance, and may actually be driven away by her mate. That there are individual variations in this regard, however, is indicated by observations of Dr. Barton W. Evermann (1882) in Ventura County, Calif. He says: “Two or three pairs of these Flycatchers were soon detected in their nest-building, and I watched them for several evenings with much interest. Both male and female worked at the nest, each bringing and placing its own mate- rial.” In the light of present knowledge, it seems likely that he may have concentrated his attention on one pair and assumed their co- operation to be typical of all. The nest is notably shallow and appears small for the size of the bird, though neat and compactly constructed. Mr. Brandt (MS.) writes: “The five nests measured by us varied but little in size and measured about 21% inches in total height, 414 inches in outside diameter, and 21, inches in inside diameter, while the U-shaped bowl was 114 inches 843290—50-—_8 106 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM deep.” Measurements of a nest at Tombstone, Ariz., as given in F. C. Willard’s notes, are somewhat smaller: Diameter outside 334 inches, inside 214 inches; depth outside 114 inches, inside 1 inch. Dr. Ever- mann (1882) remarked that “the cavity in most of them is more nearly the form of an ellipse than a circle. The wall of the nest is generally thicker at one end of the ellipse than elsewhere.” In parts of central Lower California the breeding season seems to be intermediate between those of the two distinct regions in the United States, as indicated in a report by Griffing Bancroft (1930) : These birds are plentiful in José Maria Cafion, but they become progressively less so as one travels eastward. They are gregarious to the extent of perhaps a dozen pairs in especially favored spots where the mesquite is at its best and food supply is exceptional. They are absent, locally, from altitudes of over a thousand feet. The breeding season opens the middle of April but does not reach its height for another month. The season is 6 weeks later than is that of the phainopepla of the Colorado Desert, but it is slightly in advance of that of the birds of the San Diegan District. In California we expect to find the nests resting against the larger limbs of trees. In the San Ignacio region nearly all were placed in mistletoe or suspended beneath it. That condition, however, is not peculiar to this region, for I have observed the same thing near Ensenada. The nests were typical, small and built of fine gray plant down reinforced with tiny twigs and leaves. They were ordinarily placed 8 to 12 feet above the ground, though some were much higher. The number of eggs in a set is either two or three, the latter being more com- mon and an exception to the very general rule that the San Ignacio birds lay more sparingly than do their northern counterparts. The variations in the individual eggs, in shape, size, and markings, were pronounced. Some were practically spherical and others extremes of elongation. With the laying of the eggs the female begins to assume a more direct responsibility in the nesting operations, though the duty of incubation seems to fall principally to the male, at least during the daylight hours. The birds are rather easily disturbed while on the nest, and they fly about with anxious cries as long as the intruder remains near. Eggs.—Mr. Blaisdell (1893) says: “The eggs are two (frequently), three (usually), or four (rarely), in number.” While sets of four seem to be exceedingly unusual, the relative frequency of two and three egg sets may be in part a matter of locality. In relating his early ex- periences in Ventura County, Calif., Dr. Evermann (1822) wrote: Six of the seven nests contained three eggs each, the other but two. Dr. Cooper and Capt. Bendire, the only naturalists who appear to have found the nest of this species before me, never found more than two eggs in a set. Dr. Cooper found a single nest near Fort Mojave, on April 27. Capt. Bendire, in the season of 1872, found fourteen nests in the vicinity of Tucson, Arizona, and not one contained more than two eggs, “and in three instances the nest contained but a single egg and the bird hard setting upon that.” * * * He says: “The small number found by me is unquestionably due to the fact that in southern Arizona they raise PHAINOPEPLA 107 two and perhaps three broods, while in California, where we found them, they raise but one.” With respect to the last statement, the evidence as to the num- ber of broods raised in southern Arizona is not entirely clear. Refer- ring to the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Mr. Scott (1885) says: “That there is a wide difference in the time of the breeding of different pairs in the same locality cannot be doubted, but my experi- ence leads me to believe that here, at least, only one brood is raised during the season.” Later, however, he writes (1888) : “It apparently breeds throughout its range, raising at least two broods and probably three.” In the earlier paper, Mr. Scott also states that “the number of eggs would seem to be quite as frequently three as two.” More recent writings on the habits of the species in Arizona cast no further light on the subject. The measurements of 50 eggs average 22.1 by 16.0 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 25.7 by 16.7, 24.1 by 18.0, 19.5 by 15.2, and 20.4 by 14.7 millimeters. Young.—The incubation period is given by Frank L. Burns (1915) as 16 days and by Frank IF’. Gander (1927) as 15 days; but two sets timed by the writer hatched in 14 days. W. L. Dawson (1928) says: “The young are hatched upon the fourteenth day after the deposition of the last egg; and they would look much like blackberries a little under-ripe, if their appearance were not relieved by generous tufts of long white down. The edges of the mouth are bright yellow, but the lining proper is flesh-colored. The parents do not feed by regurgitation; but berries are carefully crushed and perhaps invested with parental mucus before being fed.” Mrs. Myers (1908) describes the feeding of the young as follows: “As near as I could tell, berries and tiny insects formed the chief part of the diet. When the birds fed pepper berries, or nightshade, the berries were taken from the mouth down into the neck, and back several times before feeding. In the case of the insects they seemed to be carried in the throat, extending down into the neck, from which they were brought up by a sort of pumping motion, not violent, however, like the finches.” In the care of the young the female does at least her full share of the work. In one nest so situated that it could be conveniently watched without alarming the birds, the young were fed by the female only, at intervals of 3 to 6 minutes except during the middle of the day, when longer rest periods were taken. The aspect of the nestlings is made distinctive by the erect, pointed crest, which begins to develop on the crown with the appearance of the first pinfeathers. They differ from the young of most birds in their willingness to leave the nest and return voluntarily before they are ready to abandon it permanently. Two nestlings frightened from 108 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM the nest about two days prematurely, returned as soon as they had recovered from their alarm; and Mrs. Myers (1909) tells of one young bird flying and hopping about in the tree for 12 minutes, then flying back to the nest. The young remain in the nest for about 19 days, a period not only longer than that of the majority of the smaller passerine birds, but apparently much more constant, the shortest time reported being 18 days. Plumages.—On the bodies of the newly hatched young, long white down covers the lower back, fringes, and wings and forms a circlet or halo around the bare crown of the head. Some of the filaments on the wings approximate 1 centimeter in length. The exposed upper surfaces of the body are slaty black, the skin gradually becoming more transparent toward the median lower parts. Pinfeathers begin to appear about one week after hatching, and by the tenth or eleventh day the beginnings of the crest are quite apparent on the forehead. Vestiges of down still cling to the feathers of the head when the young are nearly ready to leave the nest. The following data have been abstracted from a treatise on the postjuvenal molt, by Dr. Alden H. Miller (1983) : The sexes are identical in the juvenal plumage and are extremely similar to the adult female. The body plumage is slightly browner throughout than is that of the adult female, but this appears to be due in part to the looser structure of the vanes of the feathers of the juvenile, which permits exposure of some of the basal parts of the feathers * * *, Contrasted with the adult female, the light-colored edgings on rectrices, on middle, greater, and marginal coverts of the forearm, and on the inner second- aries of juveniles are less definitely set off from the gray parts of these same feathers and are duskier or buffier. The major feathers of the wing and tail are often a lighter shade of dark brown than in adult females. Dr. Miller shows that there are pronounced individual and geo- graphic variations in the completeness of the postjuvenal or first fall molt. “The admixture of plumage can be adequately studied only in the male Phainopepla. In this sex brown juvenal rectrices, rem- iges, and coverts stand in sharp contrast with corresponding glossy black feathers gained in the postjuvenal molt. * * * Not infre- quently the mixture of plumages and feather types produce gro- tesquely pied male individuals. * * * It would appear that the immature male Phainopepla has differentiated sexually at the time of the first fall molt sufficiently to stimulate deposition of black pig- ment in rectrices, remiges, and coverts. If any of these are not molted, there is, of course, no chance for this differentiation to find expression.” The group from coastal and central California aver- ages higher in juvenal feathers than the birds from the desert regions, perhaps because of the earlier breeding of the latter. Of the post- PHAINOPEPLA 109 juvenal body plumage he says: “The body plumage of females is a nearly uniform olivaceous mouse gray and is not distinguishable from that of adult females. In the first-year male the body plumage is highly variable. * * * The replacement of body feathers proper, in the postjuvenal molt, is as far as known always complete, and the apparent admixture of body plumage is the result entirely of the variety of feather types that may be produced during the course of this molt, not a mixture of feathers of various ages as in the wing and tail.” Food.—The food of the phainopepla consists mainly of various kinds of berries and winged insects, the former undoubtedly predominating. On the deserts the principal portion of its diet, according to many observers, is made up of the berries of mistletoe parasitic upon the mesquite. In the desertlike washes along some of the watercourses of southwestern California is found a buckthorn, Rhamnus crocea, whose small scarlet berries are a favorite food; berries of juniper, elder, and various species of RAus are also said to be eaten. In settled districts the birds are often seen eating the red berries of the peppertree, Schinus molle, which is abundantly planted as an ornamental. An- other exotic item of diet highly appreciated by the phainopepla is the rather succulent, sweetish petals of the Paraguay guava, Fezjoa sel- lowiana. When one of these large shrubs is in bloom late in spring, several of the birds will often congregate in it, busily picking off the petals. I have never seen them show interest in any fruit larger than a small variety of mulberry. Of its food habits in the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains north of Tucson, Ariz., Mr. Scott (1885) says: “All through July and August, and for the greater part of September, the birds remained abundant, feeding on the various berries and small fruits which be- came ripe as the season progressed, and wherever such fruit as they liked was at all abundant they paid little attention to any other kind of food, though insect life fairly teemed in and about the berries that attracted the birds. They showed a particular fondness for a kind of wild grape, and hunted the country through for such fruit, in parties of from ten to forty.” Behavior—One may well doubt whether most phainopeplas ever have any contact with the ground during their lives, except perhaps for the purpose of drinking. All their actions plainly express their preference for the air rather than the earth: they perch on the topmost twigs of trees and shrubs, and when going from place to place, their flight is likely to follow a course far above the straight line that is the shortest distance between the two points. The flight, though not rapid, appears leisurely rather than labored, and, as pointed out by Bradford Torrey, previously quoted, it has a peculiarly buoyant 110 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM quality. When a company of the birds is seen flitting idly about, they strongly suggest a flock of giant butterflies. The males, particularly, often carry on flycatching activities from elevated perches, sometimes by sallies in regular flycatcher fashion, but frequently by hovering and fluttering about in the air in a seem- ingly aimless and befuddled manner. It is often difficult to determine whether these peculiar maneuvers represent the prosaic pursuit of food or some odd form of play. It is noticeable that the hunting of winged insects always is conducted at a considerable height and never by low swoops over the ground as is often the case with flycatchers. Mrs. Bailey (1896) further describes some of the habits and manner- isms of the phainopepla: In feeding, the birds oceasionally flew against a bunch of berries, as Chicadees do, clinging while they ate; and I once saw one hover before a bunch while eating, as a Hummingbird whirrs under a flower. More frequently they lit on a branch from which they could lean over and pick off the fruit at leisure. I never actually saw them eat anything but peppers, but at one time when the brush was full of millers, the birds seemed to be catching them; and they some- times made short sallies into the air as if for insects. They did this much as a Kingbird does, flying up obliquely and going down the opposite side of the angle. Their flight was interesting. In leaving the pepper trees to go back to their nesting ground, they uniformly rose obliquely high into the air—sometimes, I should judge, as high as one hundred feet—and then flew on evenly, straight to their destination, several pairs going so far that they would disappear up a side cafion, or, aS black specks, would be lost in the fog down the valley. When watching the flight of Phainopeplas, Mourning Doves often passed close beside me, and I was struck by the contrast in motion. The Dove cut the air, swerving to one side as it flashed by, and its free whirling flight served to emphasize the calm, even rowing of the Phainopepla. Occasionally the birds flew in an unde- cided way, still high and even, but changing their direction by sudden jerks. Frequently, when nearing the nest tree, a male would close his wings and shoot obliquely down, tilting his tail for a brake. One of them used to fly in at a height of about ten feet, waver as he came near, as if slowing up, and then after turning his head to look down and place the nest, tilt down in the usual labored way, his tail pressing the air. Not until he was nearly through build- ing did he discover that it was easier to slow up in time to fly down to the nest. According to John Cassin (1854), this species, described from Mexico by Swainson in 1838, was first added to the known fauna of the United States by Col. George A. McCall, inspector general in the United States Army, while on a tour of duty in California in 1852. It is, therefore, interesting to read Colonel McCall’s own impressions of the “black flycatcher,” as given by Cassin: The first opportunity that I had for observing the manners of this bird, was afforded me in 1852, while travelling from Valle-cita to El Chino, in California. On that occasion, as I left the country bordering the desert, and began to ascend the hills, my route followed the course of a mountain brook, whose clear waters were at intervals shaded with gnarled and scrubby oaks. In approaching one of these clumps of trees, I remarked a number of dark-colored birds, which PHAINOPEPLA 111 afterwards were found to belong to this species, darting upwards from the top- most branches, and after diving and pitching about in the air for a moment, returning again to the dead branches with the lively port that proved them to be engaged in the agreeable pastime of taking their insect prey. A nearer ap- proach showed them to be light and graceful on the wing; but less swift and decided in their motions than most of the true Fly-catchers. There were about a dozen in company, and they presented a pleasing sight, as three or four together were constantly either pitching upwards to a considerable height in the air, or gliding silently back to their perches. In these aerial evolutions, the bright spot on the wing which is formed by broad patches of white on the inner webs of six or seven of the quill feathers, and is visible only when the wing is spread, gleamed conspicuously in the Sunshine, and formed a fine contrast with the glossy black of the general plumage. Isat upon my horse, watching their movements for some time, and I now perceived that two of their numbers were of a dusky hue, and without the wing spot to which I have referred; but I could discover no difference in their manners or their style of flight. I, therefore, had little doubt of their being adult females; for although at that period of the year (June 20) the young birds might have been well grown, yet there is generally a want of decided char- acter in the unpractised flight of young birds, which betrays them to the sports- Iman’s eye. * * * However, on my attempting to approach still nearer, these birds became alarmed, and winging their way to the hill-side, alighted on the scraggy bushes scattered among large projecting rocks, where they resumed their sport, rising lightly into the air and darting about after insects, which seemed to be abundant. I followed—but they were now on the qui vive, and, without permitting me to get within gun-shot, flew from bush to bush, as I advanced, keeping all the while in a loose irregular flock, and still pursuing their sport of fly-catehing. In this way they continued to ascend the hills, until the broken character of the ground abruptly stopped my horse. Having, however, dismounted, I clambered over the rocks, and at last succeeded in killing two of them. These were alike in plumage—black, with the wing spot; and one of them, which I dissected, proved to be a male. As I journeyed on towards the Sierra Nevada, I met, during several days suc- ceeding, these birds, either in small companies, or singly; and subsequently I found a few individuals between Hl Chino and Los Angeles; but they were in- variably black, with the white wing spot. And I never on any occasion, except the one I have referred to, saw one of those clad in dusky garments, which I had supposed were females. The accuracy of this account of approximately a century ago is attested by its close agreement in practically every particular with the writings of more modern ornithologists, including the comments on the apparent scarcity of females. Incidentally, there seems to be no reason to suppose that the phainopepla’s living conditions have changed greatly since that date, except on the sites of cities and towns; food supplies may even have been increased in some places. Voice-—The most frequent utterance is a liquid guirt or perp, re- peated at intervals of one or two seconds. This call has rather a wor- ried sound and does, in fact, often indicate anxiety; at times, however, it is kept up almost interminably without ascertainable reason. Other notes of the phainopepla have been well described by Mrs. Bailey (1896) : 112 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM In watebing the birds at their nests, I found that they had a number of calls. The commonest was uttered in the same tone by both male and female, and was like the call of a young Robin. In giving it, they flashed their tails, showing the square corners conspicuously. The male also had a harsh cry of warning, drawn out like ca-rack or ca-ra-ack. In addition, he had a scold and a note suggesting the Meadowlark. The Phainopepla’s ordinary song had some weak squeaking notes, but it also had phrases of rich blackbird quality, recalling the o-ka-lee of the marshes. One of these was a high keyed whee’-dle-ah. Other parts could be - roughly syllabified as kit-er-ah-at and cher-nack’-ec. The song in flight was bright and animated. I once heard a bird break out as he came down from a sally into the air, and he often flew away from the nest singing. Sometimes I thought he even sang in the nest. * * * Indeed, to me the Phainopepla’s song was pleasing in spite of its jumbled notes, not merely because of the flute- like quality of some of its tones, but pre-eminently because of the bright, viva- cious way in which it was uttered. Field marks.—Both sexes may be recognized by the high crest, slender form, the flaring end of the tail, and by their characteristic manner of flight. When the male is in flight, the disklke white wing patches contrasting with the otherwise black plumage are unmistak- able. Even the nestlings may be rather easily identified by their erect crests. The adults seldom lower their crests—perhaps only when angry or when facing a stiff wind. E'nemies.—Obviously, few if any of the phainopepla’s enemies are terrestrial. Although the birds express marked disapproval of cats, it is hard to see how the latter would be able to harm them, except in cases of disabled adults or young birds fallen from the nest. While no reports are at hand, their nests undoubtedly suffer to some extent from the smaller climbing and flying predators. Dr. Herbert Fried- mann (1929) lists this species as “apparently a rare victim of the * * * Cowbirds,” with but one record known. Concerning any possible enemies which might attack the adults, there is little information. To be classed as a persecutor rather than a dangerous enemy, the mockingbird displays an unreasonable spite against the phainopepla, pursuing this inoffensive bird upon every opportunity. Mrs. Myers (1909), telling of the successive nesting failures of a pair of phaino- peplas, surmised that abandonment of their nesting sites might well have been the result of persistent persecution by mockingbirds, With only two or three eggs to the set, and with but one rather slow- growing brood yearly in some localities, at least, the phainopepla’s mortality rate must be unusually low as compared with that of other passerine birds. The impression received in field observation of the species is definitely that of a shy, timid bird, perhaps even more by reason of its manner than its actions. Possibly this constant attitude of wariness and suspicion is of substantial benefit in prolonging its life span and making unnecessary a high rate of increase. PHAINOPEPLA 113 Fall.—Regarding the postbreeding dispersal, Harry S. Swarth (1904), in writing of the Huachuca Mountains in Arizona, says: “A bout the end of July, 1902, a movement began from the lower valleys up into the mountains, and during August the Phainopeplas were most numerous throughout the oak region, up to about 5000 feet. At this time they were in loose straggling flocks of from six to a dozen birds, young and old together, and were generally seen sitting in the tree tops and feeding for the most part, as flycatchers.” Most of the phainopeplas leave the Pacific slope of California dur- ing the month of August, though stragglers are often seen in Septem- ber or October, or occasionally in midwinter. Whether some of these individuals winter in the deserts of southeastern California and south- ern Arizona, or whether they all pass over the desert regions to winter farther south, seems not yet to have been determined. DISTRIBUTION Range.—Southwestern United States and Mexico. Breeding range.—The phainopepla breeds north to central Cali- fornia (Marysville, perhaps the Lassen Peak region, and Murphys) ; probably southern Nevada (Tempahute Range) ; southwestern Utah (St. George and Zion National Park) ; central Arizona (Campe Verde and the Salt River Wildlife Refuge; wandering north to Keams Canyon) ; southwestern New Mexico (Silver City, Fort Webster, and Elephant Butte) ; and southwestern Texas (Pine Springs, probably). East to southwestern Texas (Pine Springs, Cathedral Mountain, and Boquillas; and has occurred, apparently as a wanderer, as far east as San Antonio) ; Nuevo Leén (Galeana) ; Hidalgo (Cuesta Tesqueda) ; Puebla (Tehuacdn) ; and south to Oaxaca (Tehuantepec). West to Oaxaca (Tehuantepec); Puebla (Huehuetlin) ; northwestern Du- rango (Rosario) ; Lower California (Cape San Lucas, La Paz, San Fernando, and Ensenada) ; and western California (San Diego, Santa Catalina Island, Santa Barbara, San Antonio Valley, Stockton, and Marysville). Winter range.—While the phainopepla is migratory to some extent, it has been found almost as far north in winter as in summer, and it does not seem possible from present information to outline a definite winter range as distinct from the breeding range. The range as outlined for the entire species includes two subspecies. The eastern phainopepla (P. n. nitens) occurs from southwestern Texas through eastern Mexico to Oaxaca; the western phainopepla (P. n. lepida) occurs from central California and southwestern New Mexico, south through western Mexico to Durango and southern Lower California. Eggs dates—Arizona: 34 records, April 4 to June 19; 18 records, May 13 to 80, indicating the height of the season. 114. BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM California: 150 records, February 23 to July 15; 20 records, March 8 to 29; 84 records, June 1 to 30. Mexico: 24 records, April 10 to June 3; 15 records, May 11 to 28. Family LANIIDAE: Shrikes LANIUS BOREALIS BOREALIS Vieillot NORTHERN SHRIKE HABITS The great northern shrike, or butcherbird, is known to most of us only as a rather uncommon winter visitor throughout the northern half of the United States, where we see it as a solitary sentine! perched on the top of a tree, looking for some luckless small bird, or hovering over an open field, ready to pounce on the timid little mouse as it threads his winter runway. Lither bird or mouse is to be added to his larder, impaled on a nearby thorn or crotch, as the butcher hangs his meat; hence the appropriate name of butcherbird (pl. 15). Few of us have been favored to see it in its summer home, for it breeds as far north as the spruce forests extend and comes south only when scarcity of food compels it todo so. We found it fairly common all along the coast of Labrador, from Hopedale to Nain and Okkak, wherever there was any considerable growth of fair-sized spruces. According to Lucien M. Turner (MS.), it was not very common at Fort Chimo, Ungava. Westward from Hudson Bay it begins to intergrade with the northwestern subspecies (¢nvictus). Nesting.—There are three sets of eggs of the northern shrike in my collection, all taken by the Rev. W. W. Perrett at Hopedale, Labrador. They were all placed in spruce trees, about 12 feet from the ground, nicely hidden by the branches, and all were very bulky affairs. The first nest was discovered by seeing the male bird carrying food to the female while she was sitting on the nest; the nest contained only two eggs, on June 7, 1915, but the data slip says “incubation just begun”; the nest was made mainly of twigs, grass, feathers, rags, and deer hair. This same pair of birds built another nest in the same patch of woods, about 150 yards from the first nest, from which he took a set of four fresh eggs on June 17, 1915; these birds had built their new nest in seven days; as there were no eggs in it on the 18th, the bird must have laid an egg each day. The third set of six fresh eggs was taken on June 38,1918. The three nests were all made of similar materials. There is another set of six eggs of this shrike in the Carnegie Museum, taken by Mr. Perrett in the same locality on June 17, 1918, for which W. E. Clyde Todd has sent me the data. The nest was con- structed of similar materials and was located 8 feet from the ground in a spruce tree. This was evidently the second set from the same pair NORTHERN SHRIKE PS of birds from which my set of six eggs was taken on June 38. This second nest was located about 400 yards from the first; it had been built and the six eggs laid in the short time that intervened. Eggs.—The usual set for the northern shrike may consist of two to nine eggs, though I believe that any sets of less than four are incom- plete and that the large number of nine is unusual; probably four to six are the usual numbers. What few eggs of this species I have seen are ovate or rounded-ovate and nearly lusterless. ‘The ground color is grayish white or greenish white, and they are usually heavily spotted or blotched over the entire surface, seldom having the spots concen- trated at one end, with olive-brown, dull olive, or pale dull brown, and with underlying spots and blotches of different pale shades of Quaker drab or lavender. The measurements of 31 eggs average 26.7 by 19.5 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 28.0 by 20.0, 27.0 by 20.5, and 25.9 by 18.5 millimeters. Plumages.—A very full account of all the plumages of all the North American shrikes has been published by Dr. Alden H. Miller (1931), to which the reader is referred; his descriptions are given in too much detail to be quoted here. Dr. Dwight (1900) describes the juvenal plumage of a specimen taken in Labrador, as follows: “Above, brown- ish mouse-gray with indistinct vermiculations, especially on the rump. Wings black, a white area at bases of primaries; the coverts, terti- aries and secondaries edged with wood-brown, or pale cinnamon mottled from irregular extension of the color, and similar tipping on the rectrices which are black, the lateral ones largely white. Below mouse-gray, nearly white on mid-abdomen, indistinctly vermiculated, more marked on sides and crissum. Bar through eye dull clove- brown; lores grayish.” A partial postjuvenal molt occurs, mainly in July and August, which involves the contour plumage and the wing coverts, but not the rest of the wings or the tail, producing a first winter plumage, which Dr. Dwight (1900) describes as follows: “Above, French gray washed with brownish gray, the rump grayish white. Lesser coverts ciner- eous gray, the median black, the retained greater coverts dull black buff tipped. Below grayish white with indistinct dusky vermicula- tions except on the chin, abdomen and crissum. Tail black, the three outer rectrices with much white. Lores grayish. Bar through eye dusky.” He says that the first nuptial plumage is “acquired by a partial prenuptial moult in March which involves the anterior part of the head, chin and throat. A whiter chin and black lores are acquired, young and old becoming practically indistinguishable. A good deal of the vermiculation is lost by wear of the feather edges.” Dr. Miller (1931) says that this molt, “as far as known, occurs in March and April and is associated with the change of the bill from brown to 116 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM black.” And he adds that the young bird frequently loses, at this molt, “large, but often irregular, areas of the brown first fall plum- age from the back, head, and shoulders.” Dr. Dwight (1900) says that the adult winter plumage is acquired by a complete postnuptial molt, which Dr. Miller (1931) says occurs in July and August, “perhaps also early September.” According to Dr. Dwight, this adult winter plumage differs from the first winter plumage “in having a white wing band on the greater coverts, the tertiaries and secondaries with white edgings, the wings and tail jet- black, including all the coverts. The back is grayer without the brownish tint of the young bird.” The above remarks apply to the male; in the female the sequence of molts and plumages is thesame. Ridgway (1904) says that the young female, in first winter plumage, is “similar to the young male of cor- responding season but browner, the color of upper parts approaching isabella color, the scapulars, lower rump, and upper tail-coverts washed with cinnamon-buff, under parts more or less washed with the same, especially on sides and flanks, greater wing-coverts edged with the same, and white at tips of secondaries and rectrices more or less buffy.” In the adult female, the gray of the upper parts is less pure than in the male, darker and more or less tinged with olive, the black of the wings and tail is duller, and the white markings are more re- stricted. Food.—Dr. Sylvester D. Judd (1898) writes of the food of the northern shrike: “During its winter sojourn it renders a threefold service by killing grasshoppers, English sparrows, and mice. The birds and mice together amount to 60 percent, and insects to 40 per- cent, of the food from October to April. Grasshoppers constitute one-fourth of the food, and are equal to twice the combined amounts of beetles and caterpillars. * * * In the stomachs of the 67 butcherbirds examined 28 species of seed-eating birds were found. Of these 3 were tree sparrows, 5 juncos, and 7 English sparrows; the others could not be determined with certainty.” In the early days of the English sparrow in this country, while they were being protected, northern shrikes became so abundant on Boston Common that men were employed to shoot them, lest they de- stroy the sparrows. In this connection, Dr. Judd remarks: “It is to be hoped that in other cities this enemy of the sparrow will be pro- tected instead of persecuted. If there were 6 butcherbirds in each of 20 New England cities, and each butcherbird killed 1 sparrow a day for the three winter months, the result would be a removal of 10,800 sparrows. Since two sparrows could raise under favorable conditions four broods of 5 each, the increase would be tenfold, so that those destroyed by the butcherbirds, if allowed to live, would NORTHERN SHRIKE 117 have amounted at the end of the first year to 118,800, and at the end of the second year to 1,306,800 individuals.” In addition to the three named above, he lists the following birds that this shrike has been known to kill: Chickadee, snow bunting, downy woodpecker, vireo, kinglet, field sparrow, goldfinch, siskin, myrtle warbler, mourning dove, cardinal, longspur, and horned lark. Among mammals, meadow mice (Aficrotus) seem to be the most frequent victims, but Judd also lists the white-footed mouse (Peromys- cus) and the harvest mouse (/eithrodontomys). He continues: Carrion is sometimes eaten. Prof. I’. E. L. Beal, while at Ames, Iowa, in January, 1880, saw a butcherbird fly over the brown frozen prairie to a carcass of a cow, where it lit on one of the ribs and greedily tore off shreds of the flesh. Active insects are much more liable than sluggish ones to fall victims to the butcherbird, because objects which at rest can not be discriminated are instantly seen when moving. Thus it happens that flying grasshoppers and running beetles form a large proportion of the food of this bird. Grasshoppers and crickets (Orthoptera), which are eaten during every month from October to April, form 24 percent of the total volume of food, and for October and November together these insect pests form more than half of the food. Compared with Orthoptera, the beetles (Coleoptera) eaten are of minor importance, amounting to only 6 percent of the food. More than half of these beetles belong to the family Carabidae, the members of which prey upon insect pests. Caterpillars were contained in one fifth of the stomachs examined, and during the months of January and February amount to 8 percent of the volume of the stomach con- tents. Dr. A. K. Fisher collected in March two stomachs that were full of eaterpillars. Even the bristly Isabella caterpillar is eaten, an object apparently as edible as a chestnut bur. Cutworms were found in several instances, but moths were seldom met with. Ants, wasps, flies, and thousand legs are some- times eaten, and spiders constitute 3 percent of the food; but bugs (Hemiptera) were not detected during our laboratory investigations, though a cicada sup- posed to have been impaled by a shrike was found by Mrs. Musick, at Mount Carmel; Mo. *; * * The present investigation shows that beneficial birds form less than one- fourth of the food of the butcherbird. It also shows that the butcherbird, in addition to being an enemy of mice, is a potent check on the English sparrow, and on several insect pests. One-fourth of its food is mice; another fourth grass- hoppers; a third fourth consists of native sparrows and predaceous beetles and spiders, while the remainder is made up of English sparrows and species of insects, most of which are noxious. The amount of insect food taken by the northern shrike, as stated above, seems surprising. The stomachs examined must have been taken largely in the southern extremes of its winter range, or in fall or spring, for the shrike would not be likely to find flying or crawl- ing insects in New England or in the Northern States in the dead of winter; but grasshoppers are often available in New England in October, and even in some Novembers, and other insects in March. Dr. Miller (1931) adds the following birds to the list mentioned above, as taken by the species, including both subspecies: Hairy woodpecker, phoebe, white-winged crossbill, redpoll, titmouse, bush- 118 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM tit, and robin. Charles B. Floyd (1928) adds song, white-throated, and fox sparrows and the starling to the list of victims and says: Several reports are at hand of unsuccessful attempts to capture White-breasted Nuthatches, English Sparrows, Downy Woodpeckers, etc. In several cases where a Shrike pursued Nuthatehes, the latter escaped capture by entering a hole in a tree or a nesting-box. The Downy Woodpecker often out-manoeuvred its pursuer by constantly turning and dodging in the air rather than by flying away in an attempt to escape by speed, as do almost all the other small birds. Twice this winter I have personally watched a Shrike attempt to capture a Downy Woodpecker from above. Each time that the Shrike swooped to strike the bird, the Downy turned quickly in the air at a sharp angle, the Shrike over- shooting its mark. It then turned with much more effort than the woodpecker, and again took up the pursuit. So long as they were in sight—and I saw the Shrike swoop a number of times—the Woodpecker continued on its way appar- ently unafraid, and dodged each attack with ease. Several observers have seen shrikes chasing blue jays or found one of the jays impaled in the usual shrike fashion. Ora W. Knight (1908) adds the pine grosbeak to the list of the shrike’s victims. Wil- liam Brewster (1936) gives the following account of a shrike in pur- suit of a brown creeper: When I first saw him, he was in hot pursuit of one of the Brown Creepers and both birds were about over the middle of the river and scarce a yard apart. The Creeper made straight for the big elm which stands at the eastern end of the bridge. When he reached it, the Shrike’s bill was within six inches of his tail, but he nevertheless escaped; for an instant after the two birds doubled around behind the trunk the Shrike rose to the topmost spray of the elm, where he sat for a minute or more, gazing intently downward, evidently watching for the Creeper. The latter, no doubt, had flattened himself against the bark after the usual practice of his kind when badly frightened and he had the nerve and good sense to remain perfectly still for at least ten minutes. My eyes were no better than the Shrike’s, for it was in vain that I scanned the trunk over and over with the greatest care. Feeling sure, however, that the Creeper was really there, I waited patiently until at the end of the period just named he began running up the trunk, starting at the very point where I had seen him disappear. It was one of the prettiest demonstrations of the effectiveness of protective coloration that I have ever witnessed. In the same publication, he vividly describes the capture and killing of a field mouse: As I watched a Shrike it flew from the topmost spray of a small maple into some alders and alighted on a horizontal stem about a foot above the level of surrounding snow but directly beneath; as I afterwards found, the snow had thawed quite down to the ground, leaving a trench about two feet deep by three or four inches wide, into which the Shrike, after peering intently for a moment, suddenly dropped with fluttering wings and wide opened tail. Within a second or less it reappeared, dragging out a Field Mouse of the largest size. The moment it got the Mouse fairly out on the level surface of the snow it dropped it apparently to get a fresh hold (as nearly as I could make out it had held it up to this time by about the middle of the back). The Mouse, instead of attempting to regain its run way, as I expected it would do, instantly turned on its assailant and with surprising fierceness and agility sprang directly NORTHERN SHRIKE 119 at its head many times in succession, actually driving it backward several feet although the Shrike faced its attacks with admirable steadiness and coolness and by a succession of vigorous and well aimed blows prevented the Mouse from closing in. At length the Mouse seemed to lose heart and, turning, tried to escape. This sealed its fate for at the end of the second leap it was overtaken by the Shrike, who caught it by the back of the neck and began to worry it precisely as a Ter- rier worries a Rat, shaking it viciously from side to side, at the same time dragging it about over the snow which, as I could plainly see through my glass (I was standing within ten yards of the spot) was now freely stained with blood. I could also see the Shrike’s mandible work with a vigorous, biting mo- tion, especially when it stopped the shaking to rest for a moment. When it finally let go its hold, the Mouse was evidently dead. After the shrike had carried off the mouse in its claws, partly eaten it and hung it in a fork, Mr. Brewster examined the mouse. The Shrike had not touched any part of the body but the skin had been torn away from the entire neck and the muscles and other soft tissues were almost entirely gone from the shoulders and sternum to the base of the skull. The body was untouched and the skull showed no signs of injury, but the cheek muscles had been eaten pretty cleanly away as had also the entire throat with the tongue. Both eyes were whole and in their sockets. This examination confirmed the conviction which I formed while watching the Shrike and Mouse struggling together, viz. that the bird killed the Mouse partly by throttling—that is by choking and shaking it and partly (perhaps chiefly) by cutting open its neck on one side. No attempt was made to stun the Mouse by striking at its skull, such blows as I saw delivered being evidently intended merely to keep the Mouse at bay until the Shrike could close with it and get it by the neck as it finally did. Mr. Brewster’s close observation and careful description shows what is perhaps the shrike’s usual method of killing rodents, and I can find very little evidence to the contrary, but Mr. Forbush (1929) says that John Muir “saw a shrike go down into a gopher hole and drive out half a dozen young gophers, and hovering over one after another as they ran, it killed them all by blows delivered from its powerful bill on the back of each one’s head.” Dr. W. 5S. Strode (1889) tells the following story of a mouse-hunt- ing shrike: Not long since a young farmer invited me out to his field near town where he was husking shock corn, to see a “Mouse Hawk,” as he called it, catch mice. On coming to where he was at work I looked about for the Shrike but did not see it until he pointed to a tree two hundred yards away where it sat on the topmost twig. Pretty soon a mouse ran from the shock, when it came almost with the rapidity of an arrow, and seizing the mouse in its bill flew away with it to the woods across the river, but in a short time it was back again at its perch on the tree where it did not remain long until another mouse ran out from the shock. In order to test the bird’s boldness I pursued this mouse, but un- daunted it flew almost between my feet and secured it, and apparently not lik- ing its hold it alighted a few rods away and hammered the mouse on the frozen ground, and then tossing it in the air caught it by the throat as it came down. He then again flew off to the woods. This proceeding the farmer assured me would 120 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM be repeated many times in the course of the day, and that every mouse would be carried to the strip of woods just over the river. Subsequently a chopper told me that he had found a honey locust tree in this woods that had mice stuck all over it on the thorns. The northern shrike has two principal methods of hunting, watch- ful waiting and active pursuit. The former method is the one usually employed, as in the above accounts, in securing mice; the bird perches patiently and motionless on some commanding tree, post, or wire, ready to pounce suddenly on its unsuspecting quarry; mice may be secured also by hovering over their runways in the fields and meadows. Grasshoppers, crickets, and other moving insects may be taken by watching for them, hovering over the fields, or by active pursuit on the ground, though I have not seen the latter method mentioned. But birds must be caught by active pursuit in the air or by chasing them through the trees and bushes; in the latter case the birds escape more often than they are caught by seeking the shelter of dense growth where the shrike is less adept in penetrating the thickets and dodging through the tangles of branches and twigs; cedars and other dense evergreens offer excellent havens of refuge for small birds. Small birds easily recognize the difference between a shrike and some other harmless bird, and immediately “freeze” in their tracks, or seek shelter in the nearest dense cover. The shrike is a fairly swift flier, but is often not able to catch a smaller bird in a straightaway flight, especially if it resorts to dodging, at which the heavier bird is less adept. ‘The shrike’s usual method is to rise above its victim and dive down upon it, felling it to the ground with a stunning blow from its powerful beak, which often proves fatal by breaking the little bird’s neck or its back. The shrike follows it to the ground immediately and, if necessary, kills the bird with a blow at the base of the skull or by biting through the vertebrae of the neck. Small birds often escape from such attacks by mounting higher and higher in the air, so that the shrike cannot get above them, and then suddenly darting downward into thick cover. Having killed its bird, the shrike seizes it by the neck or shoulders in either its bill or its claws, or both, and flies away with it. Mr. Floyd (1928) made a number of inquiries on this point and received replies from 23 observers, 13 of whom reported that the prey is carried in the bill, 7 said in the claws, and 3 had seen both bill and claws used. By some one of these methods the bird is carried to the shrike’s larder and impaled on a thorn or a sharp stub on some tree or bush, on the barb of a barbed-wire fence, or some other similar point; often the bird is hung by its neck in the acute angle of a fork in a branch or twig. Mice are hung up in the same way, to be immediately devoured or saved for future reference. The feet and claws of the shrike are evidently not strong enough to hold the quarry firmly while it is being torn NORTHERN SHRIKE iA apart, and some additional support is desirable; hence this characteris- tic habit. If the shrike is really hungry, its prey is gulped down al- most entirely, flesh, feathers, fur, and most of the bones, only a few of the larger feathers and bones being discarded. These indigestible portions of the food are disgorged later in the form of pellets, which are often found where shrikes have been feeding. Edwin A. Mason sends me the following description of a pellet that he took from a bird- banding trap where a shrike had been feeding on a junco: “Including a 10-mm. tip, or tail, the pellet was 40 mm. long and 10 mm. thick, consisting largely of matted feathers; scattered through the mass could be seen small pieces of bone, some identifiable as from the skull, one tarsus with foot attached, and one fragment of bone obviously from the main body skeletal structure.” A very brief period of time had elapsed between the ingestion and the regurgitation of the indigestible material. Mr. Floyd (1928) mentions “several pellets which measured from half an inch long to one and one-eighth inches. They averaged three- eighths of an inch in diameter.” The northern shrike often kills more mice or birds than it can use at once, to many of which it never returns, and these are left to dry or rot. It has been known repeatedly to enter a bird-banding trap, kill all the birds in it, and not eat any of them, It sometimes dashes into a flock of redpolls or goldfinches, knocking out several of them, per- haps for the mere sport of killing them. Mr. Floyd (1928) writes: “A shrike that was seen to enter an electric-car barn in pursuit of an English Sparrow killed all the Sparrows in the barn, without thought of itself or pausing to eat any of its victims.” In captivity it will eat almost any kind of raw meat, will kill living birds and eat them, or eat dead birds or mice, though it seems to prefer mice to any other food. It will come to a feeding station to eat suet or hamburg steak, even when live birds are in the vicinity. Dr. Charles W. Townsend (1933) says: “On a warm March day I watched a Shrike fly-catching from the top of a tree. He pursued a large bee and missed it, but by a quick turn he caught it. * * * Once I saw two on March 9 hovering about the dry thatch-grass cast up on the beach, apparently picking up flies and spiders.” Behavior—Much of the behavior of the northern shrike has been referred to above. The outstanding traits of this bloodthirsty rascal are boldness, fierceness, and savagery in its fearless and relentless pur- suit of its prey, utterly regardless of obstacles or the presence of man. Nuttall’s (1832) historic account illustrates its audacity: Mr. J. Brown, of Cambridge, informs me that one of these birds had the boldness to attack two Canaries in a cage, suspended one fine winter’s day at the window. The poor songsters in their fears fluttered to the side of the cage, and oue of them thrust his head through the bars of his prison; at this instant the wily Butcher 843290—50——_9 122 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM tore off its head, and left the body dead in the cage. * * * On another occa~ sion, while a Mr. Lock in this vicinity was engaged in fowling, he wounded a Robin, who flew a little distance and descended to the ground; he soon heard the disabled bird uttering unusual cries, and on approaching found him in the grasp of the Shrike. He snatched up the bird from its devourer; but having tasted blood, it still followed, as if determined not to relinquish its proposed prey, and only desisted from the quest on receiving a mortal wound. ° Dr. Brewer (Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway, 1874) writes: Its bold audacity and perseverance are quite remarkable, and are often dis- played, in the fall, in the manner in which it will enter an apartment through an open window and attack a Canary, even in the presence of members of the family. * * * In one instance the writer was sitting at a closed window reading, with a Canary hanging above him. Suddenly there was a severe blow struck at the pane of glass near the cage, and the frightened Canary uttered cries of alarm and fell to the bottom of its cage. The cause was soon explained. A Shrike had dashed upon the bird, unconscious of the intervening glass, and was stretched upon the snow under the window, stunned by the blow. He re- vived when taken up, and lived several days, was sullen, but tame, and utterly devoid of fear. Mr. Floyd (1928) writes: “Northern Shrikes are particularly de- structive and annoying about a feeding or banding station. Their audacity is well known. They do not hesitate to seize a bird newly banded when it flies from the bander’s hand, and they enter a trap, barn, room, or hen-house with absolute unconcern when birds or mice are seen there. In the trap they kill all the birds there before con- sidering how they may escape or pausing to eat.” He says that, “when intent upon the capture of its next meal, the Shrike loses all sense of fear of man,” and tells how Mrs. Richard B. Harding was unable to drive one away from the vicinity of her trap, in which there were some birds, “and only after she secured a broom and actually struck at the intruder several times, did it give up and abandon the premises.” In its summer home in Labrador, the northern shrike seemed to be very tame, and we saw no signs of aggressiveness toward the few small birds that live there; probably it was living largely on insects. On August 18, 1912, I watched one for some time in Dr. Hettasch’s small garden and in the woods around it. It was flying in its direct slow flight from one tree to another, or perching on a topmost twig, its body held erect, and flirting its tail up and down, or holding it straight out behind horizontally. Occasionally it darted out from its perch to chase some flying insect, or dropped down to the lower branches of a larch, where it seemed to be feeding on the buds and tender shoots, though probably it was finding insects there. When making a longer flight to a more distant tree, it flew more swiftly in a slightly undulat- ing course, alternating a few rapid wing strokes with downward glides in woodpeckerlike curves. If flying low, as it often did, as if to keep NORTHERN SHRIKE 123 behind cover, it would suddenly swoop upward in an abrupt curve to reach its perch ona treetop. Occasionally, it would hover like a spar- row hawk over an open space, as if looking for mice or insects. Francis H. Allen says in his notes: “A shrike I watched mousing over river meadows in Millis, Mass., January 25, 1931, hunted mainly by hovering. It would start off with two or three bounds in the air and then rise almost vertically for perhaps six to ten feet—that is practically vertically at the top of the rise—and then hover for some time, turning its head from left to right to scan the grassy marsh. It was a very pretty performance.” Wendell Taber tells me of a rather unusual action that he saw: “As it sat on a twig the bird suddenly jumped to another twig slightly to one side and somewhat lower. I estimated the horizontal distance at about eight inches and the vertical descent at about six inches. The Jump was accomplished entirely by leg and body motion, with the wings remaining folded throughout. The branch on which the bird landed was strong enough, so that no visible motion took place under the impact of the bird’s landing.” I have never seen a northern shrike on the ground, nor can I find anything in the literature as to its method of progression there. It must jump or hop vigorously in pursuit of grasshoppers or crickets. Dr. Miller (1931) says that “loggerhead shrikes hop but do not walk. in moving sideways or backward one foot is moved independently of the other. While hopping, the body is held erect and the head held high unless the bird is engaged in investigating objects close to the ground.” Probably the northern shrike progresses in a similar manner. Voice.—I did not hear the northern shrike sing in Labrador. The singing season had evidently passed, as the young birds were fully grown and the molting season was at hand. The only notes I heard were a variety of twittering, chattering, squealing, or whistling notes, with occasional gurgling warbles in soft tones. Other observers of Labrador birds do not mention its song. The males, and sometimes the females, have often been heard sing- ing at various times during their sojourn in the United States and much has been written about it. Aretas A. Saunders writes to me: “T first heard it many years ago in March, before I kept definite notes of singing. The only records I find of hearing the song in late years are November 8, 1921, March 25, and April 8, 1922. It is a long- continued song, suggesting that of the mockingbird, but containing more harsh notes.” Francis H. Allen describes it in his notes as a “song of indeterminate length, composed of caws and scraping notes and short, very pleasing liquid trills, with occasional whistling notes. The notes may be 124 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM single and staccato, or given in series of three or four in the manner of a mockingbird. The whole is a formless, disjointed performance. When fleeing from an attacking crow, a shrike sounded a prolonged rattle of high-pitched ‘beady’ notes—like pip-pip-pip-pip, etc., ut- tered very rapidly.” Eugene P. Bicknell (1884) writes: I have heard a variety of notes from it in October, on its first arrival, and in November; but its highest vocal achievement is in late winter and early spring. * * * An unusually vocal bird was observed on February 10, 1877—a morning when winter seemed quietly relaxing from long-continued severity. Perched in the sunlight, on the topmost spray of a tall oak, on an eminence commanding an expanse of changing landscape, it was alternately singing and preening its beautiful plumage. The song was a medley of varied and rather disconnected articulations, an occasional low warble always being quickly ex- tinguished by harsh notes, even as the bird’s gentle demeanor would soon be interrupted by some deed of cruelty. Frederic H. Kennard records in his notes the capture of a singing shrike on his grounds, and says: “I heard its warble, but having seen a robin before I saw the shrike, I thought it must be a young robin practicing, so like were the notes. J thought, however, that the young robin was mighty hoarse, so went to investigate. On dissection, this singing shrike proved to be a female.” A similar experience is thus recorded by Dr. Arthur Chadbourne (1890): “On the morning of April 8, 1890, when walking through the Fresh Pond Swamps at Cambridge, I heard a Butcher Bird (Lanius borealis) in full song. The bird was an usually fine singer, and quite a mimic, its medley of notes suggesting a combination of the Brown Thrasher and the Blue Jay, with an occasional ‘mewing’ sound much like the common Catbird. It was shot, and on sexing proved a female, the ovary being considerably enlarged.” Several other observers have referred to the shrike’s power of mimicry. Mr. Forbush (1929) adds the song sparrow to those named above, and says: “One day Mr. Wm. C. Wheeler, who can imitate many bird songs, whistled the song of a Robin as he approached a Northern Shrike. The bird immediately mocked his rendition of the song, and repeated it after him thrice.” Field marks—Shrikes look superficially somewhat like chunky mockingbirds with thick heavy heads and bills, but there is a black band on the head, through and behind the eye; in the adult shrike the back is clearer, gull gray, browner in the young, and the breast is vermiculated with dusky; there is also much less white in the wings and tail; the latter is proportionately shorter than in the mocking- bird. Its posture and behavior are quite different. The loggerhead shrike is slightly smaller and is purer gray above and whiter below than the northern shrike. Enemies.—The worst enemy that the northern shrike ever encoun- NORTHERN SHRIKE 125 tered was the man with the gun on Boston Common, who killed over 50 of the birds in a single winter, many years ago, to protect the English sparrows soon after their importation. The tables are turned now, for one of the best things the shrike does is to help reduce the numbers of this ubiquitous foreigner, so the shrikes are now welcomed in the cities. Harold S. Peters (1936) lists only one louse, Philopterus sub- flavescens, as an external parasite on the northern shrike. Winter.—The northern shrike comes southward to spend the winter in varying numbers at more or less regular intervals, depending prob- ably on the variations in its food supply in its summer home. Some- times it is abundant in New England in winter, sometimes rare, and sometimes entirely absent or very local. They were reported as very abundant in the winter of 1878-79, Mr. Floyd (1928) called atten- tion to a decided invasion in the winter of 1926-27, in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, and they were unusually plentiful in Nova Scotia. He corresponded with bird-banders from New England to Virginia and learned that “during the six months from October to April, sixty-two Shrikes were reported destroyed by banders, while eight were banded and released.” He attempted to learn whether the abundance of shrikes coincided with the heavy invasions of redpolls, siskins, and other small northern birds, on which the shrike might prey, but the data accumulated did not confirm this theory; in fact, there was only one year out of eight in which the small birds and shrikes were both abundant. David E. Davis (1937) has made a study of this subject and says in his interesting paper on it: The Northern Shrike (Lanius borealis borealis) has attracted attention by its occurrence in New England and adjoining States,in large numbers in certain years. Since the species is predatory, a correlation with the well-known cycle of mice (Microtus spp., Dicrostonyx spp.) was suspected. * * * A thorough examination of the available literature was made for records concerning shrike invasions. It was soon apparent that the Christmas Bird Census in “Bird-Lore” supplied the only data which could be used to compare one year with another. These records are here presented in a graph showing the number of birds observed per census for each Christmas period. * * * That there is a defi- nite cycle is at once apparent from the graph. The average is 4.2 years. It should be noted that there are two five-year periods and no three-year periods. The winters of maximum abundance are 1900-01; 1905-06; 1909-10; 1913-14; 1917-18 ; 1921-22 ; 1926-27; 1930-31; 1934-85. That there was a maximum in the winter of 1900-01 is supported by Brewster (1906) who states that shrikes were not seen in 1902, 1903, or 1904, but were rather common in 1901, * * * It is quite obvious that the mice increase and periodically die out. During the increase of mice, the predators likewise increase. * * * When the mice disappear the predators first exhaust other prey and then either migrate or die. 126 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM DISTRIBUTION Range.—In the Eastern Hemisphere: to the limit of trees from Norway to western Siberia; in winter south to central France, north- ern Italy, western Rumania, and central Russia. In America, from Alaska and northern Canada to the central part of the United States. Breeding range—The American races of the northern shrike breed north to the limit of trees in northern Alaska (Lower Noatak River, Kobuk Valley, and Seward Creek near Circle) ; central Yukon (Ogil- vie Range) ; northern Mackenzie (Fort McPherson, Fort Anderson, MecVicar Bay on Great Bear Lake, and Fort Reliance) ; northern Manitoba (Lac du Brochet and Churchill); and northern Quebec (Chimo). East to northern Quebec (Chimo and Indian House Lake) ; and Labrador (Lake Melville and the east coast). South to Labrador (Lake Melville); central Quebec (possibly Anticosti Island, Lake Abitibi) ; northern Ontario (Moose Factory and Fort Severn, probably; casually to Ottawa and Toronto); central Sas- katchewan (Prince Albert and Carlton House; casually to QuwAp- pelle) ; northern Alberta (Athabaska Delta) ; northern British Colum- bia (Thudade Lake and Atlin) ; southwestern Yukon (near Burwash Landing); and southern Alaska (Homer, mouth of the Chulitna River, and Nushagak). West to western Alaska (Nushagak, Kig- luaik, and the Noatak River). Winter range.—The northern shrike probably winters occasionally nearly as far north as it breeds but winter records from much of that region are scarce. In the southern part of its winter range it is quite irregular, and it is likely that its southward wanderings are in search of food. Insofar as actual records go, this shrike winters north to central Alaska (Flat, Toklat River, and Chilkat); central British Columbia (Francois Lake and probably Thudade Lake); central Alberta (Belvedere, Edmonton, and Camrose); central and south- ern Saskatchewan (Cochin and Lake Johnstone) ; southern Manitoba (Aweme, Lake St. Martin, and Hillside Beach, Lake Winnipeg) ; central Quebec (Great Whale River, Quebec, and Bonaventure Is- land) ; and northern Newfoundland (Hare Bay). East to Newfound- land (Hare Bay, Salmonier, and Tompkins); Nova Scotia (Anti- gonish and Bridgetown) ; New Brunswick (Grand Manan) ; the New England States and Long Island (Orient) ; and occasionally central New Jersey (Morristown and Barnegat Bay). South to central New Jersey (Barnegat) ; southeastern Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, occasionally) ; Maryland (Baltimore) ; District of Columbia, rarely : North Carolina, rare or accidental (Pea Island); West Virginia (White Sulphur Springs, rarely; northern Ohio (Salem, Oberlin, and Toledo) ; occasionally southern Indiana (Bloomington and Vin- cennes) ; rarely southern Illinois (Mount Carmel) ; central Missouri NORTHERN SHRIKE 127 (St. Louis, St. Charles, and Columbia) ; southern Kansas (Wichita and Coolidge) ; accidental at Fayetteville and Van Buren, Ark., and at Decatur, Tex.; south-central Colorado (Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Salida); northern Utah (Ogden); central western Nevada (Reese River, Lahontan Valley, and Carson); and northern Cali- fornia (Rolands Marsh and Marysville) ; also occurs rarely or acci- dentally south to north central New Mexico (Las Vegas and Santa Fe); central Arizona (Flagstaff and Prescott), southwestern Utah (St. George), and central California (Sacramento). West to cen- tral California (Marysville) ; western Oregon (Grants Pass, Cor- vallis, and Blaine) ; western Washington (Seattle, Sequin, and Bel- lingham) ; western British Columbia (Crescent, Courtney, and Fran- cois Lake) ; and Alaska (Chilkat, Bethel, Akiak, and Flat). The above ranges for the species in North America are divided into two geographic races. ‘The northern shrike (L. 6. borealis) breeds east of Hudson Bay; the northwestern shrike (Z. 0. invictus) breeds from Alaska to Manitoba. Migration.—F rom the available records the northern shrike appears to be quite irregular in its migratory movements. Dates of spring de- parture are: Pennsylvania—Harrisburg, March 10. New York— New York, April 17. Massachusetts—Harvard, April 4. Maine— Wells, April 26. Ontario—Ottawa, April 18. Ohio—Oberlin, April 3. Michigan—Grand Rapids, March 29. Iowa—Grinnell, March 31. Wisconsin—New London, March 23. Kansas—Manhattan, March 29. Nebraska—Neligh, March 31. South Dakota—Vermillion, March 28. North Dakota—Charlson, March 12. Manitoba—Mar- garet, April 6. Saskatchewan—Indian Head, April 21. Colorado— Yuma, April 4. Wyoming—Laramie, April 15. Montana—Boze- man, April 8. Washington—Pullman, April 8. British Columbia— Okanagan Landing, April 20. Karly dates of spring arrival are: Mackenzie—Fort Liard, April 2. British Columbia—Atlin, April 18. Alaska—Fairbanks, March 81. Late dates of fall departure are: Alaska—Bethel, November 7. Yukon—Forty Mile, October 12. Mackenzie—Simpson, October 12. British Columbia—Atlin, October 12. Early dates of fall arrival are: British Columbia—Chilliwack, Sep- tember 27. Washington—Tacoma, October 11. Montana—Fortine, September 27. Wyoming—Yellowstone National Park, October 15. Colorado—Colorado Springs, October 2. Saskatchewan—Eastend, October 2. Manitoba—Aweme, October 3. North Dakota—Argus- ville, October 16. South Dakota—Pierre, October 21. Nebraska Lincoln, October 27. Kansas—Onaga, October 19. Minnesota— Lanesboro, October 18. Wisconsin—La Crosse, October 18. Iowa— Keokuk, October 19. Michigan—Sault Ste. Marie, October 9. II- Imois—Glen Ellyn, October 24. Ontario—Toronto, October 15. 128 BULLETIN 197, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Ohio—Youngstown, October 16. Pennsylvania—Erie, September 21. Maine—Phillips, October 19. New Brunswick—Scotch Lake, Octo- ber 17. Massachusetts—Danvers, October 31. New York—Orient, October 22. District of Columbia—Washington, November 7. From the few banded northern shrikes the two recoveries available are of some interest. One banded at Hepburn, Saskatchewan, on July 4, 1931, was found dead on September 23, 1931, at Cross Timbers, Mo.; and another banded at Harwich, Mass., on November 8, 1934, was found dead about April 1, 1936, at Clarenceville, Quebec. Casual records —Hight specimens have been collected in Ber- muda: October 31, 1846; January 23, 1847; March 12, 1850; January 1872; January 1, 1876; and three without dates. Egg dates—Alaska : 2 records, May 21 and June 27. Labrador: 3 records, June 3 to 17. Mackenzie: 3 records, May 20 to June 11. LANIUS BOREALIS INVICTUS Grinnell NORTHWESTERN SHRIKE HABITS This western race of the northern shrike was described by Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1900), who says of it: L. borealis invictus differs from L. borealis borealis in larger size, paler colora- tion dorsally and greater extent of white markings. These differences are fairly comparable to those between the southwestern L. ludovicianus excubitorides and L. ludovicianus proper. * * * During the fall the Northwestern Shrike was met with in the Kowak Valley rather sparingly. Single individuals would be