Marias Islands and San Blas); Tamaulipas (Rio Cruz and Tampico);
Honduras (Toloa and Lancetilla); northern Colombia (Cartagena,
Sabanilla, and Santa Marta); northern Venezuela (Lake Valencia);
the Lesser Antilles (Goyave); British Guiana (Georgetown and
Blairmont); Surinam (Paramaribo); and northern Brazil (Santarem
and Capim River). =East= to Brazil (Capim River and Cantagalla);
Uruguay (Rio Negro); and Argentina (Villegas, Puerto Santa Elena,
and Tierra del Fuego). =South= to southern Argentina (Tierra del
Fuego); and southern Chile (Chonos Archipelago). =West= to Chile
(Chonos Archipelago and Chiloe Island); western Peru (Huachos and
Lima); western Ecuador (Tumbez, Bucay, Babahoyo, and Vinces);
western Colombia (Cali and Honda); Panama (San Miguel and Alminante
Bay); Costa Rica (Pozo Azul and Bolson); western Guatemala (Rio
Morja); Jalisco (Las Penas Island); and Nayarit (Tres Marias
Islands).
_Casual records._--The only United States record of this species is
a specimen in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia that
was collected on the American side of the Rio Grande, near Laredo,
Texas, on June 2, 1888.
_Egg dates._--Guatemala: March.
Mexico: March 21 and 30.
Peru: May 29.
CHLOROCERYLE AMERICANA SEPTENTRIONALIS (Sharpe)
TEXAS KINGFISHER
Plate 16
HABITS
I made the acquaintance of this pretty little kingfisher when I
made a short visit to Cameron County, Tex., as the guest of George
Finlay Simmons, in May 1923. This is a most interesting bird
country, rich in the number of Mexican species that reach their
northern limits here and the only region in which some of them can
be found within the limits of the United States. About Brownsville
the chaparral, the open prairies, the tree claims, the ponds, and
the swamps were all teeming with bird life of many species; but
perhaps the most interesting of all were the dense forests along
the resacas or stagnant watercourses, the old beds of rivers; these
often contained large trees, mesquite, huisache, ebony, palms,
etc., with a thick undergrowth of many shrubs and small trees,
such as granjena, persimmons, coffee bean, and bush morning-glory.
Here we found the characteristic birds of the region in abundance,
such as the chachalaca, the red-billed pigeon, the noisy derby
flycatcher, the brilliant green jay, and Audubon’s oriole. Here,
too, I was delighted to see my first Texas kingfisher, as it
sat on a dead fallen tree over the water and then went flying
away upstream, uttering its rattling twitter, suggestive of but
different from that of the belted kingfisher.
Mr. Simmons (1925) says that it is “resident along clearer mountain
streams of southwest-central Texas, from Comal County southward.
* * * Occurrence depends largely on its habitat, the bird requiring
the clearest of waters, particularly the crystal-clear rivers and
brooks of the central Texas hill area; dislikes water the least bit
muddy; larger, clearer streams and rarely smaller ones,” as well as
“shady little brooks,” are mentioned as its favorite haunts.
Dickey and van Rossem (1938) record this kingfisher as a “common
resident throughout the arid Lower Tropical Zone on all freshwater
lakes, streams, and marshes below 2,300 feet, and also coast-wise
in the mangrove belt,” in El Salvador. Of its haunts they say: “A
favorite environment is along small, rocky streams of the uplands,
and in such places the population averages about a pair to the
mile. When the young of the year are on the wing, this average is
considerably increased for a time. Probably the section of stream
inhabited by any individual pair has pretty definite limits, for
although individual birds or pairs show no hesitancy in keeping
well ahead of a person for a time, sooner or later they will make
every effort to break back along the route to the places from
where they were first started. Salt water is apparently not greatly
to their liking, and in the mangrove lagoons they were decidedly
uncommon. Scarcity of suitable nesting sites may, however, be in
part responsible for this condition.”
Alexander F. Skutch found this kingfisher on small streams as
high as 7,000 feet above sea level in the highlands of Guatemala,
and writes (MS.) of its haunts: “While toiling over the rocky
bed of some narrow torrent rushing down a mountain valley, where
the huge trees arch overhead and shut out the sky, I have often
heard a pleasant _cheep_ and turned to watch the solitary figure
of a green kingfisher fly swiftly past, low above the water and
following all the twistings of the channel, until lost in the depth
of the forest. While his larger relatives require deeper water and
a longer drop, he is often content to plunge from the top of a
boulder projecting a foot or so above a shallow channel, and fishes
on the smaller streams from which they are absent; but he joins
them on the broader and more sluggish waterways. He rarely hovers
above the water in the manner of the larger kingfishers.”
_Nesting._--The first account of the nesting of the Texas
kingfisher is by William Brewster (1879), who writes: “This
beautiful little Kingfisher was found by Mr. Werner in comparative
abundance at several points in Comal County, notably about some
of the springs that empty into the Guadaloupe River. A set of
six eggs, taken April 25, 1878, was authenticated by the capture
of both parent birds, the female being caught on the nest. * * *
The nesting cavity was in a sandy bank near the water’s edge. The
eggs were laid on the bare sand, no fish bones or other extraneous
material being near. The entrance was not quite 1¾ inches in
diameter, and the hole extended inward from the face of the bank
about 3½ feet.”
Bendire (1895) says:
The nests of many of these little Kingfishers are yearly
destroyed by high water flooding their burrows, caused
by heavy rains and cloud-bursts, which are more or less
prevalent in southern and western Texas. It is not uncommon
on both the Medina and San Antonio rivers, and a nesting
site on the last-mentioned stream found by Mr. C. H.
Kearny, in the spring of 1892, containing six fresh eggs,
is described by him as being located in a bank about 15
feet high and about 5 feet above the water level. The
nesting chamber, which was slightly larger than the tunnel
leading to it, was placed about 2 feet from the mouth of
the hole. There was no nest proper, but a few fish bones
and scales were scattered about the eggs. In the same bank
a number of Bank Swallows (_Clivicola riparia_) had taken
up temporary homes, and one of their holes was located
within a foot of that of the Kingfishers. They are devoted
parents, and these birds will usually allow themselves to
be caught rather than forsake their eggs.
There are four sets of eggs of this kingfisher in the Thayer
collection and one in the writer’s collection, all taken by, or
for, Frank B. Armstrong, near Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico,
between March 12 and 28, 1908. The nests were all in holes in
banks, about 3 feet deep and 6 to 8 feet above the water.
Mr. Skutch says (MS.) that this kingfisher, which he calls the
green kingfisher, is one of the five species of birds that nest
most commonly in the banks of the streams in the Caribbean lowlands
of Central America. “The burrows of the ringed kingfisher are
distinguished at once by the large diameter of the tunnel, 6 inches
in width. Next in size are those of the Amazon kingfisher, 3¾
inches wide. Then come those of the turquoise-browed motmot, about
3½ inches in width; and finally those of the green kingfisher, only
2 or 2¼ inches in horizontal diameter.
“While the burrows of the larger kingfishers and the motmot are
placed in plain sight in the bare and exposed banks, so that he
who runs may see them, those of the green kingfisher I have found
concealed by the fringe of vines and dead vegetation draping the
top of the bank, or else behind exposed roots, and I discovered
them only by seeing a bird enter or leave. Theirs were the last
of the three kingfishers’ nests I encountered, and I found only
two, late in the season, although the species is equally abundant
with the Amazon kingfisher. As befits the smaller bird, their
burrows are far shorter than those of the larger species. The two I
measured were only 22 and 25 inches in length.
“One morning at the end of April, I sat down to eat my breakfast
upon a fallen log beside the Quebrada de Arena, a little brook
so narrow that one can easily jump across it, flowing through a
pasture grown up with low bushes and thorny vine tangles. Presently
a male green kingfisher flew downstream, perched on a branch ahead
of me, _ticked_ a great deal and seemed excited about my presence.
The bird’s persistence in remaining in that stretch of the river
and his evident excitement renewed my conviction [on a previous
visit] that his burrow was not far distant. I removed my shoes and
waded up and down, examining every likely bit of bank, while the
bird flew back and forth to keep out of my way. I discovered only
old burrows whose lack of fresh foot-furrows proclaimed clearly
enough they were not in use. Quite baffled, I paused beneath the
shelter of some overhanging bushes to watch the bird, and in a
few minutes, after calling again _tick tick tick_, he flew up
beneath the exposed roots of a dead stump, half washed out, and
disappeared. This was almost the exact spot whence I had seen him
or his mate emerge three weeks before, but the entrance to the
burrow was so well concealed by the overhang of the top of the
bank, the projecting roots and the vines which draped over them,
that it had completely escaped me.
“I lost no time in opening the burrow. The male flew out with the
second push I gave the machete which I used to dig, for the tunnel
sloped upward so sharply that the nesting chamber was less than
three inches below the surface of the ground, and I broke through
into the rear of it before I supposed I had well started to dig.
There were three white eggs, well advanced in incubation, to judge
from their opacity. The male fluttered several times in front of
the burrow, eager to enter before it had been closed again. I
fitted a stone over the small aperture I had made, covered it with
earth, and placed logs across the roof of the nesting chamber, to
prevent the mules’ stepping upon it and possibly breaking through.
The birds continued to incubate.
“The pair arranged their turns on the eggs in much the same manner
as the Amazon kingfishers. The female spent each night on the nest.
Soon after 6 a. m. the male flew downstream, low above the water,
uttering at intervals the high-pitched _cheep_, which is his flight
call. He perched on one of the roots of the old stump projecting in
front of the nest and called _tick tick tick_ in a low voice, which
his mate heard in the burrow. She came forth, greeting him with a
single _cheep_, as she flew swiftly past and turned down the brook
to her feeding grounds. Her behavior was rather erratic.
“One morning she could not await his arrival, although he was
hardly late. She popped out of the nest without warning and flew
off, but a minute later the pair returned together. The male went
to the root in front of the burrow, _ticked_ just as much as he
was accustomed to do to call off his mate, although he could
certainly see she was not inside, then entered the empty burrow.
The following morning she acted in quite another manner. Just after
6, on a cloudy morning after a night of hard rain, the male flew
downstream, perched in front of the burrow, and _ticked_ for her to
come forth, but she paid no heed to his repeated calls. He flew a
few rods downstream, then returned to call _tick tick tick_ again.
Still no response, so he flew away out of sight. Ten minutes later
he reappeared and perched again on the root in front of the burrow,
where he called at intervals for two minutes before at length she
darted forth. Then he entered for the morning. The male incubated
until the female returned from her breakfast to relieve him. One
morning she left him on the nest less than two hours, but the next
it was nearly three. She covered the eggs for the remainder of the
morning. The male was chiefly responsible for keeping them warm
during the afternoon, until his mate called him from the nest and
entered for the night at some time between 5 and 6 o’clock.”
_Eggs._--The Texas kingfisher lays three to six eggs, but five
seems to be the commonest number. These vary in shape from oval to
elliptical-oval; the shell is smooth and thin; some show little
or no gloss and others are quite glossy; the color is pure white.
The measurements of 64 eggs average 24.36 by 19.23 millimeters;
the eggs showing the four extreme measures =26.4= by 20.3, 24.1 by
=20.7=, =22.3= by 19.3, and 23.8 by =17.5= millimeters.
_Young._--The second nest that Mr. Skutch found contained five
“pink-skinned, blind, and totally naked nestlings,” which “like
those of the larger species, had undershot bills and heel
callosities.” He visited this nest 18 days later and found that the
young, which were not more than 25 days old, “could flutter just a
few feet. One flew into the river, where she spread her wings on
the surface and headed for the shore. I threw her into the shallow
water again, and again she turned unerringly toward the marginal
rocks, beating her wings on the surface until she gained a footing.
The following morning I placed them on the shore for a photograph,
but two found their wings and easily traversed the 50-foot channel,
flying low above the surface. The power of flight had come to them
almost overnight.
“One evening early in June, after the sun had fallen behind the
bordering fringe of willow trees, I was resting on a log stranded
on the flood plain of the river, when a young green kingfisher flew
upstream, calling _cheep_ at intervals, and perched on a pile of
brushwood almost in front of the burrow in which it was hatched.
Presently its father came flying downstream, with a small minnow in
his bill, and perched on the same pile of brushwood, not far from
the other. The young bird came toward him, as if to receive the
fish, but the other raised his wings above his back to forfend it.
The youngster took this as a hint to remain aloof and perched at
a little distance. Not satisfied with the interval that remained
between them, the male darted at the young bird, which retreated
a few feet. Several times it started to approach its father, but
each time was warned to remain away by the spread wings, a very
picturesque attitude. Several times, too, the bird with the fish
drove at the applicant for it and finally, still holding the fish
in his bill, chased it down the stream and out of sight. The young
kingfisher had been out of the nest 29 days and must now at least
learn to dive for its own fish.”
_Plumages._--The young kingfishers are hatched naked and blind,
as described above, but the juvenal plumage is acquired before
the young leave the nest. A young male, taken on August 21, fully
grown and fully fledged in juvenal plumage, is much like the adult
female; the rich brown pectoral band of the adult male is only
faintly indicated but is replaced by a band of greenish-black
spots; and there is more black spotting on the flanks than in the
adult male. Apparently there is a gradual change toward maturity
during the first year, for October, February, and April birds show
a gradual increase in the rufous band.
The youngest female I have seen, taken on June 8, is much like the
adult female, but the pectoral band of greenish black spots is
lacking, or nearly so, the under parts being nearly immaculate.
These spots, which are more in the form of broad streaks than
in transverse spots, increase with age to form one complete and
one nearly complete band in the oldest birds. The observations
made by Mr. Skutch on the brood of young that he studied agree
substantially with the above.
I have no data on the molts, but Mr. van Rossem (1938) says that
“the annual molt * * * takes place in the fall, but the definite
time is not known.”
_Food._--The food mentioned by Mr. Skutch (MS.) consisted of
small minnows. Mr. Simmons (1925) says that this kingfisher is a
“business-like little fisherman, perching atop a stick or stake in
the water or on a low branch overhanging low water”; it “frequently
flies back and forth over the water, hunting for small fish.” It is
“often driven off feeding-grounds by the larger Belted Kingfisher,
with which it is sometimes found.”
_Voice._--Mr. Simmons (1925) says that the voice of the Texas
kingfisher is a “rather sharp, rattling twitter, uttered on the
wing; quite different from and shriller than the loud, harsh rattle
of the Belted Kingfisher.” Mr. Skutch refers to the flight note as
_cheep_, and the call or alarm note as _tick tick tick_.
_Field marks._--This is such a small kingfisher that it could
hardly be mistaken for anything else within its range. Its upper
parts are dark, glossy green, and spotted with white, and it has no
occipital crest. The under parts are white, with a rufous pectoral
band on the male and a ring of black spots across the breast of the
female.
_Enemies._--The first set of eggs that Mr. Skutch found failed to
hatch, as they were destroyed by ants. He writes (MS.): “Opening
the burrow, I found it swarming with myriads of small, amber ‘fire
ants,’ a scourge to man and beast alike. Invading the nest, they
had worried the birds until they fidgeted on their eggs and cracked
them; then they had worked into the cracks and begun to eat the
embryos. I had cleaned them out the previous evening, but all to
no avail. The nest was completely ruined. That same morning they
had attacked and killed three young woodpeckers in their nest in a
dead stub standing a few paces from the kingfishers’ burrow. In the
humid coastal regions, ants are one of the principal enemies, if
not actually the chief enemy, of nesting birds. I have found more
eggs and nestlings destroyed by them than by all other known agents
combined.”
DISTRIBUTION
_Range._--Southern Texas, Mexico, and Central and South America;
casual in southern Arizona; apparently a nonmigratory species.
The range of the green kingfisher extends =north= to Sinaloa
(Mazatlan); Durango (Rio Sestin); southern Texas (Turtle Creek
and New Braunfels); Quintana Roo (Xcopan); eastern Nicaragua
(Pis Pis River); northern Colombia (Santa Marta and Bonda);
northern Venezuela (La Guaira); British Guiana (Potaro Landing and
Bartica); Surinam (Paramaribo); and northern Brazil (Quixada).
=East= to Brazil (Quixada, Rio Taquarussu, and Goyaz); and Uruguay
(Santa Elena). =South= to southern Uruguay (Santa Elena); and
central Argentina (Santa Elena, San Jose, and Tucuman). =West= to
northwestern Argentina (Tucuman); Bolivia (San Jose); Peru (La
Merced and the Ucayale River); Ecuador (Vinces); western Colombia
(Tumaco, Cali, and Rio Frio); Panama (Sapo Mountains, Gatun, and
the Chagres River); western Guatemala (Duenas, and Lake Atitlan);
Oaxaca (Juchatengo); Nayarit (San Blas); and Sinaloa (Escuinapa,
and Mazatlan).
The subspecies, known as _Chloroceryle americanus septentrionalis_,
is the only form to enter the United States. It ranges southward
from Texas to Yucatan.
_Casual records._--A specimen was taken at Decatur, Tex., north of
the normal range in this State, on January 3, 1889. Dr. Elliott
Coues reported seeing this species in September 1865 at points
on the Colorado River, Ariz., between Forts Mohave and Yuma, and
one was taken on the San Pedro River near Fairbanks on February
13, 1910. One was collected on September 8, 1893, at Cajon Bonito
Creek, Sonora, a few miles south of the New Mexico line. One was
taken on the Santa Cruz River, Ariz., on October 1, 1938.
_Egg dates._--Mexico: 24 records, March 5 to June 13; 12 records,
March 12 to April 19, indicating the height of the season.
Texas: 4 records, April 11 to June 15.
Order CAPRIMULGIFORMES
Family CAPRIMULGIDAE: Goatsuckers
ANTROSTOMUS CAROLINENSIS (Gmelin)
CHUCK-WILL’S-WIDOW
PLATES 18–20
HABITS
CONTRIBUTED BY ALEXANDER SPRUNT, JR.
Dusk falls gently over the salt marshes, which reach out from a
shoreline where moss-bannered live oaks and stately pines rustle
softly in the late March breeze. A faint fragrance of jessamine
hangs in the air; the sleepy note of a cardinal echoes from a
cassina thicket, while atop a tall palmetto a mockingbird salutes
the coming night with a burst of melody. Silence comes and the
stars appear, glinting in golden splendor through the purple gloom.
Suddenly through the air comes another sound, a sharp, clear-cut,
insistent chant. Splitting the silences, it strikes clappingly
upon one’s ears, ringing with startling emphasis, unmistakable,
thrilling and welcome. The first chuck-will’s-widow has returned to
the Carolina low country, and spring is definitely back again!
There is something about nocturnal birds that fascinate one
strangely. Doubtless the cloak of darkness that shrouds their
movements and activities has a great deal to do with it. One
cannot but wonder at their comings and goings; how they pursue
their hunting amid the gloom. Their voices too lend much to the
fascination, for the notes seem a part of the night itself, just
as the bodies of the birds themselves seem more like detached and
living particles of darkness than of flesh and feathers.
All my life I have lived amid the haunts of some of these furtive
kindred of the dusk, but the chuck-will’s-widow above all seems
to typify the mystery of the night and invests it with a sense of
intangible yet satisfying tranquillity. It has always seemed to me
that those beautiful lines, written of the cuckoo, might be even
more applicable to the chuck-will’s-widow, for, in truth, much of
the time it does not seem a bird at all, but simply “a wandering
voice.” Without brilliant plumage or grace of form, it nevertheless
possesses undoubted character, and long acquaintance with the bird
only increases the interest that is bound to be aroused in any
study of its life and habits.
_Spring._--Generally speaking, the chuck-will’s-widow arrives in
the South in March. There is some indication that a few birds
spend the winter in southern Florida for C. J. Pennock (MS.)
has stated that “in the Charlotte Harbor district a few at least
appear to winter. February 26, 1926, one heard calling; February
24, 1927, while camping, we heard one.” Arthur H. Howell (1932)
states that it “winters in small numbers” and gives December
and February dates. R. J. Longstreet’s opinion (1930) is that
“the chuck-will’s-widow is a summer resident in north Florida
and a permanent resident in south Florida.” Audubon considered
the species a permanent resident in the State, and his idea was,
according to Allen (1871), confirmed by “old residents,” though he
himself states it “is not observed till about the first of March.”
I am obliged to spend portions of every winter month in Florida,
being constantly in the field throughout the southern Everglades
and the Keys, but it so happens that I have yet to find the
chuck-will’s-widow during this season. The wintering population is
undoubtedly small and scattered.
It reaches north-central Florida about March 18 (D. J. Nicholson,
MS.) and appears in the coastal districts of southern Georgia a few
days later (T. D. Perry, MS.). In South Carolina, about Charleston,
it arrives anywhere from the third week in March to the first week
of April. The males always arrive first, followed in a few days by
the females.