_Life Histories of North American
Cuckoos, Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds,
and Their Allies_
_by_
_Arthur Cleveland Bent_
_in two parts_
_PART I_
_DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC._
_NEW YORK_
This Dover edition, first published in 1964, is an unabridged
and unaltered republication of the work first published in 1940
by the United States Government Printing Office, as Smithsonian
Institution United States National Museum _Bulletin 176_.
_Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64–14301_
Manufactured in the United States of America
Dover Publications, Inc.
180 Varick Street
New York 14, N. Y.
ADVERTISEMENT
The scientific publications of the National Museum include two
series, known, respectively, as _Proceedings_ and _Bulletin_.
The _Proceedings_ series, begun in 1878, is intended primarily
as a medium for the publication of original papers, based on the
collections of the National Museum, that set forth newly acquired
facts in biology, anthropology, and geology, with descriptions of
new forms and revisions of limited groups. Copies of each paper,
in pamphlet form, are distributed as published to libraries and
scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested
in the different subjects. The dates at which these separate papers
are published are recorded in the table of contents of each of the
volumes.
The series of _Bulletins_, the first of which was issued in
1875, contains separate publications comprising monographs of
large zoological groups and other general systematic treatises
(occasionally in several volumes), faunal works, reports of
expeditions, catalogs of type specimens, special collections, and
other material of similar nature. The majority of the volumes
are octavo in size, but a quarto size has been adopted in a few
instances in which large plates were regarded as indispensable.
In the _Bulletin_ series appear volumes under the heading
_Contributions from the United States National Herbarium_, in
octavo form, published by the National Museum since 1902, which
contain papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum.
The present work forms No. 176 of the _Bulletin_ series.
ALEXANDER WETMORE,
_Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _May 3, 1940_.
CONTENTS
Page
Order PSITTACIFORMES 1
Family Psittacidae: Parrots and parakeets 1
Conuropsis carolinensis carolinensis: Carolina parakeet 1
Habits 1
Distribution 10
Conuropsis carolinensis ludovicianus: Louisiana parakeet 11
Habits 11
Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha: Thick-billed parrot 14
Habits 14
Distribution 18
Order CUCULIFORMES 19
Family Cuculidae: Cuckoos, roadrunners, and anis 19
Crotophaga ani: Smooth-billed ani 19
Habits 19
Distribution 25
Crotophaga sulcirostris sulcirostris: Groove-billed ani 26
Habits 26
Distribution 34
Crotophaga sulcirostris pallidula: San Lucas ani 35
Habits 35
Geococcyx californianus: Roadrunner 36
Habits 36
Distribution 50
Coccyzus minor maynardi: Maynard’s cuckoo 51
Habits 51
Distribution 53
Coccyzus americanus americanus: Yellow-billed cuckoo 54
Habits 54
Distribution 64
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis: California cuckoo 67
Habits 67
Coccyzus erythropthalmus: Black-billed cuckoo 70
Habits 70
Distribution 81
Cuculus optatus optatus: Himalayan cuckoo 84
Habits 84
Distribution 90
Cuculus canorus bakeri: Khasia Hills cuckoo 91
Habits 91
Distribution 105
Order TROGONIFORMES 106
Family Trogonidae: Trogons 106
Trogon ambiguus ambiguus: Coppery-tailed trogon 106
Habits 106
Distribution 110
Order CORACIIFORMES 111
Family Alcedinidae: Kingfishers 111
Megaceryle alcyon alcyon: Eastern belted kingfisher 111
Habits 111
Distribution 126
Megaceryle alcyon caurina: Western belted kingfisher 129
Habits 129
Megaceryle torquata torquata: Ringed kingfisher 130
Habits 130
Distribution 139
Chloroceryle americana septentrionalis: Texas kingfisher 140
Habits 140
Distribution 146
Order CAPRIMULGIFORMES 147
Family Caprimulgidae: Goatsuckers 147
Antrostomus carolinensis: Chuck-will’s-widow 147
Habits 147
Distribution 161
Antrostomus vociferus vociferus: Eastern whippoorwill 163
Habits 163
Distribution 181
Antrostomus vociferus arizonae: Stephens’s whippoorwill 183
Habits 183
Phalaenoptilus nuttalli nuttalli: Nuttall’s poorwill 187
Habits 187
Distribution 193
Phalaenoptilus nuttalli californicus: Dusky poorwill 194
Habits 194
Phalaenoptilus nuttalli hueyi: Desert poorwill 197
Habits 197
Phalaenoptilus nuttalli dickeyi: San Ignatio poorwill 198
Habits 198
Nyctidromus albicollis merrilli: Merrill’s pauraque 199
Habits 199
Distribution 205
Chordeiles minor minor: Eastern nighthawk 206
Habits 206
Distribution 231
Chordeiles minor henryi: Western nighthawk 235
Habits 235
Chordeiles minor chapmani: Florida nighthawk 237
Habits 237
Chordeiles minor sennetti: Sennett’s nighthawk 239
Habits 239
Chordeiles minor hesperis: Pacific nighthawk 240
Habits 240
Chordeiles minor howelli: Howell’s nighthawk 242
Habits 242
Chordeiles minor aserriensis: Cherrie’s nighthawk 243
Habits 243
Plates 245
INTRODUCTION
This is the thirteenth in a series of bulletins of the United States
National Museum on the life histories of North American birds.
Previous numbers have been issued as follows:
107. Life Histories of North American Diving Birds, August 1, 1919.
113. Life Histories of North American Gulls and Terns, August 27, 1921.
121. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and their
Allies, October 19, 1922.
126. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl (part), May 25, 1923.
130. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl (part), June 27, 1925.
135. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds, March 11, 1927.
142. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds (pt. 1), December 31,
1927.
146. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds (pt. 2), March 24,
1929.
162. Life Histories of North American Gallinaceous Birds, May 25, 1932.
167. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey (pt. 1), May 3,
1937.
170. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey (pt. 2), August 8,
1938.
174. Life Histories of North American Woodpeckers, May 23, 1939.
The same general plan has been followed, as explained in previous
bulletins, and the same sources of information have been
utilized. The nomenclature of the 1931 check-list of the American
Ornithologists’ Union has been followed.
An attempt has been made to give as full a life history as
possible of the best-known subspecies of each species and to avoid
duplication by writing briefly of the others, giving only the
characters of the subspecies, its range, and any habits peculiar to
it. In many cases certain habits, probably common to the species as
a whole have been recorded for only one subspecies; such habits are
mentioned under the subspecies on which the observations were made.
The distribution gives the range of the species as a whole, with
only rough outlines of the ranges of the subspecies, which in many
cases cannot be accurately defined.
The egg dates are the condensed results from a mass of records
taken from the data in a large number of the best collections in
the country, as well as from contributed field notes and from a
few published sources. They indicate the dates on which eggs have
been found in various parts of the country, showing the earliest
and latest dates and the limits between which half the dates fall,
indicating the height of the season.
The plumages are described in only enough detail to enable the
reader to trace the sequence of molts and plumages from birth to
maturity and to recognize the birds in the different stages and at
the different seasons.
No attempt has been made to describe fully the adult plumages;
this has been well done already in the many manuals. The names of
colors, when in quotation marks, are taken from Ridgway’s Color
Standards and Nomenclature (1912). In the measurements of eggs the
four extremes are printed in boldface type.
Many who have contributed material for previous volumes have
continued to cooperate. Receipt of material from over 450
contributors has been acknowledged previously. In addition to
these, our thanks are due to the following new contributors: E. C.
Aldrich, Mrs. H. P. Bracelin, Maurice Brooks, Mildred Campbell,
R. T. Congdon, Murl Deusing, S. S. Dickey, H. E. Edgerton, W. G.
F. Harris, L. B. Howsley, Charles Macnamara, R. F. Mason, Jr., R.
T. Moore, A. R. Phillips, A. J. Pinckney, O. P. Silliman, A. F.
Skutch, Emily Smith, W. P. Steinbeck, R. R. Talmadge, H. O. Todd,
Jr., B. P. Tyler, L. O. Williams, G. R. Wilson, and H. B. Wood.
As the demand for these bulletins is greater than the supply, the
names of those who have not contributed to the work during the
previous ten years may be dropped from the author’s mailing list.
Dr. Winsor M. Tyler rendered valuable assistance in reading and
indexing, for these groups, a large part of the literature on North
American birds, and contributed three complete life histories.
E. C. Stuart Baker and Alexander F. Skutch each contributed two
complete life histories; and Dr. Alfred O. Gross, the Rev. F. C.
R. Jourdain, Alexander Sprunt, Jr., Dr. George M. Sutton, and
Robert S. Woods contributed one each. Our thanks are also due F.
Seymour Hersey for figuring egg measurements. Egg measurements
were furnished, especially for this volume, by Dean Amadon, A. M.
Bailey, American Museum of Natural History, Griffing Bancroft, R.
M. Barnes, I. McT. Cowan, H. G. Deignan, C. E. Doe, J. H. Gillin,
W. C. Hanna, R. C. Harlow, R. T. Moore, R. T. Orr, P. B. Philipp,
M. S. Ray, J. H. Riley, G. H. Stuart, 3d, and Miss M. W. Wythe.
Through the courtesy of the Bureau of Biological Survey, the
services of Frederick C. Lincoln were again obtained to compile the
distribution paragraphs. With the matchless files of the Survey at
his disposal, his many hours of careful work have produced results
far more satisfactory than could have been attained by the author,
who claims no credit and assumes no responsibility for this part of
the work.
The manuscript for this bulletin was completed in March 1939.
Contributions received since then will be acknowledged later. Only
information of great importance could be added. The reader is
reminded again that this is a cooperative work; if he fails to find
in these volumes anything that he knows about the birds, he can
blame himself for not having sent the information to--
THE AUTHOR.
_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.