fairly abundant in southern Texas, it was much more plentiful ten or
more years ago. Because of the damage the birds wrought to telephone
and telegraph poles, the various concerns owning such property secured
passage of a law placing all woodpeckers on the unprotected list.
This done, they gave section crews of the railroads shotguns, and the
killing was on in earnest. Hunters and others helped, and the result
has been a marked decrease in the ranks of this species. The killing,
or controlling still continues. However, pressure is now being brought
to place the birds back on the protected list, and this will be done
sooner or later. There is no getting around the fact that the birds did
cause considerable damage. In this species we have a woodpecker which
for centuries had been pecking into hard mesquite trees. Along came the
soft pine poles and these same birds immediately literally ate them
up. I have seen 16 holes, three of which were deep enough for nesting
sites, in one small pole, not over 10 inches in diameter.”
DISTRIBUTION
_Range._--North-central Texas south to Central Mexico; nonmigratory.
The golden-fronted woodpecker ranges =north= to central Texas (San
Angelo and Dallas). =East= to Texas (Dallas, Giddings, Cuero, Corpus
Christi, and Brownsville); Tamaulipas (Matamoros, San Fernando, Ciudad
Victoria, and Tampico); southeastern San Luis Potosi (Valles); Hidalgo
(Ixmiquilipam and Tula); and the Federal District of Mexico (near
Mexico City). =South= to the Federal District of Mexico (near Mexico
City); Michoacan (Querendero, Morelia, and Patzcuaro); and Jalisco
(Ocotlan and Guadalajara). =West= to Jalisco (Guadalajara); Zacatecas
(Calvillo, Aguas Calientes, and Chicalote); northwestern Durango
(Boquilla, Sestin, and Rosario); eastern Chihuahua (Julimes); and
central Texas (Eagle Pass, Fort Clark, Kerrville, and San Angelo).
_Egg dates._--Texas: 66 records, March 30 to June 29; 33 records,
April 24 to May 17, indicating the height of the season.
CENTURUS UROPYGIALIS UROPYGIALIS Baird
GILA WOODPECKER
PLATES 32-34
HABITS
In the desert regions of our southwestern borders, this gay little
woodpecker is one of the commonest, noisiest, and most conspicuous
birds, always much in evidence, and always seeming to protest, in
whining tones, the intrusion of strangers. Its center of abundance
seems to be on the great desert mesas of southern Arizona, where the
infertile soil is scantily covered with a scattered growth of creosote
bushes, low mesquites, an occasional cholla or barrel cactus and
dotted with single specimens or little groups of the giant cactus, or
saguaro. But it is also common in the river bottoms, covered with a
heavier growth of mesquite, and in the canyons of the foothills among
the cottonwoods, willows, and sycamores. It ranges from an elevation of
2,500 feet on the mesas up to 4,000, or even 4,500, feet in the canyons
and foothills.
In this region, it is a dominant species and a very useful neighbor,
even if unintentionally, for the many species of birds and small
mammals for which it provides homes. M. French Gilman (1915) puts it
very well as follows:
Were it not for the Gila woodpecker (_Centurus
uropygialis_) what would become of the several species
of birds that use already prepared cavities for their
domiciles? In some cases these tenants do not even
await the pleasure of the excavators, but take forcible
possession. In holes excavated by Gila woodpeckers there
may regularly be found nesting the elf owl, ferruginous
pigmy owl, ash-throated flycatcher, and Arizona crested
flycatcher. Occasionally a cactus wren makes use of the
handy hollow, and once I saw one occupied by a Lucy
warbler. A big “rough-neck” scaly lizard frequents the
holes when not too high in the cactus, and in two holes in
willow trees I found snakes. It is not pleasant to insert
one’s hand and have a big lizard or snake crawl up the
arm to escape. Rats and mice are sometimes found in the
deserted holes, especially if the tree be much decayed
and with cracks and hollows connecting holes at different
heights in the tree or branch. So these woodpeckers may be
considered among the class of innocent or unintentional
benefactors.
In addition to the species mentioned by Mr. Gilman above, we found
saguaro screech owls, desert sparrow hawks, and western martins
nesting in the old holes made by woodpeckers. Some of these holes were
doubtless made by Mearns’s gilded flickers, perhaps those that were
used by the larger species, as this woodpecker is fairly common in
the same region and nests regularly in the saguaros. These old holes
make ideal nesting sites, for the sap of the cactus hardens around the
excavations, making them fairly permanent nesting boxes; I have seen
these gourd-shaped pockets still persisting in fallen saguaros, where
the pulp had all rotted away, leaving only the skeleton ribs of the
dead giant.
_Nesting._--While collecting with the late Frank C. Willard in
southern Arizona in 1922, we examined seven occupied nests of the Gila
woodpecker. The first of these was found on May 17, at Fairbank, in the
valley of the San Pedro River; the nest was a cavity 15 inches deep
in a dead branch of a cottonwood, 15 feet above ground. Five days,
May 19 to 23, were spent in Pima County, in the vicinity of Tucson,
between the mesquite forest in the valley of the Santa Cruz River and
the southern end of the Santa Catalina Mountains. Two nests were found
in the mesquite forest on May 19, both in mesquite trees, one 20 and
one 25 feet from the ground; one contained only a single fresh egg and
the other held a brood of young. We had an interesting experience here
the next day. While crossing the forest, I saw a Gila woodpecker fly
out from what I supposed was its nesting hole, about 15 feet up in a
mesquite stub; the bird made such a great fuss about it that I felt
sure that we had a set of woodpecker’s eggs within easy reach, and I
called Mr. Willard to investigate it. He climbed the stub and chopped
out the hole, while the woodpecker was flying about, scolding us and
showing the greatest concern. But, much to our surprise, he pulled out
an elf owl and three unmistakable elf owl’s eggs. I killed the owl
and shot the woodpecker, which still seemed much interested; and, on
skinning and sexing both specimens, I found that the woodpecker was a
male and the owl a female. We were naturally much puzzled to figure out
the relationship between the two birds and their interest in the nest.
But, since reading Mr. Gilman’s remarks, quoted above, that sometimes
the woodpecker’s tenants “do not even await the pleasure of the
excavators, but take forcible possession,” it has occurred to me that
probably this was a case in point. The owl may have appropriated the
finished burrow of the woodpecker, and the latter was trying to evict
an unwelcome tenant.
The remaining four nests found in this vicinity, and one found by
Mr. Willard on June 11, were all in saguaros on the desert mesa; the
heights from the ground varied from 16 to 20 feet; and the cavities
varied in depths from 15 to 20 inches; there was one set of five eggs,
two nests held four and one three eggs; and in one nest were two young
and an addled egg.
Referring to the nesting habits of this woodpecker in the vicinity of
the Gila River, in Arizona, Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:
Nesting sites in this locality are restricted to giant
cactus (_Cereus giganteus_), cottonwood and willow, as they
are the only suitable material for a nest excavation. More
nests are found in the giant cactus, as these plants are
more numerous than the others, and more “peckable,” though
the willows and cottonwoods along the river and the canals
are well patronized when sufficiently decayed. Of the nests
I examined I should say that fifty per cent were in the
cactus, and the rest equally divided between the other
trees mentioned. * * *
As to the size of the holes in the cactus as compared with
those in cottonwood and willow, I found no appreciable
difference. I expected the holes in the cactus to average
a little larger owing to possible greater ease in
excavating but the difference was too slight to be sure
of in measuring. Of eighteen holes measured, the average
diameter was 1.95 inches; the largest was 2.25 inches and
the smallest 1.87 inches. The deepest hole was 16 inches,
with the entrance 2 inches in diameter. The shallowest one
was 9 inches, with entrance a little less than 2 inches in
diameter. The average depth of holes measured was a little
more than 12 inches. Many of the holes were not exactly
circular, there being a difference of from ⅛ to nearly ½
inch between the long and short diameter if it be allowable
to use the term in that way. Usually the nest hole runs
straight in for a short distance before turning downward,
the distance seemingly depending on the texture of the
wood. In one case the hole went straight back for nine
inches before turning downward. It was in a big cottonwood
stump, and the bird excavated horizontally until decayed
wood was reached, when the hole turned downward. This was
an extreme case, as the depth horizontally is usually about
three inches. In the giant cactus it varies according to
the diameter of the trunk, the smaller the trunk the less
distance before turning downward. * * *
The same nest hole is used more than one season, both in
cactus and other locations. In 1913 I found a nest in a
big cottonwood stump containing young. The next year it
had young again, and I cut into it to measure the hole and
count them.
Frank C. Willard (1912) says: “I think it is their habit to dig fresh
holes after raising their brood of young. These fresh holes are not
occupied that year but are made use of the next year when the sap has
had a chance to dry and form the hard lining which coats the inside of
all the cavities. I have found but one fresh hole occupied as a nest.”
Bendire (1895) also says that “most of their nesting sites are used for
several years in succession; in fact, I doubt very much if a freshly
excavated hole in a giant cactus is fit to nest in the same season.
Both sexes assist in excavating the nesting site.”
In the heavily incrusted nest cavity in a giant cactus, the eggs lie
on the bare, hard floor of the nest, there being no chips to furnish a
soft bed.
In addition to the trees mentioned above, the Gila woodpecker has been
found nesting more rarely in oaks and palo-verdes.
_Eggs._--The Gila woodpecker lays three to five eggs, three or four
being much oftener found than five. The eggs are pure white and
not very glossy when fresh, but sometimes quite glossy when heavily
incubated; they vary from ovate to elliptical-ovate and are sometimes
quite pointed. The measurements of 52 eggs average 25.14 by 18.56
millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =27.43= by
18.80, 26.6 by =20.1=, =22.86= by 17.27, and 23.9 by =16.6= millimeters.
_Young._--Incubation is said to last about two weeks, and is probably
shared by both parents. Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:
It is not easy to determine just what food the young in
the nest are given, but insects play a prominent part, as
I have seen them frequently carried to the young. Fruit
is also used, as I watched one parent carry ripe Lycium
berries several times to the nest; after emerging from the
hole she would halt at the entrance each time and “lick her
chops.” * * *
The young are fed by the parents for a long time after
leaving the nest, and they are regular little beggars. One
pair stayed around our house for several months, and became
quite tame. They were missed during the breeding season
but soon came back with three youngsters to share the good
things found on the bird tables in the yard. The young,
though as large as their parents, would flutter their
wings and sit with open beak as though the old ones told
them to “open your mouth and shut your eyes,” etc. The old
ones would try to get them to eat watermelon placed on the
tables, but the babies would not be shown; the parents had
to put it in their mouths. They followed the parents from
perch to perch, begging for food until I expected to see
them chastised. The pair in question stayed with the three
juvenals until they had them broken to eat for themselves,
and then left. After a proper interval they came back with
two more young ones, thus indicating that a second brood is
sometimes raised. The abundant supply of food may have been
a determining factor in the number of broods raised.
_Plumages._--The nestlings are naked and blind at first but become
fully clothed in the juvenal plumage before leaving the nest. The young
male, in juvenal plumage, is much like the adult male, but the colors
are generally paler, the head and under parts grayer, the barring on
the upper parts less distinct, and the white bars are suffused with
brownish buff; the red patch on the crown is smaller and often consists
of only a few red feathers; and the bill is somewhat smaller and
weaker. The young female is like the young male but has no red on the
head. I have been unable to trace the postjuvenal molt, but young birds
in the following spring are apparently like the adults. Adults have a
complete postnuptial molt in August, September, and October.
_Food._--Major Bendire (1895) says: “Its food consists of insects of
various kinds, such as ants, beetles, grasshoppers, and larvæ, and in
season largely on the sweet, fig-like fruit of the sahuaras, the giant
cactus, and also, to a considerable extent, on the viscous berries of
a species of mistletoe which is commonly found on most of the larger
cottonwoods, oaks, and mesquite trees in these regions. These sticky,
whitish-looking berries are a favorite food of many Arizona birds.”
Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:
The food, of this woodpecker is varied, nearly everything
being grist that comes to his mill. He pecks around decayed
and dying trees as well as green ones, and presumably get
the insects usually found and eaten by such birds. The
giant cactus is pecked into very frequently, and I believe
some of the pulp is eaten. The small punctures made are not
enlarged, and in some cases quite an area is bitten into.
The fruit of the giant cactus is eaten as long as it lasts,
and the berries of the Lycium are also freely eaten. The
Gila woodpecker frequents corn fields, and pecks through
the husks into the ears of corn. The birds may peck in
at first to get a worm, but it is a case similar to the
discovery of roast pig as portrayed by Lamb. They alight on
the ground and feed upon table scraps thrown to chickens,
three of them being regular morning visitors, star
boarders, to a pen of chickens I fed. They are very fond of
peaches and pears, and volubly resent being driven from a
tree of the fruit. They peck holes in ripening pomegranates
and then the green fruit beetle helps finish the fruit They
relish grapes, both white and colored, and will spear one
with their bill and carry it to a convenient crevice where
it may be eaten at leisure. On bird tables I have tried
them with various articles of food and found very little
that they rejected. They would not eat cantaloupe at all
but were regular watermelon fiends, eating it three times
a day and calling for more. They did not care for oranges,
and I had no success in trying to teach them to eat ripe
pickled olives. I tried the olive diet on them because two
Mocking-birds in our yard learned to eat this fruit. Meat,
raw and cooked, was eaten, and they ate suet greedily.
Their favorite cut of beef was the T-bone steak and we
always left some meat on the bone for them. They picked it
clean, and if a new supply was slow in coming the softer
parts of the bone were devoured. * * * Mr. Frank Pinkley,
custodian of the Casa Grande Ruins told me of a pair of
these woodpeckers that stayed around his home and became
quite tame, coming into the shed to drink from a can of
water. He said they got into the habit of sucking the eggs
in the chicken house, or at least pecking into them and
eating of the contents. * * *
The Indians store corn in the ear on the flat tops of their
houses and sheds, * * * and each home has one or more of
woodpecker retainers or pensioners hanging about most of
the time. This corn provides an abundant and sure source
of food, and the birds make the most of it. I have never
seen any indication of food-storage on the part of the Gila
woodpecker, as with the California Woodpecker, for they
live in a claw-to-beak fashion. They peck at a kernel until
it comes off the cob, when it is carried to a post or tree
and placed firmly in a crack. Here it is pecked to pieces
and eaten. They seem never to swallow a kernel whole but
always break it up.
W. L. Dawson (1923) says that this woodpecker indulges in “a systematic
search for birds’ eggs, especially those of the Lucy warbler, yellow
warbler, and Arizona Least Vireo. In case of the first-named, the
eggs are devoured in spite of the most emphatic protests of the tiny
parents; but eggs of Cardinal, Cooper Tanager and Towhee must be
obtained by stealth.”
A. H. Anderson (1934) writes:
In the Tucson, Arizona, area a gall-insect (_Pachypsylla
venusta_) frequently attacks the leaves of the hackberry
tree (_Celtis reticulata_). The galls form on the leaf
petiole, becoming from a quarter to half an inch in
diameter. During the winter the outer shell hardens like a
nut.
I have often seen the Gila woodpeckers tear the galls loose
from the twigs and, flying to a fence post, proceed to
chisel out the contents. The hard gall is wedged into a
crack on the post and then opened by repeated hammering.
Around the base of one fence post I counted nearly 300
empty shells. Sometimes cracks in nearby trees are used. At
one time five of these woodpeckers were seen in a single
tree, all of them feeding on the galls.
_Behavior._--The Gila woodpecker is not only the most abundant
woodpecker, in fact one of the most abundant birds, in the region it
inhabits, but it is more conspicuous, noisier, and more active than
any of its neighbors. It is always much in evidence, always protesting
the intrusion of a stranger, and shows the greatest concern when
its nest is approached, especially if it has young. It is a close
sitter and will often remain in the nest hole to peck viciously at an
investigating hand; while the nest is being robbed, it flits nervously
about, scolding vociferously with all the vile epithets it can muster.
As to its behavior with other species, Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:
This woodpecker has not the best disposition in the world,
for he is very quarrelsome and intolerant. He fights his
own kin and all the neighbors that he dares. He, or she,
is a great bluffer however and when “called”, frequently
side-steps, subsides, or backs out entirely. I saw one
approach a Bendire Thrasher that was eating, and suddenly
pounce on him. He had the thrasher down and I was thinking
of offering my friendly services as a board of arbitration,
when the under bird crawled from beneath and soon gave
the woodpecker the thrashing of his career. Several times
I have seen the woodpeckers start to attack Bendire and
Palmer thrashers, but they were always bluffed or beaten at
the game. With the Bronzed Cowbirds it is a drawn battle,
sometimes one and then the other backing down. Most other
birds, such as Cardinals, Abert Towhees, Dwarf Cowbirds and
Cactus Wrens do not attempt to assert their rights, but
always take a rear seat. But when it is woodpecker versus
woodpecker it seems not to be a case of “Thrice armed is he
who hath his quarrel just”, but rather, “Four times he who
gets his blow in fust”.
I had two bird tables about twenty feet apart, and
frequently one woodpecker might be peacefully assimilating
watermelon, when another one would come hurrying up and
make a dive at him, causing a retreat to the other table.
Frequently the new-comer would then follow and drive him
from the second table. He seemingly would rather fight than
eat if another was eating at the same time. One day I saw
him, or her, I forget which, hanging to the edge of the
table busily eating steak, when another one perched on the
table and made a vicious stab at him. He dodged backward
clear under the table, though retaining his hold, and then
bobbed up again, just like the Punch and Judy show. The
attack was renewed, and the dodging as well, but this time
he did not “come back”. Another day one of them was at
work on a piece of melon when one of his fellows came and
perched on the end of the table. The diner made a pass at
the new comer, and seizing him by the feathers of the neck
held him suspended over the end of the table for a few
seconds.
_Voice._--Major Bendire (1895) says: “Its ordinary call note, sounding
like ‘dchürr, dchürr,’ can be heard in all directions in the spring;
when flying from one point to another it usually utters a sharp, shrill
‘huit’ two or three times, resembling the common call note of the
Phainopepla, and which may readily be mistaken for it. It is also more
or less addicted to drumming on the dead tops of cottonwood, sycamore,
and mesquite trees.”
Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:
As a neighbor, the Gila Woodpecker is permanently on the
map, and is afraid neither of being seen nor heard. He is
much in the public ear with a variety of notes and calls.
His sociable conversational notes somewhat resemble those
of the California Woodpecker but are shriller. In such of
his notes as are directed at humanity there is a peevish
complaining tone, especially if closely approached when
feeding on fruit or some other delicacy. In such cases
there is only one term that exactly describes his attitude
and utterances, and that is the phrase “belly-aching.”
In fact all of his talk at us has a distinctly “colicky”
tone and one feels like giving him something to whine
about. His ordinary call slightly resembles that of the
Flicker but is not quite so loud; altogether he is quite a
conversationalist.
_Field marks._--The Gila woodpecker should be easily recognized as a
medium-sized woodpecker, about the size of a hairy woodpecker, with a
grayish-brown head, neck, and under parts and a back narrowly barred
with black and white; in flight a white patch shows in the wing and
basal half of the primaries, and the black and white barring on the
central tail feathers is rather conspicuous; the red crown patch of the
male is conspicuous only at short range.
_Fall._--This woodpecker is apparently somewhat given to wandering in
fall and spring, for W. E. D. Scott (1886) says that he does not see it
about his house, at an elevation of 4,500 feet in Pinal County, Ariz.,
in summer, but that it is rather common there in fall and spring.
DISTRIBUTION
_Range._--Southwestern United States and western Mexico; nonmigratory.
The range of the Gila woodpecker extends =north= to extreme southern
Nevada (Clark County); southern Arizona (Sacaton, Rock Canyon, and
Tombstone); and southwestern New Mexico (Red Rock and probably Gila).
=East= to New Mexico (probably Gila); eastern Sonora (Fronteras, Boca
de Huachy, and Nuri); southwestern Chihuahua (Batopilas); western
Durango (Chacala); and western Zacatecas (Calvillo). =South= to
southwestern Zacatecas (Calvillo); and Jalisco (Guadalajara, Santa
Ano, and Rio Ameca). =West= to Jalisco (Rio Ameca); Nayarit (Tepic and
San Blas); southwestern Sinaloa (Escuinapa, Labrados, and Mazatlan);
Baja California (Cape San Lucas, Santa Margarita Island, San Ignacio,
Rosario, San Quintin, Las Palmas, and the Alamo River); southeastern
California (Calexico, probably Brawley, Palo Verde, and Needles); and
southern Nevada (Clark County).
This species has been separated into three geographic races, or
subspecies. Typical _C. u. uropygialis_ is the form found in that part
of the range lying in the United States, and this race also is the one
found in the western mainland of Mexico. The cardon woodpecker (_C. u.
cardonensis_) is found in the northern part of Baja California south
to about latitude 28° N. Brewster’s woodpecker (_C. u. brewsteri_)
occupies the cape district of Baja California north to San Ignacio and
including also Santa Margarita Island.
_Egg dates._--Arizona: 26 records, April 7 to May 30; 13 records,
May 5 to 25, indicating the height of the season.
Baja California: 10 records, April 21 to June 2.
CENTURUS UROPYGIALIS CARDONENSIS Grinnell
CARDON WOODPECKER
HABITS
In describing and naming this race, Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1927a) says:
In its main characters similar to _Centurus uropygialis
uropygialis_, but general coloration much darker: whole
head (except for red patch on crown) and anterior lower
surface strongly tinged with snuff brown rather than pale
drab; and white barring on closed wings, tail, dorsum,
rump, flanks, and lower tail coverts, narrower, leaving
the black-barring correspondingly broader. Similar to _C.
u. brewsteri_, but size larger, and coloration darker, in
the same respects though not to quite so great a degree as
shown in comparison with _uropygialis_. In other words, the
new form differs from both the previously known races in
the deeper brown tinge of the head and lower surface and in
the greater degree of predominance of black over white in
the barring.