and sides of head and neck in _martirensis_ is a nearly
constant character, as is also the deep fuscous (of
Ridgway, Color Standards and Color Nomenclature, 1912,
pl. XLVI) tone of the back and of the top of the head,
in fresh, new plumage: on the sides of the body, and on
the chest surrounding the big black bar, there is little
hint of the bright vinaceous tinting that characterizes
_collaris_ from throughout upper California. Weathering
of the plumage toward spring tends to rob _martirensis_
of its most characteristic color tones, especially on the
top of the head which then becomes warmer brown, but not,
however, to the degree of brightness seen in _rufipileus_.
The latter is even browner than _collaris_.
He gives, as its range: “Sierra San Pedro Martir (San José, 2,500 feet,
near La Grulla at 7,200 feet, and near Vallecitos at 7,500 feet) and
Sierra Juárez (Laguna Hanson, 5,200 feet).” Elsewhere (1928b), he calls
it a “common resident on the western slopes of the Sierra Juárez and
Sierra San Pedro Martír; in winter invading westwardly to the seacoast.
Breeds in Upper Sonoran and Transition zones.”
Its habits are probably similar to those of the species elsewhere.
Griffing Bancroft has sent me the measurements of a set of eight eggs,
which average 26.87 by 22.16 millimeters; the eggs showing the four
extremes measure =28.2= by 22.0, 26.8 by =22.8=, and =26.2= by =20.7=
millimeters.
COLAPTES CHRYSOIDES CHRYSOIDES (Malherbe)
CAPE GILDED FLICKER
HABITS
Because Malherbe’s name was given to the first gilded flicker to be
described, and because his type came from the Cape region of Baja
California, this race becomes the type race of the species. Its range
extends from about latitude 28° N. to the southern extremity of Baja
California. It is about the same size as its nearest relative to the
northward, _brunnescens_, but is decidedly lighter in coloration. It is
smaller than _mearnsi_ and somewhat darker in coloration.
William Brewster (1902) says of its haunts: “Mr. Belding and Mr.
Frazar agree as to the rarity of the Gilded Flicker on the higher
mountains, where only a few individuals were seen by the former, and
but two (both females, taken on the Sierra de la Laguna, April 29)
obtained by the latter. The bird’s true home is evidently at the bases
of the mountains, and among the foothills extending thence to the
shores of the Pacific on the south and west, and to the Gulf on the
east. Throughout this region it is a common species, although not so
numerously represented as _Melanerpes uropygialis_. On the arid plains
near the coast it breeds in the stems of the giant cactus.”
Griffing Bancroft (1930) says of this species in central Baja
California, south of latitude 28°:
The birds are extremely wild, often flushing from a
distance of a quarter of a mile. They lay in old cavities
and, probably, also in those that are new; scarred sahuaro
dries so rapidly that a definite determination on this
point was not possible. The nests are usually twenty feet
or more above the ground and the cavities are generous; an
eight-inch diameter and a two-foot depth are not unusual.
Occasionally they will use natural openings in the cardón
or holes that have been chopped open by honey gatherers.
The flickers lay from early April until well into June.
The number of eggs in a clutch is normally three. With the
single exception of one set of five we found none larger,
and none smaller in which incubation had commenced.
The eggs of the Cape gilded flicker are apparently similar to those
of other flickers, except in size. Mr. Bancroft (1930) gives the
measurements of 18 eggs as averaging 26.3 by 20.9 millimeters. The
measurements of 8 other eggs average 28.49 by 21.15 millimeters;
the eggs, in this series, showing the four extremes measure =31.35=
by 21.83, 30.15 by =22.22=, =25.90= by 20.70, and 26.70 by =20.00=
millimeters.
Its habits in general are apparently similar to those the gilded
flicker of Arizona, on which more has been published, and the reader is
referred to the following account of _Colaptes chrysoides mearnsi_.
DISTRIBUTION
_Range._--Southern Arizona, southeastern California, and northwestern
Mexico; nonmigratory.
The range of the gilded flicker extends =north= to extreme southeastern
California (Duncan Flats); and southern Arizona (Antelope Peak,
Bigbug, and the Salt River Bird Reservation). =East= to southeastern
Arizona (Salt River Bird Reservation, Desert Wells, Picacho, Oracle,
and Tombstone); central Sonora (Magdalena, Opodepe, Hermosillo,
Cedros, and Camoa); and central Sinaloa (Culiacan). =South= to Sinaloa
(Culiacan); and southern Baja California (Cape San Lucas). =West= to
Baja California (Cape San Lucas, Todos Santos, Triunfo, Santa Margarita
Island, San Javier, San Quintin, and the Alamo River); and southeastern
California (Duncan Flats).
The range as outlined is for the entire species, which has been
separated into three geographic races. The typical race, known as the
Cape gilded flicker (_C. c. chrysoides_), is found in the Cape district
of Baja California and north to about latitude 28° N. The San Fernando
flicker (_C. c. brunnescens_) occurs only within a range of two degrees
latitude in Baja California (lat. 28° to 30° N.). Mearns’s gilded
flicker (_C. c. mearnsi_) is the race found in the southwestern United
States, northwestern Baja California, and the mainland of Mexico.
_Egg dates._--Arizona: 24 records, April 1 to June 11; 12 records,
April 21 to May 20, indicating the height of the season.
Baja California: 16 records, April 6 to May 20; 8 records, April 10
to May 17.
COLAPTES CHRYSOIDES MEARNSI Ridgway
MEARNS’S GILDED FLICKER
PLATE 39
HABITS
Mearns’s gilded flicker is the best known of the three races of this
handsome species. Its range is along our southwestern border in
southwestern Arizona, extreme southeastern California, and in Sonora,
Mexico. It is confined almost entirely, especially in the breeding
season, to the giant cactus region in this area; its distribution seems
to be mainly governed by the distribution of this cactus, on which it
seems to depend for most of the necessities of life. M. French Gilman
(1915) puts it very well, as follows: “The giant cactus is to this
Flicker and the Gila Woodpecker, what the bamboo is to the inhabitants
of some of the eastern islands. * * * The cactus furnishes the birds
with home, shelter, food and possibly drink. They roost in the holes
and seek them as retreat from rain storms.” But he says that this
flicker is also “found in cottonwood and willow groves as well as
wherever the giant cactus grows.”
W. E. D. Scott (1886) writes: “A rather common resident where-ever the
giant cactus occurs throughout the region, but is much more common in
the giant cactus of the southern part of the area under consideration
[southern Arizona] than to the northward. They are common all about
Tucson in such localities as I have indicated, but are more rare in the
San Pedro Valley. I have met with the species in early spring and fall
on the San Pedro slope of the Catalinas as high up as 3,000 feet. I
have now and then seen single individuals in the mesquite timber, far
from any giant cactus. All that I have ever met with breeding have been
in giant cactus.”
_Nesting._--We spent three days, May 21, 22, and 23, 1922, collecting
on the giant-cactus plains near Tucson, Ariz., between the mesquite
forest to the southward and the Catalina Mountains to the eastward from
Tucson. Here we found Mearns’s gilded flicker very common; we climbed
to and examined seven nests and probably passed by a number of others.
The nests were all in the giant cactus, at heights ranging from 12 to
20 feet from the ground; the only cavity measured was about 24 inches
deep. We were rather too late for eggs of this species, as many of
the nests held large young, two in each nest examined, never more nor
fewer. On May 22 we found a nest containing two fresh eggs and another
nest with four addled eggs, probably deserted. At one of the first
nests that I examined I was surprised, when I inserted my hand, to feel
something cold and clammy; my hand was quickly withdrawn and the hole
was chopped out, revealing a large gopher snake that had killed and
half swallowed, head first, one of the large young. At another nest,
containing two large young, I shot the adult male for a specimen, after
which I found the female dead in a nearby hole, which necessitated
taking the two young also. After I had left for home, my companion,
Frank C. Willard, took a set of three fresh eggs on June 11, from a
nest 14 feet up in a small giant cactus; this was probably a second
laying.
Mr. Gilman (1915), who has had considerable experience with this
species, writes:
The nests are found in giant cactus, cottonwood and willow,
and in that order as to frequency, the giant cactus
leading. Nests are in the giant cactus or Saguaro as it
is called, far from water, and in cottonwood and willow
along the river, on banks of the canals, or even standing
in stagnant water pools. Of twenty-seven nests examined,
containing eggs or young, twenty-one were in the Saguaro,
four in willow, and two in cottonwood. Others were seen
in cottonwood but too difficult of access, and many in
the cactus were out of reach. If careful count were made
I believe about ninety per cent would be found in the
cactus. Nests in cottonwood and willow ranged from five
to twenty-five feet from the ground, and in Saguaros from
eleven to twenty-five or thirty feet. * * *
The entrance to the nest holes varies much, as may be seen
from the figures given. The smallest entrance measured 2¾
inches and the largest 4¾ inches. The shallowest hole was
ten inches, and the deepest eighteen inches. * * * The
entrance to the eighteen inch hole was three and one-half
inches in diameter, and while the ratio is not constant,
the shallower holes tend to have smaller entrances, and
the deeper holes have larger entrances. * * * From the few
measurements taken it may be stated that the bottom of
the nest hole is from four and one-half to six inches in
diameter. It is hardly correct to use the term diameter, as
many of the hole bottoms were not nearly circular, one I
measured being four inches one way and six the other. This
variation seemed to be governed by the size of the cactus,
as in the smaller plants there was not room to excavate a
large circular bottom, and it had to be stretched one way.
In the lower Colorado Valley, Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1914) found that
“at least two pairs were nesting in dead cottonwood stumps in the
drowned-out area of the river bottom. A nesting hole located here was
eighteen feet above the ground, in a large stub.” He also mentions
the following nests found in the saguaro belt: “On the Arizona side,
April 22, excavation sixteen and one-half feet above ground in cactus
thirty-one feet high, contained two fresh eggs; April 24, excavation
twenty feet above the ground, not investigated. On the California side,
April 23, excavation ten and one-third feet above the ground, in cactus
twenty-eight feet high, contained one infertile egg and two small
young.”
Major Bendire (1895) writes:
It nests at varying distances from the ground from 8 to 40
feet, generally at heights of about 15 feet. I have the
indurated form of a nesting cavity of this species now
before me, showing its exact shape. The hardened walls
are about one-fourth of an inch thick, and show the inner
contour of the cavity perfectly. The entrance is nearly 3
inches in diameter; inside it is about 7 by 4 inches wide
and 5½ inches deep. The sides and bottom of the cavity
are quite smooth, considering the nature of the substance
(the soft inner pulp of the cactus) out of which it is
excavated. It occupied only one-half of the trunk of one
of these giant cacti, and the rear of the cavity did not
quite reach the center of the plant. The eggs lay on the
hardened floor, and not, as usual, on a layer of chips. I
am inclined to believe that a freshly excavated nesting
site is not habitable for some weeks, as it must require
some time for the exuding sap to harden. The mold before me
somewhat resembles a wasp’s nest, both in color and shape,
and if suspended from the limb of a tree might easily be
mistaken for one.
_Eggs._--As to the number of eggs laid by the gilded flicker, Mr.
Gilman (1915) writes: “Of the twenty-seven nests examined, eight had
five eggs, or young plus eggs, to make count of five for the set;
eleven had four eggs or young, or young plus eggs; six nests contained
three eggs or three young; and two nests had two young each. In no case
did I find five young in a nest, and from the fact that infertile eggs
were found with three and four young in a nest, it may be inferred that
in many of the nests containing two, three or four young, more eggs had
been laid. In no nest did I find more than five eggs, and I conclude
that the set is from three to five eggs.”
The gilded flicker evidently lays fewer eggs than its northern and
eastern relatives, and the surprising thing is that there are so many
cases of infertile eggs, often one and sometimes two in a set. I have
had sets of six and seven eggs reported in collections, but these may
have been products of two females, where nesting holes were scarce or
the region overcrowded by the many birds that use these holes. The
few eggs that I have seen are like other flickers’ eggs but either
dull white or only slightly glossy; this may not be the universal
rule, however. The measurements of 50 eggs average 27.86 by 21.34
millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =32.0= by 22.0,
27.78 by =22.22=, and =24.61= by =20.04= millimeters.
_Plumages._--Mr. Gilman (1915) says: “The young when first hatched are
not very prepossessing to any one, except perhaps the parents. At first
glance they remind one of the pictured restoration of the Plesiosaurus,
with their long twisting naked necks. The lower mandible was more than
an eighth of an inch longer than the upper, and on the tip of each was
the hard white growth used in opening the shell.”
In the juvenal plumage, which is acquired before the young bird leaves
the nest, the young male is similar to the adult male, but the forehead
is usually tinged with dark red; the red malar patch is duller and less
uniform; the upper parts are grayer, less brownish, and more heavily
barred; the primaries are tipped with brownish white; the under parts
are grayish white, more profusely, but less distinctly, spotted; the
black patch on the breast is smaller and more central; the yellow in
the wings and tail is duller; the black tips on the under side of the
tail are duller and not so well defined; and the bill is much smaller
and weaker. The young female is similar to the young male, but there
is no red in the crown or in the malar patches, the latter being pale
brown.
I have not seen enough material, taken at the proper seasons, to work
out the molts, but these are probably the same as in other flickers.
Several apparent hybrids with _cafer_ have been reported. Dr. Grinnell
(1914), who has made a study of this subject, seems to doubt if there
is any hybridizing between these species; he writes:
The salient fact shown by this comparative examination
is that in _all other characters_ the specimens aberrant
in colors of wing and tail, are perfectly typical of
_chrysoides_ (that is, of its subspecies _mearnsi_). None
of the phenomena consequent upon hybridization is evidenced
in other particulars, such as general size, proportional
dimensions, extent of dorsal barring, colors of body and
head. In all these characters there is no nearer approach
of the red-shafted _chrysoides_ to _collaris_, than of the
yellow-shafted _chrysoides_.
My conclusion is that the strain of _chrysoides_ occurring
at the present time in the lower Colorado Valley shows
proneness to replacement of yellow by red, without there
having been any interbreeding with another species. This
may be accounted for chemico-physiologically, as in the
case of the linnet of the Hawaiian Islands, where, however,
the change has been from red to yellow.
* * * It is quite evident that the aberrant examples
described by Brewster and Swarth from central Arizona, as
referred to above, are of the same nature as the Colorado
Valley specimens. The chances are that they were not
hybrids. So far as shown by the literature at hand, no
unquestioned hybrids have been found between _chrysoides_
(or any of its subspecies) and _collaris_ or _cafer_.
_Food._--The food of Mearns’s gilded flicker seems to be much like
that of the other flickers, including ants and various other insects
and such wild fruits and berries as are available in its territory.
Dr. Grinnell (1914) reports that the stomachs of two birds, taken in
the Colorado Valley, “had their gullets distended with a mass of small
black ants and ant larvae.” Mr. Gilman (1915) says:
They resort regularly to the Indian corncribs and are seen
in corn fields though I have never noticed them actually
engaged on an ear of green corn as I have the Gilas. They
probably attack the green corn but are quiet about the work
instead of advertising their presence. They eat largely of
the cactus fruit and possibly of the pulp at certain lean
seasons. They are very fond of watermelon, and eat freely
of it when it is placed on bird tables or on the ground
in shade of tree or shed. They appear to feed frequently
on the ground in the way the red-shafted does, and are
probably after ants most of the time. I have seen them at
work on an ant hill and even pecking into the ground after
the insects.
_Behavior._--The same writer says on this subject:
The Gilded Flickers are much quieter than the Gilas, and
are not so much in evidence around homes, though they do
not appear to be very timid. They are simply less sociable
I presume. * * *
They are peaceable and impress me as being eminently
practical and matter of fact. Each one minds his own
business and seems willing to live and let live. They do
not assemble in numbers as the Gilas do sometimes, but are
solitary or in pairs. They have the same habit of pecking
the walls of buildings as have the red-shafted flickers,
and one has worked spasmodically at the shingled gable of
the school house here for the past three years. I take it
to be the same individual, for he is rather tame and roosts
each night above one of the window casings. * * *
They are not close sitters, and usually leave the nest
before the tree is reached or the ladder placed against the
trunk. As soon as an intruder’s footsteps become audible
the landlady pokes her head from the entrance, and soon
after departs, never giving opportunity for capturing her
on the nest.
_Voice._--The gilded flicker apparently possesses as good a vocabulary
as any other flicker, uttering practically all the varied notes common
to the genus, but evidently it is not quite so noisy as its relatives.
Mr. Gilman (1915) thinks that its notes are “not so frequent nor quite
so loud” as those of the red-shafted flicker.
_Field marks._--The gilded flicker can be recognized easily as a
flicker by the characteristic markings of the genus, by its flight
and by its voice. It looks like an eastern flicker with a red malar
patch (in the male) instead of a black one, and with no red crescent
on the nape in either sex. It looks like a pale red-shafted flicker
with yellow, instead of red, in the wings and tail. Its smaller size is
hardly noticeable in the field.
COLAPTES CHRYSOIDES BRUNNESCENS Anthony
SAN FERNANDO FLICKER
HABITS
The gilded flicker of middle Baja California, between latitude 28° and
latitude 30° N., is a well-marked subspecies. A. W. Anthony (1895b),
naming it, characterized it as “differing from _C. chrysoides_ in
darker upper parts and slightly smaller size.” He says further: “It
would be quite natural to expect specimens of _Colaptes_ from the
northern half of Lower California to be more or less intermediate
between those of Arizona and Cape St. Lucas. They are, however, further
removed from the type form from the Cape than are those from Arizona
and northern Mexico, and in the series I have examined the Arizona
skins are exactly intermediate in the color of the upper parts between
a series from Cape St. Lucas and my skins from San Fernando.”
Ridgway (1914) describes _brunnescens_ as “similar to _C. c.
chrysoides_, but coloration decidedly darker and browner, color of
pileum more rufescent (russet, or between russet and mars brown, in
typical specimens), immaculate area of rump more restricted (sometimes
whole rump spotted with black), wing and tail averaging shorter, and
bill longer.”
Mr. Anthony wrote to Major Bendire (1895): “The Gilded Flicker is
rather common in the heavy growth of giant cactus, _Cereus pringlei_,
but not adverse to the candlewood forests which cover a large part of
the peninsula between latitudes 28° and 30°.” The general habits of
this flicker do not seem to differ from those of the species elsewhere.
The eggs of the San Fernando flicker are similar to those of the
preceeding subspecies. Griffing Bancroft (1930) gives the average
measurements of 24 eggs as 27.1 by 21.3 millimeters. I have the
measurements of 5 others, which average 28.9 by 22.1 millimeters.
COLAPTES CAFER RUFIPILEUS Ridgway
GUADALUPE FLICKER
HABITS
This insular race of the red-shafted flickers is another member of
the unique avifauna of that interesting island that has followed the
Guadalupe caracara, and other species peculiar to Guadalupe Island,
into extinction. It was discovered by Dr. Edward Palmer in 1875 and was
described and named by Robert Ridgway (1876) as _Colaptes mexicanus
rufipileus_. In his description of it, he remarks: “In the closed tail,
only about half an inch of red is exposed on the under surface beyond
the lower coverts, the remaining 2.50 being uniform black. The main
differences from the continental form consist in the longer bill, more
pinkish rump, and bright tawny forehead. In the latter feature, the
resemblance is closer to _C. chrysoides_, the crown and nape having
about the same gradation from bright cinnamon-tawny anteriorly to dull
grayish-cinnamon posteriorly.” Although it has a decidedly longer bill
than the mainland forms, it has a much shorter wing and tail. The
collector’s notes state that, even then, it was “rare, and apparently
only found in the pine-woods of the north end of the island.”
Walter E. Bryant (1887), who visited Guadalupe in 1885 and 1886, gives
us the best account we have of this little-known bird. He says of its
status and haunts at that time: “Comparatively speaking, this bird
was not rare in the restricted area of the large cypress grove, but
apart from this locality less than a dozen were seen. Three specimens
were taken among some palms within a short distance from the beach on
the eastern side of the island. One only was heard among the pines at
the northern portion, and in the vicinity of the large palm grove on
the northwestern slope they were occasionally seen.” He collected ten
specimens, whereas Dr. Palmer took only three.
In the spring of 1906, W. W. Brown, Jr., with two assistants, collected
for two months on the island for the Thayer Museum, of which Thayer
and Bangs (1908) say: “This well-marked island form is in all
probability doomed to speedy extinction, and will be the next of the
Guadalupe birds to go. Brown and Marsden found in all not more than
forty individuals in the island. In the small cypress grove near the
cabins there were four and in the large cypress woods about thirty-five.
“Mr. Brown tells us that in the breeding season, at least, the species
is wholly confined to the cypresses, none being seen in the pine woods.
The bird is very tame and unsuspicious and falls an easy prey to the
cats.”
_Courtship._--Mr. Bryant (1887) noted Guadalupe flickers in courtship
antics in January and in February. According to his description of
their actions and their notes at such times, these performances are
evidently similar to those of other flickers elsewhere.
_Nesting._--Apparently Dr. Palmer found no nests and collected no
eggs of this flicker, but Mr. Bryant (1887) has this to say about its
nesting habits: