Life Histories of North American Cuckoos, Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds, and Their Allies

LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN CUCKOOS, GOAT­SUCKERS, HUM­MING­BIRDS, AND THEIR ALLIES.

ORDERS PSITTACIFORMES, CUCULIFORMES, TROGONIFORMES, CORACIIFORMES, CAPRIMULGIFORMES, AND MICROPODIIFORMES

By Arthur Cleveland Bent Taunton, Mass.

Order PSITTACIFORMES

Family PSITTACIDAE: Parrots and Parakeets

CONUROPSIS CAROLINENSIS CAROLINENSIS (Linnaeus)

CAROLINA PARAKEET

HABITS

Many of the glories of North American bird life have gone, never to return. The spread of civilization, the selfish greed of human interests, and the lust to kill have wiped out some of the most spectacular and beautiful features in our formerly abundant bird life. The countless millions of passenger pigeons that formerly darkened the sky in their seasonal migrations are gone forever. And the great flocks of gorgeous parakeets that formerly roamed over nearly all the eastern part of our country will be seen no more. This was the only representative of the parrot family that lived and bred within the United States; it gave a touch of tropical character to our avifauna and a vivid tinge of color to the landscape; its loss is much to be regretted. Never again may be seen the glorious sights witnessed by Wilson, Audubon, and other early writers, as great flocks of these gorgeous birds wheeled through the air, in close formation, their long tails streaming out in straight flight or spreading as they turned, and their brilliant colors, red, yellow, bright green, and soft blue, gleaming in the sunlight. As Wilson (1832) says: “They came screaming through the woods in the morning, about an hour after sunrise, to drink the salt water, of which they, as well as the pigeons, are remarkably fond. When they alighted on the ground, it appeared at a distance as if covered with a carpet of richest green, orange, and yellow: they afterwards settled, in one body, on a neighbouring tree, which stood detached from any other, covering almost every twig of it, and the sun, shining strongly on their gay and glossy plumage, produced a very beautiful and splendid appearance.”

Conuropsis carolinensis, as a species, covered a wide range in eastern North America, from the vicinity of the Great Lakes southward to Florida and the Gulf States, and from Colorado (rarely) to the Atlantic coast. For a full account, given in detail, of the former range of the species and its gradual disappearance, the reader is referred to a comprehensive article on the subject by Edwin M. Hasbrouck (1891). As the species has been divided into two subspecies since this was written, we shall consider here only the former distribution of the eastern race, Conuropsis c. carolinensis. The oldest and northernmost records, of what was probably this race, appeared in Bartram’s Fragments (1799) in the following words:

The two first of these birds were seen in the neighbourhood of Philadelphia, between thirty and forty years ago. The Psittacus, most probably the Psittacus pertinax, Illinois Parrot, or the Psittacus carolinensis, Carolina Parrot, has been occasionally observed in Shareman’s Valley, on Shareman’s Creek, a branch of the river Susquehanna, within twenty miles of the town of Carlisle. This last fact seems to contradict the observation of Mr. William Bartram, who says, “The parakeets (Psittacus carolinensis) never reach so far north as Pennsylvania, which to me is unaccountable, considering they are a bird of such singular rapid flight, they could easily perform the journey in ten or twelve hours from North-Carolina, where they are very numerous, and we abound with all the fruits which they delight in.” * * * I may add, that a very large flight of parakeets, which came from the westward, was seen a few years ago, about twenty-five miles to the north-west of Albany, in the State of New-York.

The arrival of these birds in the depth of winter (January, 1780) was, indeed, a very remarkable circumstance. The more ignorant Dutch settlers were exceedingly alarmed. They imagined, in dreadful consternation, that it portended nothing less calamitous than the destruction of the world.

DeKay (1844) places this New York record as occurring in 1795. The only record we have for New Jersey is one recently published by Warren F. Eaton (1936); Albert E. Hedden (1841–1915) told his son and nephew “of the occurrence of this species in East Orange, Essex County, New Jersey, when he was a boy. They placed the time between 1850 and 1860, and both recall exactly the same story. The Paroquets occurred probably twice at least in hot weather (I suspect September) and were considered very destructive to the small household apple orchards, maintained by the family at that time. The birds occurred in flocks and tore the apple fruit apart, extracting the seeds.” There seems to be no record for Delaware, but in Audubon’s time they were found as far north as the boundary line between Virginia and Maryland, where a flock was seen and specimens were shot as recently as September 1865 (Smith and Palmer, 1888). They apparently were common in the Carolinas up to 1850, or perhaps 1860, but must have disappeared from there soon after that. For Georgia, there seem to be no records since 1849. In Florida, the species made its last stand; parakeets were evidently common throughout the State up to the 1860’s, but during the next 20 years all observers reported them as becoming rarer and more restricted in range. In the early 1890’s it was still common in certain remote localities in Florida. Arthur H. Howell (1932) has this to say about the last records of this vanishing bird:

E. J. Brown reported the birds plentiful in March, 1896, near Campbell, Osceola County. Dr. E. A. Mearns took 6 specimens on Padget Creek, Brevard County, April 18, 1901. Apparently the last stronghold was in the vicinity of Taylor Creek, on the northeastern side of Okeechobee Lake. Here on February 29, 1896, Robert Ridgway collected 13 specimens, and in April, 1904, Frank M. Chapman saw two flocks aggregating 13 birds (1912, p. 318). W. W. Worthington hunted along both sides of Taylor Creek on March 26, 1907, without seeing any Paroquets. * * * Capt. F. W. Sams, an old resident of Florida, told Dr. Amos W. Butler that he saw a flock of 8 or 10 Paroquets in 1909 at Cabbage Slough, on the west side of Turnbull Hammock, about 12 or 15 miles southwest of New Smyrna. E. Stewart Hyer, of Orlando, reports seeing one bird at Istokpoga Lake on February 16, 1910. A late and apparently authentic record is published by Chapman (Bird Lore, 1915, p. 453) on the authority of W. J. F. McCormick, who claims to have seen about a dozen birds in March and April, 1915. Henry Redding, who knows the birds well, reported a flock of about 30 seen on Fort Drum Creek in February, 1920.

The causes that led to the extermination of the parakeet are not hard to find. It was a bad actor, regarded by fruit growers and agriculturists as a destructive pest, doing extensive damage to their crops. Consequently it was slaughtered in enormous numbers on every opportunity. It was more or less hunted as a game bird, for it was abundant and its flesh was said to be very palatable. It was shot in enormous numbers for mere sport, or for practice. Hundreds were captured by professional bird catchers and sent north, as cage birds or pets, and many were killed for their plumage. Furthermore, it has always retreated before the spread of civilization and seemed incapable of surviving in settled regions, probably for the reasons mentioned above.

W. E. D. Scott (1889) says that “they were wantonly mischievous and cut hundreds of young green oranges, peaches, and the like, from the trees almost as soon as the fruit was formed.” Many were shot by farmers in their cornfields, where the birds had formed the bad habit of feeding on the tender corn on the ears, thus destroying, or injuring, a large part of the crop.

According to Audubon (1842) they ate or destroyed almost every kind of fruit indiscriminately and on this account were always unwelcome visitors “to the planter, the farmer, or the gardener.” He says:

The stacks of grain put up in the field are resorted to by flocks of these birds, which frequently cover them so entirely, that they present to the eye the same effect as if a brilliantly coloured carpet had been thrown over them. They cling around the whole stack, pull out the straws, and destroy twice as much of the grain as would suffice to satisfy their hunger. They assail the pear and apple-trees, when the fruit is yet very small and far from being ripe, and this merely for the sake of the seeds. As on the stalks of corn, they alight on the apple-trees of our orchards, or the pear-trees in the gardens, in great numbers; and, as if through mere mischief, pluck off the fruits, open them up to the core, and, disappointed at the sight of the seeds, which are yet soft and of a milky consistence, drop the apple or pear, and pluck another, passing from branch to branch, until the trees which were before so promising, are left completely stripped. * * * They visit the mulberries, pecan-nuts, grapes, and even the seeds of the dog-wood, before they are ripe, and on all commit similar depredations. * * *

Do not imagine, reader, that all these outrages are borne without severe retaliation on the part of the planters. So far from this, the Parakeets are destroyed in great numbers, for whilst busily engaged in plucking off the fruits or tearing the grain from the stacks, the husbandman approaches them with perfect ease, and commits great slaughter among them. All the survivors rise, shriek, fly around about for a few minutes, and again alight on the very place of most imminent danger. The gun is kept at work; eight or ten, or even twenty, are killed at every discharge. The living birds, as if conscious of the death of their companions, sweep over their bodies, screaming as loud as ever, but still return to the stack to be shot at, until so few remain alive, that the farmer does not consider it worth his while to spend more of his ammunition. I have seen several hundreds destroyed in this manner in the course of a few hours.

This fatal habit of hovering over their fallen companions has helped, more than any one thing, to bring about their extermination. Their social disposition has been their undoing. C. J. Maynard (1896) says of this trait: “This is not a mere liking for company, as they are actually fond of one another, for, if one out of a flock be wounded, the survivors attracted by its screams, will return to hover over it and, even if constantly shot at, will not leave as long as their distressed friend calls for assistance; in fact, I have seen every individual in a flock killed one after the other, and the last bird betrayed as much anxiety for the fate of its prostrate friends which were strewed upon the ground, as it did when the first fell.”

Nesting.—Nothing very definite seems to be known about the nesting habits of the Carolina parakeet. No competent ornithologist has ever seen a nest. Even Wilson and Audubon, who lived in the days when these birds were so abundant, never saw a nest; and all they wrote about it was based on hearsay. Most observers seemed to agree that the parakeets nested in hollow trees, but some of the accounts were rather fantastic. For example, Wilson (1832) wrote: “One man assured me that he cut down a large beech tree, which was hollow, and in which he found the broken fragments of upwards of twenty parakeets’ eggs, which were of a greenish yellow colour. The nests, though destroyed in their texture by the falling of the tree, appeared, he said, to be formed of small twigs glued to each other, and to the side of the tree, in the manner of the Chimney Swallow.” Audubon (1842) says: “Their nest, or the place in which they deposit their eggs, is simply the bottom of such cavities in trees as those to which they usually retire at night. Many females deposit their eggs together.”

Maynard (1896) was told by some cedar hunters that a large number of parakeets nested in a hollow in a huge cypress tree in the depths of a great cypress swamp. He offered them a good sum to procure the eggs, which they attempted to do; but, on opening the tree, about which they saw a large number of the parakeets, they were disappointed to find only young birds. H. B. Bailey (1883) had in his collection a set of two eggs, which he felt sure were eggs of the Carolina parakeet. “The eggs, which were taken April 26, 1855, were deposited in a hollow tree, on the chips at bottom. One of them was sent to Mr. Ridgway who has kindly compared it with identified eggs, and who confirms the identification.” There was an apparently authentic set in the John Lewis Childs (1906b) collection, taken in the wild, of which he writes:

The set consists of three eggs which were taken on April 2, 1896, by Dr. H. H. Pendry. They were found In a cavity of a sycamore tree forty feet up on the outskirts of the Great Swamp near the head of the Caloosahatchee River and west of Lake Okechobee, De Soto County, Florida. Dr. Pendry was not sure of the identity of these eggs, as he saw no Paroquets at the nest, but they were in the swamp and he had frequently seen and taken young birds In the same locality. * * * The eggs were sent to us for identification, and there seems to be not the slightest doubt but that they are genuine. They measure as follows: 1.35 × 1.06–1.26 × 1.06, 1.25 × 1.05 [34.3 by 27.1, 32.1 by 27.1, and 31.8 by 26.8 millimeters].

William Brewster (1889) published the following account, which seemed to him “to rest on evidence sufficiently good to warrant its publication.” He questioned everybody he met about the nesting of the parakeet and was told by two professional hunters of alligators and plume birds that they had “seen Parrakeets’ nests, which they described as flimsy structures built of twigs and placed on the branches of cypress trees.” He goes on to say:

This account was so widely at variance with what has been previously recorded regarding the manner of nesting of this species that I considered it, at the time, as a mere fabrication, but afterwards it was unexpectedly and most strongly corroborated by Judge E. L. Long of Tallahassee. The latter gentleman, who, by the way, has a very good general knowledge of the birds of our Northern States, assured me that he had examined many nests of the Parrakeet built precisely as above described. Formerly, when the birds were abundant in the surrounding region, he used to find them breeding in large colonies in the cypress swamps. Several of these colonies contained at least a thousand birds each. They nested invariably in small cypress trees, the favorite position being on a fork near the end of a slender horizontal branch. Every fork would be occupied, and he has seen as many as forty or fifty nests in one small tree. Their nests closely resembled those of the Carolina Dove, being similarly composed of cypress twigs put together so loosely that the eggs were often visible from the ground beneath. The twigs of the cypress seemed to be preferred to those of any other kind of tree. The height at which the nests were placed varied from five or six feet to twenty or thirty feet. Mr. Long described the eggs as being of a greenish white color, unspotted. He did not remember the maximum number which he had found in one set, but thought it was at least four or five. He had often taken young birds from the nests to rear or to give to his friends.

Several times parakeets have been known to breed in captivity or attempt to do so. Robert Ridgway brought several birds from Florida that laid at least 13 eggs in captivity; most of the eggs now in American collections are the product of these birds. Dr. William C. Herman writes to me that parakeets bred successfully in the Cincinnati Zoological Garden, where some were kept for 20 or more years; the last one died in September 1914. “Some of these birds bred in captivity. Dozens of young birds were raised, especially when others recently captured were added.” Dr. Nowotny (1898) purchased a pair of Carolina parakeets in Vienna and tried to breed them in captivity. The female laid in all ten eggs; the first five were put in a breeding box, but never hatched, as they were “picked and sucked,” presumably by the birds. Two more eggs were placed under a hen but were destroyed through carelessness. The other three were placed in the breeding box and incubated by the parakeets; three young were hatched, but they did not live to maturity.

Eggs.—It is not definitely known how many eggs were laid by the Carolina parakeet in a normal set, but indications point to two and three as being the commonest numbers. Bendire (1895) says, of the eggs laid by Mr. Ridgway’s birds in captivity:

None of these eggs can be called round; they vary from ovate to short ovate, and are rather pointed. They are white, with the faintest yellowish tint, ivory-like and quite glossy; the shell is rather thick, close grained, and deeply pitted, not unlike the eggs of the African Ostrich (Struthio camelus), but of course not as noticeable. Holding the eggs in a strong light, the inside appears to be pale yellow. * * *

The deep pitting is noticeable in every specimen, and there can be no possible doubt about the identity of these eggs. * * * There is no difficulty whatever in distinguishing these eggs from those of the Burrowing Owl or the Kingfisher, both of which are occasionally substituted for them.

Mr. Childs (1905) figures the three eggs sent to him by Mr. Ridgway and describes them as “color pure white with ivory gloss surpassing that of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.” One of Mr. Ridgway’s eggs, in the John E. Thayer collection, I should describe as ovate in shape and dull white in color, with a very slight gloss. The measurements of 24 eggs average 34.23 by 27.80 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 37 by 38, 33 by 30.2, 32.1 by 27.1, and 34.4 by 25.8 millimeters.

Young.—We do not know much about the development and care of the young in the wild state, but in captivity the birds seem to be very careless or indifferent in the care and feeding of the young. Dr. Nowotny’s eggs were hatched, after continuous incubation, in about 19 or 20 days, but the young all eventually died from neglect.

Mr. Ridgway wrote to Mr. Childs (1905), under date of November 13, 1902: “My female Parakeet laid only six eggs the past summer and I shall never get any more, as the bird is now dead. The first she laid is the one I sent you. The remaining five hatched, but I have only two young ones left, a rat having carried off one, another was starved by the parents when half grown, and the third I gave to a friend who had time and disposition to take care of it in order to save it from starving.”

Plumages.—I have never seen the downy young or nestling plumages and doubt if there are any such in collections. Audubon (1840) says that “the young are at first covered with soft down, such as is seen on young Owls. During the first season, the whole plumage is green; but towards autumn a frontlet of carmine appears. Two years, however, are passed before the male or female are in full plumage.” His plate shows a bird with a wholly green head.

Dr. Nowotny’s (1898) young birds, when between five and six weeks old, “had already attained green wings and tail; the older one also had red feathers above the bill and on the under parts. * * * The oldest young one had already attained many dense strong red feathers above the bill at the age of eight weeks”. This does not agree with Audubon’s account, or with C. J. Maynard’s (1896) who says, of the young of the year: “Head and neck, wholly green, and the tail is short.” He says, of the nestling: “One of my collectors, who found the young in the nest, informs me that they are covered with a grayish down.” I have never seen a young bird with a wholly green head; those that I have seen, some nine in number, were in first winter plumage, and were collected between October 7 and April 3, indicating that this plumage is worn all through the first winter. These are much like adults, but with no yellow on the head, thighs, or anal region, and only greenish yellow on the edge of the wing; the forehead and front of the crown up to the front edges of the eyes are “flame scarlet” or “cadmium orange,” shading off to dull brownish orange on the lores and to dull brown on the cheeks. Specimens taken in February show yellow feathers coming in on the head, and progressive changes toward maturity continue all through the spring months until, by summer, the yellow head is fully acquired. Audubon (1840) says that the young bird requires two years to attain its full plumage, and Maynard (1896) says that it is acquired during the third year, but the material examined does not indicate this.

Adults have a complete molt in fall, from September to November. Dr. Frank M. Chapman’s (1890) captive bird began to molt in September, “and by November had acquired an entirely new plumage.” Arthur T. Wayne (1910) says that they “commence to molt about October 5, and require at least six weeks to acquire their perfect plumage.”

Food.—Much has been said about the food of the Carolina parakeet in the earlier part of this account, as its feeding habits were so destructive in fruit orchards and grain fields that the birds were unmercifully slaughtered by the planters, thus hastening the extermination of the species. But before the lands were so extensively cultivated, the parakeets lived on their natural, wild food. C. J. Maynard (1896) writes:

I observed a large flock of Parokeets moving along the ground. * * * At first, I could not make out what they were doing but soon found that they were busily engaged in eating cockspurs, the seeds of a species of grass which grows very abundantly in old fields. They walked quite well for birds having such short legs and, in pressing forward, moved side by side in a long rank, looking exactly like miniature soldiers. After a few moments, something startled them and they arose, wheeled about, darting rapidly up and down, precisely like pigeons, at the same time, uttering loud cries; then settled quietly down again and resumed their meal, as composedly as if nothing had occurred to interrupt.

This is the only time that I ever chanced to see the Parokeets feed on the ground but I have been informed by the inhabitants of Florida, that they are very fond of cockspurs and will frequently alight in the fields in order to eat them. Early in winter, they visit the swamps, where they feed upon the cypress balls. Then it is very difficult to find them as they often remain for weeks in the impenetrable fastnesses of the vast wooded tracts which, at this season, are submerged in water. Later, about the first of February, the Parokeets emerge from the swamps in small flocks and enter the open woods to search for the seeds of the pine cones which are then ripe. At this time, they may be met with quite frequently but the best opportunity to procure specimens occurs about the middle of February, when they may be found in large companies, feeding upon the green seeds of the maples and elms which grow along the rivers.

Dr. Chapman (1890) found these parakeets feeding on the prairies near the Sebastian River in Florida, of which he says:

About these “prairies” and at the borders of small streams or low ground grew in abundance a species of thistle (Cirsium Lecontei, T. & G.) the seeds of which, so far as I could learn, constituted at this season [February] the entire food of Conurus. Not a patch of thistles did we find which had not been visited by them, the headless stalks showing clearly where the thistles had been neatly severed by the sharp chisel-like bill, while the ground beneath favorite trees would be strewn with the scattered down. * * *

Two days passed before I again met Conurus, and this time to better advantage. It was a wet and drizzling morning when we found a flock of six birds feeding on thistles at the edge of a “prairie.” Perched on the leafless branches of the tree before us, their brilliant green plumage showed to the best advantage, as we approached through the pines without difficulty. Several were skillfully dissecting the thistles they held in their feet, biting out the milky seed while the released fluffy down floated away beneath them. There was a sound of suppressed conversation; half articulate calls. * * *

There was an evident regularity in the habits of the birds we afterwards observed—in all about fifty, in flocks of from six to twenty. At an early hour they left their roost in the hummock bordering the river and passed out into the pines to feed, always, so far as I observed, selecting thistle patches, and eating the seeds only when in the milky stage. At about ten o’clock they returned to the hummock and apparently to some favorite tree, here to pass the rest of the morning and early afternoon, when they again started out to feed, returning to the roost just before sunset. A flock of these birds feeding among the thistles is a most beautiful and animated sight; one is almost persuaded not to disturb them. There is constant movement as they fly from plant to plant, or when securing thistles they fly with them in their bills to a neighboring tree, there to dissect them at their leisure. The loud rolling call was apparently uttered only when on the wing, but when at rest, or feeding, there was a loud conversational murmur of half articulate, querulous notes and calls.

Cottam and Knappen (1939) examined the stomach and crop of one bird, of which they say: “Except for two rabbit hairs, two bits of the bird’s own feathers, and two fragments of an indeterminable ant, which formed only traces, the entire content consisted of the remains of no fewer than thirty-two seeds of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).”

Behavior.—Audubon (1842) writes:

The flight of the Parakeet is rapid, straight, and continued through the forests, or over fields and rivers, and is accompanied by inclinations of the body which enable the observer to see alternately their upper and under parts. They deviate from a direct course only when impediments occur, such as the trunks of trees or houses, in which case they glance aside in a very graceful manner, merely as much as may be necessary. A general cry is kept up by the party, and it is seldom that one of these birds is on wing for ever so short a space without uttering its cry. On reaching a spot which affords a supply of food, instead of alighting at once, as many other birds do, the Parakeets take a good survey of the neighborhood, passing over it in circles of great extent, first above the trees, and then gradually lowering until they almost touch the ground, when suddenly re-ascending they all settle on the tree that bears the fruit of which they are in quest, or on one close to the field in which they expect to regale themselves.

They are quite at ease on trees or any kind of plant, moving sidewise, climbing or hanging in every imaginable posture, assisting themselves very dexterously in all their motions with their bills. They usually alight extremely close together. I have seen branches of trees as completely covered by them as they could possibly be. If approached before they begin their plundering, they appear shy and distrustful, and often at a single cry from one of them, the whole take wing, and probably may not return to the same place that day.

Maynard (1896) says:

I have remarked that the Parokeets scream very loudly when flying; so loudly, in fact, that their shrill cries can be heard for miles. They come dashing along, moving in a most eccentric manner; now near the ground, then high over the tree tops, seeming about to alight a dozen times but still without settling, each in the company endeavoring to excel the other in producing the most discordant yells, when they will all pitch, at once, into some tree and a sudden silence ensues. So great had been the din but a second before that the comparative stillness is quite bewildering, then too, the large flock of highly colored birds, lately so conspicuous, have disappeared completely. I well remember my first experience of this nature; I stood, gun in hand, watching the evolutions of a large company as it wheeled about, awaiting an opportunity to shoot, when, of a sudden, they all alighted in a large live-oak which stood a few rods away. I cautiously approached the tree, ready to slaughter half the flock at a single discharge, if possible, when, what was my surprise upon going within a suitable distance, not to perceive a bird. Neither could I see so much as a feather of the desired game although I walked around the tree several times and even went beneath its branches to peer up between them. After spending some time in these fruitless efforts, my patience became quite exhausted and I threw a large oyster shell up into the tree. This certainly produced an effect, not just what I intended, however, for, in an instant, out darted the entire body of screaming birds but on the opposite side of the thick tree; thus I could only stand and watch them as they disappeared in the neighboring swamp.

Audubon (1842) says:

Their roosting-place is in hollow trees, and the holes excavated by the larger species of Woodpeckers, as far as these can be filled by them. At dusk, a flock of Parakeets may be seen alighting against the trunk of a large sycamore or any other tree, when a considerable excavation exists within it. Immediately below the entrance the birds all cling to the bark, and crawl into the hole to pass the night. When such a hole does not prove sufficient to hold the whole flock, those around the entrance hook themselves on by their claws, and the tip of the upper mandible, and look as if hanging by the bill. I have frequently seen them in such positions by means of a glass, and am satisfied that the bill is not the only support used in such cases.

Dr. William C. Herman writes to me, of the parakeets in the Cincinnati Zoological Garden: “The parakeets were well adapted to being caged, some were in the zoo for 20 or more years. A hollow tree was provided for the birds for roosting. Here they hung for the night; that is, they used their beaks for holding to the interior of the tree trunk and so rested for the night.”

DISTRIBUTION

Range.—Southeastern United States; probably extinct.

The range of the Carolina parakeet extended north to casually northeastern Colorado (Little Thompson River); eastern Nebraska (Omaha and Brownville); casually Iowa (Spirit Lake and Decatur County); casually southern Wisconsin (Lake Koskonong and Waukesha County); Ohio (Columbus and Summit County); and Pennsylvania (Juniata River and Shermans Valley). East to Pennsylvania (Shermans Valley); casually the District of Columbia (Washington); casually West Virginia (White Sulphur Springs); South Carolina (Pine Barrens and Edding Island); Georgia; and Florida (Oklawaha River, Wekiva River, and Micco); south to Florida (Micco, Lake Okeechobee, Tampa, Tarpon Springs, Old Town, and Tallahassee); southern Louisiana (Bayou Sara and St. Mary); and central Texas (Brownwood). West to central Texas (Brownwood); eastern Oklahoma (Caddo and Fort Gibson); and casually eastern Colorado (Fort Lyon, Denver, and the Little Thompson River).

Casual records.—Several of the records that figure in the range as above outlined can be considered as little more than casual occurrences, but this status must be accorded a flock reported 25 miles northwest of Albany, N. Y., in January 1780, and to flocks observed “many years ago” at Buffalo and West Seneca, N. Y. There also is an indefinite record of this species in East Orange, Essex County, N. J., sometime between 1850 and 1860.

Systematists now consider the species as separable into two geographic races, the true Carolina parakeet, C. c. carolinensis, being the eastern form that ranged west to Alabama, while the Louisiana parakeet, C. c. ludovicianus, ranged westward from Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio.

Egg dates.—Florida: 2 records, April 2 and 26.

CONUROPSIS CAROLINENSIS LUDOVICIANUS Gmelin

LOUISIANA PARAKEET

HABITS

In describing this pale race of Conuropsis, Outram Bangs (1913) says: “For many years it has been common knowledge among the older set of American ornithologists that the Carolina paroquet divided into two very distinct geographical races.” He says of its characters: “A much paler bird than Conuropsis c. carolinensis (Linn.); yellow portions of head and neck pale lemon yellow or picric yellow, instead of lemon yellow or lemon chrome; green of upper parts much paler and more bluish, verdigris green to variscite green on wing coverts and sides of neck; under parts dull green-yellow glossed with variscite green; bend of wing and feathers of tibia paler, purer yellow, less orange.” Mr. Ridgway (1916) adds: “Greater wing-coverts, proximal secondaries, and basal portion of outer webs of primaries more pronouncedly and more extensively yellowish, contrasting more strongly with the general green color; size averaging decidedly greater.” The latter author says of its former range: “Formerly inhabiting the entire Mississippi Valley (except open prairies and plains), from West Virginia to eastern Colorado, north to the southern shores of Late Erie and Lake Michigan, south to the Gulf coast.”

This parakeet is now, doubtless, quite extinct throughout all this wide range. Though formerly abundant over most of this region, it had begun to disappear even in Audubon’s time, for he (1842) says: “Our Parakeets are very rapidly diminishing in number; and in some districts, where twenty-five years ago they were plentiful, scarcely any are now to be seen. At that period, they could be procured as far up the tributary waters of the Ohio as the Great Kenhawa, the Scioto, the heads of the Miami, the mouth of the Manimee at its junction with Lake Erie, on the Illinois River, and sometimes as far north-east as Lake Ontario. * * * At the present day, very few are to be found higher than Cincinnati, nor is it until you reach the mouth of the Ohio that Parakeets are met with in considerable numbers. I should think that along the Mississippi there is not now half the number that existed fifteen years ago.”

Myron H. Swenk (1934), in a comprehensive paper on this parakeet of the interior, sums up its disappearance in the following words: “By 1840 they were practically gone in West Virginia and Ohio. They disappeared from Indiana about 1858 and from Illinois about 1861. The Colorado birds were gone by about 1862. In Kansas they were gone by about 1867, and during the years 1875–1880 they disappeared from Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Their last stand was made in Missouri and along the Arkansas River and its tributaries in Arkansas and central Oklahoma, but by 1890 they were practically gone in these localities also. * * * The very last records of living Interior Carolina Paroquets are of lone individuals shot at Atchison, Kansas, in 1904, and seen at Notch, Stone County, Missouri, in 1905 (vide Widmann, * * * 1907).”

Since that time there have been at least two sight records reported. Harry Harris (1919) says that “in some unaccountable manner a lone bird strayed into the Courtney bottoms in 1912 and was observed by Bush for several weeks before it finally disappeared.” Dr. Daniel S. Gage has sent me a letter from Prof. Elliot R. Downing, of the University of Chicago, reporting that he saw a Carolina parakeet in the sand-dune region on the shore of Lake Michigan, not far from Chicago, on June 11, 1912. His letter states that he saw the parakeet “on a Juneberry tree, a small one, on the margin of an interdunal pond. I remember the observation very clearly. I was within 20 feet of the bird and had a chance to observe it with my bird glasses for 10 or 15 minutes. I am therefore quite confident that there was no error in the observation.”

Both of these records might well be based on escaped cage birds, as there were a number in captivity at that time, and the wild birds had long since disappeared.

Wilson (1832) suggests certain reasons why the inland parakeet enjoyed a wider and more northern distribution than its relative on the Atlantic coast. He writes:

The preference, however, which this bird gives to the western countries, lying in the same parallel of latitude with those eastward of the Alleghany mountains, which it rarely or never visits, is worthy of remark; and has been adduced, by different writers, as a proof of the superior mildness of climate in the former to that of the latter. But there are other reasons for this partiality equally powerful, though hitherto overlooked; namely, certain peculiar features of country to which these birds are particularly and strongly attached; these are, low, rich, alluvial bottoms, along the borders of creeks, covered with a gigantic growth of sycamore trees, or button-wood; deep, and almost inpenetrable swamps, where the vast and tower-cypress lifts its still more majestic head; and those singular salines, or, as they are usually called, licks, so generally interspersed over that country, and which are regularly and eagerly visited by the Paroquets. A still greater inducement is the superior abundance of their favorite fruits. That food which the paroquet prefers to all others is the seeds of the cockle bur, a plant rarely found in the lower parts of Pennsylvania or New York; but which unfortunately grows in too great abundance along the shores of the Ohio and Mississippi.

Nesting.—We have no more positive information on the nesting habits of this parakeet than we have of the eastern race, beyond the following statement by Col. N. S. Goss (1891): “Their nests are usually placed in holes or hollow cavities of trees. In the spring of 1858, a small flock reared their young in a large hollow limb of a giant sycamore tree, on the banks of the Neosho River, near Neosho Falls, Kansas. I have never been able to procure their eggs.”

Eggs.—What few eggs of this race are in existence are indistinguishable from those of the Carolina parakeet. The measurements of the only four eggs that I have been able to locate are 36 by 27, 35 by 27.5, 35 by 26.5, and 36 by 26.5 millimeters.

Food.—Prof. Myron H. Swenk (1934) says of the food of this parakeet:

The food of the Interior Carolina Paroquet, though all vegetable, was highly varied, and they seemed to delight in the fruits of spiny or thorny plants. One of the most relished foods was the seeds of the cocklebur (Xanthium canadense), and they fed also on the seeds of the sand-bur grass (Cenchrus tribuloides) and of the various species of thistles (Cirsium). In the fall they ate the seeds of the honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) and the tender buds and fruit of the osage orange (Maclura pomifera). In the spring they ate the buds of the red maple (Acer rubrum) and birch (Betula spp.). During the summer they ate much fruit, especially mulberries, wild grapes, hackberries and pawpaws, and, after the planting of cultivated apple orchards, were likely to visit them and peck out the apple seeds in the fall, sometimes doing injury in this way. Corn in the milk was also sometimes injured, but not extensively. Other favorite items of food were the seed balls of the sycamore and beech and pecan nuts. In the South cypress seeds were much eaten.

Dr. Amos W. Butler (1892), quoting from W. B. Seward, thus describes the parakeet’s method of eating the cocklebur seeds: “In eating, the bird picked up a burr with its beak, this was then delivered to one foot raised to receive it. Then one end of the burr was cut off with the sharp-ended under beak, the burr being held with the foot and the under side of the upper beak while two small kernels were extracted with the assistance of the tongue and the husk was thrown away.”

Dr. Butler, elsewhere (1898), adds to the items of food mentioned above cherries, persimmons, black-gum berries, haws, and acorns.

Voice.—Mr. Swenk (1934) says: “The common call notes consisted of a loud, shrill series of rapidly uttered, discordant cries, given incessantly when the birds were in flight, resembling qui-qui, qui, qui, qui, qui-i-i-i, with a rising inflection on each i and the last cry drawn out. Another call resembled the shrill cry of a goose and was frequently uttered for minutes at a time. When at rest they had a low, conversational chatter.”

Winter.—The Carolina parakeet was evidently a very hardy bird, a remarkable quality, quite unique among parrots. Wilson (1832) saw them “in the month of February, along the banks of the Ohio, in a snow storm, flying about like pigeons, and in full cry.” Dr. Butler (1898) was furnished the following note by Prof. John Collett:

In 1842, Return Richmond, of Lodi (Parke County), Ind., cut down, in the cold weather of winter, a sycamore tree some four feet in diameter. In its hollow trunk he found hundreds of Parakeets in a quiescent or semi-torpid condition. The weather was too cold for the birds to fly or even to make any exertion to escape. Mr. Richmond cut off with his saw a section of the hollow trunk some five feet long, cut out a doorway one foot by two in size, nailed it over a wire screen of his fanning mill, rolled this cumbersome cage into the house and placed in it a dozen of the birds. They soon began to enjoy the feed of fruit, huckleberries and nuts he gave them, and he had the pleasure of settling absolutely the disputed question of how they slept. At night they never rested on a perch, but suspended themselves by their beaks, and with their feet on the side of their cage. This was repeated night after night during their captivity.

RHYNCHOPSITTA PACHYRHYNCHA (Swainson)

THICK-BILLED PARROT

HABITS

This fine, large parrot is a Mexican species that claims a place on our list as an irregular visitor across our southwestern border in southern Arizona and New Mexico. Charles T. Vorhies (1934) has published an account of all the Arizona records that he was able to find, which probably tells the whole story. R. D. Lusk (1900) reported that a flock of nine or ten of these parrots came into the Chiricahua Mountains, just north of the Mexican border, about the middle of June 1900. He collected two specimens, and some polecutters killed several others. “They appeared to come up the large cañon, at the head of which I was encamped, to about midway of the mountain’s height, where the oaks begin to give way to pine, and there they tarried.”

Austin Paul Smith (1907) reported “an immense flock of this species, * * * observed by miners at Bonita Park, near Cochise head in the Chiricahua Mountains, during the month of August, 1904. * * * This flock was estimated at from 700 to 1,000, by those who observed the birds. Among these were a number of young birds, easily distinguished by plumage and small size.”

The next occurrence of these parrots, and probably the last definite record, was in the winter of 1917–18, of which Percy Hands wrote to Professor Vorhies as follows: “The Mexican Thick-billed Parrots were first noticed on my ranch in lower Pinery Canyon in mid-September. About 250—counted over 200—in one flock. They have been on my ranch at irregular intervals since then up to March 27. They roosted here seven times during late October and early November. The longest period they were away was about three weeks before they appeared March 27. There were about 70, rough count, at that appearance.”

The thick-billed parrot may have occurred elsewhere in Arizona, but Professor Vorhies was unable to find any definite records for any locality outside of the Chiricahuas. The New Mexico records are both hearsay, sight records. Mrs. Bailey (1928) reports: “In 1919, Dr. Alexander Wetmore was told by R. Winkler that in recent years his son had at times seen parrots on Animas Mountain, above Deer Creek. * * * A confirmatory record was given Aldo Leopold by Forest Ranger Don S. Sullivan, who said that in 1917 some large Parrots were seen near the Elvey Ranch. * * * on the Animas Division of the Coronado Forest near the Mexican boundary.”

The main range of the thick-billed parrot is in the mountains bordering the Mexican tableland. Dr. W. H. Bergtold (1906) writes:

This bird is increasingly common from Chuichupa southward, and was especially an everyday sight during the trip, in 1904, to the mountains west of Parral. * * * In the higher mountains west of Parral, a region varying in altitude from 4,000 to 10,000 feet, the Thick-billed Parrot is far more common than northward in the country west of Cases Grandes; in fact it is the characteristic bird of these high places, as much so as is the Magpie part of the local color of our Western Plains. * * * In whatever section we saw them, these parrots were most abundant in the pines. They frequented the tops of dead pines, and were, a good part of the time, going in and out of abandoned woodpecker nests, nests which we took to be those of the Imperial Woodpecker (Campephilus imperialis), for this splendid woodpecker is relatively common in the same neighborhood, and is the only woodpecker which excavates such a large hole.

Nesting.—Practically all we know about the nesting habits of the thick-billed parrot is contained in the report of Col. John E. Thayer (1906) on some ten nests of this species examined by Wilmot W. Brown, Jr., in 1905, in the mountains near Colonia Pachaco and Colonia Garcia, Chihuahua, Mexico. The breeding grounds were at altitudes varying from 6,500 to 7,500 feet, and all the nests were in the tall pines, characteristic of the region. The parrots occupied the old nests of the imperial woodpecker, which had been excavated at heights ranging from 50 to 80 feet above ground; one nest was in a living longleaf pine, but all the others were in dead, dry, or rotten pines. The entrance to the hole was usually circular and 6 or 7 inches in diameter; the holes varied in depth from 18 to 24 inches, and the inner cavity measured from 8 to 10 inches in diameter. No nesting material had been brought in, the eggs having been laid on the bare wood dust left by woodpeckers. One nest, found on August 20, contained two big young ones and one fresh egg; another found on August 28, held two young ones. All the other nests, found between August 11 and 25, contained one or two eggs. Mr. Brown wrote to Colonel Thayer (1906) that the first tree he climbed was “located on a flat-topped mountain at an altitude of 7,500 feet above the sea. * * * The tree was about one hundred feet high and was thirty-six inches in diameter at the base and was so dry that the bark had all peeled off. It was very difficult to climb, not to mention the danger.” The nest was 80 feet from the ground.

Eggs.—I have examined the eggs referred to above, which, with the entire Thayer collection, are now in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, in Cambridge. They vary in shape from ovate to rounded-ovate, are pure white in color, and are decidedly glossy; the shell is hard and thick. The measurements of 20 eggs average 39.49 by 30.63 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 42 by 31. 39.2 by 32, 37.6 by 30.6, and 38.2 by 29 millimeters.

Plumages.—Aside from the alcoholic specimens in the Thayer collection, which are unsuitable for description, I have seen no nestlings of this species. The immature bird is similar to the adult, but the red of the forehead is more restricted, and the red is lacking on the bend of the wing and on the lower thighs. Nothing seems to be known about the length of time that the immature plumage is worn, or about subsequent molts and plumages.

Food.—The birds observed by R. D. Lusk (1900) “were very busily engaged with the pine cones, and investigation of their stomachs showed nothing but a plentiful quantity of very immature pinones wrested from their cavities in the hearts of the hard, green cones by their powerful beaks. The beaks, at their bases, as well as nearly the entire under parts of the birds, were more or less begummed with the resin of the cones.” The birds reported by Austin Paul Smith (1907) were first noticed when “feeding on pinyon nuts. Some of the birds were on the ground, searching for the fallen nuts.” During their sojourn in Arizona, these parrots have been reported as feeding on pinyon nuts and acorns, after they had exhausted the supply of pine cones.

The stomachs of two birds examined by Cottam and Knappen (1939) contained 136 and 284 or more seeds of the Chihuahua pine (Pinus chihuahuana). “The pine seeds were in all stages from entire seeds to a pulverized mast-like débris.”

Behavior.—All observers seem to agree that the thick-billed parrot is very tame and unsuspicious, probably owing to its unfamiliarity with man.

William Beebe (1905) says: “It is either a very stupid bird or controlled by its curiosity, for the flocks followed us everywhere.”

Dr. Bergtold (1906) writes:

It was a great surprise to see how different is a wild parrot from a tame one; one must need get an idea from the latter that a parrot is a slow, lumbering climber, able to use its wings perhaps, yet little given to prolonged and vigorous flight. On the contrary, this Thick-billed Parrot flew across deep barrancas, from mountain to mountain, as swift and strong on wing as a duck, going often in large flocks, which were noticeably divided in pairs, each couple flying one above another as closely as beating wings allowed. Its loud squawk resounded overhead, across the barrancas, and in the pines all day long, from dawn till dusk; and many and many a time a flock could be heard long before it was in sight. The birds were not at all shy, as one could walk up under a tree and watch a pair climbing in it without disturbing them in the least. Here they seemed natural, at least to one whose previous knowledge of parrots came via the cage bird, for they climbed about precisely as does the domesticated species, using bill and feet in the familiar way; on the wing the birds seemed anything but parrots.

Dr. Alexander Wetmore (1935) obtained considerable information from reliable observers about the occurrence of this parrot in Arizona and its habits; regarding its movements and behavior, he writes:

According to all accounts Thick-billed Parrots gathered at night to roost in flocks and then spread out in small bands to feed during the day. In Pinery Canyon they roosted somewhere on the upper mountain slopes during summer and fall. Morning and evening they were seen in two large flocks. As the weather became colder the roosting place was changed to one at a lower altitude. In Rucker Canyon the birds came at night to the mountain side above the site of old Camp Rucker.

As there were a thousand or more here, their morning and evening flights were quite impressive. In the Dragoon Range the parrots roosted somewhere near the head of Cochise Stronghold and made a morning flight that often carried them directly out over the plains to the east.

In feeding, the large bands usually broke up into smaller parties. In winter such flocks at times came down to perch on broken sandstone ledges where they clambered about or basked in the sun. In Backer Canyon toward evening flocks often flew down to the river to drink before passing on to their roost. In the Chiricahua Mountains during late fall and winter the birds came down into the foothills to an altitude of between 5000 and 5500 feet though earlier they were confined to the higher basins.

The birds were noisy and their coming was heralded by their loud calls that were said to be readily audible at a distance of more than a mile. Like parrots elsewhere they were said to show much fear of hawks (though it seems strange that a bird with so powerful a bill and so muscular a body should show such fear); when a red-tail or a hawk of some other species appeared they rose in flocks and circled in the air, doubling the volume of their ordinary screeching calls.

He was told by F. Hands that “as cold weather came during the fall some of the birds disappeared. Others remained during the entire winter, although at one time the ground was covered by six inches of snow for over two weeks and the birds were forced to seek their food on the ground where this covering had blown partly away.”

DISTRIBUTION

Range.—Southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (casually) and the mountainous area adjacent to the tableland of Mexico.

The range of the thick-billed parrot extends north to (casually) southeastern Arizona (probably near Mowry, Pinery Canyon, Cochise Head, and Paradise); (casually) southwestern New Mexico (Animas Mountain); eastern Chihuahua (Ciudad Chihuahua); and Veracruz (Perote). East to Veracruz (Perote and Jalapa). South to central Veracruz (Jalapa); Mexico (Popocatapetl); and southern Durango (Canyon Rio San Juan). West to Durango (Canyon Rio San Juan, Ciudad Durango, and Arroyo del Buey); western Chihuahua (Guadalupe y Calvo, Jesus Maria, and Colonia Garcia); and southeastern Arizona (Nogales and probably Mowry).

While the range as outlined includes the entire region over which the species is known to occur, it has actually been found breeding only in the Mexican States of Chihuahua and Durango. At irregular intervals flocks that sometimes are of large size travel northward and invade the mountain ranges of southeastern Arizona. Such invasions took place in 1900, 1904, and 1917.

Egg dates.—Mexico: 10 records, May 10 to August 25; 7 records, August 11 to 25.

Order CUCULIFORMES

Family CUCULIDAE: Cuckoos, Roadrunners, and Anis

CROTOPHAGA ANI Linnaeus

SMOOTH-BILLED ANI

HABITS

This curious member of the cuckoo family is a tropical species of rare, or perhaps only casual, occurrence within the limits of the United States; a few may occur more or less regularly in southern Florida or Louisiana, but to find it in abundance one must visit the West Indies or South America. It has a variety of local names, such as black ani, black witch, blackbird, savanna blackbird, and tickbird, the last from its habit of eating the ticks that infest cattle. Charles B. Taylor sent some interesting notes on this bird to W. E. D. Scott (1892); regarding its haunts in Jamaica, he says:

The Ani appears to be abundant in all parts of the island. It is one of the commonest birds near Kingston; and in most open and sparsely wooded lands, or in the vicinity of cultivated clearings, little groups or companies may nearly always be seen. Blackbirds are invariably present wherever cattle are pastured. I cannot recollect an instance in which I have noted a herd of cows at pasture without a flock of these birds appearing in company with them or in their immediate vicinity. This association is doubtless chiefly for the purpose of feeding on the ticks and other parasites on the animals, a good work largely shared by the Grackles (Quiscalus crassirostris). It is most interesting to watch a company of Blackbirds when thus engaged. Many are perched on the backs of the cattle (two or three sometimes on one cow), others are on the ground hopping about fearlessly among the grazing herd, searching for insects at the roots of the herbage or capturing those disturbed by the feet of the cattle.

Nesting.—He says on this subject:

Their nesting habits are exceedingly curious and interesting. Many individuals (possibly members of one flock) work together in the construction of a large nest in which all the females of the company lay their eggs. The number of eggs deposited in different nests varies greatly but is of course dependent on the number of birds in a company. Six and eight eggs are commonly found. I once took eleven, and in August last year I saw a clutch of twenty-one that had been taken from a single nest! It is probable that normally not more than two eggs are deposited by each bird, but nothing definite can be said on this point. The nest, which is usually placed high up in a tall tree, very frequently in a clump of mistletoe on a “bastard cedar”, is a large, loosely constructed mass of twigs, entirely lined with dried leaves. But the most remarkable circumstance in connection with the nesting of these birds is the deposition of the eggs in regular layers with leaves between. This custom I had long heard of before an opportunity offered for personal observation. In the first nest I examined, the eggs were in two distinct layers, separated by a deep bed of dry leaves; the bottom layer consisted of four eggs and these, strange to say, were all infertile. I believe this singular habit is practised in all cases where a large number of birds resort to the same nest.

Dr. Alexander Wetmore (1927) writes:

Although this species often builds a communal nest, this is not always the case. Near Cayey [Porto Rico], January 22, two anis were seen constructing a nest in a tree about thirty feet above a small stream, the male sitting on a limb above while the female was in the nest, as yet only a loose mass of sticks and weeds. She moved and turned to shape it to her body, with her long tail sticking nearly straight up in the air. Near Bayamón, July 25, a single bird slipped quietly from a bulky nest in a clump of bamboos and only its mate appeared to join it. The nests were all large and bulky and were located from six to thirty feet above the ground. Bowdish reports a communal nest found near Aguadilla, August 13, built eight feet from the ground, in a thicket of bushes and trees. This nest contained twenty eggs, placed in layers of four or five, each layer being covered with dead leaves to separate it from the next lot of eggs above. Eight of the eggs were partly incubated and twelve were fresh.

John G. Wells (1902) says: “A flat nest is first built and about 6 or 7 eggs laid in it; then these are covered over and more eggs laid, and so on until four or five layers of nests have been constructed one over the other.

“I have seen four of these birds sitting on the nest together. When the top layer of eggs is hatched, and the young fledged, it is scraped off and incubation goes on with each succeeding layer, until all the eggs are hatched.”

Eggs.—On account of its communal nesting habits, the number of eggs laid by each individual ani does not seem to be known; nor is anything known about the period of incubation. The number of eggs found in a nest varies greatly, from 4 or 5 up to 20 or more, depending on the number of females laying in the nest. I have in my collection a set of 18, there is a set of 19 in the Thayer collection, and sets of 20 and 21 are mentioned above.

The eggs vary in shape from oval to elliptical-oval. Bendire (1895) says that the eggs “are glaucous-blue in color, and this is overlaid and hidden by a thin, chalky, white deposit; as incubation advances the eggs become more or less scratched and the blue underneath is then plainly visible in places, giving them a very peculiar appearance.” The underlying color of some of the eggs that I have seen is “pale Nile blue”; others have described them as green.

The eggs are often very much nest stained. Mr. Taylor (Scott, 1892) makes the following interesting observation regarding the scratches: “What seems very singular is that comparatively little of this chalky covering gets rubbed off the sides, where from the turning over of the eggs in the nest we should expect to see the greatest extent of denudation, whereas one or both ends are nearly always wholly denuded. * * * So cleanly and evenly is it done, and to such an extent, that I feel confident it is the work of the birds themselves, their beaks alone being able to accomplish it. At the same time it is easy to see that the marks and scratches at the sides are the result of friction with the twigs and leaves of the nest.”

The measurements of 63 eggs average 35.03 by 26.27 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 40.4 by 28, 36.5 by 30, and 29.21 by 23.37 millimeters.

Young.—Alexander F. Skutch has sent me the following notes on the development of young smooth-billed anis, as observed by him on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: “The newly hatched ani is covered with black skin quite devoid of any trace of feathers. Its eyes are tightly closed. The development of this naked, helpless, little creature is amazingly rapid. By the second day the sheaths of the flight plumes have already begun to sprout. By the third day the eyes are open, and the sheaths of the contour feathers have begun to push out from the skin. The pinfeathers grow rapidly and become very long before they begin to release the true feathers which they enclose. When the young ani is 5 days old, the body feathers peep from the ends of their sheaths. At this age, the nestling could hang by one foot from my finger, and pull itself up by the use of its feet and bill, which was hooked over the support. When placed on the ground, it attempted to crawl away through the grass, and might have succeeded in escaping if I had not watched it carefully. Returned to the nest, it would not remain in the bowl, but climbed out to perch on the rim, where it uttered a little whine.

“When I approached the nest on the following day, the 6-day-old youngster hopped out and began to climb through the thorny branches of the orange tree, but soon it lost its hold and fell to the ground. When I picked it up, it uttered a weak imitation of the parents’ usual call. The flight feathers, as well as the body feathers, were now pushing forth from their sheaths, and the latter were longer than on the preceding day. Much bare skin was, however, still visible between them. On the following morning the nest was empty; and I could not discover what had befallen the occupant.”

Plumages.—The youngest bird I have seen is about half grown and fully feathered. The contour plumage is soft and short, “bone brown” on the under parts and somewhat darker above; the wings and tail are glossy, purplish black, much like those of the adult; the bill is smaller and less specialized than that of the adult. On account of the extended breeding season, it is difficult to give any definite dates for the molts. I have seen a young male, taken March 7, that was just completing the molt of the wings and tail, but the body plumage was still juvenal; from this I infer that the juvenal plumage may be worn for the whole of the first year. Maynard (1896) took some birds that had just completed molting on March 8; also some that had just begun to molt on April 24. I have seen young birds molting into adult plumage in December.

Food.—P. H. Gosse (1847) says of the food of the ani in Jamaica:

The food of our Blackbird, though consisting mainly of insects, is not confined to them. We usually find the stomach distended with caterpillars, moths, grasshoppers, beetles, and other insects, to such a degree that we wonder how the mass could have been forced in. But I have found these contents mixed up with, and stained by the berries of the snake-withe; and in July I have found the stomach crammed with the berries of the fiddle-wood, (Cytharaxylon) which had stained the whole inner surface a bright crimson. Flocks of these birds were at that time feeding on the glowing clusters profusely ripe upon the trees. Stationary insects are the staple food; to obtain which, they hop about grassy places, and are often seen to jump, or to run eagerly at their prey; on which occasions the long tail, continuing the given motion after the body has stopped, is thrown forward in an odd manner, sometimes nearly turning the bird head over heels. * * *

One day I noticed a cow lying down, around which were four or five Blackbirds, hopping on or off her neck, and eagerly picking the insects from her body; which service seemed in no wise unpleasing to her. I have also seen them leaping up on cows when grazing; and, on another occasion, jumping to and from a horse’s back; and my lad Sam has repeatedly observed them clinging to a cow’s tail, and picking insects from it, as far down as the terminal tuft. * * *

But stationary insects are not the only prey of the Crotophaga; in December, I have seen little groups of them engaged in the evenings, leaping up from the pasture about a yard into the air, doubtless after flying insects, which they seemed to catch. * * * I have seen one with a dragon-fly in its beak, which it had just caught, but it may have been while resting. At another time I saw that a Blackbird had actually made prey of one of our little nimble lizards (Anolis).

Maynard (1896) says that “anis live largely on locusts, especially a large species, which is quite common on the Bahamas, and which has a peculiar, rather disagreeable odor, which is imparted to the birds.” W. E. Clyde Todd (1916) says that, on the Isle of Pines, “it is fond of following in the wake of brush-fires, picking up the roasted lizards, snails, and insects.” Dr. Wetmore (1916) reports that the stomachs of 41 birds from Puerto Rico contained 91.3 percent animal matter, mostly harmful insects and arachnids, including mole crickets, other crickets, locusts, sugar-cane root-borers, leaf beetles, other beetles, squashbugs, other bugs, caterpillars, and spiders; the other 8.7 percent was vegetable matter, mostly seeds and fruits of 7 species of wild plants. He also says elsewhere (1927): “On May 20 near Yauco three anis were seen in a tree in which several mazambiques had nests. The anis were very near these nests, and the blackbirds, together with a pair of gray kingbirds, were much excited, but appeared to be unable to drive out the intruders. It was certain that the anis were bent on robbing the nests, and one was shot in the act of gulping down something which was later found to be an egg. No other instances of this evil habit were observed.”

Behavior.—Gosse (1847) writes:

Though its usual mode of progression on the ground is by hopping, or rather bounding, the feet being lifted together, the Blackbird is seen occasionally to run in a headlong manner for a short distance, moving the feet alternately. He is fond of sitting in the morning sun on a low tree with the wings expanded; remaining there perfectly still for a considerable time. In the heat of the day, in July and August, many may be seen in the lowland plains, sitting on the fences and logwood hedges with the beaks wide open, as if gasping for air; they then forget their usual loquacity and wariness. Often two or three will sit in the centre of a thick bush, overhung with a matted drapery of convolvolus, whence they utter their singular cry in a calling tone, as if they were playing at hide-and-seek, and requiring their fellows to come and find them.

Several observers have noted that anis roost at night huddled close together on a branch, like domestic fowls, and that they often bunch together in this way during a rain. Dr. Wetmore (1927) writes:

These strange birds are found in flocks that contain from half a dozen to twenty or more individuals, ranging mainly in pasture-lands, but going also into the cane-fields and orange groves to feed. In pastures they remain near the cattle, keeping ahead of them with long hops, in order to get the insects that the cattle scare up. Any intruder is greeted with a querulous call, and the whole flock flies in a straggling line across the fields to perch in a bush or low tree, where they crowd together and peer out curiously, their long tails and arched beaks giving them an odd appearance. In the early morning, when the grass is wet, they frequently sit in the sun with the wings extended in order to dry them or to absorb heat. The wings are small for the size of the bird, and the flight, accomplished by a series of steady wing beats alternating with short sails, is not strong. In a heavy wind the birds are almost helpless, and they seldom rise high from the ground at any time. When on the wing, the back appears concave from the fact that the head and tail are held on a higher level.

C. J. Maynard (1896) says:

In flight they most nearly resemble a Canada or Florida Jay, alternately flopping and sailing, moving in a straight forward flight from tree to tree with great rapidity, uttering their mournful notes as they quickly disappear in the distance. * * *

A careful study of the Anis convinced me of the fact that a number of females are led by two or three males, and these males take great care of their charges. They utter cries of alarm when they perceive an intruder, and drive the females before them into a place of safety. I have even seen males fly against females or young birds which did not attempt to escape soon enough, and knock them off the limb on which they sat and then accompany them to a distant thicket.

I am inclined to think that the Ani is polygamous and this habit of the males taking care of a number of females would appear to confirm this idea.

Mr. Taylor (Scott, 1892) gives a somewhat different impression, thus:

The Blackbirds at their best have a very lean and shabby appearance, and are slow and awkward in their movements. I have watched an individual make several ineffectual attempts to alight on the frond of a cocoanut palm; but even among the branches of other trees their actions appear awkward. Their flight is slow and gliding, somewhat labored, and of little duration, the birds often appearing to fall short of the point originally aimed at. Yet they will chase the large yellow butterflies, and I was shown a large green locust that one of these birds was seen to capture in flight and afterwards drop. In the progress of a flock from place to place they do not usually fly all together, but move away in straggling groups or couples. One or more individuals first start off with their wailing call, followed soon after by two or three; after a little delay then two more go; another pause, then one, then three, and so on. If a tree has very dense foliage they alight (with much awkward scrambling) on the tops or extremities of the highest branches, where they may gain a clear and uninterrupted view, and this is usually the case when they are traversing very open country.

Voice.—The note of the ani has been called a wailing or a whining whistle; it has been said to resemble the notes of the wood duck. Dr. Wetmore (1927) says: “The ordinary call-notes are a low kur-r-rk and a querulous quee ick, quee ick, varied by low chuckling notes. When the birds are at all wild, they serve to alarm the entire country, as they begin to call on the slightest provocation.” It has also been expressed as que-yuch, que-yuch, que-yuch by Gosse (1847) and similarly by others.

Field marks.—The ani is such a peculiar and unique bird that it could hardly be mistaken for anything else. It is the only long, slender, black bird, with a long tail, short wings, and a huge bill, that is to be found within its range, so far as I know. Its shape and its manner of flight are quite different from those of the grackles; its concave back in flight, referred to above, is distinctive. Gosse (1847) says: “The appearance of the bird in its sliding flights is unusual; the body is slender, the head large, and the beak enormous; and as in flying it assumes a perfectly straight form, with the long tail in the same line, without flapping the wings, it takes the aspect, on a side view, rather of a fish than of a bird.”

Where our two small species of anis come together in Panama, they are likely to be confused, but the voices of the two are quite distinct; the call of the groove-billed is softer and higher in pitch, while that of the smooth-billed is more raucous and whining. The grooves in the bill of the former are not easily seen, except under favorable circumstances, but the culmen of the bill in the smooth-billed is much higher and sharper than in the groove-billed.

DISTRIBUTION

Range.—South America and the West Indies; casual in winter in eastern Central America and casual or accidental in Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

The normal range of the smooth-billed ani extends north to western Cuba (Los Indios and Nueva Gerona); the Bahama Islands (Little Abaco and Nassau); Haiti (Jacmel); the Dominican Republic (Sesua and Ciudad Trujillo); Puerto Rico (Aguidillo and Rio Piedras); and the Virgin Islands (Cuelebra, Vieques, and St. Croix). East to the Virgin Islands (St. Croix); the Lesser Antilles (Grenada and Trinidad); British Guiana (Georgetown); Surinam (Paramaribo); and eastern Brazil (Ilha Mexiana, Maranhao, Bahia, Sapetiba, Canatgallo, Rio de Janeiro, and Iguape). South to southeastern Brazil (Iguape); and northern Argentina (Posadas, the Chaco District, and San Jose). West to northwestern Argentina (San Jose, Concepcion, and Salta); Peru (Huanuco and Iquitos); northwestern Colombia (the Cauca River Valley); Panama (Gatun, Perme, and Obaldia); Jamaica (Port Henderson, Spanish Town, Grand Cayman, and Little Cayman); and western Cuba (Los Indios).

This species occurs in other parts of Central America only in winter, when it has been recorded from Costa Rica (Rio Coto); Nicaragua (Great and Little Corn Islands); Honduras (Ruatan Island); and Quintana Roo, Mexico (Cozumel Island).

Casual records.—The following are among the several records the species has for Florida: Flamingo, a specimen taken in June 1916; Pass-a-Grille, a specimen collected on February 25, 1929; Dry Tortugas, three seen June 18 and 19, 1935; and Miami Beach, a small flock seen on February 24, 1937. Undated specimens also are available for Brevard County, Tortugas, Pepper Hammock near the head of the Banana River, and Charlotte Harbor.

A specimen was collected on July 18, 1893, at Diamond, and several have been reported from the vicinity of Buras, St. Bernard Parish, La. A specimen was collected previous to 1866 at Edenton, N. C., while individuals were reported from Piney Creek in the western part of that State on July 17, 1932, June 1, 1933, and June 25, 1934. There also is an old record of the occurrence of this species on Pettys Island in the Delaware River, opposite Kensington, Pa.

Egg dates.—Bahamas: 2 records, June 14.

Brazil: 3 records, October 1 to November 18.

British Guiana: 3 records, January 14 to July 2.

Cuba: 4 records, February 22 to August 20.

Jamaica: 7 records, May 29 to July 30.

Puerto Rico: 2 records, July 25 and August 13.

CROTOPHAGA SULCIROSTRIS SULCIROSTRIS Swainson

GROOVE-BILLED ANI

Plates 1, 2

HABITS

This Central and South American species was added to our fauna by George B. Sennett (1879), who secured a fine male on May 19, 1878, near Lomita, Tex., while it was “flying about the low bushes in open chaparral. It was very shy, flying in and about the bushes, and was shot on the wing.” The only one I have ever seen did not seem at all shy. I was sitting down, quietly watching some Texas sparrows that were hopping around on the ground near me, in some thick brush bordering a resaca near Brownsville, Tex., when one of these curious birds appeared. It seemed more curious than shy, as it moved about slowly in the bushes, looking me over; it remained in my vicinity for some time and I could have shot it easily. It is said to show a preference for thick underbrush in the vicinity of water, or for lightly wooded swamps.

In his proposed work on the birds of the Caribbean lowlands, Alexander F. Skutch devotes two long and very interesting chapters to the home life of the groove-billed ani. He has kindly placed at my disposal his unpublished manuscript and allowed me to quote freely from it. As to its haunts, he writes: “The variety of the habitat of the anis is enormous and their only restriction seems to be that they do not tolerate the forest and are never seen there. They are birds of open country but seem nearly indifferent to its type. In the inhabited districts of the humid coastal regions they are one of the most conspicuous species. Their favorite haunts are bushy pastures, orchards, the lighter second growth, and even lawns and clearings about the native huts. Marshland is as acceptable to them as a well-drained hillside, and they are numerous in such extensive stands of sawgrass as that surrounding the Toloa Lagoon in Honduras, although it is probable that they do not venture far from some outstanding hummock or ridge which supports a few low bushes in which they can roost and nest. In the semidesert regions of the interior, where their associates of the coast lands, if present at all, are as a rule rare and restricted to the moist thickets along the rivers, they are among the most numerous of birds, and live among scattered cacti and acacias as successfully as amid the rankest vegetation of the districts watered by 12 feet of rainfall in the year. In altitude they range upward to 5,000 feet, but are not nearly so numerous in the elevated districts as in the lowlands.”

Nesting.—Dr. Charles W. Richmond, drawing on his experience with it near Bluefields, Nicaragua, sent some elaborate notes on the groove-billed ani to Major Bendire (1895), from which I quote as follows:

It appears to breed at various times during the year, as I have found fresh eggs July 6, 1892, and young birds, recently from the nest, November 29, the breeding season spreading over seven months of the year at least, as it begins nesting earlier than the date of taking my first eggs. Nests are frequently built in the heart of a thick, thorny orange or lemon tree, and this appears to be a favorite situation. In this case the nest is from 4 to 7 feet from the ground, and, besides being difficult to get at, is somewhat protected from invasion by the wasps which almost invariably take up their abode in the same tree. In going through a small lemon grove I found an old nest of this species. In the cavity there were no eggs, but on poking the nest to pieces six badly decayed eggs rolled out.

One nest containing three eggs in the proper place and two others at the bottom, under the lining of green leaves, was located in a bamboo about 12 feet from the ground. The eggs were fresh, and more would probably have been deposited; the leaves forming the lining were still green. The parent birds were away at the time. Another nest was situated in some vines which had over-run an old tree stub, and was about 15 feet from the ground.

It may be that where numerous eggs are deposited in one nest only those eggs that are deposited in the proper place and directly influenced by the incubating bird are hatched, while those placed among the sticks forming the bulky exterior are left unhatched. It would be interesting to watch the progress of a large nestful of eggs and note results. The nests found by me were all composed of dead black twigs, rather loosely put together, very bulky and conspicuous structures, lined with green leaves, or, if old nests, with leaves that had the appearance of having been picked green.

One of Dr. Richmond’s nests is described by Major Bendire (1895) as “a rather loose structure, about 10 inches in diameter and 4 inches in height. The inner cup measures 4 inches in diameter by 2½ inches in depth.”

According to George K. Cherrie (1892) Señor Don Anastasio Alfaro says of the nests he collected in Costa Rica:

The structure is voluminous, composed chiefly of coarse dead twigs, but presents one peculiarity not observed in any other bird, namely the nest being lined with fresh green leaves. My three specimens were all placed in low trees, and neither was found at a greater height than three meters. One had been built above an old nest of one of the larger Tyrannidae.

It will not be without interest, I think, to insert my observations relative to one of these nests. On the 20th of May I noticed a Zopilotillo with a dry stick in its bill, which was immediately carried to a point in the hedge-row where it was deposited with three others. After assuring myself that the bird was building its nest there, I retired, with the intention of returning at a more opportune moment. And when one week later I returned to the same spot, what was my surprise to see not only the nest completed and containing six eggs, but more than this: in the thorns and leaves about it were scattered seven more eggs! As a consequence, if that collection was not the work of the Zopilotillos collectively, the poor owner would have had to deposit three eggs daily! In the finding of some of the eggs scattered in the leaves was revealed one of the architect’s peculiarities. A hole had been left in the centre of the nest and only recently filled with leaves whose fresh green color testified that they had been cut and placed there later than the others forming the carpeting to the bottom of this common incubator.

Alden H. Miller (1932) writes of his experience with the nesting habits of the groove-billed ani in El Salvador:

Several nests were watched from the time there was one egg until there were nine, or in one case eleven, eggs. The eggs were deposited regularly at one day intervals and there was no certain indication in any of the sets, of two females contributing to the same nest as has been claimed by other observers. My findings, however, do not prove conclusively that community nests may not exist, at least occasionally. Incubation is uniform within a set and, correspondingly, birds were found to be incubating regularly only after the sets were completed. In the set of thirteen the eggs were resting in three layers in the necessarily ample cup of the nest.

Nest sites were from two feet to twenty-five feet above ground in almost any kind of bush or tree. Usually they were located between six and twelve feet above ground in thorny tangles or close twiggery. One nest was found, however, in an open crotch of a fan of a royal palm. Adult birds are not much in evidence around nests which are being built or around sets of incomplete eggs. When flushed from sets of complete eggs, they may approach within five feet of the intruder and utter their feeble, squeaking notes of protest.

A. J. van Rossem (1938) found several nests, on July 29, 1925, “in the mimosa scrub in the marsh along the north shore of Lake Olomega,” in El Salvador. “These nests were all in similar situations, that is, they were rather conspicuously placed in mimosa bushes and more than six feet above the mud or water.”

Mr. Skutch devoted considerable time to studying the communal nesting habits of the groove-billed ani. He found them to be among the latest birds to breed, remaining together in small flocks from February to May while the other birds of the region were raising their broods. During June he watched the construction of a communal nest, on which three pairs worked in perfect harmony, operating in pairs and not as a unit. One of the pair remained on the nest while its mate brought in the material. There was not the least jealousy between the pairs, and “two or more pairs often perched quietly in the same bush. Each pair preferred to work alone at the nest, and if a second pair flew into the nesting tree, the first often quietly withdrew. This was not always their conduct, and sometimes one of the second pair (probably the female) took a place on the nest beside one of the first pair, while their two mates perched near by, or else brought them sticks.

“The normal set of eggs for each female is three, or more commonly four. Nests belonging to a single pair generally contain this number, and the nests belonging to two pairs, which I encountered, contained a maximum of eight. Once I found a nest with 12 eggs, which covered the bottom two layers deep, and six birds were interested in them. * * * Of ten nests which I found in Honduras and Guatemala and was able to watch for an adequate period, four were the property of single pairs, five of two pairs together, and one belonged to three pairs in common.”

All the birds of both sexes took turns in incubating the eggs, but their shifts on the nest had no regular order and no fixed duration. “Just as the parents cooperate in incubating the eggs, they all join in the care of the nestlings. I have watched three nests, each belonging to two pairs, during the time they contained young. Two of them, I made quite sure, were attended by four adults, but at the other I could not convince myself that there were more than three attendants. Possibly some calamity had befallen the fourth bird, or possibly also I failed to recognize it, since the anis at this nest were unmarked and indistinguishable.”

Eggs.—The groove-billed ani lays 4 to 13 eggs, the smaller numbers being apparently commoner. The eggs vary in shape from oval to elliptical-oval, or rarely to elliptical-ovate or rounded-ovate. The ground color, when visible, varies from “glaucous-blue” to “Nile blue” or “pale Nile blue”; when first laid, the ground color is completely covered with a thin layer of dull white, chalky deposit, which eventually becomes somewhat discolored; as incubation progresses this chalky covering becomes more or less scratched, by contact with the twigs in the nest or by the action of the bird’s feet in turning the eggs, or in relining the nest, so that ultimately much or nearly all of the blue ground color is visible; even then the shell is not glossy. The measurements of 51 eggs average 30.93 by 24.06 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure 35 by 25, 32 by 26, and 27.68 by 21.84 millimeters.

Young.—Mr. Skutch determined, by close observation of marked birds and by noting which individual of a marked pair laid the eggs, that both sexes share in the duties of incubation. They were very impatient sitters, constantly changing about; 30 minutes was the longest time that he saw one incubate, during the early stages, and they sometimes left the nest unguarded for 10 or 20 minutes, while they enjoyed each other’s company; during the last two days of incubation they lengthened their periods on the eggs to from 30 minutes to an hour. He describes the hatching process in detail:

“Fourteen days after the last egg had been laid, I held one in my hand while the birdling worked its way out of it. When I first took it up there was a gap in the larger end, which extended about a third of the way around the circumference. The little bird’s short, thick bill was in this gap, and so pressed out of position that the lower mandible overshot the upper, only a temporary condition. At intervals the struggling prisoner drew its bill farther into the egg, then suddenly pushed it outward, bringing the keeled upper edge, armed with a rather insignificant egg-tooth or ‘pip,’ against the edge of the shell at one end of the hole, and breaking off a small fragment at the outward thrust. In its squirmings the bird, impelling itself in some manner I could not determine, rotated imperceptibly slowly in the shell, in such a way that the head, turned under one wing, moved backward and the upper edge of the bill was constantly brought to bear upon a fresh portion of the shell, which was chipped off at the next outward thrust. Occasionally the struggling birdling emitted a weak cry. Thus bit by bit the ragged-margined aperture was lengthened until it extended about two-thirds of the way around the egg, when the struggles of the bird succeeded in cracking the remainder, and the large end of the shell fell off as a cap. Then the naked creature wormed its way out into my palm, where it lay exhausted by its continued effort.”

In another nest the last egg to be laid hatched in 13 days. The young, when first hatched, “were blind, black-skinned, and without any trace of feathers.” When the nestlings were 6 days old they were “both bristling with long pinfeathers. The plumes of the one that was the older by a few hours were already beginning to peep through the tips of these pinfeathers.” Later in the day, the feathers had burst their sheaths with amazing rapidity, and the young bird “was already well covered. The back and belly, save for a naked line down the middle of the latter, bore a soft, downy black plumage. Broad ends of the flight feathers of both wings and tail now showed.”

From this time on, the young birds became more lively and left the nest when approached, climbing about among the branches or down onto the ground to hide in the grass. They were brooded by one of the parents until they were a week old, returning to the nest at night. But “the following two nights they remained in the nesting tree but did not return to the nest to sleep. They could not yet fly and had entered a half scansorial, half terrestrial stage of existence. When they were 10 days old I tried to catch them for a photograph, but they hopped from limb to limb with such agility that, protected as they were by the sharp thorns, I was unable to secure them. When they were 10 days old they could make short flights from branch to branch of the same bush. Their bills were smooth, without any grooves, and their cheeks were bare of feathers.”

All through his account Mr. Skutch emphasizes the affection that is shown by all the members of the ani family for one another. While he was watching the second nest of the pair on which the above observations were made, something very unusual, if not entirely unique, happened. One of the young from the previous brood, now nearly fully grown, “was the constant companion of his parents during the period in which they were busy with their second brood.” He frequently perched on the rim of the nest while one of his parents was incubating, and twice he was seen to offer food to the parent on the nest. After the young had hatched, “the youngster fed the nestlings regularly, but not so often as his parents.” During four hours and a quarter, he saw the male, always the more attentive parent, bring food to the nestlings 29 times, the female 14, and the young assistant 8 times. “The young bird not only fed the nestlings but was ardent in protecting them, flying up close to me and uttering an angry grrr-rr-rr whenever I came near them. In the absence of the parents he attempted to defend them alone.”

Plumages.—The young nestling and the development of its first plumage are described above. In this juvenal plumage the contour feathers are short and soft, “bone brown” below and darker above; the wings and tail are much like those of the adult; the bill is less specialized and not grooved.

Van Rossem (1938) says:

The postjuvenal plumage, attained by a complete body and tail and a partial wing molt, is not different from that of the adults except that the rectrices are noticeably narrower. An irregular molt of the primaries takes place at this time, although some of the juvenal quills (though their number and location varies) are held over till the following spring. In March and April of the next year there is a partial body, tail, and wing molt in which an irregular number of rectrices are renewed and such juvenile remiges as have been held over from the previous fall are replaced by new ones. The adult plumage with wide rectrices follows in the second fall, that is, at the first annual molt. The time of the annual molt extends from the middle of July to the first of October, the younger (one-year-old) birds molting earlier than the older ones. The spring molt of the adults includes some of the rectrices and secondaries.

Food.—Mr. Skutch writes (MS.): “The food of the anis consists largely of insects, which they secure both from the ground and among the foliage of bushes, and to a smaller extent of fruit and berries. Often they hunt grasshoppers and other creatures among the long grass or tall weeds, where they are completely hidden from view except when occasionally they leap a foot or so above the herbage to snatch up an insect which has tried to escape by flight. Perhaps their favorite method of foraging is beside a grazing cow or mule. Several together remain close to the head of the beast, moving along by awkward hops as it moves and just managing to escape its jaws and forefeet, ever on the alert to snatch up the insects frightened from their retreat in the grass by the passage of the herbivore. It is frequently stated in books, and affirmed by the residents of the countries where the anis live, that they alight upon cattle and pluck ticks and other vermin from their skin—hence the name garrapatero (tick-eater) given them in Costa Rica.