streaked with sepia, the feathers edged with light buff; the feathers of
the mantle, scapulars, tertials, and wing coverts are sepia or dusky,
edged or notched with light buff; the rump and upper tail coverts are
white, but much more heavily spotted with dusky than in the European
form; the remiges are all conspicuously barred with dusky and light
buff; the buff edgings fade out almost to white later on; the under
parts are dull buffy whitish, shaded on the chest with deeper grayish
buff. A postjuvenal molt begins in September, at which the body plumage
is renewed, but not the remiges and few, if any, of the rectrices; most
of the wing coverts are retained and some of the tertials. The resulting
first winter plumage is like that of the adult except for the wings and
tail.
At the first prenuptial molt the next spring the sexes begin to
differentiate, the males being more richly colored with more cinnamon
feathers in the white under parts, and the females have the throat and
breast more or less streaked with sepia. This molt is incomplete and
irregular, with much individual variation in the advance toward
maturity. Sometimes there is very little or no molt, the worn winter
plumage being retained until summer; sometimes new winter feathers are
acquired; but usually some or many of the body feathers, the tail, and
some tertials and wing coverts are molted and replaced with feathers
like the adult. The new tail feathers of the first nuptial plumage are
plain gray, unbarred. Birds in this plumage are found on their breeding
grounds and probably breed at this age.
At the next molt, the first postnuptial, the adult winter plumage is
assumed by a complete molt from July to December. Adults have a partial
prenuptial molt, between February and May, which involves most of the
body plumage, usually the tail, some of the tertials, and some of the
wing coverts; they also have a complete postnuptial molt beginning with
the body plumage in July or August. In the adult nuptial plumage the
central pair of tail feathers are barred completely; the others are
usually plain gray, but sometimes the outer pair or two are partially
barred.
_Food._--Very little has been published on this subject. William Palmer
(1899) says:
In the ponds they feed by keeping their bills in the water and move
invariably all in the same direction, heads to the wind. With care
I could approach within a few feet. Much the greater part of the
stomach contents of these birds consisted of hundreds of minute
threadlike aquatic larvae of a midge (_Chironomis_). Pieces of
mollusks' shell had been swallowed by several of the birds. Flies,
closely related to our common house fly, and tiger beetles were
detected in small quantities. Of the six godwits, five had been
killed on St. Paul Island, and had fed for the most part upon
midges, which were probably abundant in a fresh-water pond on the
island. The sixth bird was taken on Walrus Island. It had caught
over 500 specimens of a species of beetle (_Aegialites debilis_),
the sole representative of a unique family of beetles, described
some time ago and subsequently lost sight of until recently
discovered again.
The above report on stomach contents was made by Dr. S. D. Judd and has
been amended by Preble and McAtee (1923), who report that the items of
food, ranked by bulk, are flies, 76.6 per cent; beetles, 17; mollusks,
3.6; marine worms, 1.3; and vegetable matter, 1 per cent. The jaws of
marine worms (Nereidae) were mistaken for jaws of tiger beetles.
_Behavior._--Doctor Nelson (1887) writes:
They frequent open grassy parts of the country and are quick to
protest against an invasion of their territory. As a person
approaches, one after the other of the birds arises and comes
circling about, uttering a loud _ku-wew_ with such energy as to
make the ears fairly ring. If their nests are near, or they have
young, they come closer and closer, some of the boldest swooping
close by one's head and redoubling the din. This same note is heard
upon all sides while the birds conduct their courtships, and it
serves also to express their anger and alarm. At the mating season
the males have a rolling whistle also like that of the ordinary
field plover, but shorter. When the birds fly at this time they
hold the wings decurved and stiffened and make a few rapid strokes,
then glide for a short distance. On the ground it walks gracefully,
its head well raised, and frequently pauses to raise its wings high
over the back and then deliberately folds them. They may be decoyed
when flying in flocks if their whistling note be imitated. If
wounded and taken in hand, they utter a loud, harsh scream.
Mr. Brandt says in his notes:
The Pacific godwit has wonderful powers of flight, and, as it
wheels about protesting against an intrusion, the slightest beat of
its long, decurved wings seems, without perceptible effort, to
drive it forward like an arrow from the bow. That its power of
flight is extraordinary is shown by the fact that it spends the
winter time of the north in southern Australia and New Zealand. It
migrates along the eastern coast of Asia and is one of the
interesting Old World birds that find their northeastern limit on
the Alaskan shores of Bering Sea. During the love-making period,
shortly after this godwit's arrival on May 15, it could be heard
for an hour at a time high up in the air, as it circled about,
uttering continuously its wild far-reaching cry, which was very
distinctive among the medley of voices. The call of the male is
often answered by the female with the syllables, _tut-tut_, not
unlike a clucking chicken. The Pacific godwit differed from the
other shore birds nesting at Hooper Bay in that individuals in
immature plumage were breeding. Sometimes a gray-breasted immature
female would be paired with a rich plumaged male, or again both
mates would be in full color; but I encountered many pairs in which
both parents showed the light grayish breast of adolescence. In
fact, the immatures seemed to be in the majority. It is believed
that this godwit does not assume its fully adult feathers until the
beginning of the third year; but, like the bald eagle, it breeds
during the second year. The earliest spring arrivals at Hooper Bay
were immatures and they seemed to migrate in separate flocks. One
group of about 20 richly cinnamon-breasted adults stayed in our
vicinity for several days from May 20 onward. Perhaps they were
resting and feeding in preparation for the final stage of their
journey to more polar lands for they, as well as all the other
large flocks of godwits no doubt passed on to the north. The birds
that nested in the Hooper Bay region arrived in an inconspicuous
manner, simply filtering into their chosen haunts and were already
mated.
_Field-marks._--The Pacific godwit can be easily distinguished in the
field from either of our two other American godwits. The marbled godwit
has much more rufous in the upper parts, particularly in the wings, and
has no white on the rump. The Hudsonian is very dark on the upper parts,
almost black on the wings; it has a pure white rump and a black tail.
The Pacific is dull brown above, with no rufous; it has a white rump,
spotted with dusky, and a tail barred with dark gray and white.
_Fall._--Doctor Nelson (1887) says:
These godwits are among the first of the waders to leave Alaska in
fall. The young are flying by the middle of July and before the end
of August not one of these birds, young or old, is to be found.
Young birds apparently wander northward and eastward before they start
on their southward migration, for they have been taken in August at
Wainwright and at Point Barrow in company with young dowitchers and
red-backed sandpipers.
DISTRIBUTION
_Range._--Alaska and eastern Asia south to Australia, New Zealand, and
the Samoan Islands.
_Breeding range._--The Pacific godwit breeds from northeastern Siberia
(Taimyr Peninsula, Marcova, and Nijni Kolymsk); east to western Alaska
(Unalaska Island, Hooper Bay, Kotlik, Pastolik, Cape Prince of Wales,
Cape Blossom, and Kowak River).
_Winter range._--The Malay Archipelago, Samoan and Fiji Islands, New
Zealand, and Australia, and probably other islands of Oceanica.
_Migration._--The migration route of this species is almost entirely in
the Eastern Hemisphere, through the Commander Islands, Japan, China,
and the Philippines. They have been observed to arrive in Siberia on May
10 (Bering Island) and May 30 (Nijni Kolymsk) and in Alaska on May 15
(Hooper Bay), May 20 (St. Paul Island), and May 29 (Unalaska). After the
breeding season, individuals have been known to wander north to the
Colville delta and Point Barrow. The latest date of fall departure noted
for Point Barrow is August 18 and for St. Michael September 10.
_Casual records._--One specimen obtained at La Paz, Lower California
(Belding), and recorded as this species is now regarded as a marbled
godwit, and there is one record from the island of Kauai, and several
from Laysan, Hawaiian Islands (Bryan). A specimen taken on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, on September 16, 1907, is referable to the European form
_Limosa lapponica lapponica_.
_Egg dates._--Alaska: 15 records, May 25 to July 9; 8 records, May 29 to
June 5.
LIMOSA HAEMASTICA (Linnaeus)
HUDSONIAN GODWIT
HABITS
I can count on the fingers of one hand the red-letter days when I have
been privileged to see this rare and handsome wader. It has always been
among the great desiderata of bird collectors. Its eggs are exceedingly
rare in collections. Many ornithologists have never seen it in life. I
can find no evidence that it was ever common. All the earlier writers
reported it as uncommon or rare. Audubon (1840) referred to it as "of
rare occurrence in any part of the United States." He never saw it in
life and handled only a few market specimens in the flesh.
_Spring._--From its winter home in far southern South America the
Hudsonian godwit migrates in spring by some unknown route to the coast
of Texas, where it arrives in April. I saw three adults and collected a
pair in fine spring plumage near Aransas Pass on May 17, 1923. From
Texas and Louisiana it migrates northward through the Mississippi
Valley, central Canada and the Mackenzie Valley to the Arctic coast.
Prof. William Rowan in his notes refers to it as a scarce, but regular,
spring migrant in Alberta; his dates are between April 29 and May 29. He
and C. G. Harrold (1923) recorded 24 birds between these dates in 1923.
Their records are as follows:
April 29, 2 flocks of 6 each (also 2 avocets on this date, although
on the 30th it snowed all day); May 7, 2 Hudsonians at the lake and
one with a party of marbled godwits at a muddy slough a few miles
away; May 8, a flock of 4 Hudsonian and 2 marbled; May 15, flock of
3 Hudsonian, 2 marbled, and 1 Willet; May 22, a fine male Hudsonian
with 8 or 9 marbled. One other specimen was seen flying over about
May 10.
At Whitewater Lake, in Manitoba, Mr. Harrold noted one each day on May
10 and 11, 1924, and 12 at the same place in 1925, practically all
between May 13 and 20. I saw one at Lake Winnipegosis on June 5, 1913, a
late date. On the Atlantic coast it is known only as a rare straggler in
the spring and it is practically unknown on the Pacific coast.
_Nesting._--Practically all of what little we know of the nesting habits
of the Hudsonian godwit is contained in Roderick MacFarlane's notes. A
female and four eggs were taken near Fort Anderson on June 9, 1862, from
a nest on the ground made of a "few decayed leaves lying in a small hole
scooped in the earth." Another nest on the Lower Anderson was "on the
borders of a small lake" and was made of "a few withered leaves placed
in a hole or depression in the ground."
A set of four eggs, in the Thayer collection, was collected by Bishop J.
O. Stringer at Mackenzie Bay, June 30, 1897, from "a nest situated in a
hollow in the grass." Edward Arnold also has a set of four eggs, taken
by Bishop Stringer in the same locality on June 29, 1899; the nest was
"in a tuft of grass on an island in Mackenzie Bay."
_Eggs._--The Hudsonian godwit probably lays four eggs normally, though
there are sets of three in collections. What few eggs I have seen, not
over a baker's dozen, are ovate pyriform in shape and have little or no
gloss. The ground colors vary from "dark olive buff" to "olive buff," or
from "light brownish olive" to "ecrue olive." They are usually sparingly
marked with rather obscure spots, irregularly distributed, but generally
mostly around the larger end, in darker shades of similar colors, such
as "buffy olive," "light brownish olive," "buffy brown," "bister," or
"sepia." There are usually underlying spots of "hair brown" or shades of
"drab," and some eggs have a few black dots at the larger end.
A set in the United States National Museum is thus described for me by
J. H. Riley:
No two eggs in this set are alike. They vary in ground color from a
little darker than "citrine drab," through "light brownish olive,"
to "dark olive buff." The darkest egg has a zone of "olive brown"
spots at the larger end, with a few "clove brown" dots here and
there, and a few scattered spots and blotches of "olive brown" over
the rest of the egg. The next darkest egg is similar, but with the
contrast between the ground color and the "olive brown" zone more
pronounced and an increase in size and number of the "clove brown"
spots. The lightest ("dark olive buff" ground) egg has a solid cap
of "clove brown" at the larger end and quite numerous blotches,
scrawls, and spots of "clove brown" and "olive brown," with a few
shell markings of "drab" over the rest of the surface.
Some of the eggs I have seen are much like well-marked eggs of the
black-tailed godwit. The measurements of 27 eggs average 55.2 by 38.1
millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =60.6= by 39.6,
56 by =41.2=, and =51= by =35= millimeters.
_Plumages._--I have never seen a downy young Hudsonian godwit nor any
very young juvenals. The sexes are alike in the juvenal plumage and
probably all through the first year. The plumages are alike in winter
but the females are somewhat larger. A young female in juvenal plumage,
taken in Maine in September, is similar to the winter adult, except that
the crown is more streaked with dusky; the feathers of the mantle are
"sepia," edged with "pinkish cinnamon"; the scapulars and tertials are
edged, notched, or barred with "cinnamon," and the tail is tipped with
buffy white. I have seen birds in this plumage up to October 13; but
usually the partial postjuvenal molt of the body plumage and probably
some of the scapulars and tertials begins in October. Material is
lacking to illustrate the first prenuptial molt, which takes place in
South America. Probably this molt is very limited in young birds. A
female, taken on May 28 in Wisconsin, probably in first nuptial plumage,
shows a mixture of fresh adult nuptial body feathers both above and
below, and fresh tail feathers, but the primaries are worn. Probably at
the next molt, the first postnuptial, which is complete, the adult
winter plumage is assumed.
Adults have an extensive prenuptial molt, involving everything but the
wings and perhaps the tail. This is accomplished during the late winter
or early spring before the birds migrate. Dr. Alexander Wetmore (1926)
says:
A male shot March 7 is in full winter plumage with worn primaries
but newly grown tail feathers and lesser wing-coverts. Two females
shot March 8 have renewed the flight feathers and tail and have the
breeding plumage growing rapidly on the body.
The postnuptial molt is complete; the body molt begins in July and is
well advanced towards completion when the birds reach our shores in
August or September; the wings are apparently molted later, after the
birds reach their winter homes in South America. There is a striking
difference between the richly colored nuptial plumage and the dull and
somber winter plumage, with the brownish gray upper parts and the pale
grayish buff under parts.
Strangely enough, all the recent manuals that I have seen state or imply
that the sexes are alike in nuptial plumage; and this in spite of the
fact that many years ago Swainson and Richardson (1831) called attention
to the striking difference between the two sexes, which are decidedly
unlike. In the male the underparts are deep, rich brown, "Mikado brown"
or "Kaiser brown," with much individual variation in the amount of black
transverse barring, which is sometimes almost entirely lacking in the
center of the breast. In the female, which is always somewhat larger,
the under parts are barred with white, dusky, and brown; the feathers
of the flanks are brown with three or four black or dusky bars and broad
white tips; on the breast only the outer half of the feather is brown,
the remainder is white, with two or three dusky bars and a broad white
tip. Careless sexing may have caused the oft-repeated error.
_Food._--Edward H. Forbush (1925) says that "the food of the Hudsonian
godwit includes worms, many insects (including horseflies and
mosquitoes), mollusks and crustaceans, and various small forms of marine
life."
_Behavior._--He also says:
While with us it seems to have a preference for sandy shores and
sand spits, but it also frequents mud flats, beaches, and creeks in
the salt marsh, and sometimes goes to the uplands after insects.
Dr. L. C. Sanford (1903), writing of the habits of the Hudsonian godwit
in the Magdalen Islands, says:
On the islands where these birds congregate they frequent the large
open lagoons where the low tide leaves exposed miles of sand bars.
Here they follow the water's edge and wade in up to the full length
of their long legs, feeding on animalculae and small larvae, for
which their bill is peculiarly adapted, having the same flexible
tip as that of the Wilson's snipe. With the rising water, first the
small sandpipers, then the larger birds are driven from the flats;
last of all, the godwit. They start in flocks of from 10 to 20 and
keep well in the center of the lagoon, flying over the flooded
flats, avoiding carefully all land, even the farthest points and
islands.
The long black lines of birds undulating in their flight can
readily be distinguished from any other shore bird. They have a
very dark appearance. In a short half hour the last flocks have
passed and there is no further flight until the next tide. At high
water they congregate on the upper beaches, well out of reach of
any disturber. For a long time it was impossible to arrange a
blind in the range of the flight, but finally by piling up heaps
of seaweed and staking them down far out in the shallow water, we
managed to kill a small number. They quickly learned the danger,
however, and would keep on their course just out of reach.
Dr. D. G. Elliot (1895) writes:
Like the other godwit, its larger relative, it is a shy bird during
migration and keeps a watchful eye on an intruder in its domain,
rising at a considerable distance and uttering its shrill cry. It
sometimes decoys readily, setting its wings and sailing up to the
wooden counterfeits, lured on by a close imitation of its note, but
soon discovers the deception and either alights only for a moment
or else wheels about over the decoys, and hastily departs, provided
it escapes the rain of shot from the discharged gun of the
concealed sportsman. About Hudson's Bay it is met with in large
flocks, resorting to the beach when the tide is low, and feeding on
the crustacea it discovers there, retiring to the marshes as the
tide rises.
Professor Rowan writes to me:
Like the majority of waders, this godwit can swim with ease and has
been observed swimming of its own accord when crossing from one
sand ridge to another, and also when dropped into deep water after
being shot in flight but not killed.
The flight of the species is distinctly "ploverish." The greater
contrast, against its white parts, of its darker balance makes it
distinguishable at considerable distance from the willet when in
flight. They can easily be mistaken for each other if casually
observed, especially in the grey plumage of young and fall adults.
In walking this godwit has much the same attitudes of the marbled,
generally very ungraceful and altogether hunched up, neck closely
drawn into the body. It is, however, altogether warier than the
marbled and carries its neck stretched out more frequently.
On the whole it is an extremely silent species. I have seen dozens
of birds but have only heard a call twice. This sounded like
_ta-it_ on both occasions, less raucous than the marbles call but
in general quite reminiscent of it.
Doctor Wetmore (1926) says:
In plain gray winter plumage this godwit is as inconspicuous and
nondescript in appearance as a willet. In general size it suggests
a greater yellow-legs, but can be distinguished at any distance by
its quiet carriage, for it does not practice the constant tilting
that is the habit of the yellow-legs. These godwits sought company
with scattered flocks of stilts or smaller shore birds, and in
feeding walked rapidly, at times in water nearly to their bodies or
again in the shallows. As they moved they probed rapidly and
constantly in the mud with a nervous thrusting motion, often with
the beak immersed clear to their eyes. Morsels of food that were
encountered were passed rapidly up the length of the bill and
swallowed. When their movements carried them too near the stilts
the latter hustled them about, and made them run rapidly to escape
their bills, but in spite of this discouragement the godwits
remained in as close proximity as permitted to their belligerent
neighbors, perhaps, because of similarity in feeding habit. Some
Hudsonian godwit gave a low chattering call when flushed, a low
_qua qua_ that resembled one of the notes of _L. fedoa_. As they
extend the wings to fly the dark axillars show as a patch of black
and in flight the white tail, with black band across the tip is
prominent. The birds are hunted to such an extent that they are
exceedingly wary. When opportunity offered I took only a few for
specimens.
Referring to their habits in Alberta, C. G. Harrold (1923) says:
The individuals in the parties seen on April 29 were feeding very
close together like dowitchers. Not a single bird was seen on dry
land and most of them were wading about in water 4 inches to 6
inches deep, one bird swimming after the manner of a yellow-legs
which has waded out of its depth. Although the Hudsonian godwits
associate with the marbled, the latter bully them considerably,
chasing them away if they approach the marbled too closely when
feeding.
_Voice._--Mr. Harrold (1923) says that "their call note is a soft _chip_
(very unlike the harsh notes of the vociferous marbled), and when
alarmed they utter a low sandpiper-like chattering." They are usually
very silent birds.
_Field marks._--In spring plumage the Hudsonian godwit can be recognized
easily at almost any distance by the rich brown underparts, almost black
upper parts, white rump, and black tail; at a long distance it looks
very black. On the wing in all plumages the white rump and black tail
are conspicuous and the wings are diagnostic; the axillars are jet
black and the lining of the wing is black; the wings are nearly black,
with a small, central white patch, much smaller than that of the willet.
An immature bird while standing, might be mistaken for a willet, but it
is a much slenderer bird and has a longer, slenderer bill.
_Fall._--Hudsonian godwits gather in flocks on the western shores of
Hudson Bay, preparing for their eastward migration to the Atlantic
coasts of the Maritime Provinces and New England. The normal migration
route is probably over the ocean from Nova Scotia to British Guiana or
Brazil, the birds being seen in New England and Long Island only when
driven in by severe storms.
E. A. Preble (1902) saw a number on the beach about 50 miles north of
York Factory as early as July 19, and it was last seen by him below Cape
Churchill on August 24, 1900. This was the beginning of the eastward
migration from Hudson Bay. The species is practically unknown in the
interior of southern Canada in the fall.