Transcriber's Note:
In Memory of
Chris Curnow
(1937-2023)
the Project Manager at Distributed Proofreaders
who selected this book,
and more than 2200 others,
to be preserved as free digital transcriptions
by Project Gutenberg.
* * * * *
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS
Arthur Cleveland Bent
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS OF PREY. (20931-8, 20932-6)
Two-volume
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN BLACKBIRDS, ORIOLES, TANAGERS, AND
THEIR ALLIES. (21093-6) $7.95
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN CARDINALS, GROSBEAKS, BUNTINGS,
TOWHEES, FINCHES, SPARROWS, AND THEIR ALLIES. (21979-8)
Vol. 3, $7.95
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN GALLINACEOUS BIRDS. (21028-6) $8.00
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN JAYS, CROWS, AND TITMICE.
(21222-X, 21223-8) Two-volume set $9.00
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN MARSH BIRDS. (21082-0) $6.50
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN NUTHATCHES, WRENS, THRASHERS, AND
THEIR ALLIES. (21088-X) $7.00
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN SHORE BIRDS. (20933-4, 20934-2)
Two-volume set $14.00
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN THRUSHES, KINGLETS, AND THEIR
ALLIES. (21086-3) $7.95
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN WAGTAILS, SHRIKES, VIREOS, AND
THEIR ALLIES. (21085-5) $6.00
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN WOODPECKERS. (21083-9)
LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN WOOD WARBLERS. (21153-3, 21154-1)
Two-volume set $13.90
_LIFE HISTORIES OF NORTH AMERICAN WOODPECKERS_
_LIFE HISTORIES
OF NORTH AMERICAN
WOODPECKERS_
_by
Arthur Cleveland Bent_
_Dover Publications, Inc.
New York_
Published in Canada by General Publishing Company, Ltd., 30 Lesmill
Road, Don Mills, Toronto, Ontario.
Published in the United Kingdom by Constable and Company, Ltd., 10
Orange Street, London WC 2.
This Dover edition, first published in 1964, is an unabridged and
unaltered republication of the work originally published in 1939 by the
United States Government Printing Office, as Smithsonian Institution
United States National Museum _Bulletin 174_.
_Standard Book Number: 486-21083-9_
_Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-20879_
Manufactured in the United States of America
Dover Publications, Inc.
180 Varick Street
New York, N. Y. 10014
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. 174 of the _Bulletin_ series.
ALEXANDER WETMORE,
_Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _March 22, 1939_.
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction VII
Order PICIFORMES 1
Family Picidae: American woodpeckers 1
Campephilus principalis: Ivory-billed woodpecker 1
Habits 1
Distribution 12
Dryobates villosus villosus: Eastern hairy woodpecker 13
Habits 13
Distribution 23
Dryobates villosus septentrionalis: Northern hairy woodpecker 25
Habits 25
Dryobates villosus auduboni: Southern hairy woodpecker 27
Habits 27
Dryobates villosus harrisi: Harris’s woodpecker 29
Habits 29
Dryobates villosus hyloscopus: Cabanis’s woodpecker 33
Habits 33
Dryobates villosus monticola: Rocky Mountain hairy woodpecker 35
Habits 35
Dryobates villosus picoideus: Queen Charlotte woodpecker 37
Habits 37
Dryobates villosus terraenovae: Newfoundland woodpecker 38
Habits 38
Dryobates villosus icastus: Chihuahua woodpecker 39
Habits 39
Dryobates villosus sitkensis: Sitka hairy woodpecker 40
Habits 40
Dryobates villosus orius: Modoc woodpecker 41
Habits 41
Dryobates villosus scrippsae: Lower California hairy
woodpecker 44
Habits 44
Dryobates villosus leucothorectis: White-breasted woodpecker 44
Habits 44
Dryobates pubescens pubescens: Southern downy woodpecker 45
Habits 45
Distribution 47
Dryobates pubescens gairdneri: Gairdner’s woodpecker 49
Habits 49
Dryobates pubescens leucurus: Batchelder’s woodpecker 51
Habits 51
Dryobates pubescens medianus: Northern downy woodpecker 52
Habits 52
Dryobates pubescens nelsoni: Nelson’s downy woodpecker 68
Habits 68
Dryobates pubescens turati: Willow woodpecker 69
Habits 69
Dryobates borealis: Red-cockaded woodpecker 72
Habits 72
Distribution 79
Dryobates scalaris symplectus: Texas woodpecker 79
Habits 79
Distribution 81
Dryobates scalaris lucasanus: San Lucas woodpecker 82
Habits 82
Dryobates scalaris cactophilus: Cactus woodpecker 83
Habits 83
Dryobates scalaris eremicus: San Fernando woodpecker 86
Habits 86
Dryobates nuttalli: Nuttall’s woodpecker 87
Habits 87
Distribution 91
Dryobates arizonae arizonae: Arizona woodpecker 91
Habits 91
Distribution 96
Dryobates albolarvatus albolarvatus: Northern white-headed
woodpecker 97
Habits 97
Distribution 104
Dryobates albolarvatus gravirostris: Southern white-headed
woodpecker 105
Habits 105
Picoïdes arcticus: Arctic three-toed woodpecker 106
Habits 106
Distribution 115
Picoïdes tridactylus bacatus: American three-toed woodpecker 116
Habits 116
Distribution 121
Picoïdes tridactylus fasciatus: Alaska three-toed woodpecker 122
Habits 122
Picoïdes tridactylus dorsalis: Alpine three-toed woodpecker 124
Habits 124
Sphyrapicus varius varius: Yellow-bellied sapsucker 126
Habits 126
Distribution 139
Sphyrapicus varius nuchalis: Red-naped sapsucker 141
Habits 141
Sphyrapicus varius daggetti: Southern red-breasted sapsucker 146
Habits 146
Sphyrapicus varius ruber: Northern red-breasted sapsucker 151
Habits 151
Sphyrapicus thyroideus thyroideus: Williamson’s sapsucker 154
Habits 154
Distribution 160
Sphyrapicus thyroideus nataliae: Natalie’s sapsucker 162
Habits 162
Ceophloeus pileatus pileatus: Southern pileated woodpecker 164
Habits 164
Distribution 170
Ceophloeus pileatus abieticola: Northern pileated woodpecker 171
Habits 171
Ceophloeus pileatus floridanus: Florida pileated woodpecker 189
Habits 189
Ceophloeus pileatus picinus: Western pileated woodpecker 191
Habits 191
Melanerpes erythrocephalus: Red-headed woodpecker 195
Habits 195
Distribution 208
Balanosphyra formicivora formicivora: Ant-eating woodpecker 211
Habits 211
Distribution 211
Balanosphyra formicivora bairdi: California woodpecker 212
Habits 212
Balanosphyra formicivora angustifrons: Narrow-fronted
woodpecker 222
Habits 222
Balanosphyra formicivora aculeata: Mearns’s woodpecker 223
Habits 223
Balanosphyra formicivora martirensis: San Pedro woodpecker 226
Habits 226
Asyndesmus lewis: Lewis’s woodpecker 226
Habits 226
Distribution 236
Centurus carolinus: Red-bellied woodpecker 237
Habits 237
Distribution 244
Centurus aurifrons: Golden-fronted woodpecker 245
Habits 245
Distribution 249
Centurus uropygialis uropygialis: Gila woodpecker 250
Habits 250
Distribution 256
Centurus uropygialis cardonensis: Cardon woodpecker 257
Habits 257
Centurus uropygialis brewsteri: Brewster’s woodpecker 258
Habits 258
Colaptes auratus auratus: Southern flicker 259
Habits 259
Distribution 261
Colaptes auratus luteus: Northern flicker 264
Habits 264
Colaptes cafer collaris: Red-shafted flicker 287
Habits 287
Distribution 294
Colaptes cafer cafer: Northwestern flicker 296
Habits 296
Colaptes cafer martirensis: San Pedro flicker 298
Habits 298
Colaptes chrysoides chrysoides: Cape gilded flicker 299
Habits 299
Distribution 300
Colaptes chrysoides mearnsi: Mearns’s gilded flicker 301
Habits 301
Colaptes chrysoides brunnescens: San Fernando flicker 305
Habits 305
Colaptes cafer rufipileus: Guadalupe flicker 306
Habits 306
Literature cited 309
Index 323
INTRODUCTION
This is the twelfth 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.
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, but it has seemed best to continue in the same
order of arrangement of families and species as given in the old check
list (1910).
An attempt has been made to give as full a life history as possible of
the best-known subspecies and to avoid duplication by writing briefly
of the others and 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 cannot be accurately defined in many cases.
The egg dates are the condensed results of a mass of records taken from
the data in a large number of the best egg 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 actually found
in various parts of the country, showing the earliest and latest dates
and the limits between which half the dates fall, 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 done very well in the many manuals and
State bird books that are now available. The names of colors, when in
quotation marks, are taken from Ridgway’s Color Standards and Color
Nomenclature (1912), and the terms used to describe the shapes of
eggs are taken from his Nomenclature of Colors (1886). The boldface
type in the measurements of eggs indicates the four extremes of the
measurements.
Many of those who contributed material for previous bulletins have
continued to cooperate. Receipt of material from more than 430
contributors has been acknowledged previously. In addition to these,
our thanks are due to the following new contributors: Dean Amadon, E.
R. Forrest, Allen Frost, J. J. Hickey, Joseph Janiec, Melvin Johansen,
M. B. Meanley, Jr., R. L. Meredith, E. E. Murphey, A. G. Nye, Jr.,
R. T. Orr, R. S. Palmer, Cordelia J. Stanwood, Wendell Taber, A. E.
Thompson, and Mrs. L. J. Webster. If any contributor fails to find his
name in this or in one of the previous lists, the author would be glad
to be advised.
Egg measurements were furnished especially for this volume by Dean
Amadon, A. M. Bailey, C. E. Doe, J. R. Gillin, W. C. Hanna, H. L.
Harllee, R. C. Harlow, R. T. Orr, 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 reference files of the Biological 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.
Dr. Winsor M. Tyler rendered valuable assistance in reading and
indexing, for this group, the greater part of the leading periodicals
relating to North American birds, which saved the author many
hours of tedious work and for which he is very grateful. Dr. Tyler
contributed the life histories of the northern downy woodpecker and
yellow-bellied sapsucker, Dr. Arthur A. Allen wrote the life history
of the ivory-billed woodpecker, Bayard H. Christy that of the northern
pileated woodpecker, and Dr. Eugene E. Murphey that of the red-cockaded
woodpecker. Thanks are due also to F. Seymour Hersey for figuring the
egg measurements.
The manuscript for this volume was completed in June 1938.
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
WOODPECKERS
ORDER PICIFORMES
By ARTHUR CLEVELAND BENT
_Taunton, Mass._
Order PICIFORMES
Family PICIDAE: American Woodpeckers
CAMPEPHILUS PRINCIPALIS (Linnaeus)
IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER
PLATES 1, 2
HABITS
CONTRIBUTED BY ARTHUR AUGUSTUS ALLEN
The large size and striking color pattern, the mystery of its habitat,
and the tragedy of its possible extinction combine to make the
ivory-billed woodpecker one of peculiar interest to all Americans who
have any pride in the natural resources of their country.
Ever since the days of Mark Catesby (1731) this species has attracted
popular attention, and even at that time, as he stated in his Natural
History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands: “The bills of
these Birds are much valued by the _Canada Indians_, who made Coronets
of ’em for their Princes and great warriors, by fixing them round a
Wreath, with their points outward. The Northern Indians having none
of these Birds in their cold country, purchase them of the _Southern
People_ at the price of two, and sometimes three, Buck-skins a Bill.”
At that time the species was found throughout the Gulf States as
far north as North Carolina and up the Mississippi Valley as far as
southern Ohio and Illinois.
Today it is almost extinct, and indeed during the past 50 years long
periods have elapsed when no individuals have been reported from any
part of its range. It apparently has been exterminated from all but
a few isolated localities in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina,
where it still clings on in a precarious position.
The ivorybill is primarily a bird of the great moss-hung southern
swamps, where mature timber with its dying branches provides a
bounteous food supply of wood-boring larvae, but its habits apparently
vary in different parts of its range, for the birds I observed in
Florida, although nesting in a cypress swamp, did most of their feeding
along its borders on recently killed young pines that were infested
with beetle larvae. They even got down on the ground like flickers to
feed among palmetto roots on a recent burn. In Louisiana, on the other
hand, the nesting birds observed confined their activities to a mature
forest of oak, sweetgum, and hackberry, and paid little attention to
the cypress trees along the lagoons.
_Spring._--At what time the winter groups of ivorybills break up and
spring activities commence is rather difficult to state, for there
seems to be considerable irregularity to the breeding season. Judged
from published records of its nests, the period of greatest activity
would seem to be late March and early April. According to Audubon
(1842): “The ivory-billed woodpecker nestles earlier in spring than
any other species of its tribe. I have observed it boring a hole for
that purpose in the beginning of March.” Scott (1881) reports taking an
incubating female in Florida on January 20, 1880, and (1888) of finding
a nest containing one young female about one-third grown on March 17,
1887. Ridgway (1898) likewise speaks of shooting a male that left its
nest hole February 15, 1898, and Hoyt (1905) states that “in Florida
they begin building the latter part of January, and if undisturbed the
eggs are laid by February 10th.” In 1937 James Tanner (MS.) discovered
a nest in Louisiana from which the fledgling left on March 30, fully
2 months earlier than any previous records from the same locality,
and in 1938 apparently the same pair of birds had young the last week
in February. In contrast to these dates we find 10 records of April
nesting, 5 for May, and 1 (Beyer, 1900) of a young bird just out of the
nest in July. The latter records might well constitute second attempts
at nesting. The Florida birds, in general, start earlier than those
in Louisiana, but at best there seems to be less regularity to the
commencement of the nesting period than is found with most of our North
American woodpeckers. In this, the ivorybill may register its affinity
with tropical birds in general, the ivorybill being the most northern
representative of an otherwise tropical or semitropical genus. There is
some evidence for believing that ivorybills wander over considerably
larger territories in winter than those to which they confine their
activities in the spring, but little definite information has thus far
been recorded on any of their before and after breeding activities.
_Courtship._--Nothing seems to have been written on the courtship of
the ivorybill except the observations of Allen and Kellogg (1937):
Our only observations were made In Florida about 6 a. m.,
on April 13, 1924. We had discovered this pair of ivorybills
at about the same time the preceding morning when they came
out of the cypress swamp and preened their feathers and
called a few times from the top of a dead pine before going
off together to feed. They had made such a long flight the
previous day that we were unable to find them again, but
that night, still traveling together, they had returned to
the same group of medium-sized cypress trees which they had
apparently left in the morning and in which there was one
fresh hole in addition to four or five other old ones in the
near vicinity. On the morning of the 13th, they called as
they left these cypress trees and flew to the top of a dead
pine at the edge of the swamp, where they called and
preened. Finally the female climbed up directly below the
male and when she approached him closely he bent his head
downward and clasped bills with her. The next instant they
both flew out on to the “burn,” where we followed their
feeding operations for about an hour.
_Nesting._--As before stated, while there are a few records of February
nesting, the most definite records are for March, April, and early May,
as follows:
April 6, ----. M. Thompson, Okefinokee swamp, Georgia. Laying.
April 9, 1892. E. A. McIlhenny, Avery swamp, Louisiana. Three fresh
eggs.
April 10, ----. Dr. S. W. Wilson, Altamaha swamp, Georgia. Four eggs.
April 15, 1893. A. Wayne, Florida. A young female about 2 weeks out
of the nest.
April 19, 1893. Ralph Collection, Lafayette County, Fla. Three eggs.
May 2, 1892. E. A. McIlhenny, Avery swamp, Louisiana. Three eggs.
May 19, 1892. E. A. McIlhenny, Avery swamp, Louisiana. Four eggs, a
second laying.
May (early) 1894. E. A. McIlhenny, Avery swamp., Louisiana. Five
young, 3 days old.
May 3, 1885. Capt. B. F. Goss, Jasper County, Tex. Three eggs.
July 1897. George G. Beyer, Franklin Parish, La.
March 4, 1904. Brown brothers (Hoyt), feeding young.
March 16, 1904. R. D. Hoyt, Taylor County, Fla. Large young.
March 4, 1905. E. D. Hoyt, Claremont County, Fla. Two eggs, incubation
advanced.
March 24, 1905. R. D. Hoyt, Claremont County, Fla. Two eggs slightly
incubated (second laying of the preceding).
April 13, 1924. A. A. Allen, Taylor Creek, Fla. Nest completed.
Incubation not yet started.
April (early) 1931. J. J. Kuhn, northern Louisiana. Incubating.
May 13, 1934. J. J. Kuhn, northern Louisiana. Probably small young.
April 6, 1935. A. A. Allen and P. P. Kellogg, northern Louisiana.
Incubating.
April 9, 1935. A. A. Allen and P. P. Kellogg, northern Louisiana.
Building.
April 25, 1935. A. A. Allen and P. P. Kellogg, northern Louisiana.
Incubating.
May 10, 1935. A. A. Allen and P. P. Kellogg, northern Louisiana.
Small young.
Again quoting from the report of Allen and Kellogg (1937):
The site of the Ivorybill’s nest seems to vary
considerably. Audubon states: “The hole is, I believe,
always made in the trunk of a live tree, generally an
ash or a hackberry, and is at a great height.” There
are, however, records of their nesting in live cypress,
partially dead oaks, a dead royal-palm stub, “an old and
nearly rotten white elm stump,” etc., indicating about as
great a variety as shown by the pileated woodpecker. The
lowest authentic nest of which we have found a record,
was that described by Beyer (1900) “about 25 feet up in a
living over-cup oak,” although Scott (1881) mentions what
he considered “an old nest evidently of this species,” in a
palmetto stub only fifteen feet from the ground. The nest
which we discovered in Florida, in 1924, was about thirty
feet up in a live cypress and there were other holes in the
vicinity in similar trees that had apparently been used in
years past. The bark had healed over in some cases and scar
tissue was apparently trying to close the wounds. Of the
four nests examined in Louisiana, three were in oaks and
one in a swamp maple. The maple, seven and a half feet in
circumference (breast high), was partially alive, but the
top where the nest was located, 43 feet from the ground,
was dead and pithy. Of those in oak trees, one was in a
dead pin-oak stub about ten feet in circumference and about
fifty feet high, standing in more or less of a clearing.
The nest was 47 feet 8 inches from the ground. The other
two were not measured accurately but were certainly over
forty feet from the ground. About the middle of May when it
was determined that the first two trees had been deserted,
they were cut down, careful measurements taken, and the
contents of the holes preserved. The hole in the maple was
5 inches in vertical diameter and 4⅛ inches laterally,
and was slightly irregular at the bottom, as shown in the
photographs; that in the oak was more symmetrical with a
similar vertical diameter of 5 inches and a transverse
diameter of 4 inches. The depth of the maple nest from the
top of the entrance hole was 19⅛ inches, of which 3 inches
was filled with chips and “sawdust.” This nest cavity was
8⅛ inches in diameter at the egg level, and the tree itself
18½ inches in diameter at the level of the hole. The nest
cavity in the oak was 20 inches from top to bottom with a
diameter of 8¼ inches at the egg level. The entrance hole
went in 3 inches before it turned abruptly downward; the
tree at this point was 22 inches in diameter. There was a
stub just above the hole in the maple about 4 inches long
representing a branch that had apparently died and been
broken off years before and started to heal over. The oak
was perfectly smooth at the entrance hole, but on either
side, slightly above, were the bases of two large branches
that could not have given the opening any protection from
the weather. The opening in the maple faced north, two of
those in the oaks east, and one west. Audubon states: “The
birds pay great regard to the particular situation of the
tree and the inclination of the trunk; first, because they
prefer retirement, and, again, because they are anxious
to secure the aperture against the access of water during
beating rains. To prevent such a calamity the hole is
generally dug immediately under the juncture of a large
branch with the trunk.” None of the nests examined by us
showed this desire for protection from rain, and the chips
at the bottom of the cavity were perfectly dry, though we
had had some very heavy rains shortly before they were
examined.
Audubon further states: “The average diameter of the
different nests which I examined was about 7 inches within,
although the entrance, which is perfectly round, is only
just large enough to admit the bird.” Beyer (1900) says:
“The entrance measures exactly 4½ inches in height and 3⅞
inches in width,” and McIlhenny (Bendire, 1895) gives the
measurements of a typical hole as “oval and measures 4⅛
by 5¾ inches,” and Scott (1888) as “3½ inches wide and 4½
inches high.” The corresponding measurements of the nests
of Pileated Woodpeckers are given by Bendire (1895) as
follows: “The entrance measures from 3 to 3½ inches in
diameter, and it often goes 5 inches straight into the
trunk before it is worked downward.” The additional one
to two inches in diameter of the nest hole should be kept
in mind when searching for reasons why the Ivorybill has
proven less successful than the Pileated Woodpecker in its
struggle for existence. Thompson (1885) states: “The depth
of the hole varies from three to seven feet, as a rule, but
I found one that was nearly nine feet deep and another that
was less than two.” He also claims that they are always
jug-shaped at the lower end.
Of two nests discovered by Hoyt (1905) in Claremont County, Fla., one
was 58 feet up in a live cypress about 20 yards from a nest discovered
in 1904 by the Brown brothers; the second nest built by the same pair
after the first eggs had been taken was in a cypress stub about 70
yards distant from the first and 47 feet from the ground. The opening
of the first nest was 6¾ inches by 3¼ inches, with the trunk of the
tree 15 inches in diameter at the nest cavity, which was 14 inches
deep. The second nest hole measured 6 by 3¾ inches and was likewise 14
inches deep. “The opening in both nests was uneven and rough, and just
inside the hollow was much enlarged, being 9 inches across, and unlike
the nests of other woodpeckers, was smaller at the bottom than at the
top. * * * One marked feature of the nest tree of which I have seen no
mention made is that the outer bark of those I have examined was torn
to shreds from a point some distance below the nest site to 15 or 20
feet above it. This made the nest tree noticeable for quite a distance.
The last nest taken this season had little of this work done.”
Allen and Kellogg (1937) say further:
According to McIlhenny (Bendire, 1895) the female does all
the work of excavation, requiring from eight to fourteen
days, while the male sits around and chips the bark from
neighboring trees. Audubon, however, states that “both
birds work most assiduously at this excavation, one waiting
outside to encourage the other.” Maurice Thompson (1896)
likewise reports that both birds work at the excavation. We
had no opportunity to check either statement but certainly
both birds take part in incubation and feeding the young.
The chips are not removed from the vicinity of the nest
for each one that we have examined has had piles of chips
directly below the opening though, since most of the trees
were standing in water, the chips were not very conspicuous.
We camped within three hundred feet of our first Ivorybill
nest in Louisiana, in 1935. A pair of 24-power binoculars
set on a tripod was trained on the nest opening, and from
daylight, April 10, until 11 a. m., April 14, continuous
observations during the hours of daylight were made either
by the writers or by James Tanner. The nest had been found
the morning of April 6, when the female was incubating, but
how far along incubation had proceeded we made no effort
to determine for fear of disturbing the birds. Contrary
to most published accounts, however, the birds were not
particularly wary and soon became so accustomed to our
presence that they would enter the nest-hole with one of us
standing at the base of the tree and later even when one
of us was descending from a blind which we built on April
9 in the top of an adjacent rock elm, twenty feet distant
from the nest. On April 9, we located a second pair of
Ivorybills in the vicinity of a fresh hole about fifty feet
up in a dead oak, some two miles to the south of the nest
in the maple. The following morning, however, the nest was
occupied by a black squirrel and the birds had disappeared.
Briefly summarizing our five-day vigil at the occupied
nest, we learned that the birds took turns sitting on
the eggs, working in approximately two-hour shifts when
not alarmed, but changing places more frequently when
disturbed. Activities usually commenced about six o’clock
in the morning, three-quarters of an hour after Cardinals
and Carolina Wrens started singing. At this time the female
relieved the male after his having spent the night on the
eggs. Activities ceased about four o’clock in the afternoon
when the male relieved the female on the eggs and went in
the nest for the night. This was nearly three hours before
dark, which came about seven o’clock.
_Eggs._--According to Bendire (1895):
The eggs of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker are pure china
white in color, close grained, and exceedingly glossy, as
if enameled. They vary in shape from an elongate ovate to
a cylindrical ovate, and are more pointed than the eggs of
most of our Woodpeckers. They appear to me to be readily
distinguished from those of the Pileated Woodpecker, some
of which are fully as large. From three to five eggs are
laid to a set, and only one brood is raised in a season.
* * *
The average measurement of thirteen eggs is 34.87 by 25.22
millimetres or about 1.37 by 0.99 inches. The largest egg
measured 36.83 by 26.92 millimetres, or about 1.45 by 1.06
inches; the smallest, 34.54 by 23.62 millimetres, or about
1.36 by 0.93 inches.
The eggs described by Hoyt (1905) measured 1.46 by 1.09 and 1.43 by
1.07 inches in the first set and 1.43 by 1.10 and 1.43 by 1.08 inches
in the second set.
From my own experience and the observation of others, it seems to
me that the number of eggs laid by the ivorybill would not normally
exceed three, and one or two of these are often infertile. Frequently,
if the bird is successful in rearing any offspring at all, a single
youngster is the result rather than two or three. Allen and Kellogg
(1937) describe three nests in which no young were successfully reared,
although at least some of the eggs apparently hatched, while Scott
(1888), Beyer (1900), and Tanner (1937 and 1938 MS.) each report single
young, and in the type set of three eggs (Ralph collection, Lafayette
County, Fla.) two were infertile, and both of Hoyt’s sets contained two
eggs each. On the other hand, J. J. Kuhn reports seeing one pair of
ivorybills with four young in 1931 and again in 1936 in the same forest
where Allen and Kellogg made their studies. In 1932, 1933, and 1934 he
observed a pair of ivorybills with two young.
_Plumages._--So far as I have been able to find, no one has ever
published a description of the natal or juvenal plumages of the
ivory-billed woodpecker. The probability is that natal down is
absent, although. Scott (1888), who found a nest containing one young
in Florida March 17, 1887, says: “The young bird in the nest was a
female, and though one-third grown had _not yet opened its eyes_. The
feathers of the first plumage were apparent, beginning to cover the
down, and were the same in coloration as those of the adult female
bird.”
During April 1937, James Tanner, recipient of the Audubon fellowship
at Cornell University for the study of the ivory-billed woodpecker
(MS.), was able to follow a young ivorybill for over 3 months after
it left the nest, and though he never had the bird in his hands, his
description is much more complete than Scott’s and the most accurate
one available: “March 10, 1937: The young ivory-billed woodpecker just
out of the nest resembled an adult female in general pattern but with
the following differences: The black crest was short and blunt; the
tail was short and square; the outer primaries were all tipped with
white, instead of being wholly black as in the adult; the bill was
shorter than that of an adult and was chalky white instead of ivory;
the eye was a dark brown or sepia. One month later the crest was long
but still blunt and black, the tail was almost as long and pointed as
an adult’s, and the eye and bill were beginning to turn color.
“The bird developed gradually from then, until at three and a half
months out of the nest (July 14, 1937) its size, proportions, bill, and
eye color were the same as those of an adult. By then, scarlet feathers
had appeared in the back of the crest. The white wing tips to the outer
primaries were almost worn away.”
Since Tanner’s bird began to show red in the crest when it was three
and a half months old, it is probable that the postjuvenal molt is
completed by early fall and that thereafter young and adults are
similar.
The chief difference between adult male and female ivorybills lies in
the crest, which in the male is a brilliant scarlet, not including the
uppermost feathers, which are black, like the top of the head, while
the somewhat recurved crest of the female is entirely black. Females
average somewhat larger than males in most of their measurements,
except those of bill and feet, as the following figures (length in
millimeters) given by Ridgway (1914) for 15 males and 11 females
indicate:
ADULT MALES: Skins, 420-493 (454); wing, 240-263 (255.8);
tail, 147-160.5 (154.4); culmen, 63-72.5 (68.2); tarsus,
42.5-46 (44.2); outer anterior toe, 30-34 (32.1).
ADULT FEMALES: Skins, 452-488 (471); wing, 240-262 (256.4);
tail, 151-166 (159.5); culmen, 61-67.5 (64.3); tarsus,
40.5-44 (42.6); outer anterior toe, 30-33.5 (31.7).
In both sexes the general color is a glossy blue-black, with the tail
and primaries duller or with the gloss less distinct. A narrow stripe
on each side of the neck, starting below the eye and continuing down
to the folded secondaries, is conspicuously white, as are also the
secondaries, all but five or six of the outermost primaries, and the
under wing coverts. The white nasal plumes and anterior edges of the
lores more or less match the ivory-white bill and help to emphasize its
size. The iris is pale, clear lemon-yellow in both sexes, and the tarsi
and toes are light gray.
_Food._--Audubon (1842) mentions grapes, persimmons, and hackberries as
food of the ivorybills in addition to beetles, larvae, and large grubs.
McIlhenny, in his communication to Bendire (1895), mentions their
feeding on acorns, but Maurice Thompson (1885) asserts that “it is
only woodpeckers which eat insects and larvae (dug out of rotten wood)
exclusively.” Allen and Kellogg (1937) report:
We were never able to follow a bird continuously through
the forest of either Louisiana or Florida for more than
an hour before it would make a long flight and we would
be unable to find it again. Ordinarily upon leaving the
nest-tree or its immediate environs the bird would fly at
least a hundred yards before stopping. Then it would feed
for from a few minutes to as long as half an hour on a dead
tree or dead branch before making a short flight to another
tree. It might make a dozen such short flights and then,
without any warning and for no apparent reason, it would
start off on a long flight through the forest that would
take it entirely out of sight.
Audubon states that “it seldom comes near the ground”;
but the birds we have watched behave no differently from
pileated woodpeckers in this respect, sometimes working
high up in the trees but at other times within five or ten
feet of the ground. The female of the Florida pair which we
watched for over an hour on a “burn” sometimes got down on
the ground around the seared, prostrate trunks of the saw
palmettos, hopping like a Flicker, while her mate stayed on
the trunks of the pines five to ten feet up. We never saw
the Louisiana birds on the ground but there was plenty of
evidence, both in Florida and Louisiana, that a bird will
continue scaling the bark from recently killed trees for
the beetle larvae beneath, clear to the base of the tree,
until the tree stands absolutely naked with the bark piled
around its base.
Frequently they return again and again to the same tree
until they have entirely stripped it. At one time we
thought this was their chief method of feeding, but we have
since watched them digging for borers exactly like hairy
or pileated woodpeckers. At one time we watched the female
working at a deep gash in the tall stub of a dead gum,
which was apparently a favorite feeding place. She clung
to the spot for about five minutes, occasionally picking
hard, but never chipping off any large flakes that would
account for the depth of the hole which was exactly like
that made by pileated woodpeckers,--about four inches deep
and eighteen inches long. Finally she flew and disappeared
in the direction of the nest which was about two hundred
yards away. In a few minutes the male ivorybill came to the
same spot where the female had been working and he, too,
picked at the hole and stayed there for several minutes. At
the time we decided that either the ivorybills or perhaps
the pileateds had made the gash in the tree for carpenter
ants and that the ivorybills were returning each time for
more ants. Since the stub was rather rotten and full of
woodpecker drillings, we decided to cut it down the next
day and make certain of what the ivorybills were securing.
Upon examining the hole made by the birds there was,
however, no evidence of carpenter ants, and the deep gash
followed the tunnels of large, wood-boring beetle larvae
(Cerambycidae) of which there were a great many in the
tree; the only other available woodpecker food was termites
of which there were comparatively few.
Certainly the ivorybills did not do enough digging while
we were watching them to uncover any additional borers, so
they may have been picking up such termites as appeared in
the gash. The birds, while we watched them in Louisiana,
divided their time between dead branches of live trees and
completely dead trees, but more time was spent knocking off
the bark for whatever could be found immediately beneath
it than was spent digging deeply for borers. The forest
was made up primarily of oak, gum and hackberry, and the
woodpeckers showed no preference for species so far as we
could determine. In Florida, while the nest was located
in a cypress swamp in a live cypress tree, the birds
apparently did most of their feeding in the dead pines
at the edge of the swamp, scaling off the bark of those
small and medium-sized pines that had been killed by fire,
or actually getting down on the ground like Flickers, as
already described.
The ivorybills are, therefore, apparently somewhat adaptable in their
food and feeding habits, but forests of mature trees with their dying
branches seem to give them the best habitat for securing their food.
The fruits of these trees may likewise add considerably to their
attractiveness. The only definite stomach analyses published are of two
birds examined by the United States Biological Survey, and reported
upon by Beal (1911): “One stomach contained 32 and the other 20 of
the wood-boring cerambycid larvae, which live by boring into trees.
These constituted 37.5 per cent of the whole food. The remainder of
the animal food consisted of engraver beetles (_Scolytidae_) found
in one stomach. Of these, three species were identified--_Tomicus
avulsus_, _T. calligraphus_, and _T. grandicollis_. The total animal
food amounted to 38.5 per cent. The vegetable food consisted of fruit
of _Magnolia foetida_ in one stomach, and of pecan nuts in the other.
The average for the two was 61.5 percent.”
The ivory-billed woodpecker is represented in the Biological Survey’s
collection by the stomachs of three birds. Two of these were males
collected on November 26, 1904, at Tarkington, Tex., by Vernon Bailey,
and the third was shot at Bowling Green, West Carroll Parish, La., on
August 19, 1903, by E. L. Moseley.
The first two stomachs were well filled, and though only the content of
the third was received it was apparently well filled also. This last
stomach alone contained a trace of gravel. Forty-six percent of the
food was animal in origin, long-horned beetles (Cerambycidae, including
_Parandra polita_ and _Stenodontus dasystomus_) comprising 45.33
percent, while the remaining 0.67 percent consisted of 3 different
species of engraver beetles (_Tomicus_ spp.). Southern magnolia seeds
(_Magnolia grandiflora_) formed 14 percent of the vegetable food,
hickory (_Hicoria_ sp.) and pecan (_Hicoria pecan_) nuts formed 27
percent, and poison ivy (_Rhus radicans_) equaled 12.67 percent.
Fragments of an unidentified gall formed 1 percent of the content.
_Behavior._--The uniform direct flight of the ivorybill resembles that
of the red-headed woodpecker more than it does the swooping undulating
flight of the pileated, and this general resemblance is emphasized
by the large amount of white in the wings. When viewed from below,
the long pointed tail is quite conspicuous and the wings seem very
narrow because the black portion is so much more conspicuous than the
white, which apparently cuts off the whole rear of the wing. This is
perhaps not so conspicuous when viewed from the side, but even so it
is remarkable how ducklike the bird can appear as it flies swiftly
and directly up a lagoon, so much so in fact that certain Louisiana
hunters have told me that they have even shot at them under such
circumstances, mistaking them for ducks. In this connection Audubon’s
(1842) description of the flight of the ivorybill is quite misleading:
“The flight of this bird is graceful in the extreme, although seldom
prolonged to more than a few hundred yards at a time, unless when it
has to cross a large river, which it does in deep undulations, opening
its wings at first to their full extent and nearly closing them to
renew the propelling impulse. The transit from one tree to another,
even should the distance be as much as a hundred yards, is performed
by a single sweep, and the bird appears as if merely swinging itself
from the top of the one tree to that of the other, forming an elegantly
curved line.”
_Voice._--Concerning the voice of the ivorybill there seems to be
considerable agreement in that the ordinary note sounds like a single
blast from a tin trumpet or a clarinet. In the words of Audubon, “Its
notes are clear, loud, and yet rather plaintive. They are heard at a
considerable distance, perhaps half a mile, and resemble the false,
high note of a clarinet.” According to Hoyt (1905): “It is a single
note and resembles the word Schwenk, at times keyed very high, again
soft and plaintive, it lacks carrying capacity and can rarely be
heard over 100 yards on a still morning, while the harsh notes of the
pileated woodpecker can be heard a full mile.” Allen and Kellogg (1937)
state that anyone can produce the sound very accurately by using only
the mouthpiece of the clarinet. They question whether the loudest calls
can be heard half a mile:
It is doubtful, however, if the loudest calls can be heard,
under normal conditions, for a quarter of a mile, and some
of the weaker ones are scarcely audible at 300 yards.
However, when we tested the carrying power of one of our
recordings of the common alarm note, _kent_, amplified
until it sounded to our ears normal at about one hundred
feet, the call was distinctly recognizable at a distance
of 2,500 feet directly in front of the amplifier with no
trees or buildings intervening. At a 45-degree angle the
sound was not recognizable at half this distance. The
birds are so often quiet for such long periods that we can
scarcely agree with Audubon’s statement that “the bird
spends few minutes of the day without uttering them.” They
seem much more likely to call when they are alarmed, as
when they discover an intruder in their haunts. Both birds
give the call, but that of the female is somewhat weaker.
In addition to this _kent_ note, as it is called by the
natives of Louisiana, and because of which they call the
birds “Kents,” they have a variety of low conversational
notes when they exchange places at the nest, which are
suggestive of similar notes of the Flicker; but they
never, so far as we know, give a call at all similar to
the _pup-pup-pup_! of the pileated, nor have we ever heard
them sound a real tatoo like other woodpeckers, such as
described by Thompson (1885), and which McIlhenny (Bendire,
1895) compares to the “roll of a snare drum.” The birds
in Florida and all those in Louisiana telegraphed to each
other by single or double resounding whacks on the trunk
or dead branches. Mr. Kuhn who has had years of experience
with them, likewise has never heard any notes or tatoos
that were comparable with those of the Pileated. Our
observations agree with Audubon’s, rather than with those
of some others, in that “it never utters any sound while on
the wing.”
Tanner (MS.) reports, however, that in his studies during 1937 he
occasionally heard a rapid succession of “kents” given on the wing as
one bird flew in to join another.
The calls of the two large species of woodpeckers are so distinct
that they should not be confused with each other or with those of any
other birds. The fact, however, that ivorybills are continually being
reported, even from the Northern States, indicates how unobservant many
people are and how necessary it is to stress even such conspicuous
differences as those mentioned above.
_Winter._--Ivory-billed woodpeckers are apparently not only
nonmigratory but also sedentary and perhaps spend their entire lives
within a few miles of the spot where they were hatched. At least, once
a pair has established a territory it seems to cling to that area
winter and summer, and Tanner (MS.) reports one pair using the same
roosting hole in December that they used the preceding April. These
territories are doubtless several miles in diameter, but the tendency
was for the birds to build up small communities in certain areas
until in former years, when their distribution was normal, they were
reported as fairly common by observers who happened upon one of these
communities. On the other hand, there were perhaps always large areas
of similar timber uninhabited by them, so that with equal truth by
equally competent observers they were called extremely rare. How much
farther they range during the winter than during the nesting season has
not yet been worked out, but doubtless the area covered at such times
is considerably larger, and this accounts for sporadic records of birds
in the nonbreeding seasons in areas where no nests have been located
and where no one has been able to find the birds subsequently.