Chapter II: 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.

The family groups apparently keep together until the following nesting season, and Mr. Kuhn has reported seeing groups of from three to five birds even as late as early March. Hoyt (1905) states that “after the young leave the nest in April they and the parents remain together until the mating season in December. During the summer they are always found in bands of three to five, and I have never seen more than the latter number.”

_Conservation._--Arthur T. Wayne (1910) records having “encountered more than two hundred of these rare birds [in Florida] during the years 1892, 1893, and 1894.” Today it is doubtful if there are a fourth of that number left alive in its entire range.

A number of theories have been advanced for the increasing scarcity of the ivorybill, that most often mentioned being the destruction of its natural habitat, the virgin cypress and bottomland forests of the South. Commercialization, avarice of collectors, shooting for food by natives, predation by natural enemies that can enter its hole (but not the pileated) are likewise suggested, while Allen and Kellogg (1937) suggest that with increasing scarcity because of their sedentary habits, inbreeding and lack of sex rhythm resulting in weak young and infertile eggs have become increasingly important. At this writing the National Association of Audubon Societies has established a Fellowship at Cornell University for the study of the ivorybill, and it is hoped that the incumbent, James Tanner, may ascertain such facts regarding the bird and its habits that constructive measures for its preservation can be undertaken.

DISTRIBUTION

_Range._--The Southeastern United States; nonmigratory.

The range of the ivory-billed woodpecker extends =north= to northeastern Texas (Gainesville); southeastern Oklahoma (Caddo); northeastern Arkansas (Newport and Osceola); southeastern Missouri (Little River); southeastern Illinois (Mount Carmel); southern Indiana (Monroe County and Franklin County); and southeastern North Carolina (Wilmington). =East= along the coast from North Carolina (Wilmington) to southeastern Florida (Cape Florida). From this point the southern limits of the range extend westward along the Gulf coast to Texas (Guadalupe and New Braunfels). =West= to eastern Texas (New Braunfels, San Marcos, Brazos River, and Gainesville).

The range of the species has been so restricted in modern times that periodically it is feared the bird is on the verge of extinction. It is now known to exist only in a very few remote areas, chiefly in Louisiana.

_Egg dates._--Florida: 4 records, March 4 to April 19.
Louisiana: 5 records, March 6 to May 19.
Georgia: 2 records, April 6 and 10.
Texas: 2 records, April 11 and May 3.

DRYOBATES VILLOSUS VILLOSUS (Linnaeus)

EASTERN HAIRY WOODPECKER

PLATE 3

HABITS

The hairy woodpecker, with its various subspecies, ranges throughout practically all the timbered regions in North America, but the type race, the subject of this sketch, is confined, during the breeding season at least, to the Transition and Upper Austral Zones of Northeastern United States and extreme southern Canada.

In the region where I am most familiar with it, southern New England, it is not an abundant bird at any season, quite rare in summer and oftener seen in winter. It is essentially a retiring, forest-loving bird, being found with us in summer in the dry deciduous woods, or occasionally in rural districts in old orchards near the borders of wooded areas. In winter, it is given more to wandering into villages and towns, or may be seen even in the shade trees in larger cities.

I remember having found it only twice in swampy woods, but Dr. George M. Sutton (1928b), in his paper on the birds of Pymatuning Swamp, Crawford County, Pa., says: “The hairy woodpecker occurs only rarely in the higher deciduous woods outside the borders of Pymatuning during the nesting season, but it is abundant everywhere in the wooded Swamp, and in the restricted area, closely examined in 1922, was considered one of the most numerous species.”

_Courtship._--Francis H. Allen has sent me the following notes on this subject: “The courtship dance consists of a weaving motion of the head, as with the flicker, accompanied by a high-pitched _ch’weech, ch’weech, ch’weech_, repeated over and over vociferously. The note is much like that of the flicker, but higher-pitched and more rapidly delivered. Three and sometimes four birds may be seen so engaged together, but I have no observation as to the sexes. In quiet intervals in courtship, the head is held with bill parallel with the axis of the body, not at right angles as in feeding.”

Edward H. Forbush (1927) writes:

On bright March days this bird begins to practise what
is either a love song, a challenge, a call to its mate,
or all combined. This is no vocal music but instead a
loud drumming on some resonant dead tree, branch, or
pole. This long roll or tattoo is louder than that of the
downy woodpecker, not quite so long, and with a slightly
greater interval between each succeeding stroke. It takes a
practiced ear, however, to distinguish between the drumming
of these two species. In courtship the male chases the
female from tree to tree with coaxing calls, and there is
much dodging about among the branches and bowing to each
other before the union is consummated.

Rex Brasher (1926) writes:

Seated under a cluster of small maples, one day in early
May, I watched the interesting courting antics of the
pair. The jaunty male’s favorite position was one in which
he appeared to be almost standing on his tail. With bill
upright, wings thrown forward, and tail wide-spread he
repeated over and over what was undoubtedly intended for a
love-song, a series of notes divided between chuckles and
whistles. But the strangest, most mystifying performance
was a series of backward drops on the under side of a limb
inclined about forty-five degrees. * * * Why didn’t the
little acrobat fall when he released his claws? Studying
his movements carefully through the binoculars, I came to
the conclusion that at the instant of releasing his grip he
jerked his body toward the limb with sufficient impetus to
catch the bark six inches or so below.

Lewis O. Shelley says in his notes: “I have watched the act of copulation of the hairy woodpecker and noted its dissimilarity to the downy. For the hairy invariably instills a follow-up procedure to the display, the male coming to her call and, soon thereafter, hopping up the branch toward her with a short jerking movement, in which he calls _wick-up, wick-up, wick-up_, wings agitating, this immediately followed by copulation.”

_Nesting._--The hairy woodpecker is rather rare, as a breeding bird, in my home territory in southeastern Massachusetts, but I have the records of 12 local nests. It shows a decided preference for deciduous woodlands, six of the nests being in dry, upland woods and two in maple swamps; of the other four nests, three were in apple orchards, close to extensive woodlots, and the fourth was in a small, living, red maple in a swampy meadow, some distance from any woods. The birds showed no decided preference for any one species of tree; three nests each were found in maples and apple trees, two each in chestnuts and poplars, and one each in a dead oak and a dead beech. Only four nests were in dead trees or dead branches; the others were all in living hardwoods. The heights from the ground varied from 5 feet in a dead poplar stub to 30 feet, or more, in tall chestnuts or maples. The entrance to the nesting cavity often appears nearly, or quite, circular, but on careful measurement will usually be shown to be more or less elliptical, higher than broad; a typical entrance hole that I measured was 1⅞ high by 1½ inches wide. The depth of the cavity was found to vary from 10 to 12 inches, but Mr. Shelley (1933) measured one that was 15 inches deep, and even deeper holes have been reported. Owen Durfee’s notes give some very careful measurements of two of our local nests, one of which is worth quoting as showing an unusually elliptical entrance: “The entrance to the nest was on the northeast side of the trunk of a live chestnut and 22½ feet from the ground. The tree leaned toward the east about 2 feet. At the butt it was 9 inches in diameter and at the opening about 6½ inches. The opening had the usual elongated appearance, 2⅝ high by 1⅞ inches wide. The top of the hole went straight in across the cavity for 4½ inches, the bottom edge of the opening slanting up ¾ of an inch while going in 1½ inches. Then the cavity went nearly straight down below the hole for 12 inches, enlarging only a trifle, so that the base was about 4½ inches in diameter. The shell of the tree was only about ⅞ inch thick on one side but on the other was 2 inches thick.”

Dr. Sutton (1928b) says of the nests in Pymatuning Swamp, Pa.: “The cavities were drilled near the tops of dead trees which nearly always stood in water. It was impossible to climb many of them because their bases were weak; but the clamoring of the young birds could be heard some distance away. On May 30, 1922, I located six nests within a half hour by watching the parent birds and listening for the young. * * * The twenty-six nests averaged roughly over thirty feet from the ground.”

T. E. McMullen mentions in his notes a Pennsylvania nest that was 50 feet from the ground in a large maple in some woods. J. Claire Wood (1905) reports some very high nests in Michigan; one was in the “trunk of very large barkless dead elm about 50 feet above ground”; another was in the trunk of a “dead beech 55 feet up and just under a large limb.”

The female probably selects the nesting site, but both sexes work alternately at the labor of excavating the cavity. This work requires one to three weeks, depending on how hard the wood is; a cavity in the soft wood of a poplar, which is a favorite with this species in some localities, might be excavated in a very short time, but I have known a pair to take over three weeks to excavate a nest in a hard maple; the trunk of a living tree may have a soft center, and some of the birds seem to be clever enough to select such a tree. A new nest may often be recognized by the presence of fresh chips on the ground around the tree, as the birds are not very particular about removing them.

The male sometimes digs out another shallower hole near the nesting tree, which he uses as a sleeping place. Usually a fresh hole is made each season, but I have seen occupied holes that were very much weathered, as if they had been occupied for more than one season; in such cases, the cavity may be deepened somewhat and the bottom covered with fresh chips. I once found a pair of these woodpeckers excavating their domicile, which they later abandoned, as I found on a later visit that the hole was partly full of water and sap. They are not always successful in their first attempt, for this and other reasons, and may have to start two or three holes before they find just the conditions they want. The eggs are laid on a soft bed of fresh chips at the bottom of the cavity and are usually half buried in it; no nesting material is carried in.

_Eggs._--The hairy woodpecker lays three to six eggs, but four seems to be the commonest number. The eggs vary in shape from oval to elliptical-oval, usually more nearly oval. The shell is smooth and often quite glossy. The color is pure white, but in fresh eggs the yolk shows through the translucent shell, giving the egg a beautiful orange-pink color. The measurements of 47 eggs average 23.81 by 18.04 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =29.50= by 18.80, 28.70 by =18.90=, and =20.57= by =16.26= millimeters.

_Young._--Only one brood is raised in a season, but, if the nest is robbed, the female will lay a second set after an interval of 12 or 14 days, and sometimes even a third set; often subsequent layings may be in the same nest hole.

Bendire (1895) says:

The duties of incubation are divided between the sexes
and last about two weeks. The young when first hatched
are repulsive-looking creatures, blind and naked, with
enormously large heads, and ugly protuberances at the base
of the bill, resembling a reptile more than a bird. They
are totally helpless for some days, and can not stand;
but they soon learn to climb. They are fed by the parents
by regurgitation of their food, which is the usual way in
which the young of most Woodpeckers are fed when first
hatched. * * * The young remain in the nest about three
weeks. When disturbed they utter a low, purring noise,
which reminds me somewhat of that made by bees when
swarming, and when a little older they utter a soft “puirr,
puirr.” Even after leaving the nest they are assiduously
cared for by both parents for several weeks, until able to
provide for themselves.

_Plumages._--The young hairy, like all other young woodpeckers, is hatched naked, and the juvenal plumage is assumed while in the nest, so that when the young birds emerge they are fully fledged. In the juvenal plumage the sexes are sometimes much alike, though oftener there is a decided difference. In both sexes the bill is decidedly smaller, weaker, and more pointed than in the adult; the color pattern is almost exactly like that of the adult, but the plumage is softer and fluffier; the white markings are more or less tinged with yellowish, the two inner primaries are dwarfed, and the innermost white tail feather is usually tipped with black. The colored markings in the crowns of both sexes are very variable in color and in extent. L. L. Snyder (1923) has made a careful study of the crown markings of young hairy and downy woodpeckers of both sexes. He found that 90 percent of the young male hairies had more or less red, pinkish, or yellowish markings in the crowns, and only about 14 percent of the young females were so marked. But only 10 percent of the young males and about 43 percent of the young females had white markings only on a black crown; and about 43 percent of the young females had the entire crown black. There is great individual variation in the amount and in the distribution of these colors; the white spots are often mixed with the other colors; the reddish and yellowish colors may invade nearly the whole crown, exist in one or two large patches, or appear on only a few scattered feathers.

The juvenal plumage is worn but a short time; the molt into the first winter plumage is accomplished between July and October. This first winter plumage is much like that of the adult in both sexes, but the white spots are not quite so pure white, and the red nuchal patch of the male is duller and often interrupted. Adults have a complete postnuptial molt in August and September and perhaps a partial prenuptial molt in spring.

_Food._--Various studies of the food habits of the hairy woodpeckers show that these birds are among our most useful birds and especially valuable as protectors of our forest and shade trees and orchards. More than 75 percent of their food consists of injurious insects, while the amount of useful insects and cultivated fruits that they destroy is insignificant. Prof. F. E. L. Beal (1911) has published the most exhaustive report on this subject, based on the study of 382 stomachs collected during every month in the year and from many parts of the range of the species, including practically all of the races. He says: “In the first analysis the food divides into 77.67 percent of animal matter and 22.33 of vegetable. The animal food consists of insects, with a few spiders and millepeds; the vegetable part is made up of fruit, seeds, and a number of miscellaneous substances.” Of the animal food, he says: “The largest item in the annual diet of the hairy woodpecker consists of the larvae of cerambycid and buprestid beetles, with a few lucanids and perhaps some other wood borers. These insects constitute over 31 percent of the food and are eaten in every month of the year. * * * One stomach contained 100 of these larvae and 83 and 50, respectively, were taken from two others. Of the 382 stomachs, 204, or 53 percent, contained these grubs, and 27 of them held no other food. Other beetles amount to a little more than 9 percent.”

Ants rank second in importance, amounting to a little more than 17 percent, and are taken every month in the year; other Hymenoptera are eaten in very small quantities and irregularly. Caterpillars are the next most important item, many of them wood-boring species, amounting to a little less than 10 percent. “Prof. F. M. Webster states that he has seen a hairy woodpecker successfully peck a hole through the parchment-like covering of the cocoon of a Cecropia moth and devour the contents. On examining more than 20 cocoons in a grove of box elders, he found only 2 uninjured,” according to Professor Beal (1911), who adds that bugs (Hemiptera) and plant lice (aphids) form only a small part of the food, and says: “Orthoptera, that is, grasshoppers, crickets, and cockroaches, are rarely eaten by the hairy. A few eggs, probably those of tree crickets, and the egg cases (oötheca) of cockroaches, constitute the bulk of this food. These with a few miscellaneous insects amount to a little more than 2 percent for the year. Spiders with their cocoons of eggs, including one jointed spider (Solpugidae), and a few millepeds, were eaten to the extent of about 3.5 percent, which completes the quota of animal food.”

He says further:

The vegetable food of the hairy woodpecker may be
considered under four heads: Fruit, grain, seeds, and
miscellaneous vegetable substances. Fruit amounts to 5.22
percent of the food, and was contained in 54 stomachs, of
which 13 held what was diagnosed as domestic varieties,
and 41 contained wild species. Rubus seeds (blackberries
or raspberries) were identified in 4 stomachs, and were
counted as domestic fruit, but it is perhaps more probable
that they were wild. * * * Of wild fruit 18 species were
identified. It constitutes the great bulk of the fruit
eaten, and is nearly all of varieties not useful to man.

Corn was the only grain discovered in the food. It was
found in 10 stomachs, and amounted to 1.37 percent. * * *
The seed of poison ivy and poison sumac (_Rhus radicans_
and _R. vernix_) were found in 17 stomachs, and as they
usually pass through the alimentary canal uninjured,
the birds do some harm by scattering the seeds of these
noxious plants. * * * Cambium, or the inner bark of trees,
was identified in 23 stomachs. Evidently the hairy does
but little damage by denuding trees of their bark. Mast,
made up of acorns, hazelnuts, and beechnuts, was found in
50 stomachs. It was mostly taken in the fall and winter
months, and appears to be quite a favorite food during the
cooler part of the year.

Illustrating the quantities of insects eaten by individual birds, F. H. King (1883), Wisconsin, writes: “Of twenty-one specimens examined, eleven had eaten fifty-two wood-boring larvae; five, thirteen geometrid caterpillars; ten, one hundred and five ants; six, ten beetles; two, two cockroaches; two, nine oötheca of cockroaches; two, two moths; one, a small snail; one, green corn; one, a wild cherry; and one, red elder berries. * * * One of the above birds had in its stomach eleven wood-boring larvae (Lamides?) and twelve geometers; another, thirteen larvae of long-horn beetles and four cockroach oötheca; another, nine wood-boring larvae; and two others together had three wood-boring larvae, and nine larvae not coleopterous.”