its arrival from its winter home, in seeking a mate. Almost at once
it undertakes the search, and it is at such times that the observer
has an opportunity to see them actively in daylight. The courtship
performance is an interesting one and, all things considered, is
not difficult to observe. The outstanding characteristic is the
strutting pomposity of the male. He sidles up to the watching
female, his wings droop, the tail is widely spread, and he swells
and swells until it really seems that the limit of inflation is
reached and another fraction of distention would cause him to
disintegrate like a bursting bomb. Various vocal efforts are
indulged in meanwhile, accompanied by quick, jerky motions. Audubon
(1840) has compared this phase of the proceedings to that of the
domestic cock pigeon, while Arthur T. Wayne (1910) likened it to a
turkey gobbler’s antics. This latter has always seemed to me most
apt, for not only does the seemingly endless inflation remind one
vividly of the turkey, but the motions also suggest this bird.
After this period of intense and apparently exhausting display, a
space of calm and quiet pervades the pair should the male have been
successful in his suit, and he perches placidly beside her.
_Nesting._--No semblance of a nest is constructed. The eggs
are placed on the ground upon a carpet of dead leaves, and the
sitting bird constitutes one of the finest examples of protective
coloration that nature affords. Such dependence is placed in it
that the closest approach is possible, and the bird flushes only
when nearly trodden on. The mottling of the plumage is exactly like
that of the variegated background of leaves, sun splashes, and
shadow, and one may look directly at the bird without seeing it.
Once the bird is flushed, however, it is perfectly easy to see the
eggs, for they then stand out like huge pearls against the leaves,
not having the similarity to the ground that characterizes the eggs
of the nighthawk.
Mixed oak and pine woods are usually the nesting haunt of the
chuck. In the large live-oak groves, which occur over so much of
the plantation country of the South, the species is abundant and
shows a remarkable tendency to place the eggs in nearly the same
spot year after year. As a rule there is little if any undergrowth
about the eggs. When under the pines, this would not be expected,
and in the oak groves the ground is always covered by a veritable
carpet of leaves, through which no undergrowth appears. Thus the
eggs can be seen from a considerable distance should the bird be
off them.
On May 8, 1926, I found two eggs on Folly Island, S. C., lying upon
pine needles. Marking the spot accurately I returned the next year
and on May 12, 1927, found two eggs within 5 feet of the spot used
previously.
M. G. Vaiden (MS.) writes from Rosedale, Miss., that he discovered
a set of eggs on May 1, 1911. _Twelve years later_, on April 27,
1923, he returned to the same locality and found two eggs within 10
feet of the same spot! He states that the “trees were larger, the
hillside washed into gullies, but otherwise about as formerly.”
Walter Colvin (MS.), of Arkansas City, Kans., reports the first
nesting of the species in that State, two eggs having been found
in May 1923, near Arkansas City, Cowley County. Another nest was
discovered the following year (1924) also in May. Probably the
chuck had been nesting there for some time previous and was also
discovered in Miami County, by Mr. Colvin’s son John, in 1929.
Nesting observations from a variety of sources indicate that the
chuck raises but one brood. However, if the eggs are taken, the
bird will lay again and again until young are hatched. The late
Arthur T. Wayne, of Mount Pleasant, S. C., once took in succession
three sets from a pair near his home, and a fourth was laid,
incubated, and hatched.
The chuck brooks no tampering with the eggs whatever. If they are
handled, or as much as touched in some cases, the bird removes them
to what is considered a safer locality. This habit was noted long
ago and gave rise to much dispute and speculation as to the method
employed in the transportation. It has been definitely proved that
the bird takes them in the mouth. Audubon (1840) describes it so
well that his account is given herewith:
When the Chuck-will’s-widow, either male or female (for
each sits alternately) has discovered that the eggs have
been touched, it ruffles its feathers and appears extremely
dejected for a minute or two, after which it emits a low
murmuring cry, scarcely audible at a distance of more than
eighteen or twenty yards. At this time the other parent
reaches the spot, flying so low over the ground that I
thought its little feet must have touched it, as it skimmed
along, and after a few low notes and some gesticulations,
all indicative of great distress, takes an egg in its large
mouth, the other bird doing the same, when they would fly
off together, skimming closely over the ground, until they
disappeared among the branches and trees. But to what
distance they remove the eggs, I have never been able to
ascertain; nor have I ever had an opportunity of witnessing
the removal of the young. Should a person, coming upon the
nest when the bird is sitting, refrain from touching the
eggs, the bird returns to them and sits as before. This
fact I have also ascertained by observations.
The first “apparent” recorded instance of the occurrence and
nesting of the chuck in Ohio is recorded by E. S. Thomas (1932) and
dated May 14, 1932. On May 21, 1932, the nest and two eggs were
found and the female, with two eggs, was collected for the Ohio
State Museum.
My earliest nesting record for South Carolina was made on April 13,
this being nearly two weeks in advance of the next nearest date.
The eggs are laid somewhat sooner than usual in forward seasons,
the above record being an illustration of such an instance.
_Eggs._--[AUTHOR’S NOTE: The chuck-will’s-widow regularly lays
two eggs, which are between oval and elliptical-oval and usually
moderately glossy. Major Bendire (1895) considered these eggs as
“among the handsomest found in the United States.” I cannot do
better than to quote his description of them, as follows:
The ground color of these eggs is of such a subtle tint
that it is almost impossible to describe it accurately; it
varies from a rich cream, with a faint pinkish suffusion,
to a pale cream, and more rarely to pure white. They are
in most cases more or less profusely blotched, marbled,
and spotted with different shades of brown, tawny, fawn,
and Isabel-color, underlaid and mixed with lighter shades
of ecru drab, lavender, pearl gray, and pale heliotrope
purple. In an occasional specimen some of the markings take
the shape of irregular lines and tracings, like those of
the Grackles; in others they are fine and minute, obscuring
the ground color to some extent. In some specimens the
darker shades predominate; in others, the lighter; in fact,
there is an endless variation in the style of markings, but
in the entire series there is not a single specimen which
is not perceptibly marked.
The measurements of 54 eggs average 35.56 by 25.57 millimeters;
the eggs showing the four extremes measure =40= by 27.5, 38.1 by
=28.2=, =32.9= by 25.1, and 36.2 by =23.1= millimeters].
_Young._--Some notes of unusual interest in regard to the behavior
of the adult at the nest, as well as the actions of the young
birds, have been sent me by Herbert L. Stoddard, of Thomasville,
Ga. These are transcribed herewith, and in the general lack of such
knowledge they serve to illuminate something of the home life of
this interesting species:
“April 30 (1928), 7 a. m.: One egg has hatched and the chick is a
queer little mite covered with a yellow-ochre down, and hops about
like a frog in a very lively manner. When he is uncomfortably hot
or chilled he gives a plaintive little pipe that can be heard
_about 20 feet_.
“May 1: Other chick hatched out this morning or during the night
and eggshells were gone.
“May 3: Chicks growing fast but still being brooded in same spot.
Mother goes to sleep on a fence post after flushing, but as soon as
chicks start to squeal from the heat, she becomes frantic and will
nearly fly into my face. I bother her a few minutes at 3 p. m. each
day, as I chase her well away, then duck into the blind and take a
few feet of film as she comes back to the nest. Not much action,
however, and she is a _wise fowl_. She knows perfectly when I am in
the blind!
“May 6: Found the nest spot empty today at noon but finally located
the old bird (she has two patches of albinistic feathers in center
of upper breast, so I know it’s the same individual that performed
the incubation) brooding her two chicks about 30 feet south. Their
eyes have been open from the first but are now a little deeper in
color and are always half closed like those of the adult in daytime.
“May 13: Have kept in rather close touch with the
chuck-will’s-widow family recently. They are living under a growth
of sparkleberry shrubs and have lived here within a radius of 6
feet for the last ten days.
“The place is pretty well marked by their mourning-dovelike
excrement. When disturbed, the chicks hop off with elevated wings
in a ‘mechanical toy’ sort of way. That is, their progress is
marked by a series of rapid, toadlike hops until they are ‘run
down’ (usually in 30 or 40 feet). The wings serve as balances.
“The chicks have a little complaining whine that brings the mother
in frantic haste. She flies noiselessly about, every now and then
lying on the ground with her wings _widely spread and reached
forward_, with the primaries pressed to the ground. In this queer
position, she beats them a bit and opens and shuts her huge mouth,
exhaling air audibly as she does so and occasionally uttering the
queer, froglike croak. Altogether an odd performance. No evidence
of a mate has been seen about this location.”
_Plumages._--[AUTHOR’S NOTE: The young chick is completely covered
with long, soft, silky down; on the upper parts the color varies
from “ochraceous-tawny” or “light ochraceous-buff” on the head to
“tawny” on the back; on the lower surface the color grades from
“ochraceous-tawny” on the chest to “light ochraceous-buff” on the
throat and belly.
The growth of the juvenal plumage, in which the sexes are alike, is
rapid. Ridgway (1914) describes it very well as follows: “Similar
to the adult female in ‘pattern’ and coloration of tail, primaries,
and primary coverts, but otherwise different; scapulars and middle
wing-coverts ochraceous-buff, irregularly barred with black; pileum
more grayish, with small spots, instead of streaks, of black; under
parts barred with black on a light brownish buffy ground, without
vermiculations, mottling, or spots, and band across lower throat
indistinct or obsolete.”
This plumage is worn but a short time, as a partial molt into a
first winter plumage begins in July; I have seen a specimen that
had nearly completed this molt on August 2; this plumage closely
resembles that of the adult female, as the juvenal wings and tail
are retained; I can find no evidence of a spring molt. Young birds
apparently retain the first winter plumage, including the juvenal
wings and tail, until the following summer; I have seen birds in
this plumage during winter and as late as May in spring.
Both adults and young have a complete annual molt, mainly in July
and August. At this first postnuptial molt young birds become
practically indistinguishable from adults, and the sexes become
differentiated. Young birds in fresh fall plumage are darker and
more richly colored than adults, with more “ochraceous-tawny”; the
colors have faded some by spring.
Adults have two recognizable color phases, a tawny phase, in
which the ground color of the two central rectrices varies from
“ochraceous-buff” to “ochraceous-tawny”, with deeper ochraceous or
buffy colors in the scapulars and wing coverts; and a gray phase,
in which the ground color of the two central rectrices is pale
buff, or pale grayish buff, and the scapulars and wing coverts are
paler and grayer.]
_Food._--The chuck-will’s-widow, like its family relatives, is
an insect eater par excellence. The semitropical nature of much
of its range is highly conducive to an abundance of insects and
other night-flying creatures that are the bulk and mainstay of its
diet. The mouth of the chuck is enormous, a characteristic of the
goatsucker tribe, and is provided with bristles that act as a sort
of additional trap. The widely open mouth is as much as 2 inches at
the greatest breadth.
Prey is secured at low elevations, often only a few feet from
the ground. The bird works the edges of woodlands bordering open
fields and often makes sallies over the latter. The flight is
silent, and the birds seem to be no more than gigantic moths.
Beetles, “flying ants,” and moths make up a large bulk of the food
in many localities. Small birds have frequently been found in the
stomachs of this species. While seemingly incongruous, this is,
after all, not difficult to understand when the conditions are
considered. Many observers have concluded that this type of stomach
content is taken by mistake; that the small, fluttering bird,
confused by the darkness, is taken for a moth and snapped up by the
cruising chuck, of course being swallowed whole.
An alternative theory exists, however, and, if true, the
bird-taking habit would be removed from the realm of the accidental
and fall into purposeful, predatory effort. The late Edward H.
Forbush pointed out that the “goatsuckers show an anatomical
affinity to the owls. They have similar, soft plumage, noiseless
flight, large eyes and nocturnal vision.” It is possible that,
with this structural relationship, there are other phases of
likeness between the chuck and the owls. It is the largest
of the goatsuckers that occur in this country, and the other
representatives of the family do not seem to indulge in small
bird prey. Doubtless this is because of their considerably
smaller mouths, but whatever the reason the chuck remains as the
outstanding example of this procedure.
That this habit is certainly not accidental sometimes is definitely
proved by the observation recorded by Gerald Thayer (1899) in
which he relates the instance of a chuck-will’s-widow pursuing and
catching warblers near a ship off the Carolina coast. Hummingbirds,
swallows, sparrows, and warblers have been among those birds found
in the stomachs of the chuck, and the frequency with which this
occurs lends color to the supposition that it is more intentional
than accidental. More research is necessary on this subject.
Even granting the truth of it, the economic status of the chuck
is on the right side of the ledger and the great percentage of
its activities are beneficial, for the noxious insects which it
destroys are numerous. Miss Phoebe Knappen, of the United States
Biological Survey, in answer to a request of the writer has very
kindly furnished a summary of specific results in the stomach
analysis carried out on this species in the laboratories of that
Bureau. A full stomach from Oklahoma, without date and therefore
not included in the tabulation below, contained the following:
_Dendroica_ (sp.), 70 percent; Coleoptera (_Calasoma_, _Harpalus_,
Carabidae, _Ligyrus_, _Strategus_, Scarabaeidae), 22 percent;
Orthoptera (_Schistocerca_, _Nesconocephalus_), 8 percent.
The remarkable percentage of bird remains shown by this stomach
would seem a great argument for the support of predation by
purpose. Seventy percent of the total food among the wood
warblers! However, it seems also to be a most exceptional case, for
nothing that even approaches it is found in the list below, which
embraces a range of 45 stomachs from five States and one Canadian
Province. The entire amount of the stomachs listed contained the
remains of but _two_ birds!
With reference to the Oklahoma stomach, I wonder whether there
might be a seasonal variation in the bird-taking propensities of
the chuck-will’s-widow in relation to migration. It would appear
reasonable to believe that when there is high activity among birds
traveling through a given area, such as would take place in the
spring migration, the chucks of that locality would have greater
opportunity in securing them. One would not have to incline to the
predatory theory to accept this, for if there are a great many
small birds passing through an area for a few weeks, the chucks
in their night hunting would blunder across more birds than would
be the case later in the season. If the take _is_ accidental, a
higher percentage of accidents would then occur. If, on the other
hand, the take is deliberate, then the chances of indulging that
habit would be greater and would fall off later in the season. So,
whatever impulse governs the matter, the migrations would result
in more birds appearing in the diet. Unfortunately, the Oklahoma
stomach was undated, so it is impossible to ascertain whether the
bird secured its high percentage during a migration or not, but I
incline to the belief that it was a spring specimen.
To return to the analysis, Miss Knappen states: “The other 45
stomachs taken in March (2), April (31), May (11), and November (1)
were collected in Florida (37), Georgia (1), Mississippi (2), North
Carolina (1), Ontario (1), and Texas (3). The annual percentages
of different items in the food, which was entirely animal, equal:
Carabidae, 3.64; _Phyllophaga_, 32.98; other Scarabaeidae,
25.28; Cerambycidae, 4.49; Elateridae, 1.34; other Coleoptera,
5.13; Lepidoptera (moths), 12.36; Odonata, 4.63; Aves, 7.21; and
miscellaneous animals, 2.85.
“The genera most persistently eaten were _Phyllophaga_ (May
beetles) and _Anomala_. The birds consumed were 1 _Dendroica
palmarum_ and 1 _Helminthophila_ sp., while the miscellaneous
bracket includes various bugs, flies, a bivalve, and other animal
material.”
The insect content of these 45 stomachs totals more than 70 percent
in but three classes (_Phyllophaga_, Scarabaeidae, and Lepidoptera)
and other kinds make up considerably more than that. Birds are
represented by only 7.21 percent, and both victims were warblers.
One cannot but wonder at the single “bivalve,” an item that would
certainly not occur to most students as being connected with a
chuck’s diet.
_Behavior._--Being as close kin to the whippoorwill as the chuck
is, it cannot be expected that its habits will vary extensively.
Inactive by day and a persistent hunter by night, it fulfills the
usual characteristics pertaining to the family. Sitting motionless
on a mossy log, a branch of some forest tree, or ensconced within
a natural cavity, it dozes away the daylight hours. Some observers
have found it sleeping in company with bats, in an obscure hollow.
I have never found the chuck among such company, all my daylight
observations being connected with the bird’s occupancy of some low
limb, or on the ground itself.
When flushed, it rises with easy, fitful wafts of silent wings,
alternating the beats with periods of sailing. Frequently it
describes a curve and swings back near the spot from which it was
flushed. Fairly close approach is allowed, even after the bird has
been disturbed and alighted again. Doubtless it puts a great deal
of dependence upon the wonderfully protective coloration of the
plumage.
In the Carolina low country the chuck is very fond of roosting in
the sandy roads so characteristic of the rural districts. Passing
along at dusk, one may see the reflection of the eyes plainly
in the glare of a car’s headlights. At times a roosting bird is
disturbed under these conditions by day, and I have had them flush
and come directly at the car, swerving only slightly aside to
pass. One bird on Bulls Island, S. C., was flushed two or three
times in an hour, as we had occasion to pass the same spot often,
and once it flew by so closely that an extended arm might have
touched it. This habit of frequenting the sand roads is shared by
the whippoorwill when it is present in coastal Carolina during the
winter months.
Little or no distinction is made between these two birds in much of
their range. The uninformed observer takes it for granted that any
night bird that calls, except an owl, is a whippoorwill, and this
seems the more strange in a section where the chuck is abundant and
the whippoorwill comparatively uncommon, as in coastal Carolina.
The latter calls but rarely during its winter sojourn in the
Charleston area; indeed, I have heard it but twice in all my years
of ornithological study. One of these instances was in January,
the other early in March. When the whippoorwill is present in this
area, the chuck is not, for the former leaves before the latter
appears from the south. In spite of this fact and the overwhelming
evidence of the chuck’s presence and comparative absence of that
of the whippoorwill, the people of the low-country are far more
familiar with the name of the latter and credit the call of the
chuck to the other bird.
The eyes of the chuck-will’s-widow reflect light admirably. Some
years ago E. B. Chamberlain, of the Charleston Museum, and I
carried out a series of experiments in “jack-lighting” amid the
woods of Cumberland Island, Ga. It was a revelation in many ways.
The night woods were literally twinkling and sparkling with eyes!
The ground and low bushes gleamed with hundreds of points of light
from the eyes of spiders; the lagoons reflected the ruby-red of
many alligators, while here and there along the bank a wandering
raccoon stared into the light beam or a trotting gray fox paused to
sniff, one foreleg upraised like a pointer. Florida screech owls
were seen perched atop low stumps, hunched and motionless, and
although we could work up to within 3 feet of them, the take-off
when it occurred was so utterly noiseless that not a whisper of
sound ensued at even that close range. Dozens of deer were seen,
their eyes, of course, reflecting the light perfectly, and even
grazing horses and cows along the edges of the lagoons were as
plainly noted.
Now and then a very large pair of eyes close to the ground shone
out. Coming closer, we could see a chuck, sitting like a stone,
staring rigidly into the light. While one of us held the light,
the other worked around to the side and came up on the bird from
behind, and reaching out could pick up the staring bird with ease.
We examined several in this way, while they uttered a hissing note
of fear or anger. The birds struggled strongly while held and were
very difficult to quiet.
Though sharing with the other goatsuckers the characteristic habit
of perching lengthwise, the chuck occasionally departs from custom
and proves the ancient adage that exceptions make the rule. N. B.
Moore (MS.) writes that he has seen it perch directly across a
branch when the latter is an inch or more in diameter. He once “saw
one perch on a greenbrier one-quarter inch in diameter as cleverly
as any bird, though it sank suddenly under its weight for 7 or 8
inches. The bird remained on it for 10 or 15 minutes.” It is likely
that the chuck indulges in this more than one would ordinarily
suppose. I have seen it but once, when a bird was flushed in
daylight and flew to a small, gnarled oak, where it alighted among
the outer twigs, perching distinctly crosswise. It had two young in
the near vicinity.
In the reference already made above to Thayer’s (1899) account of
this species capturing warblers on a ship off the South Carolina
coast, he noted that, on shipboard, the bird perched crosswise on
the rigging at times. Another remarkable character was that this
bird was seen, on flights out from the ship, actually to alight
on the surface of the ocean! This is certainly phenomenal and
constitutes behavior that is utterly at variance with the bird’s
ordinary habits. One more instance of crosswise perching is noted
by W. S. Long (1935); he saw a specimen near Lawrence, Kans., that
indulged in this posture.
The chuck-will’s-widow frequently roosts in the same spot day after
day, and one may be fairly certain of surprising a bird regularly
when once the roosting area is located. During migrations it
occasionally is found in rather extraordinary situations, one of
the most striking of these being noted by J. M. McBride (1933), of
New Orleans. He writes that he watched one for a week, September 14
to 21, 1933, occupy an unprotected branch of a hackberry tree just
even with his second-floor window. It was to be seen daily on this
branch from 6 a. m. to 6 p. m. His house was in the heart of the
residential district of New Orleans.