Vol, 15, No. 1, 1984 WESTERN BIRDS Quarterly Journal of Western Field Ornithologists President: Terence R. Wahl, 3041 Eldridge, Bellingham, WA 98225 Vice-President: Laurence C. Binford, 985 Emily Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Treasurer/Membership Secretary: Garth Alton, 72 Camino Lenada, Orinda, CA 94563 Recording Secretary: Jean-Marie Spoelman, 4629 Diaz Drive, Fremont, CA 94536 Circulation Manager: Jerry R. Oldenettel, 4368 37th Street, San Diego, CA 92105 Directors: Laurence C. Binford, Jeanne A. Conry, Peter Gent, Virginia P. Johnson, John S. Luther, Guy McCaskie, Terence R. Wahl, Timothy Manolis, Janet Witzeman Editor: Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 254, Lakeview, CA 92353 Associate Editors: Cameron Barrows, Tim Manolis, Narca A. Moore- Craig, Dale A. Zimmerman Layout Artist: Virginia P. Johnson Photo Editor: Bruce Webb, 5657 Cazadera, Sacramento, CA 95822 Review Editor: Richard E. Webster, P.O, Box 6318, San Diego, CA 92106 Editorial Board: Robert Andrews, Alan Baldridge, William H. Behle, Andrew J. Berger, Laurence C. Binford (Chairman), Jeanne A. Conry, David F. DeSante, Jon L. Dunn, Richard Erickson, Kimball L. Garrett, Joseph Greenberg, Joseph R. Jehl, Jr., Ned K. Johnson, Virginia P. Johnson, Kenn Kaufman, Brina Kessel, Charles S. Lawson, Stephen A. Laymon, Paul Lehman, John S. Luther, Brian J. McCaffery, Guy McCaskie, M. Timothy Myres, Harry B. Nehls, Dennis R. Paulson, Thomas L. Rodgers, Stephen M. Russell, Oliver K. Scott, P. David Skaar, Richard W. Stallcup, David Stirling, Charles Trost, Terence R. Wahl, Roland H. Wauer, Bruce Webb, Wayne C. Weber, Richard E Webster Membership dues, for individuals and institutions, including subscription to Western Birds: Patron, $1000; Life, $250; Supporting, $50 annually; Contributing, $25 annually; Regular, $14 U S. ($17 outside U.S.) annually. Dues and contributions are tax-deductible to the ex- tent allowed by law. Send membership dues, changes of address, correspondence regarding missing issues, and orders for back issues and special publications to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. Back issues of California Birds/Western Birds: $15 pier volume, $4.00 for single issues. Xerox copies of out of print issues (Vol. 1 , No. 1 ; Vol. 2, Nos. 1 and 4; Vol. 6, No. 2) : $4.50 each. Checklist of the Birds of California: $2.00 each, 10 or more $1,50 each. Pelagic Birds of Monterey Bay, California: $2.50 each, 10 or more $2.00 each, 40 or more $1.50 each. All postpaid. Published July 9, 1984 WESTERN BIRDS ADVERTISING RATES AND SPECIFICATIONS Full page 4 x 6 3 A inches $60 per issue $200 per year Half Page 4x3% inches $40 per issue $130 per year Quarter Page 4 x l‘K« inches $30 per issue $110 per year Offset printing, one column per page, 4 inches wide. Glossy, black and white photos are ac- ceptable; half-tone screen size: 133 line. Photo-ready copy is requested. If this is not possible, extra charges for typesetting will be made as follows: $15 full page, $10 half page, $5 quarter page. Send copy with remittance to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. A 15% commission is allowed for agencies. WESTERN BIRDS Volume 15, Number 1, 1984 SURVEY OF MARINE BIRDS IN PUGET SOUND, HOOD CANAL AND WATERS EAST OF WHIDBEY ISLAND, WASHINGTON, IN SUMMER 1982 TERENCE R. WAHL, 3041 Eldridge, Bellingham, Washington 98225 STEVEN M, SPEICH, Cascadia Research Collective, Waterstreet Bldg., Suite 201, 218 Vi W. 4th Ave., Olympia, Washington 98501 This report presents results of the first complete survey of marine birds of Puget Sound and adjacent waters. Observations of marine birds in the area date back to 1792 when breeding Pigeon Guillemots were found by Menzies (Newcombe 1923) . Since that time there have been observations and studies at localized sites, with results of these appearing in theses and dissertations, ornithological jounals, Jewett et al. (1953), and Dawson and Bowles (1909). However, no complete surveys have been conducted. The remainder of the inland marine areas of Washington were surveyed year-round in 1978 and 1979. Wahl et al. (1981) describe studies of popula- tions, including nesting birds and sites, in the area of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and adjacent waters. METHODS We surveyed all waters of “Puget Sound” (Figure 1) from 27 May through 20 June 1982 in an attempt to locate all non-breeding and breeding birds. Four census types were employed. Small boat was the most frequently used platform, followed in decreasing order by censuses from small aircraft, on foot, and from ferries. Boat censuses covered a strip transect 300 m wide along open shorelines, in bays and harbors, around islands and rocks, and across offshore open waters. In most cases we could obtain “total” counts of bays, harbors and some larger passages by observing beyond the 300 m zone. Aircraft censuses were used in areas of low human populations or boat traffic, using 120 m strip transects, along straight, open shorelines and across open waters. Observations from shore were limited to a few areas difficult to reach or unsuitable for boat or aircraft censuses; these usually resulted in total area counts. While traveling between study areas by ferry, 500 m strip transect censuses were used. These same methods were used in other surveys in 1978 and 1979 (Wahl et al. 1981). We recorded all observations as they occurred either directly on census forms or, in the case of aircraft censuses, on tape cassettes for later transcription. Western Birds 15: 1-14, 1984 1 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY Actual time censusing amounted to about 52 hours from small boat and 8 V 2 hours from the aircraft. The time spent censusing from shore amounted to about 10 hours and from ferries less than 2 hours. All areas were thoroughly surveyed once, and a few were surveyed several times during transits to new areas. Due to time and budget considerations we censused during available hours and at whatever tide stages we encountered at each site or subregion. We attempted to count and identify all individuals and species in the study area. When possible, age determination was made also. Because of generally low numbers of birds present in the study area, nearly all sightings resulted in specific identification. Except during flights, where they were not needed, binoculars were frequently used to aid identification. The study area included all the marine waters of Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and those east of Whidbey Island. During the survey, all of the near- shore waters and almost all waters of bays and harbors were checked for birds. Open waters of the larger passages were also sampled. Surveys along river deltas (e.g. Skagit, Nisqually deltas) consisted of transects along ex- posed shorelines but did not include river channels, marshes and other in- land habitats of these areas. We divided the study area into 56 geographic subregions (Figure 1) , each essentially a roughly definable body of water, corresponding, in most cases, to designations used on navigation charts. The data acquired, sometimes from a variety of census types, within each subregion were then summed. The results are presented in Table 1 (breeding species) and in species accounts below. We recorded nest site locations where possible, especially for Glaucous-winged Gull, Pigeon Guillemot and Pelagic Cormorant. Photographs were obtained of most important nest sites. To minimize distur- bance to nesting birds, only one colony was entered. RESULTS Fourteen species associated with the marine waters were found to be or were presumed to be breeding in the study area (Table 1). One additional species breeds outside the study area, with a significant portion of its popula- tion feeding within the study area (see Wahl et al. 1981). We found 26 other species as non-breeding summer residents or early fall migrants. BREEDING SPECIES PELAGIC CORMORANT Phalacrocorax pelagicus. Although this is a common bird on Washington’s outer coast and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and San Juan Islands areas with nearly 4900 birds nesting at over 60 sites (Wahl et al. 1981, Speich and Wahl in press), only one nest site was found: a colony of about 60 pairs nesting on a high wooden tower off the north end of Indian Island, Port Townsend (Figure 2). South of here, in Puget Sound there may be very small numbers (a pair or two) nesting. During our survey we observed only one adult in breeding plumage south of the above colony site. We saw 160 birds away from that site, with 95 of these in the Port Townsend subregion and small numbers of non-breeders scattered elsewhere in the study area. 2 Figure waters. WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY 1. Study area showing subregion boundaries, in Puget Sound and adjacent Washington, summer 1982. 3 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY Table 1. Numbers of breeding marine birds by subregion in Puget Sound and adjacent waters, Washington, 1982. SUBREGION NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS 1 s> E 3 z Name CP J3 CQ ■ 4—1 21 O c o V>H cu X TD CP cn c If) D O Ss. JS 3 O O o C s O CP — CO 3 £ CD cj ■e 1 ITJ 3 2 s Q) jr T3 «2 CP CP .*= cq x: CP ■ 4—1 c/i CP 5 ct t: o z 5 o 1 - O 1 Skagit Bay 77 2 Penn Cove/Crescent Harbor 10 3 Saratoga Passage 5 4 Holmes Harbor 7 5 Port Susan 61 6 Possession Sound 16 7 Southern Admiralty Inlet 3 8 Port Townsend 2 9 Killisut Harbor 6 10 Oak Bay 1 11 Hood Canal Entrance 6 12 Port Ludlow 1 13 Port Gamble 4 14 Northern Hood Canal 1 15 Central Hood Canal 2 16 Dabob Bay 17 Quilcene Bay 18 Southcentral Hood Canal 11 19 Anna’s Bay 20 Great Bend 1 21 Northern Puget Sound 28 22 Northcentral Puget Sound 9 23 Elliott Bay 11 24 Central Puget Sound 5 25 Agate Passage 26 Port Orchard 14 27 Liberty Bay 28 Dyes Inlet 8 29 Sinclair Inlet 14 30 Rich Passage 31 Colvos Passage 32 East Passage 9 33 Quartermaster Harbor 1 34 Commencement Bay 35 Dalco Passage 29 36 The Narrows 1 37 Hale Passage 38 Steilacoom 39 Nisqually Reach 32 40 Carr Inlet 34 98 4 1 35 12 88 2 126 9 21 15 1 4 4 40 6 2 1 4 300 8 24 1 4 44 20 4 100 71 159 16 118 5 21 49 13 443 28 26 1 8 3 1 9 3 10 7 2 3 6 17 2 2 8 1 2 3 18 3 92 3 3 3 38 12 1 4 10 2 32 4 1 37 30 628 4 1 7 4 15 12 1 18 27 1 42 4 46 4 77 20 62 36 18 1 98 16 8 28 16 1 1 18 4 1 44 1 8 2 3 1 2 86 530 2 4 45 6 8 1 3 2 1 18 32 11 6 3 7 28 12 41 105 4 4 363 4 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY Table 1 (Cont.) SUBREGION NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS 1 TD 0) CO 3 lx lx Q) 3 CQ -o If) 3 o o c E "O qJ Cl> JC C/) Ci) 3 _D E 3 -4—1 C <0 o ni £ 0) J2 15 SSL JS *3 o « 0) — CO 3 ~ CD JO lx +-< n 3 D I'S cy .£ ■£ 3 5 2 2 Name O X 2 o o E O cq x: z o 41 Pitt Passage 1 1 18 42 Drayton Passage 8 9 4 16 43 Balch Passage 8 5 44 Treble Point/Johnson Point 1 35 2 23 45 Case Inlet 51 2? 93 5 1 288 46 Dana Passage 1 9 2 47 Henderson Inlet 6 12 3 6 48 Budd Inlet 4 9 30 + 36 4 5 49 Eld Inlet 2 21 3 50 Squaxin 10 2 19 51 Peale Passage 2 11 1 13 52 Totten Inlet 35 7 44 7 26 53 Skookum Inlet 2 8 1 3 54 Hammersley Inlet 10 13 49 5 6 55 Oakland Bay 7 5 40 1 25 56 Pickering Passage 14 8 8 45 Totals 561 532 1676 1159 406 54 1679 ‘For Pelagic Cormorant, Canada Goose, domestic goose, Bald Eagle, Osprey, American Black Oystercatcher and Killdeer, see breeding species accounts for subregion and numbers observed. 2 Numbers are of individuals on or associated with active nests. 3 Derived from count of active nests. 4 We observed 28 nests along Elliott Bay; this total includes estimates from Eddy (1982 and pers. comm.). GREAT BLUE HERON Ardea herodias. This widespread species was found in 44 of the 56 subregions surveyed. Apparently a number of small to medium-sized heronries are located throughout the study area. Undoubtedly nearly all birds observed, all of which were adults, were breeding birds foraging near their nest sites. The observed birds represent perhaps only 50% of the actual number of nesting birds: it is very likely some adults were at nests and others were missed during censusing. The methods of survey we employed to detect birds on the water or nearby shoreline are not suitable for locating heronries, which are often a considerable distance from the water in upland habitats. Even when close to the water, nests are 5 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY often partially concealed in tree-top foliage. To date there has not been a statewide ef- fort to locate and identify all nesting sites, though a one-year survey of heronries in the King County portion of the study area (greater Seattle area) was conducted by Shipe and Scott (1981). CANADA GOOSE Branta canadensis. We saw only 34 birds, including family groups, in six subregions (Numbers 8, 22, 27, 56 on Figure 1), particularly in the Kellogg Island area of the Duwamish Waterway, Seattle (20 birds), and in the Puyallup River delta at Tacoma (6 birds). It is likely many additional birds were missed. A number of domestic-type geese (A riser sp.) were also observed. MALLARD Anas platyrhynchos. We observed 532 individuals, including many family groups in 25 subregions. In most cases the birds appeared to be tame or at least par- tially so, nesting and feeding in close proximity to human habitations and activity. Many urban “Mallards” are fed by humans in the study area, though some, especially those residing in industrial areas, may be self-sufficient. Many birds were of mixed plumage, revealing interbreeding with domestic stock. We believe we missed a high proportion of the Mallards that are present in the study area during the summer. Mallards are rarely found nesting in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/San Juan Islands/ Strait of Georgia area (pers. obs.). BALD EAGLE Haliaeetus leucocephalus. During this survey we observed 15 adult Bald Eagles in 10 subregions (Subregion-No. obs.: 2-1; 5-4; 7-1; 8-1; 39-1; 40-2; 42-1; 44-1; 47-2; 55-1) . This is clearly a low count for this area, a product of our cen- sus techniques. During summer, 1982, personnel from the state’s Nongame Wildlife Program con- ducted eagle nesting surveys in Washington. In our present study area they found several active nests. Along Hood Canal 6 nests were located; 2 were unoccupied and the other 4 were unsuccessful. In the area of Admiralty Inlet from Port Townsend south to Port Madison, 10 nests were located, and 4 of these produced 7 young. Seventeen nests were located in the area east of Whidbey Island. Twelve of these were occupied, 11 of which produced 17 young. In the Puget Sound area south of Port Madison, only 4 of 12 nests were successful and these produced 5 young. OSPREY Pandion haliaetus. We observed two adults at two possible nest sites (Subregion-No. obs.: 2-1; 54-1). Our census techniques were not well-suited to locating Osprey nests and we probably missed seeing a number of breeding birds pre- sent in the study area. AMERICAN BLACK OYSTERCATCHER Haematopus bachmani. We observed only three individuals of this species during the survey, all on a gravel/ sand spit island at the north end of Indian Island in Port Townsend (Figure 2) . We did not find proof that these birds were breeding there, though the situation was suitable. These individuals may have been non-breeders or perhaps foraging breeders from Protection Island, about 17 km away, though our experience indicates this latter possibility is unlikely. There is no reason to believe that additional birds occur within the study area, and there are no historical breeding records for this area (Speich and Wahl in press) . Dur- ing sureys of breeding birds in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, San Juan Islands, Strait of Georgia and adjacent waters in 1978 and 1979, 46 pairs were found nesting on 25 islands and other sites north of the present study area. About 330 birds are known to occur at about 100 nesting locations in western Washington marine areas (Speich and Wahl in press) . KILLDEER Charadrius uociferus. We saw only 22 individuals during the survey. Undoubtedly, many others were overlooked in uplands adjacent to marine waters. However, total numbers are probably not large for the entire study area. 6 Everett \ Figure 2. Nesting sites and colonies of Pelagic Cormorant (starred circle), American Black Oystercatcher (question mark) and Glaucous-winged Gull (triangles) in study area, Puget Sound, Hood Canal and waters east of Whidbey Island. Washington, summer 1982. 7 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY GLAUCOUS- WINGED GULL Larus glaucescens. Although observed in numbers in nearly every subregion, relatively few were breeding. Nearly all birds were in a subadult plumage, in many cases the last recognizable one. The occurrence of subadults was particularly pronounced in areas away from the few nesting colonies. We recorded about 14,000 non-breeding birds, with concentrations near nesting sites and at feeding areas along river deltas and tidal fronts. In addition, a large proportion of the 5400 unidentified gulls observed were probably this species. Many non- breeding birds found in the study area in the summer are progeny from colonies to the north, at Protection Island and in the San Juan Islands (Wahl, unpub. banding data). Despite the large numbers of Glaucous-winged Gulls in the study area, we found nesting sites in only 9 of the 56 subregions (Tables 1 and 2). Table 2 contains approxi- mate locations, with comments on the colonies within each subregion. The locations of colonies are shown in Figure 2. In total, we observed about 1100 breeding birds at 16 sites (Table 2). Additionally, about 300 nests were scattered on buildings and waterfront areas of Seattle (Eddy 1982) that we could not see from the water. This brings the study area total to about 1700 breeding Glaucous-winged Gulls, or 850 pairs. It is very likely that additional isolated pairs, easily overlooked, are breeding in the study area. As in other nesting species, the Glaucous-winged Gull nests in larger numbers in more northern regions of Washington’s inland waters, outside the study area. Nesting sites inside Puget Sound are essentially confined to the colonies at Shelton, Olympia, Tacoma and Seattle. Apparently, Glaucous-wings do not nest in any numbers along Hood Canal. The colony at Jetty Island, Everett, is the only colony east of Whidbey Island. For comparison with Table 2, about 9000 pairs nest in areas north of the pre- sent study area and in total about 40,000 birds nest in western Washington, including the outer coast (Speich and Wahl in press) . PIGEON GUILLEMOT Cepphus columba. This is the most widespread seabird which nests in the study area. It also feeds exclusively within marine habitats. It occurs in pairs and small groupings of pairs almost wherever suitable cliffs are found, nesting there and under old piers and in similar situations. We counted in total 1159 individuals; guillemots occurred in all but 4 of the 56 subregions. Many cliffs that appeared to contain suitable nesting habitat lacked birds. This species was more even- ly distributed throughout the study area, including Puget Sound, than any other breeding species, except perhaps the Great Blue Heron. From four to six thousand guillemots nest in western Washington (Speich and Wahl in press). MARBLED MURRELET ( Brachyramphus marmoratus) . We found this species to be widespread in small numbers throughout the study area. It was infrequently observed in the southern reaches of Puget Sound, but was observed much more often in northern areas. Location of birds observed foraging are assumed to be close to mainland nesting locations, though in fact at least some birds may commute con- siderable distances inland to nest. To help complicate the picture, utilized foraging areas may shift due to prey mobility, and the species, a strong flier, is easily capable of moving rapidly between subregions. However, the overall distribution pattern in this study area is unlikely to be very different. Nesting locations of Marbled Murrelets are still largely a mystery. Only one egg has thus far been found in Washington, near Saxton, Whatcom County, on the Nooksack River, 19 June 1925 (Anonymous 1927) . A nest is yet to be found in Washington (see Kiff 1981, for a review of the few known nests elsewhere), but there is little doubt Marbled Murrelets breed in the state, and probably along many marine shorelines (Wahl et al. 1981; Speich and Wahl in press). The total population of adult birds using the study area during the breeding season may be considerably higher than the numbers observed. Marbled Murrelets are often difficult to detect during transect counts. We observed 406 individuals, a figure that 8 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY could at one extreme represent half their numbers. Thus, maximally about 400 pairs may be present, and minimally about 200 pairs. Similarly, about 2400 birds are known to occur in the inland marine areas east of Cape Flattery, but the actual total is likely twice that number (Speich and Wahl in press) . We observed several birds-of-the- year, alone and in the company of adults. BELTED KINGFISHER Cery/e alcyon. This is a widespread species, with at least one breeding pair found in most bays and harbors, and at many stream estuaries. We saw 53 individuals, and as these birds are often difficult to see in shoreline vegetation or may be unobservable in burrows, this count surely represents at best only half of all breeding birds and probably much less than that. NORTHWESTERN CROW Coruus caurinus. This common species was observed throughout the study area and was one of the most widespread species. We observed 1649 individuals, certainly representing only part of their numbers in the study area. The presence of crows along marine shorelines is of course greatly influenced by tidal Table 2. The location and numbers of Glaucous-winged Gulls nesting in Puget Sound and east of Whidbey Island, summer 1982. Subregion Number Nesting Site Name and Numbers of Nesting and Name Description Birds Pairs Individuals 6 Possession Sound Jetty Island 300‘ 8 Port Townsend Indian Island, bar 100 2 11 Hood Canal Entrance Colvos Rock, north 22 44 3 22 Northcentral Puget Sound Ferry terminal dolphins 1? 2? 23 Elliott Bay (Seattle) Pier Three, dolphin 1 2 Railroad bridge foundation 1 2 Pier Thirty, decaying 12 24 3 Seattle, downtown (See Eddy 1982) 300 600 34 Commencement Bay Hylebos Waterway (two sites) 3 6 (Tacoma) Blair Waterway 1 2 Puyallup River, mouth, pier 116* Milwaukee Waterway, pier 200 400 2 Navigation marker 2 4 Dolphin 1 2 45 Case Inlet Dolphin 1? 2? 48 Budd Inlet Dolphins; old dock; channel markers; small rock (?) 30 + 1 55 Oakland Bay sawmill: levee; floating logs 20 40 2 (Shelton) Total 1676 ‘Number based on count of adults. 2 Number based on count of adults and nests. 3 Number based on count of adults on nests. 9 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY level; thus our counts in many cases are minimal. Although this species nests in upland habitats, its impact on marine shorelines should not be underestimated. All the marine shoreline of Puget Sound is probably patrolled daily by crows. NOTE: For pur- poses of this paper we are attributing crow sightings to caurinus: most observers in northwest Washington believe resident birds are simply “crows” and do not attempt to identify them further (see Johnson 1961). NON-BREEDING SPECIES COMMON LOON Gauia immer. We observed 46, most in southern Admiralty Inlet and Penn Cove. Scattered birds were in deeper passages and inlets. None were in breeding plumage. ARCTIC LOON G. arctica. We saw three in Carr Inlet and two other individuals elsewhere. EARED GREBE Podiceps nigricollis. Two birds in breeding plumage were in Killisut Harbor. WESTERN GREBE Aechmophorus occidentaiis. Flocks of non-breeding birds are reported from the study area in summer (W. Harrington-Tweit pers. comm.) as they are in other Washington areas (Wahl et al. 1981). However, we observed only 154 birds, with 79 in Port Susan, 49 in the Great Bend subregion, and 14 in Case Inlet. Non-breeding numbers appeared low elsewhere in Washington inland waters in 1982 (Wahl pers. obs.) DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT Phalacrocorax auritus. We observed 256 birds foraging and resting in Skagit Bay, but elsewhere noted only scattered birds, totalling 30. Nearly 3300 birds breed at about 30 sites in more northern and in the coastal marine areas of Washington (Speich and Wahl in press) . BRANDT’S CORMORANT P. penicillatus. Twelve birds were seen in Case and Budd inlets and Peale Passage. In Washington this species breeds only along the outer coast, and in low numbers: four sites with about 560 birds (Speich and Wahl in press). DABBLING DUCKS Anas sp. One Northern Pintail (A. acuta) was identified, and about 200 unidentified dabblers were seen during aerial censuses in Skagit Bay. SCAUP Aythya sp. Almost all of 100 scaup observed were in Skagit and Port Susan bays. COMMON GOLDENEYE Bucephala clangula. Five birds were observed. BUFFLEHEAD B. albeola. One bird was observed. OLDQUAW Clangula hgemalis. We observed one bird. HARLEQUIN DUCK Histrionicus histrionicus. We observed 72. Six in Central Puget Sound subregion and one in Rich Passage were the only birds recorded south of the entrance to Hood Canal. We saw 35 near Port Townsend on the Indian Island spit, 1 1 in Killisut Harbor and 14 in Penn Cove-Crescent Harbor. Harlequin Ducks nest in the mountains of western Washington. WHITE-WINGED SCOTER Melanitta fusca. We identified 913, with over 600 con- centrated in Penn Cove-Crescent Harbor and Skagit Bay. In addition, about 3000 unidentified scoters were recorded in these same areas, and some at least were this species. SURF SCOTER M. perspicillata. Skagit Bay and Penn Cove-Crescent Harbor held over 900 of 1250 birds identified. Many unidentified scoters were likely this species. Small numbers were observed in northern Puget Sound and Hood Canal. COMMON MERGANSER Mergus merganser. We saw 162 birds in Skagit Bay and 20 in Oakland Bay. This is a relatively common nesting species along coastal rivers in western Washington. 10 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY RED-BREASTED MERGANSER M. serrator. Four were in Killisut Harbor and one was observed in Case Inlet. AMERICAN COOT Fulica americana. Three scattered birds were noted. Coots nest commonly in inland freshwater areas in western Washington. RUDDY TURNSTONE Arenaria interpres. Two were observed on the Tacoma water- front at the Puyallup River delta. WESTERN SANDPIPER Calidris mauri. About 370 birds of this species and uniden- tified “peeps” were observed, indicating minimum migration in the area. Adequate census coverage of the Nisqually delta area would likely have revealed many more of this and other shorebird species. CALIFORNIA GULL Larus calif ornicus. We identified a total of 393 in small flocks dispersed in appropriate habitats. The species occurs as a non-breeder and post- breeding migrant regularly in summer in inland Washington marine waters. RING-BILLED GULL L. detawarensis. About 170 in Skagit Bay and 50 in Henderson Inlet comprised almost all the birds observed. This gull nests in one and perhaps two sites in outer coastal bays in western Washington, numbering perhaps 100 nesting birds (Speich and Wahl in press). MEW GULL L. canus. We noted 25 birds, mostly in Skagit Bay and Penn Cove- Crescent Harbor. Some of 5451 unidentified gulls observed were likely of this and the preceeding two species. BONAPARTE’S GULL L. Philadelphia. Numbers were relatively low, with only 140 noted. Most were in the northern part of the study area, though some may have been present in the Nisqually delta, the outer shoreline of which was observed only from a distance. HEERMANN’S GULL L. heermanni. Small numbers totalling 34 birds were noted north of the entrance to Hood Canal to Port Townsend. CASPIAN TERN Sterna caspia. We noted 41 birds throughout the study area, con- centrated near river deltas and estuaries. Twenty-three were in Skagit Bay. In western Washington, about 8000 Caspian Terns nest at three sites in outer coastal bays (Speich and Wahl in press) . COMMON MURRE (Jria aalge. About 340 birds were seen, with 284 in the passage between Treble Point and Johnson Point and small flocks in Carr Inlet and Pitt Passage . RHINOCEROS AUKLET Cerorhinca monocerata. Of 322 birds observed, 295 were noted from Oak Bay north to Port Townsend. We observed 15 near Seattle and 11 south of Steilacoom. The latter birds were in immature plumage whereas more north- erly birds were in breeding plumage. The species breeds at Protection Island, a few miies northwest of Port Townsend and in large numbers at two other sites outside the study area. About 60,000 birds nest at several sites in western Washington (Speich and Wahl in press). DISCUSSION Marine bird populations observed in the study area likely reflect a number of factors, though in some instances the effects of these factors and interrela- tionships are not clear. Much of the study area is highly developed, some portions are heavily industrialized, and human activities are widespread and intensive. Populations of seabirds in summer appear generally to be low. Nesting habitat for cormorants is limited. Glaucous-winged Gulls nest predominantly 11 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY on man-made habitats. Pigeon Guillemots are widespread, utilizing nest sites throughout the study area, though not all cliffs which appear suitable are used. Guillemots nest in very small numbers in Tacoma and Seattle where piers offer many potential nest sites. Contrasting with this very limited number of breeding “seabirds” in the study area, the adjacent inland waters to the north have sizable numbers of nesting Double-crested and Pelagic cor- morants, American Black Oystercatchers, Glaucous-winged Gulls and Rhinoceros Auklets, in addition to large numbers of Pigeon Guillemots and, presumably, Marbled Murrelets. In addition, breeding populations of Great Blue Herons and Bald Eagles are substantially higher to the north (Wahl et al. 1981, Speich and Wahl in press). Populations of non-breeders include gulls associating with human activities and structures, small numbers of loons, grebes, cormorants and alcids using offshore areas, and many species using suitable nearshore estuarine habitats when disturbance is low. Population sizes of many non-breeding species appear low in comparison to areas in the San Juans, Strait of Georgia and Strait of Juan de Fuca to the north, with the exception of the area east of Whidbey Island including the Skagit and Port Susan estuaries, where large populations are indeed comparable to any in Washington in summer. The Nisqually delta, included in the present study area, is also comparable in many respects, though our survey did not adequately sample that area. Total numbers of summer resident birds in the study area are, as in more northern areas, lower than corresponding figures for winter resident birds (Wahl et al. 1981, Wahl and Speich unpubl. obs.). The impacts of increasing human use and development of habitats and comparisons of biological productivity of the study area with regions of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent waters warrant study and will likely contribute greatly to understanding birds and their place in the ecosystem. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Field surveys of the Puget Sound and Southern Admiralty Inlet portion of the study area were made possible through Subcontract B-E 5056-B-H from Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories and the Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle. This paper benefited from a very helpful review by an editor, and from perti- nent changes suggested by Phil Mattocks. LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 1927. Egg of Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Murrelet 8:16. (Attributed to E. J. Booth). Dawson, W. L. & J. H. Bowles. 1909. The birds of Washington. 2 vols. Occidental Publ. Co., Seattle. Eddy, G. 1982. Glaucous-winged Gulls nesting on buildings in Seattle. Murrelet 63:27-29. Jewett, S. G., W. P. Taylor, W. T. Shaw & J. W. Aldridge. 1953. Birds of Washington State. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle. 12 WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD SURVEY Johnston, D. W. 1961. The biosystematics of North American crows. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle. Kiff, L. 1981. Eggs of the Marbled Murrelet. Wilson Bull. 93:400-403. Newcombe, C, F, ed. 1923. Menzies’ journal of Vancouver’s voyage, April to October, 1792. Archives of B. C., Mem. No. 5, Victoria. Shipe, S. J. & W. W. Scott. 1981. The Great Blue Heron in King County, Washington. Dept, of Game, Nongame Program, Olympia, WA. 33 pp. Speich, S. M. & T. R. Wahl. In press. Catalog of Washington seabird colonies. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog., Portland. Wahl, T. R., S. M. Speich, D. A. Manuwal, K. V. Hirsch & C. Miller. 1981. Marine bird populations of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and adjacent waters in 1978 and 1979. DOC/EPA Interagency Energy/Environment R&D Prog. Rep. EPA/600/F-81-156, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 789 pp. Accepted 2 February 1 984 Pelagic Cormorant — breeding adult Sketch by Narca Moore -Craig 13 14 Pigeon Guillemots on Southeast Farallon Island. California, August 1979. Photo fay Bruce E. Webb FALL MIGRATION OF BIRDS AT MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OREGON CARROLL D. LITTLEFIELD, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 113, Burns, Oregon 97720 JOHN E. CORNELY, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Route 2, Box 208, Corvallis, Oregon 97330 In recent years, interest in fall wildlife observations has increased at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Harney County, Oregon. Previously, fall visitor use was primarily limited to hunting. An earlier paper (Littlefield and McLaury, West. Birds 4:83-88, 1973) reported the average spring arrival dates for birds. Numerous requests have been received for a similar report for fall migration dates. Average fall arrival dates are not as precise as spring dates because many species nest at Malheur NWR, and it is not possible to distinguish between local nesters and fall migrants. In Table 1 we present the earliest fall arrival date, approximate peak period of fall migration, and latest fall departure for those species for which adequate information was available. For species that nest locally, “summers” is given instead of a fall arrival date; and for species wintering commonly on the refuge, “winters” is shown instead of a fall depar- ture date. Several species have been observed in the winter, but are not com- mon then or do not winter every year. These species are identified with an asterisk (*). Fall migration at Malheur NWR begins in late June and extends through mid-December. Migrants move through the area over a 6-month period, but the greatest species diversity occurs in late August and early September. Most large wading birds reach their greatest abundance in September, whereas waterfowl do not peak until October. Migrant shorebirds are common in August, whereas peak passerine numbers and species occur from mid- August through late September. We wish to acknowledge Fish and Wildlife Service personnel who have ac- cumulated the following information. In particular we would like to thank Eugene Kridler, C. Fred Zeillemaker, Bruce Deuel, Walter Anderson, Eldon McLaury, Sean Furniss, Steve Thompson, Brad Ehlers and Larry Ditto. We would like to thank Larry Ditto, Brad Ehlers, Harry Nehls and Steve Thomp- son for editorial comments, and Ruth Warneke and Dee Dee Ehlers for typ- ing assistance. Western Birds 15: 15-22, 1984 15 FALL MIGRATION AT MALHEUR REFUGE Table 1. Fall arrival dates, peaks of migration, and latest fall departure dates of birds at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. EARLIEST LATEST FALL FALL ARRIVAL FALL DEPARTURE SPECIES DATE PEAK DATE Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Summers 1 Sep-1 Oct 4 Dec 71* Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Summers 5 Sep-5 Oct 23 Nov 71* Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Summers 10 Sep-20 Sep 14 Nov 73 American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Summers 1 Sep-1 Oct 8 Dec 75* Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Summers 10 Sep-20 Sep 9 Dec 71* American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Summers 10 Sep-1 Oct 9 Dec 59,60* Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Summers 10 Sep-1 Oct Winters Great Egret Casmerodius albus Summers 1 Sep-1 Oct 19 Nov 74* Snowy Egret Egretta thula Summers 1 Sep- 10 Sep 25 Oct 73,75 Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Summers 1 Sep-1 Oct 13 Dec 63* White -faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Summers 1 Sep- 10 Sep 28 Nov 76* Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Early Oct 10 Nov-25 Nov Mid-Dec* Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons 21 Aug 80 20 Sep-20 Oct 7 Dec 63* Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 3 Sep 61 20 Oct-1 Nov 20 Dec 58* Ross’ Goose Chen rossii 27 Oct 65 3 Nov-12 Nov 16 Nov 65 Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Summers 1 Oct- 15 Oct Mid-Dec* Northern Pintail Anas acuta Summers 25 Aug- 10 Sep Early Dec* Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Summers 15 Aug-30 Aug 7 Dec 64’ Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Summers 1 Sep- 10 Sep Late Nov* Gadwall Anas strepera Summers 1 Oct-1 Nov Mid-Nov* 16 FALL MIGRATION AT MALHEUR REFUGE Table 1 (Cont.) EARLIEST LATEST FALL FALL ARRIVAL FALL DEPARTURE SPECIES DATE PEAK DATE American Wigeon Anas americana Summers 25 Sep- 10 Oct Early Dec’ Canvasback Aythya ualisineria Summers 10 Oct-1 Nov Mid-Dec* Redhead Aythya americana Summers 1 Aug- 10 Aug Late Oct’ Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 24 Aug 74 1 Nov-30 Nov Early Dec’ Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Summers 10 Oct-1 Nov Early Dec’ Common Goldeneye Bucephala ciangula 23 Sep 75 1 Dec- 10 Dec Winters Bufflebead Bucephala albeola 22 Sep 64 20 Oct-1 Nov Early Dec’ Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 9 Oct 60 20 Nov-1 Dec Winters Common Merganser Mergus merganser Summers 20 Oct- 10 Nov Mid-Dec* Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Summers 1 Oct- 10 Nov Mid-Dec* Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Summers 1 Sep- 15 Sep 20 Oct 65’ Osprey Pandion haliaetus 26 Aug 80 10 Sep-15 Sep 18 Sep 62 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 31 Aug 81 15 Oct- 15 Nov Early Dec* Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Summers 10 Oct- 20 Oct Early Dec* Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 17 Aug 73 5 Oct-25 Oct Late Nov* Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii 1 Sep 59 20 Sep- 10 Oct 1 Dec 70’ Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Summers 20 Aug- 10 Sep 1 Oct 64 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Summers 25 Sep- 15 Oct Late Nov* Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 10 Oct 80 15 Nov-1 Dec Winters American Kestrel Falco sparverius Summers 20 Aug- 15 Sep Early Nov* Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Summers 20 Aug- 15 Oct Winters 17 FALL MIGRATION AT MALHEUR REFUGE Table 1 (Cont.) EARLIEST LATEST FALL FALL ARRIVAL FALL DEPARTURE SPECIES DATE PEAK DATE Virginia Rail Rallus iimicoJa Summers 20 Aug-1 Sep 1 Nov 73’ Sora Porzana Carolina Summers 1 Sep- 15 Sep 8 Nov 72* American Coot Fulica americana Summers 20 Sep- 10 Oct Mid-Dec’ Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida Summers 1 Oct-20 Oct 15 Dec 77* Black-bellied Plover Pluuialis squatarola 30 Jun 73 10 Sep-20 Sep 18 Oct 57 Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 18 Jul 67 1 Aug- 15 Aug 7 Sep 59 Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus Summers 1 Aug- 10 Aug 9 Oct 71 American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Summers 10 Aug-20 Aug 18 Nov 70 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 21 Jun 69 1 Sep-25 Sep 25 Nov 76’ Lesser Yeilowiegs Tringa flauipes 22 Jun 40 1 Aug-1 Sep 30 Oct 35 Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Summers 10 Jul-20 Jul 5 Sep 64 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Summers 20 Aug-1 Sep 25 Nov 76 Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Summers 10 Aug-25 Aug 15 Oct 64 Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 10 Jul 73 None noted 6 Oct 72 Western Sandpiper Calidris maun 7 Jul 69 10 Aug-31 Aug 10 Nov 68 Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 2 Jul 69 25 Jul-25 Aug 5 Nov 62 Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 28 Jul 59 20 Aug-31 Aug 19 Sep 72,83 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotis 28 Aug 74 10 Sep-20 Sep 21 Oct 79 Dunlin Calidris alpina 24 Jul 73 20 Aug-25 Aug 1 Sep 62 Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 30 Jun 73 10 Aug-31 Aug 26 Nov 71 Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Summers 10 Aug-20 Aug 22 Sep (?) 18 FALL MIGRATION AT MALHEUR REFUGE Table 1 (Cont.) EARLIEST LATEST FALL FALL ARRIVAL FALL DEPARTURE SPECIES DATE PEAK DATE Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 2 Jul 25 25 Aug- 10 Sep 22 Oct 69 Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan Summers 1 Aug-5 Aug 2 Oct 76 Bonaparte’s Gull Larus Philadelphia 24 Aug 78 25 Sep- 10 Oct 22 Oct 55 Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Summers 1 Aug-20 Aug 9 Dec 65* California Gull Larus calif ornicus Summers 1 Aug-1 Sep 3 Dec 65 Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Summers 1 Aug-1 Sep 9 Oct 40 Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Summers 20 Aug- 10 Sep 22 Oct 71 Black Tern Chlidonias niger Summers 10 Aug-31 Aug 11 Oct 40 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Summers 25 Aug- 10 Sep 17 Nov 70* Short-eared Owl Asio flam me us Summers 25 Oct-25 Nov 7 Dec 40* Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus 9 Sep 62 5 Oct-25 Oct 11 Nov 61* Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Summers 15 Aug-31 Aug 3 Oct 71 Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 27 June 70 25 Jul-25 Aug 22 Sep 71 Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis 29 Aug 74 15 Sep-25 Sep 7 Oct 66 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 18 Aug 77 15 Sep-25 Sep 18 Oct 70 Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 1 Oct 77 10 Oct-1 Nov Mid-Nov* Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Summers 10 Oct- 10 Nov Winters Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis 18 Aug 76 10 Sep- 15 Sep 24 Sep 77 Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus 5 Aug 62 25 Aug- 10 Sep 30 Sep 62 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Summers 20 Aug-30 Aug 25 Sep 62 Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri 15 Aug 65 5 Sep-20 Sep 22 Oct 63 19 FALL MIGRATION AT MALHEUR REFUGE Table 1 (Cont.) EARLIEST LATEST FALL FALL ARRIVAL FALL DEPARTURE SPECIES DATE PEAK DATE Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii 4 Aug 61 None noted 24 Sep 61 Western Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis 12 Aug 65 25 Aug- 10 Sep 3 Oct 61 Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya Summers None noted 10 Oct 70 Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Summers 1 Aug-1 Sep 13 Oct 75 Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Summers 15 Aug-25 Aug 13 Sep 80 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Summers None noted 11 Sep 71 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Summers 10 Sep-1 Oct 27 Nov 79 Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Summers 10 Jul-20 Jul 4 Oct 75 Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Summers 5 Jul-15 Jul 12 Sep 40 Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota Summers 10 Jul-25 Jul 7 Sep 70,71 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Summers 8 Sep-8 Oct 10 Nov 77 Mountain Chickadee Parus gambeli 19 Sep 83 1 Oct-1 Nov Mid-Nov* Brown Creeper Certhia americana 1 Oct 62 10 Oct-2 Nov 13 Nov 61 House Wren Troglodytes aedon Summers None noted 9 Nov 75 Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 27 Aug 66 25 Sep-25 Oct 1 Nov 40 Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 3 Sep 62 24 Sep- 15 Oct 13 Nov 61* Western Bluebird Siatia mexicana 30 Sep 71 20 Oct-1 Nov 22 Nov 73 Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi 29 Aug 76 10 Nov-20 Nov Winters Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus 30 Aug 62 None noted 12 Oct 79 Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 3 Sep 61 20 Sep- 10 Oct 31 Oct 75 20 FALL MIGRATION AT MALHEUR REFUGE Table 1 (Cont.) EARLIEST LATEST FALL FALL ARRIVAL FALL DEPARTURE SPECIES DATE PEAK DATE Varied Thrush Ixoreus rtaeuius 14 Sep 75 5 Oct-25 Oct 9 Nov 70* Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Summers 25 Aug-15 Sep 9 Nov 77 Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta 11 Sep 70 10 Oct-20 Oct 7 Nov 40 Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 7 Oct 80 1 Nov-1 Dec Winters Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius 21 Aug 61 15 Sep-5 Oct 24 Oct 63 Warbling Vireo Vireo giluus 24 Jul 66 25 Aug-7 Sep 16 Sep 70 Orange-crowned Warbler Vermiuora celata 23 Aug 62 4 Sep-22 Sep 17 Oct 62 Nashville Warbler Vermiuora ruficapilla 16 Aug 65 25 Aug-1 Sep 15 Sep 70 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Summers 15 Aug-10 Sep 8 Oct 63 Yellow-rumped “Myrtle” Warbler Dertdroica coronata 12 Sep 71,75 1 Oct- 10 Oct 15 Nov 71 Yellow-rumped “Audubon’s” Warbler Dertdroica coronata 5 Aug 66 15 Sep-15 Oct 14 Nov 74’ Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi 14 Aug 76 23 Aug-7 Sep 4 Oct 75 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 17 Aug 70 1 Sep-20 Sep 14 Nov 70 MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis toimiei 7 Aug 61,72 15 Aug-25 Aug 10 Oct 71 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Summers 15 Aug-1 Sep 30 Sep 40 Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 10 Aug 66 5 Sep-30 Sep 22 Oct 62 Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria uirens Summers 25 Aug- 10 Sep 27 Sep 60 Western Tanager Piranga ludouiciana 16 Jul 66 25 Jul-20 Aug 21 Oct 63 Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 30 Jul 62 15 Aug-1 Sep 7 Sep 61 Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena 7 Aug 71 12 Aug-20 Aug 25 Aug 71 21 FALL MIGRATION AT MALHEUR REFUGE Table 1 (Cont.) SPECIES EARLIEST FALL ARRIVAL DATE FALL PEAK LATEST FALL DEPARTURE DATE Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus 1 Aug 61 25 Aug-10 Sep 11 Oct 71 Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 27 Aug 66 10 Sep-5 Oct 8 Nov 61* Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 8 Aug 61 25 Aug- 10 Sep 12 Oct 61 Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Summers 5 Aug-25 Aug 8 Sep 71 Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 27 Jul 71 10 Sep-20 Sep 23 Sep 70 Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus 16 Jul 76 5 Aug-23 Aug 16 Sep 71 Sage Sparrow Ampbispiza belli Summers 1 Sep-1 Oct 20 Nov 70* Savannah Sparrow Passercu/us sandwichensis Summers 10 Sep-5 Oct 25 Nov 76* Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 5 Aug 18 15 Sep-5 Oct 20 Nov 70* Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 25 Aug 66 15 Sep-1 Oct 23 Oct 61 * Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 6 Sep 61 20 Sep-5 Oct 27 Nov 69 White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 28 Aug 80 18 Sep-10 Oct 6 Nov 40’ Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 1 Sep 62 5 Oct-25 Oct Winters Northern Oriole Icterus galbula Summers 5 Aug- 15 Aug 11 Sep 70 Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 5 Sep 63 15 Oct-31 Oct 9 Nov 62 Evening Grosbeak 15 Sep 71 15 Oct-30 Oct Early Nov’ Coccothraustes vespertinus *Has been recorded in winter Accepted 4 October 1983 22 FOOD COLOR PREFERENCE IN THE ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD HEATHER J. WELKER, 190 West 8th Street, Upland, California 91786 Food color preference in hummingbirds has been of interest since the early 1900s. The suggestion that hummingbirds innately prefer red food sources has been shared by many (Graenicher 1910, Porsch 1931, McCage 1961, Peterson 1961, Dennis 1975) . Yet there are those who continue to find color preference insignificant except in association with other factors, such as the position of the vial, flowers in bloom and perch location (Bene 1941, Wagner 1946, Lyerly et al. 1950, Grant 1966). I undertook this study to investigate further the response of the Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna) to variously colored food sources. The objec- tive of this study was to determine if there was a significant color preference. Determination of color preference in hummingbirds may indicate which naturally-occurring flowers would be visited most frequently. This preference could in turn influence the evolution of color in those flowers which are pollinated by hummingbirds. STUDY AREA AND METHODS I collected data for this study in Areata, Humboldt County, California, be- tween 17 October and 1 December 1980. A sugar-water solution was used as the food source. The solution con- tained one part white granulated sugar to three parts water. Vials, filled with sugar solution, were hung from a porch overhang in front of a second level apartment facing south. The hanging apparatus on the vials consisted of red plastic; I assembled caps for the vials from construction paper matching the color of solution being offered. The small red corks were left exposed on all vials. Any bias involving the corks was consistent for each vial and for each trial. None of the food vials were replenished with additional solution once the trials began. After each vial was hung, following trial 4, the vial nozzle was coated with vegetable oil to prevent bees and wasps from landing on the vials and feeding. Early trials indicated that hummingbirds avoided the vials when bees and wasps were present. I used four colors of vegetable food dye: red, yellow, blue and green. Coloration of the solution did not change during the trials. In trials 1 through 4, each color was presented alone to the hummingbirds to accustom them to feeding from variously colored vials. These trials were also used to experiment with and remove possible biases. Trials 5 through 11 presented paired choices from the four basic colors. During trial 12, all four colors were placed on the porch edge approximately 0.16 m apart. During trial 13, the feeders were placed 0.55 m from each other. For each of the four mornings during this trial, the vials were arranged in a different color order to remove any bias created by their specific locations. Aided by 8x 30 binoculars, I observed hummingbird feeding behavior for 40 hours. Vials were suspended for a total of 42 days. “Feeding time” began as soon as the bird approached and made bill contact with the vial nozzle and Western Birds 15: 23-27, 1984 23 HUMMINGBIRD FOOD COLOR PREFERENCE ended when the bird flew away from the vial. Time recorded as feeding in- cluded the actual hovering time, although bill-to-nozzle contact may not have been constant. % SOLUTION °/o SOLUTION % SOLUTION RED YELLOW Figure 1. Percent of sugar-water solution removed per hour, in relation to color, by the Anna’s Hummingbird. 24 HUMMINGBIRD FOOD COLOR PREFERENCE In addition to color preference, I determined the frequency of visits in rela- tion to time of day and weather conditions by observing the number of times per hour a hummingbird visited a vial. RESULTS COLOR PREFERENCE Despite problems involved in trials 1 through 4 (bee and wasp distur- bances, leaky vials and broken nozzles), I compared the amounts of solution removed from the individual vials over their allotted times (Table 1) . Trials 9, 10 and 11 were the only paired choice trials to indicate color preference (Figure 1). Data concerning the amount of solution removed in trial 7 (green vs. red) was rejected. One of the vials used in this trial proved faulty, causing frequent loss of sugar-water. However, the lengths of time spent feeding at particular vials in trial 13 indicated an obvious preference for green over red. Of the total observed feeding time, 78.3% was spent at the green feeder. The outcome from trials 5 and 6 was inconsistent with the results of the other 10 trials. Trial 5 showed a 0. 10% preference for red over green and trial 6 showed a 0.18% preference for yellow over blue. Trial 12 revealed a possible bias which may have occurred earlier in the study. When I presented all four colors at one time, 0.16 m apart, hum- mingbirds apparently preferred the end feeding positions without considera- tion for food color. For example, when the feeding vials were presented in the red-yellow-blue-green order, red received 76.5% of the observed atten- tion; green received 23.5%; whereas yellow and blue apparently were not fed upon at all. Trial 13 showed an overall preference for green food coloring. Of the total solution removed, 42.4% was green and accounted for 81.0% of the observed feeding time. The next most preferred color in trial 13 (as well as trials 8, 10 and 12) was blue, which accounted for 29.5% of the solution removed, then yellow with 23.6%. Red was apparently disfavored, con- tributing only 4.5% of the total amount of solution removed. Table 1. Amounts of sugar-water solution removed by the Anna’s Hummingbird from feeding vials presented alone between 17 and 28 October 1980 in Areata, California. Trial # Color Total Solution Amount Removed Average Amount of Solution Removed Per Hour % of Total Solution Removed Per Hour 1 Red 23.55 ml/62 hrs. 0.38 ml/hr. 0.27% 2 Yellow 50.05 ml/61.5 hrs. 0.81 ml/hr. 0.59% 3 Blue 38.45 ml/62 hrs. 0.62 ml/hr. 0.45% 4 Green 122.85 ml/73 hrs. 1.68 ml/hr. 1.22% 25 HUMMINGBIRD FOOD COLOR PREFERENCE CIRCADIAN FEEDING CYCLE The number of visits appeared to be inversely related to the amount of time spent feeding (Figure 2). As the number of visits decreased between 0900 and 1000 and between 1700 and 1800, the length of feeding time per visit increased. Weather apparently did not affect the number of visits and the length of feeding time. Weather conditions were characterized as cloudy- wet days averaging 5.50 visits per hour at 19.3 seconds per visit by hummingbirds, cloudy-dry days which averaged 5.86 bird visits per hour at 17.3 seconds and sunny days which averaged 4.62 bird visits per hour at 17.2 seconds. DISCUSSION This study indicated that Anna’s Hummingbirds prefer green food color with red being least preferred. Six trials contained color choices involving green. Each trial indicated green as the preferred color. Red food color was also presented in six trials and was least preferred in each. These data are not consistent with previous studies; however, the season in which the studies took place could be the key to the discrepancy. Tonna J. Harris (unpubl. data) tested color preference in both Anna’s and Allen’s (Selasphorus sasin ) hummingbirds in Areata, California, during spring. Her results clearly showed a preference for red. Michael Hansen (unpubl. data) also studied food color preference in Anna’s, Allen’s and Rufous (S. rufus) hummingbirds in Humboldt County, California, during summer. All three species preferred red. Numerous flowers which bloom during spring and summer are red, which could encourage a preference for that color. In con- trast, few if any red flowers bloom during the late fall and winter, perhaps eliminating the attractiveness of red and encouraging green food color Figure 2. The average number of visits to feeding vials and average duration of feeding by Anna’s Hummingbirds during 10-hour daylight periods between 17 October and 4 December 1980. 26 HUMMINGBIRD FOOD COLOR PREFERENCE preference. I have observed hummingbirds feeding directly from water droplets on foliage, a behavior which may or may not be related to color preference. Whereas numerous studies describe red food color preference in hum- mingbirds, an equal number of tests suggest no color favoritism (Bene 1941). Wagner (1946) reported that the color of flask receiving most of the attention always matched the color of the preferred flower at that particular season, matching not only the most abundant flower but the most preferred blooming flower as well. Lyerly et al. (1950) suggested that captive hummingbirds preferred the feeder positioned nearest to the bird’s favorite perch, no matter what color it was. Food preference of the Anna’s Hummingbird could de- pend on many factors in addition to color. This study indicated that hummingbirds do not innately prefer red food sources. Their preference for green, at least during the non-flowering season, suggests that color stimuli or the lack of color stimuli may influence the food choice of the Anna’s Hummingbird. LITERATURE CITED Bene, F. 1941. Experiments on the color preference of Black-chinned Hum- mingbirds. Condor 43:237-323. Dennis, J.V. 1975. A complete guide to bird feeding. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Grant, K.A. 1966. A hypothesis concerning the preference of red coloration in California flowers. Am. Nat. 100:85-98. Graenicher, S. 1911. On hummingbird flowers. Bull. Wisconsin Nat. Hist. Soc. 8:183-86, Lylerly, S.B., B.F. Riess & S. Ross. 1950. Color preference in the Mexican Violet- eared Hummingbird, Colibri t. thalassinus (Swainson). Behavior 2:237-48. McCage, R.A. 1961. The selection of colored nest boxes by House Wrens. Condor 63:322-29. Peters, J.L. 1979. Birds of the world. 2nd edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A field guide to western birds. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Porsch, O. 1931. Experiments in feeding hummingbirds during seven summers. Wilson Bull. 25:153-66. Waqner, H.O. 1946. Food and feedinq habits of Mexican hummingbirds. Wilson Bull. 58:69-93. Accepted 28 September 1983 27 Varied Thrush Sketch by Barry MacKay BIRD RECORDS COMMITTEES Please send detailed descriptions and photographs documenting rare bird sightings to the ad- dresses below. Arizona: Robert A. Witzeman, 4619 E. Arcadia Lane, Phoeniz, A Z 85018 California: B.D. Parmeter, 2500 Emerson Street, Napa, CA 94558 Colorado: CFO Records Committee, Denver Museum of Natural History, City Park, Denver, CO 80205 Oregon: Oregon Bird Records Committee, P.O. Box 10373, Eugene, OR 97440 Utah: Donald A. Hadley, 111 East 3700 South, Bountiful, Utah 84010 Vancouver, British Columbia: Wayne C. Weber, 303-9153 Saturna Drive, Burnaby, B.C. V3J 7K1 Washington: Phil Mattocks, Rt. 2, Box 200, Vashon, WA 98070 The Utah Field Ornithologists have established the Utah Bird Records Committee which solicits, reviews and classifies reports of unusual birds found in Utah. Accepted records are reported in the Black Rosy Finch published quarterly by UFO and will be incor- porated into an updated Utah state checklist. All reports and supporting documentation are housed in the Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah. Lists of species for which reports are sought and reporting forms are available from Donald A. Hadley, 111 East 3700 South, Bountiful, Utah 84010, to whom reports should be submitted for the Committee. 28 NOTES UNUSUAL BEHAVIOR OF A RED-THROATED LOON LAURIE J. BRYANT, Department of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 L.D. COURTRIGHT, JR., 42 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California 90274 In the summer of 1978, Courtright observed and photographed a solitary Red- throated Loon (Gavia stellata) near the mouth of Ballona Creek where it enters the Pacific Ocean in Los Angeles County, California. Its remiges were tattered or poorly developed, perhaps due either to some nutritional deficiency or normal molt. A band of dark brown across the lower neck, extending faintly down the breast and belly, in- dicates that the bird had encountered oil on the water. Possibly related to these factors was the bird’s unusual behavior in coming ashore. It swam rapidly toward the shore on the surface of the water and, without using its wings, leaped forward into the air and alighted on the beach. This bird was first observed swimming on the water surface near shore, rising from the water occasionally and stretching its wings. It then swam rapidly toward the shore, wings tightly folded against the body. When the water became very shallow, it simply launched itself into the air at a low angle to the water. It glided for some 2 m, back hunched, tail spread and depressed, wings folded, feet trailing and toes appressed, and came to a rest with considerable force on its belly on a concrete boat-launching ramp. The loon lay with wings folded but slightly relaxed, the hind limbs flexed so that the tarsus and toes pointed forward. When alarmed by the nearness of the photographer, the loon made its way back into the water, using its feet to push itself along on its belly, and then swam away. At no time did the loon use its wings in flap- ping flight. Harle (1952) and Peakall (1953) reported G. stellata alighting on and taking off from land, the only species of loon for which this behavior has been reported (Palmer 1962). Neither Harle (ibid.) nor Peakall (ibid.) illustrated this behavior; Figure 1 is thus the first published illustration of a loon alighting on land. There are no known pub- lished reports of loons leaping from water to land as described here, but the Red- throated Loon can leap up from water directly into flight, unlike other loons which re- quire a running start (Terres 1980). We wish to-thank Joseph Morlan for his review and helpful comments. Western Birds 15: 29-31, 1984 29 NOTES 30 Figure 1 Red-throated Loon leaping ashore near the mouth of Ballona Creek, Los Angeles Co , California, summer, 1978 NOTES LITERATURE CITED Harle, D.F. 1952: Red-throated Diver taking off from the ground. Brit. Birds 45:331-332. Palmer, R.S., ed. 1962. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 1. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Peakall, D.B. 1953. Red-throated Diver taking off from the ground. Brit. Birds 46:110. Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. Accepted 7 November 1983 Red-throated Loon Sketch by Narca Moore- Craig 31 NOTES A HIGH ELEVATION OCCURRENCE OF SCRUB JAYS IN THE SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS JONATHAN L. ATWOOD, Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024 The widely distributed Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerutescens) is primarily limited altitudinally in southern California to elevations below approximately 2300 m (Pitelka 1951). However, on 26 July 1980 1 observed two individuals of this species 0.5 km ESE of the peak of Mount San Gorgonio, San Bernardino County, California, at an elevation of approximately 3620 m. Vegetation in this area consisted of sparse, wind- stunted Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis) ; the only other birds in evidence were Clark’s Nut- crackers (Nucifraga Columbiana). Although central and southern Mexican populations have been reported at eleva- tions of up to 3700 m (Stone 1890, Davis 1945), there appear to be no comparable altitudinal records from the United States (Pitelka 1951). The highest previously reported observations from the San Bernardino Mountains involved birds seen during August and September at 2300-2500 m (Grinnell 1908, van Rossem and Pierce 1915). Breeding pairs of Scrub Jays maintain permanent, year-round territories (At- wood 1980, Ritter 1983), and the birds observed on Mount San Gorgonio probably were either non-breeding individuals or young of the year which had wandered upslope from more typical habitats at lower elevations. This note was improved by the comments of Ned K. Johnson and G. Shumway Suffel. LITERATURE CITED Atwood, J.L. 1980. Social interactions in the Santa Cruz Island Scrub Jay. Condor 82:440-448. Davis, W.B. 1945. Notes on Veracruzian birds. Auk 62:272-286. Grinnell, J. 1908. The biota of the San Bernardino Mountains. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 5:1-170. Pitelka, F.A. 1951. Speciation and ecologic distribution in American jays of the genus Aphelocoma. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 50:195-464. Ritter, L.V. 1983. Nesting ecology of Scrub Jays in Chico, California. West. Birds 14:147-158. Stone, W. 1890. On birds collected in Yucatan and southern Mexico. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1890:201-218. van Rossem, A. & W.M. Pierce. 1915. Further notes from the San Bernardino Mountains. Condor 17:163-165. Accepted 4 October 1983 32 Western Birds 15: 32, 1984 NOTES A BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD PARASITIZES NORTHERN ORIOLES LADISLAV R. HANKA, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 The Northern Oriole ( Icterus galbula) is rarely reported to be parasitized by the Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater ) (Friedmann 1963, Friedmann et al. 1977). Rothstein (1977) demonstrated that the Northern Oriole rejects cowbird eggs virtually 100% of the time and often within minutes of laying. While examining nests in a small riparian woodlot west of Fort Collins, Colorado, I found two parasitized nests of Northern (Bullock’s) Orioles. One contained three oriole eggs and one cowbird egg; the second contained one egg of each species. I found the first nest at approximately 0830 and the second at 0930 of the same day, 23 June 1977. Two other oriole nests were situated in the woodlot, but one was inac- cessible and the other contained four young orioles. I collected the cowbird eggs and determined their permeabilities to water vapor. Permeability to water vapor is a property of an egg dependent upon its physical con- struction. Permeability values are determined by measuring weight loss per day per vapor pressure difference per unit of surface area (see Ar et al. 1974) . Observations of Sotherland et al. (1979) indicate that permeability of an egg to water vapor is an ex- pression of the genome of the female and that eggs laid by a single female are likely to have similar permeabilities to water vapor. They found that variance in permeability to water vapor is greater among clutches than within clutches of Yellow-headed Blackbirds (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) and Black-billed Magpies ( Pica pica). The two cowbird eggs had identical permeabilities to water vapor (0,54 mg day -1 kPa' 1 cm -2 ) . Volumes of the cowbird eggs, determined by water displacement, were iden- tical (3.1 ml). Additionally, coloring of the two eggs was very similar, further sug- gesting that they were laid by a single female. The rejection response of the Northern Oriole weakens approximately 3 days after completion of the clutch (Rothstein 1977). However, the first clutch had been smaller two days previously and the second was incomplete at the time of collection. Cowbirds generally lay at dawn (Harrison 1973, Rothstein 1975). Since both eggs had probably been laid by one female, it is likely that one of the eggs had been in the nest for 26 hours or more and the other for 2 to 3 hours. The orioles thus had ample time in which to notice and reject the cowbird eggs. No other parasitized nests of any species were found in this woodlot, including four nests of Yellow Warblers ( Dendroica petechia) , one of the most frequently reported hosts of the Brown-headed Cowbird (Friedmann 1963, Friedmann et al. 1977). Both the Northern Oriole and the Brown-headed Cowbird were among the species described by the first naturalists in north-central Colorado (Bailey and Niedrach 1965). This area is part of the original range of the Brown-headed Cowbird before its expan- sion with agriculture (see Mayfield 1965). Since Rothstein (1977) has shown that the Northern Oriole rejects cowbird eggs even in areas outside of the original range of the cowbird, it seems peculiar to find any orioles accepting cowbird eggs in Colorado. One would expect rejection to be a particularly ubiquitous response in such an area of long standing sympatry. Western Birds 15: 33-34, 1984 33 NOTES LITERATURE CITED Ar, A., C.V. Paganelli, R.B. Reeves, D.B. Greene & H. Rahn. 1974. The avian egg; water vapor conductance, shell thickness, and functional pore area. Condor 76:153-158. Bailey, A M. & R.J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Mus. Nat. Hist., Denver, CO. Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 233. Friedmann, H , L.F. Kiff &S.I. Rothstein. 1977. A further contribution to knowledge of the host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. Smithsonian Contr. Zool. 235. Harrison, H.H. 1973. The cowbird strikes at dawn. Natl. Wildl. 11:33-37. Mayfield, H. 1965. The Brown-headed Cowbird, with new and old hosts. Living Bird ' 4:13-19. Rothstein, S.I. 1975. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor 77:250-271. Rothstein, S.I. 1977. Cowbird parasitism and egg recognition of the Northern Oriole. Wilson Bull. 89:21-32. Sotherland, P.R., G.C. Packard & T.L. Taigen. 1979. Permeability of magpie and blackbird eggshells to water vapor: variation among and within nests of a single population. Auk 96:192-195. Accepted 11 October 1983 34 Brown- headed Cowbird Northern Oriole Sketch by Keith Hansen NOTES NOTES ON THE FEEDING BEHAVIOR OF GULLS AND CROWS ON CLAMS AND CRABS AT THE YAQUINA ESTUARY, OREGON RANGE D. BAYER, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon 97365 (present address: P.O. Box 1467, Newport, Oregon 97365) Crows (Grobecker and Pietsch 1978, Zach 1979) and gulls (Tinbergen 1961, Barash et al. 1975, Ingolfsson and Estrella 1978, Kent 1981, Maron 1982, Rockwell 1982) often drop hard-shelled food items to open them. Here, I describe some tech- niques that gulls and crows used to find and break naturally occurring clams (i.e., clams that were not made available by human clammers) and that gulls used to eat crabs. 1 observed clam-handling behavior of gulls and crows for approximately 60 h during April and May 1974. Observations of gulls’ crab-handling behavior were made sporadically from 1974 to 1977. All observations were at the Yaquina Estuary, Lin- coln County, on the mid-coast of Oregon. The bird species involved were the Com- mon Crow (Coruus brachyrhynchos) , Western (Larus occidentals ) and Glaucous- winged (L. glaucescens) gulls and Western x Glaucous-winged Gull hybrids (see Hoffman et al. 1978). As I did not detect any behavioral differences between gull species with respect to handling clams, their behavior is lumped, and, for conve- nience, l refer simply to gulls and crows. By examining the shells of clams dropped by gulls or crows, 1 determined that only Cockles ( Clinocardium nuttalli ) and Littlenecks ( Venerupis staminea) were captured. Both clams have short siphons and are found on or close to the surface of intertidal mudflats. All clams captured and broken by gulls and crows were between 2-8 cm wide (where width was the maximum anterior-posterior dimension) with 70% of all Cockles (N = 105) and 74% of all Littlenecks (N = 23) 4-6 cm wide. Gulls used three techniques to locate and capture clams: they hovered about 2-5 m above shallow water (<0.5 m), alighted on the water, surface-dove and grasped the clams with their bills; secondly gulls waded in water about 10 cm deep while looking ahead and down into the water and picked up clams; finally, gulls walked on the mud and picked up or pulled out clams from the surface. I did not observe gulls dig into mud after clams. Gulls also obtained clams from other gulls or from crows by klepto- parasitism. Crows located clams while walking on the mudflats and used their bills to pick up clams on the surface. To extract buried clams, a crow picked up sand with its bill and dropped the sand beside the clam, and/or used side-wise movements with an open bill to push sand away from the clam. Crows could dig down to about 2 cm and then pull the clam out of the mud with their bills. Crows also pirated clams from other crows or gulls. I observed gulls attempt to break clams by flying almost vertically to an altitude of about 3-10 m, dropping the clam and then flutter-dropping down to where the clam hit. This flying-drop technique has been previously described (e.g., Tinbergen 1961, Barash et al. 1975, Kent 1981). I observed gulls use only flying drops to break clams, but Barash reported that gulls also dropped clams while standing on the substrate. Barash found that the flying drop, which was more efficient in breaking clams but also more subject to gull kleptoparasitism, was used when gull densities were less than about 12 gulls within 50 m. The absence of standing drops at the Yaquina Estuary may be a result of the low densities of gulls around a gull with a clam; 1 never observed more than five gulls within 50 m and often no other gulls were present. Western Birds 15: 35-36, 1984 35 NOTES Crows exhibited more behavioral plasticity than gulls in handling clams. Some crows used flying drops to try to break open clams, while others attempted unsuc- cessfully to peck open shells. One crow apparently cached a clam by taking a clam to dry sand, dropping it, then using its bill to place a 7 x 13 cm piece of wood and then sand on the clam (incompletely covering it) and then flying away. Finally, I observed crows several times take unbroken clams into an adjacent forest, presumably to their nests. 1 observed gulls fly over shallow water, alight, dive and swim or fly away with live Dungeness (Cancer magister) or Red Rock (C. productus) crabs. On shore, gulls broke each leg off successively and pecked at the underside of the crabs. Although I have observed a Western Gull drop a large flounder on rocks, in 11 observations of gulls capturing crabs, 1 did not see a gull using flying drops to open crabs as reported for Herring Gulls (L. argentatus) by ingolfsson and Estrella (1978). 1 am grateful to John A. Wiens and Dennis Heinemann for reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Barash, D.P., P. Donovan & R. Myrick. 1975. Clam dropping behavior of the Glaucous-winged Gull ( Larus glaucescens) . Wilson Bull. 87:60-64. Grobecker, D.B. & T.W. Pietsch. 1978. Crows use automobiles as nutcrackers. Auk 95:760-761. Hoffman, W., J.A. Wiens & J.M. Scott. 1978. Hybridization between gulls ( Larus glaucescens and L. occidentalis) in the Pacific Northwest. Auk 95:441-458. Ingolfsson, A. & B.T. Estrella. 1978. The development of shell-cracking behavior in Herring Gulls. Auk 95:577-579. Kent, B.W. 1981. Prey dropped by Herring Gulls ( Larus argentatus ) on soft sedi- ments. Auk 98:350-354. Maron, J.L. 1982. Shell-dropping behavior of Western Gulls ( Larus occidentalis). Auk 99:565-569. Rockwell, E.D. 1982. Intraspecific food robbing in Glaucous-winged Gulls. Wilson Bull. 94:282-288. Tinbergen, N. 1961. The Herring Gull’s world. Basic Books, New York. Zach, R. 1979. Shell dropping: decision making and optimal foraging in Northwestern Crows Behaviour 68:106-117. Accepted 24 October 1983 36 Sketch by Tim Manolis NOTES BEHAVIOR OF LEKKING SAGE GROUSE IN RESPONSE TO A PERCHED GOLDEN EAGLE KEVIN L. ELLIS, Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 Other investigators (Patterson 1952, Wiley 1973, Hartzler 1974) have described the anti-predator behavior of lekking Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) to an ap- proaching Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) . However, no accounts exist of the behavioral responses of Sage Grouse to a perched Golden Eagle, largely because most Sage Grouse leks are on open sagebrush plains void of trees that might serve as perches (Patterson 1952). The following observations were made at a somewhat unusual lek in northeastern Utah (Figure 1). At 0540 on 10 April 1983 I observed a juvenile Golden Eagle as it landed on the ground approximately 2 km southeast of the south mating center. At 0608 the eagle scale in meters 0 250 Sec. 4 Township 3 S., Range 4 W. Big Sagebrush [ Artemisia tridentata l Mustard- Russian Thistle ( Brassica spp. - Salsola kali | 500 Figure 1. Location of Sage Grouse study area in northeastern Utah. Western Birds 15: 37-38, 1984 37 NOTES began flying about 2 m off the ground in the direction of the oil well. When it was ap- proximately 150 m south of the oil well it stooped to the ground. At 0614 the eagle flew directly toward the oil well. Three Sage Grouse flushed directly in front of the eagle as it gained altitude to land on the well pump. The eagle made no attempt to capture any of the grouse, but did circle the area once before landing on the pump. After landing, the eagle sat in a vertical position facing west. Its frequent side-to-side head movements suggested my presence may have distracted it. Apparently the grouse on both display centers did not see the eagle until just prior to its landing, at which time all display activities came to an immediate halt. A previous count at 0600 revealed that 23 grouse (21 males and 2 females) occupied the south center and 10 males occupied the north center. Immediately following the arrival of the eagle at the well I could only see 12 males on the south center and 4 males on the north center, even though no birds had flushed in the interim. All birds were mo- tionless and in a crouched or semi-crouched position looking in the direction of the eagle. It seems that the grouse froze immediately upon the arrival of the eagle. Air sacs of most males were about half inflated. All grouse remained motionless until 0628 at which time the master cock of the south center stood and started displaying. The behavior of the eagle remained un- changed. By 0629 seven of the cocks on the south center had resumed displaying. In- terestingly, the males displaying were the central males while the males still huddling were the peripheral males. At 0632 all but three males on the south center were displaying with tails fanned. All grouse flushed from the south center at 0636. Flight direction was northerly, the same as that taken during undisturbed lek departure. Again, the attentiveness of the eagle was unchanged. Meanwhile, at the north center, the master cock was standing while the others re- mained huddled. By 0639 two cocks were standing with air sacs inflated. At 0641 the grouse flushed from the north center in the same direction as the others. The eagle re- mained perched until 0646; then it flew south out of sight. Of particular interest is the fact that the birds previously identified as the master cocks (based on hen clusters and frequent copulation) were the first to stand and ini- tiate lekking activities in the presence of a potential predator. Other observations I have made, as part of an ongoing study of aerial predation of breeding Sage Grouse, suggest that the central cocks are also more reluctant to huddle when a raptor ap- proaches the lek. Such apparently non-uniform anti-predator behavior may be related to age, and thus experience, of the males occupying the lek. I wish to thank Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Upland Game Section and the Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, for their support. Joseph R. Murphy and Tim Manolis reviewed the note and offered helpful suggestions. John Martin provided Figure 1. LITERATURE CITED Hartzler, J.E. 1974. Predation and the daily timing of Sage Grouse leks. Auk 91:532-536. Patterson, R.L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc., Denver. Wiley, R.H. 1973. Territoriality and non-random mating in Sage Grouse. Anim. Behav. Monogr. 6:87-169. Accepted 27 September 1983 38 NOTES MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD USE OF TREELESS LAVA FLOWS FOR NEST SITES TERRELL RICH, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Shoshone District, Shoshone, Idaho 83352 The Mountain Bluebird ( Sialia currucoides ) is a cavity-nesting species that breeds in a variety of open woodland habitats. Breeding habitats include groves of aspen and cottonwood (Populus spp.), pine woods, including Pinyon Pine ( Pinus edulis), and junipers ( Juniperus sp.) (Bent 1949). The breeding territory usually includes a large area of open space where the nest is located and areas of trees or brush that provide cover nearby (Power 1966) Power (1966) concluded that the Mountain Bluebird had highly specialized nesting requirements and that the use of unusual sites was very rare. However, a few nest sites other than cavities in trees have been recorded. These in- clude eaves, horizontal beams of bridges (Power 1966), holes in banks, crevices in cliffs, sites among rocks, and an old swallow nest (Bent 1949). In Idaho, the Mountain Bluebird nests over a wide elevational range (245 m to 3350 m) and requires open country with trees large enough to provide nesting sites (Burleigh 1972) . On the Snake River plain in southcentral Idaho the Mountain Bluebird is a fairly common migrant, but nest sites are lacking over most of the sagebrush steppe. I report here on the nesting of Mountain Bluebirds in a sparsely vegetated and treeless lava flow. Figure 1 . Location of a Mountain Bluebird nest in a rough treeless lava flow in Blaine County, Idaho. Note cap near nest entrance for scale. Western Birds 15: 39-40, 1984 39 NOTES On 27 May 1981 I discovered a Mountain Bluebird nest site located 2 m off the ground in a large block of rough lava (Figure 1) in Blaine County, Idaho, at an elevation of 1530 m. The nest itself was deeply recessed in a crevice and could not be seen. However, the sounds of young birds could be heard within and the adults made several feeding trips into the nest. Vegetation on the lava flow was very sparse and consisted of Sandberg’s Bluegrass ( Poa sandbergii) , Rock Penstemon ( Penstemon deustus) and Desert-sweet (Chamaebatiaria millifoUum) , among other species. The adults were not foraging in this habitat but rather flew directly about 200 m to the edge of the flow to forage in habitat dominated by Threetip Sagebrush ( Artemisia tripartita) , Big Sagebrush (A. tridentata ) and Sandberg’s Bluegrass. Three other breeding territories within a 10-km radius of this site have been suspected— one site in 1981 and two in 1982. In each case, I observed a pair of bluebirds perched in the same area of lava in mid-May on two or three consecutive days. However, no nests were located and the pairs may not have been breeding. This type of nest site must be considered atypical. The nearest trees are scattered Limber Pines (Pinus flexilis) 8 km away on similar lava flows in Craters of the Moon Na- tional Monument. However, the general requirements of open terrain with cover near- by were met. A nest site located deep within a crevice would be relatively safe from predation and should provide a favorable nest microclimate in a region with intense mid-day heat. Configuration of the recent lava flows provides many miles of edge be- tween the sagebrush and lava itself where potential nest sites appear to be abundant. However, there seems to be some factor limiting the spread of breeding pairs into the lava flow/sagebrush habitat. In the Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis), Pinkowski (1979) found little relationship be- tween an individual’s type of natal site and the type of nest site subsequently selected. However, if young were successfully raised, adults were likely to select those types of sites again rather than switch to a different type (Pinkowski 1977 , 1 979) . If a similar nest site selection operates in Mountain Bluebirds, then lava nest sites may not be generally successful. An evaluation of nest success and nest site selection by known individuals would be valuable in this regard. Such information would also contribute toward understanding the more general problem of why bird species have limits to their range of breeding habitats and do not continually attempt to invade new habitats and new types of nest sites. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The thoughtful comments of Cameron Barrows greatly improved this note. LITERATURE CITED Bent, A.C. 1949. Life histories of North American thrushes, kinglets, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 196. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, ID. Pinkowski, B.C. 1977. Breeding adaptations in the Eastern Bluebird. Condor 79:289-302. Pinkowski, B.C. 1979. Nest site selection in Eastern Bluebirds. Condor 81:435-436. Power, H.W., III. 1966. Biology of the Mountain Bluebird in Montana. Condor 68:351-371. Accepted 24 February 1 984 40 NOTES BATHING HABITS OF THE COOPER’S HAWK SALOME ROSS DEMAREE, 3030 East Puget, Phoenix, Arizona 85028 I observed the bathing habits of a Cooper’s Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ) , assumed from field marks to be a male, in the North Phoenix Mountain Preserve area, Arizona, for the past 4 years from September through March. Daily between 0800 and 1000 the hawk visited a shallow stone water catchment (56 cm x 36 cm x 7.5 cm) in an otherwise dry desert wash, I had an excellent view using a 20 power scope at a distance of about 60 m. Usually the hawk took several drinks, then stepped into the water and stood there with the feet and legs partially immersed. The time spent stand- ing in the water varied from 15 minutes to 1.5 hours. It would pick up each foot and carefully clean the scales on the tarsi and toes with its mandibles, also giving close at- tention to the claws. After the cleaning the hawk inspected its feet, including turning them over to examine the undersides. When the soaking, cleaning and inspection were completed the bird flew to a nearby perch and proceeded to oil the tarsi, toes and claws using oil from the oil gland at the base of the tail. The oiling process usually lasted about 10 to 20 minutes. The hawk took a complete bath only about twice a week and spent little time on feather care, at least at the observed location. I assume that the above procedure oc- curred shortly after feeding, since its crop appeared full and the hawk showed little in- terest in other birds near the catchment. Veterinarians find frequent injuries to the legs and feet of desert dwelling raptors, caused by contact with cacti spines. Whether or not this problem relates to the above observations could not be determined. A comparison of the bathing habits of desert Cooper’s Hawks with those of birds from a non-desert environment would be of interest. I wish to thank Kenn Kaufman for his help in the preparation of the note and Kathy Ingram, DVM, for comments on observations of raptor leg and foot injury. Accepted 5 March 1 984 Western Birds 15: 41, 1984 41 TREASURER S REPORT WESTERN FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS, INC. Cash Flow Statement for 1 January 1982 Cash on hand, 1 January 1982 Gibraltar Savings & Loan (savings) Bank of America (checking) RECEIPTS Memberships Boat Trips Back Issues Reprints Annual Meeting Interest Miscellaneous DISBURSEMENTS Western Birds Boat Trips Membership/Business Services Postage Annual Meeting Miscellaneous Cash on hand, 31 December 1982 Gibraltar Savings & Loan (savings) Bank of America (checking) (prepared without audit) 31 December 1982 $ 7,248.42 $ 5,594.90 1,653.52 $ 7,398.65 4,765.00 421.50 1,338.46 5,184.36 121.56 60.00 19,289.53 $ 10,684.47 3,936.72 495.65 395.27 3,774.28 $ 26,537.95 205.89 19,492.28 $ 7,045.67 $ 1,874.12 5,171.55 J. Garth Alton, Treasurer 42 IDENTIFICATION QUIZ The short, delicate bill, nearly neckless appearance and webbed feet of this bird identify it as some species of small alcid. A number of small alcids show a dark-and- white pattern during the nonbreeding season, but many of these can be eliminated from consideration easily. Least Auklets (Aethia pusilla) — and other auklets for that matter— have stubbier, thicker bills. Marbled Murrelets (Brachyrampbus marmoratus), Ancient Murrelets (Synthliboramphus antiquus) and guillemots (Cepphus spp.) all may show a dark face and white throat, but all have the white of the underparts extending up behind the auricular patch to form a half-collar. In addition, a Marbled Western Birds 15: 43-44, 1984 43 Murrelet should show some white on the back even in this view, whereas an Ancient Murrelet would have a pale bill and show contrast between a dark crown and a paler, gray back. Indeed, the bird must be one of the two species of what we used to call En- domychura murrelets (the Sixth Edition of the AOU Check- list has placed them in Synthliboramphus— just try calling that out on a pelagic trip!): it is either a Xantus’ Murrelet (S. hypoleucus) or Craveri’s Murrelet (S. craveri) The view is very much like that which one often obtains aboard ship— of a bird flying away or low over the water with fast-beating wings, making it impossible to judge underwing covert color, which is white on Xantus’ and dusky on Craveri’s. Though the difference in underwing pattern between the two species is a good point to note in making an identification, it is also a difficult one to see in the field. Another point to note is bill shape— distinctly shorter in Xantus’ Murrelet, especially the northern race S. h. scrippsi, which breeds off southern California. The bird in the photo has a short bill consistent with Xantus’. Furthermore, its chin and malar region are white, as the dark area of its face extends down only to the level of the bill gape. On a Craveri’s Murrelet the dark color of the face extends down onto the malar region and chin. Finally, the bird lacks a dark half-collar on the side of the breast as shown by many, but not all, Craveri’s. Beyond identifying the bird as a Xantus’ Murrelet, we can also assign it to scrippsi, since white feathers do not extend up around the eye as is characteristic of nominate hypoleucus. Any white on the eye of this bird is limited to very narrow white eyelids. This Xantus’ Murrelet was photographed at Monterey Bay, California, in July 1980. DON ROBERSON, 282 Grove Acre, Pacific Grove, California 93950 Sketches by Tim Manolis 44 BOOK REVIEW Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic Society. 1983. Available from National Geographic Society, Dep. 100, Washington, DC 20036. $13.95 + 3.00 postage/handling. Durably bound and well printed, this slightly larger than the back pocket field guide represents the collaboration of thirteen artists; four expert consultants (Jon L. Dunn, Eirik A. T. Blom, George E. Watson and John P, O’Neill); many writers, editors, and researchers; and their many helpful friends, all working under the sponsorship of the National Geographic Society. The result is 464 pages of pleasure and information, ar- ranged in the popular format of range map and text on a page facing the appropriate plate. The use of thirteen artists guarantees variety. Fortunately, a little over half the plates were done by H. Douglas Pratt, Diane Pierce, and Donald L. Malick, and while each hit trouble spots, the overall results are outstanding. Cynthia J. House (waterfowl) and Thomas R. Schultz (gulls and terns) handled those important groups well. The other eight artists contributed the remaining third, with plates ranging from poor to very good. Since most of the artists were assigned discrete groups, the juxtaposition of so many styles creates only a few problems. The most notable is in the shorebirds, where the use of four artists produces problems of scale, such as toy Surfbirds followed a page later by seemingly giant Dunlin. One of the strongest features of this guide is that the artists were asked to illustrate much of the diversity of plumages which the birder will encounter. If you have seen one Fox or Song Sparrow, you have not seen them all; the extent of geographic varia- tion is outlined by six races of each. Examples of types of variation in plumage covered by the guide are age (try the gulls), season (learn about male tanagers in winter), sex (see Bushtit and American Avocet), plumage wear (look at Hammond’s Flycatcher), interbreeding (five Golden-winged x Blue-winged Warblers), color phases (Ross’ Goose), and individual (see Lesser Goldfinch). Twenty-two figures of the four longspurs, fourteen of the three goldfinches, and seven of Common Tern are ex- amples of the wealth of illustrative material largely unmatched by other guides. While the breadth of coverage for each species is admirable, I feel that there is a mistaken emphasis on another type of “completeness”— the attempt to cover virtually every accidental. About 50 people a year go to Attu; the first printing of this guide is 250,000. Yes, this guide was helpful when I spent yesterday missing California’s first Rustic Bunting (at least I knew what I was looking for) , but an entire plate is devoted to four other species of old world buntings for which there are only about a dozen records for North America combined, all from Alaska. This is the same amount of space given to the five common small peeps. I know that many birders could benefit from a thorough treatment of the peeps; they don’t get it here. Some of the space given to three figures of Red-throated Pipit (helps you sex the adults in breeding plumage) could have been used to show a second Sprague’s Pipit, particularly one with fewer streaks on the breast and a richer color of buff. The equality given to accidentals also leads to a visual confusion that will probably be particularly difficult for beginners. The Eurasian Kestrels dominate the plate for small falcons, the Asiatic eagles partly displace the American ones, and there are almost as many vagrant thrushes as native species. Everything is clearly labelled and the range maps (or the lack of one) will give a quick, general idea about distribution, but for the inexperienced there is a great deal to sort through; some alterations in layout would have helped. Most purchasers will appreciate all the accidentals, but, if a choice has to be made, virtually everyone might find an illustration of a dark Ferruginous Hawk (not included) more useful than that of the immature female Aplornado Falcon. Western Birds 15: 45-47, 1984 45 The text is the best of all the currently available field guides. Tucked away are many tips on identifying such difficult groups as female teal, dowitchers, small flycatchers, and sparrows. Comments include not only notes on plumage but also on calls and behavior, including gems on wing flicking and tail wagging in Empidonax, tail pump- ing in shrikes, and speed of bobbing in waterthrushes. If there is a problem with the text, it is that there should be more, and I mean that as both a compliment and a com- plaint. Too many pages end with room for extra lines, and there is much white space between the range maps. Given the importance of good text and compactness in a field guide, an artistic layout may be sacrificed for a merely functional one. I also feel that the text lacked cohesive editing by a knowledgeable birder. Terms such as rare, casual and accidental are used inconsistently. In many cases, important problems of identification are not addressed. Separating female and young male Orchard and Hooded orioles rates only ten words; evidently female Scott’s and Hood- ed are too dissimilar to warrant comment. Although not often a problem, how does one tell Crissal from California Thrasher? Red and Red-necked phalaropes are not easily told apart in flight in winter plumage; this problem is not addressed, and so the light gray back, whiter underwing, and broader white stripe on the upper wing of the Red are not mentioned, nor is the higher, squeakier call of the Red. Calls are given for Scarlet, Summer and Hepatic tanagers; why is the call not given for Western (often rendered pit-er-ick)? Call and flight notes of warblers are valuable aids to identification. The call of Arctic Warbler is given, and its similarity to that of Dusky Warbler is men- tioned. But you will find nothing about the metallic chink typical of Nashville, Virginia’s and Lucy's warblers, or the distinctive zeep-zeep of a Worm-eating Warbler. The maps accompanying the text are the least well executed major component of this guide. 1 suspect that there is considerable accuracy, particularly in the breeding ranges, but that accuracy is lost by the tiny size of the maps and the anemic yellow used for the breeding ranges. Most unfortunate was the decision not to show the main routes of migration; the system of cross hatching in the Golden Guide’s Birds of North America may provoke quibbles, but imparts much information on routes in spring and fall. For instance, from the National Geographic guide it is difficult to determine which shorebirds are regular in the interior. For some birds a dashed line was used to indicate that migration occurs to the east of the line. While a step in the right direction, that line was not used often enough , and it just begs for another type of line to show the eastern border of more westerly birds (e.g. Townsend’s Warbler); such a line could also have been used to show which typically eastern warblers are rare in Florida, something which is easily seen in the Golden Guide. The maps could have offered more informa- tion, but they will answer most “Should it be around here?” questions about breeding and wintering ranges. Most purchasers of this volume will rely on regional publications for detailed distributional information, so the problems with the maps will not detract greatly from the tremendous value of this volume. More consistent editing of the text could also have helped with information on distribution. The text does helpfully mention the spring/fall routes of Hudsonian God- wit; the same could have been done for White-rumped Sandpiper or any of a number of other species. In turn, a number of comments about extralimital status could have been eliminated. “Very rare in south Florida” (Winter Wren) and “Rare vagrant to southern California during migration, chiefly in fall” (Grace’s Warbler, less than 15 records, some from summer) are comments which do not seem necessary in a general field guide. In particular, there seems to be an unnecessary bias toward explaining the status of vagrants in California, when shorter, more general comments about the west as a whole would be more appropriate. Leafing through the book, some of my specific cautions are about: winter loons, which should be ignored; most of the storm-petrels should not be trusted in terms of shape; cormorants have some gloss, but usually appear black, not green and purple; colors on many of the herons seem a bit exaggerated; and the ducks in flight are not 46 shown at a very useful angle — other guides do better. 1 was disappointed with the shorebirds, but I wouldn’t refer you to any other guide first; Marbled Godwits are buffy like Long-billed Curlews; yellowlegs were named for a reason, although occasional in- dividuals show legs as orange as here; the juvenile Long-billed Dowitcher looks like a bird from late October — birds from earlier in the fall are much rustier, although differ- ing in pattern from young Short-billed, as explained in the text; juvenile Baird’s Sand- pipers are a rich buffy early in fall; Wilson’s Phalaropes in winter are light gray, not dark gray above; the plates of shorebirds in flight should be trusted for little more than major features, such as the presence or absence of white rumps and wing stripes. The twisted central tail feathers of Pomarine Jaegers are much longer than il- lustrated; as noted in the text, South Polar Skuas often show prominent gold on the nape; while the gulls are well aged, many birds labelled second winter (e.g. Herring and California gulls) would have been better illustrated with much grayer backs, rather than still in molt; the bill of Royal Tern seems a bit too long and slender; avoid most of the flycatchers, specifically the kingbirds (easier to tell than shown here; patterns on head and underparts more distinct), the Myiarchus, and the Empidonax (text and plumages not bad, but shapes way off); the wings on the swallows are much too broad, just as the wings on the swifts are too narrow; immature MacGillivray’s Warblers have gray or whitish throats, not yellow; I like the sparrows both for the races and the habitat backgrounds, but keep an eye on the dimensions — species such as Harris’ Sparrow are large sparrows; I would like a painting of Lark Bunting which has the long white panel along the edge of the wing; and young Bobolinks in fall are really quite bright yellow below, with strong head stripes. I am aware that the tone of this review may seem negative. In part, I am frustrated because this guide is so well done, and yet could have been even better. I suspect that the exigencies of publishing led to some unfortunate haste, but outright errors are rare; many of my complaints are because 1 wanted more of the quality typical of this guide. I have listed a number of features which I disliked; I could have compiled a much longer and even more boring list of pitfalls which this guide avoided. My final two comments are: there is much for everyone, no matter how expert (just take a look at Red-legged Kittiwake or Bachman’s Sparrow — did you know all that?), and when a friend of mine shows an interest in birds, this will be his or her first field guide. RICHARD WEBSTER, P.O. Box 6318, San Diego, California 92106 47 Volume 15, Number 1, 1984 Survey of Marine Birds in Puget Sound, Hood Canal and Waters East of Whidbey Island, Washington, in Summer 1982 Terence R. Wahl and Steven M. Speich 1 Fall Migration of Birds at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon Carroll D. Littlefield and John E. Comely 15 Food Color Preference in the Anna’s Hummingbird Heather J. Welker 23 NOTES Unusual Behavior of a Red-throated Loon Laurie J. Bryant and L.D. Courtright, Jr. 29 A High Elevation Occurrence of Scrub Jays in the San Bernardino Mountains Jonathan L. Atwood 32 A Brown-headed Cowbird Parasitizes Northern Orioles Ladislav R. Hanka 33 Notes on the Feeding Behavior of Gulls and Crows on Clams and Crabs at the Yaquina Estuary, Oregon Range D. Bayer 35 Behavior of Lekking Sage Grouse in Response to a Perched Golden Eagle Kevin L. Ellis 37 Mountain Bluebird Use of Treeless Lava Flows for Nest Sites Terrell Rich 39 Bathing Habits of the Cooper’s Hawk Salome Ross Demaree 41 Treasurer’s Report J. Garth Alton 42 Identification Quiz Don Roberson 43 Book Review Richard Webster 45 BULLETIN BOARD 48 Cover photo by Don Roberson: Juvenile Pectoral Sandpiper ( Calidris melanotos) , Crespi Pond, Pacific Grove, Monterey Co., California, September 1981 Manuscripts should be sent to Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 374, Lakeview, CA 92353. For matters of style consult Suggestions to Contributors to Western Birds (6 pp. mimeo available at no cost from the Editor) and Council of Biology Editors Style Manual 4th edition, 1978 (available from the American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 for $12.00). Papers are desired that are based upon field studies of birds, that are both understand- able and useful to amateurs, and that make a significant contribution to scientific literature. Appropriate topics include distribution, migration, status, behavior, ecology, population, dynamics, habitat requirements, the effects of pollution, the techniques for identifying, censusing, sound recording and photographing birds in the field. Papers of general interest will be considered regardless of their geographic origin, but particularly desired are papers dealing with studies accomplished in or bearing on Rocky Mountain states and provinces westward, including Alaska and Hawaii, adjacent portions of the Pacific Ocean and Mexico, and western Texas. Vol. 15, No. 2, 1984 WESTERN BIRDS Quarterly Journal of Western Field Ornithologists President: Terence R. Wahl. 3041 Eldridge. Bellingham. WA 98225 Vice-President: Laurence C Binford. 985 Emily Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Treasurer /Membership Secretary: Garth Alton. 17 Camino Lenada, Orinda, CA 94563 Recording Secretary: Jean-Marie Spoelman, 4629 Diaz Drive, Fremont. CA 94536 Circulation Manager: Jerry R. Oldenettel. 4368 37th Street, San Diego, CA 92105 Directors: Laurence C. Binford, Jeanne A. Conry, Peter Gent, Virginia P. Johnson, John S. Luther, Guy McCaskie, Terence R. Wahl, Timothy Manolis, Janet Witzeman Editor: Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 254, Lake view, CA 92353 Associate Editors : Cameron Barrows, Tim Manolis, Narea A. Moore-Craig, Dale A. Zimmerman Layout Artist: Virginia P. Johnson Photo Editor: Bruce Webb, 5657 Cazadera, Sacramento, CA 95822 Review Editor: Richard E. Webster, P.O. Box 6318, San Diego, CA 92106 Editorial Board: Robert Andrews. Alan Baldridge. William H. Behle, Andrew J. Berger, Laurence C. Binford (Chairman). Jeanne A. Conry. David F. DeSante, Jon L. Dunn. Richard Erickson, Kimball L. Garrett. Joseph Greenberg, Joseph R. Jehl, Jr., Ned K. Johnson, Virginia P. Johnson, Kenn Kaufman, Brina Kessel, Charles S. Lawson, Stephen A. Laymon. Paul Lehman, John S. Luther, Brian J. McCaffery, Guy McCaskie. M. Timothy Myres. Flarry B. Nehls, Dennis R. Paulson. Stephen M. Russell, Oliver K. Scott, Richard W. Stallcup, David Stirling, CharlesTrost, Terence R. Wahl. Roland H. Wauer, Bruce Webb. Wayne C. Weber. Richard E. Webster Membership dues, for individuals and institutions, including subscription to Western Birds: Patron, $1000; Life, $250; Supporting, $50 annually; Contributing, $25 annually; Regular, $14 U S. ($17 outside U S.) annually. Dues and contributions are tax-deductible to the ex- tent allowed by law. Send membership dues, changes of address, correspondence regarding missing issues, and orders for back issues and special publications to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. Back issues of California Birds/Western Birds: $15 per volume, $4.00 for single issues. Xerox copies of out of print issues (Vol. 1 , No. 1 ; Vol. 2, Nos. 1 and 4; Vol, 6, No. 2) : $4.50 each. Checklist of the Birds of California: $2.00 each, 10 or more $1.50 each. Pelagic Birds of Monterey Bay, California: $2.50 each, 10 or more $2.00 each, 40 or more $1.50 each. All postpaid. Published September 13, 1984 WESTERN BIRDS ADVERTISING RATES AND SPECIFICATIONS Full page 4 x 6 3 A inches $60 per issue $200 per year Half Page 4x3% inches $40 per issue $130 per year Quarter Page 4 x l'^* inches $30 per issue $110 per year Offset printing, one column per page, 4 inches wide. Glossy, black and white photos are ac- ceptable; half-tone screen size: 133 line. Photo- ready copy is requested. If this is not possible, extra charges for typesetting will be made as follows: $15 full page, $10 half page, $5 quarter page. Send copy with remittance to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. A 15% commission is allowed for agencies. WESTERN BIRDS Volume 15, Number 2. 1984 DECLINE, STATUS AND PRESERVATION OF THE YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA DAVID GAINES. P.O. Box 29, Lee Vining, California 93541 STEPHEN A. LAYMON, Department of Forestry and Resource Management, 145 Mulford Hall, University of California, Berkeley. California 94720 “In contrast with those good old days . . . the large thickets have been replaced by farms and pastures, the trees cut down, and the evergrowing population has crowded in on the old haunts of the cuckoos to such an extent that if they come here now at all they must be exceedingly rare . . Wilson Hanna (1937) describing the San Bernardino Valley. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus ) , formerly a “fairly com- mon” breeding species in “willows of fairly old growth, often mixed with cot- tonwoods ... on the broad flood-bottoms of larger streams” (Grinnell and Miller 1944), has become one of California’s rarest birds. The paucity of re- cent records justifies concern for its survival in the state. Between 1 June and 10 August 1977 we conducted surveys in floodplain riparian forests throughout California where the cuckoo has been reported in the past or where habitat appeared to meet the requirements of the species. We timed the surveys to coincide with the period between the onset of court- ship and the beginning of pre-basic molt, when cuckoos are most easily detected on the nesting grounds. In this paper we present the results of the surveys and discuss the cuckoo’s past and present status and survival prospects in California. The paper is divided into geographic sections discussing the North Coast, Klamath- Modoc, Central Coast, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Sierra Nevada. South Coast, Mojave Desert and Lower Colorado River regions (Figure 1). Concluding sections consider causes of decline and preservation and management of existing populations. Western Birds 15: 49-80. 1984 49 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA METHODS Past distribution of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo was determined through a review of the literature and of specimens and egg sets in museum collections. We located extant floodplain riparian forest through examination of topographic maps and aerial photographs of river-bottoms, and through cor- respondence with wildlife biologists and local residents. We surveyed areas on foot or by canoe, using tape recordings of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo’s vocalizations to stimulate responses (Hamilton and Hamilton 1965; Gaines 1974a, 1974b). At each stop, calls were played at intervals of about 60 seconds for 10-30 minutes. We used Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology recordings of the “kowlp” call, recorded in New York State, until mid-July, at which time we obtained usable field recordings of the “kowlp” and “cooing” calls of the California bird. When a Yellow-billed Cuckoo was detected, we recorded the following habitat data: (1) estimated height and percent cover of canopy foliage; (2) estimated percent cover of woody understory foliage; (3) estimated species composition of woody vegetation by percent cover; (4) presence of sloughs, creek mouths, oxbow lakes and/or marshes (exclusive of main river channel); and (5) extent of the habitat and proximity to similar areas. If a cuckoo was seen, the substrate it occupied and its behavior were noted. Most sites were photographed. NORTHCOAST REGION History of occurrence. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has nested in Napa and Sonoma counties. Individuals have also been observed in Humboldt, Lake and Marin counties (Table 1). In the Napa Valley, Napa Co., two cuckoos were collected in 1862 (Cooper 1870), and a nest was collected in 1881 (egg set WFVZ) . Shelton (1911) described the nesting habitat along the Laguna de Santa Rosa in Sonoma Co. as “a chain of long, rather narrow ponds” bordered by “a thick growth of willow, small ash and scrub oak” and “tangled together with an undergrowth of poison-oak, wild blackberry and various creepers, forming, as it were, an impenetrable jungle hanging far out over the water.” The cuckoos arrived in early June but kept “to higher ground among the oaks and other timber, for a period of 2 or 3 weeks before retiring to the willow bottoms to breed.” An effort to locate the species here on 20 July 1972 was unsuccessful (Gaines unpubl. rep). A cuckoo at the south end of Clear Lake, Lake Co., in June 1973 may have been nesting in the willow(Sa/ix sp.) -cottonwood ( Populus sp.) habitat nearby [Am. Birds (hereafter AB) 27:915, 1973], The Marin and Humboldt county records (Tables 1 and 2) probably pertain to transient birds. Results. We conducted surveys near Willits, Mendocino Co., 1 June 1977 and at Clear Lake, Lake Co., 2 June 1977. No cuckoos were detected. Discussion. The willow and willow-cottonwood forests we surveyed ap- pear to meet the habitat requirements of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Possibly the forests are not extensive enough to support a viable population, or they are too isolated from other suitable habitat to be readily colonized. 50 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Nesting cuckoos may be found in extensive willow thickets along the im- mediate coast, such as those near Humboldt Bay. They have nested in similar habitats in northwestern Washington and southwestern British Col- umbia (Jewett et al. 1953, Godfrey 1966). LEGEND Figure 1. Areas surveyed for Yellow-billed Cuckoos in 1977. 51 Off 0 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA KLAMATH-MODOC REGION History of occurrence. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has nested in Siskiyou Co., and has been observed in Modoc and Lassen counties (Table 1). A nest was discovered in July 1951 near the “old fish hatchery” at- Mt. Shasta, Siskiyou Co. [Audubon Field Notes (hereafter AFN) 5:307, 1951], Along the nearby Shasta River one cuckoo was collected and others observed in July 1899 (Merriam 1899). Another was seen in late May 1920 (Mailliard 1921). Mailliard (1927) listed cuckoos as regular visitors and probable breeders in Surprise Valley, Modoc Co. Local residents said the species was present “in mid-summer, even in the village streets.” Results. During late July and early August 1977, A1 Lapp surveyed ap- parently suitable habitat on Honey Lake Wildlife Area, Lassen Co. No cuckoos were detected. Discussion. Scattered nesting populations may still be discovered in this region. Suitable habitat may exist along the Pit River. CENTRAL COAST REGION History of occurrence. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has nested in Santa Clara and San Luis Obispo counties and has been recorded in Alameda, San Benito and San Francisco counties. A nest was discovered 10 miles north of San Jose, Santa Clara Co., in June 1899. It was situated in a “growth of young willow and maple trees” near a running stream. Cuckoos bred “sparingly” at that locality yearly (Atkinson 1899) . Another nest “housed in a willow clump in the Santa Clara Valley” contained eggs at the end of May (Wheelock 1904) . A cuckoo collected near Paicines, San Benito Co., in June 1899 (CAS) is the only indication of nesting in the seemingly ideal willow-cottonwood habitat which formerly lined the San Benito and Salinas rivers. The lack of sightings may reflect the absence of ornithologists rather than of cuckoos. A set of cuckoo eggs (SBNHM) collected in San Luis Obispo Co. indicates former nesting. A specimen was obtained near San Luis Obispo in 1921 (SBCM) and a cuckoo was recently observed near Morro Bay (Thomas Heindel pers. comm.). Results. On 2 July 1977 we surveyed along the Salinas River near Bradley and along the Nacimiento River on Camp Roberts Military Reservation, Monterey Co. No cuckoos were detected. The cuckoos found on the Farallon Islands and at Lake Merced, San Francisco Co., during 1977 were undoubtedly transients. Discussion. The willow-cottonwood forests along the Salinas and Naci- miento rivers, Monterey Co., appear to meet the cuckoo’s habitat re- quirements. The recent sighting near Morro Bay raises the possibility that cuckoos nest in coastal San Luis Obispo Co. According to Eric Johnson (pers. comm ), Coon Creek in Montana de Oro State Park and the last mile or two of San Luis Obispo Creek might have suitable cuckoo habitat. All of these areas need to be surveyed. 52 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 1. Records of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in California, 1854-1976. Locality Date Abundance Status Source NORTH COAST REGION Humboldt County Ferndale 24 May 1958 1 T AFN 12:383, 1958 Areata 9 Nov 1963 1 T Yocum & Harris 1975 Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park 2 Sep 1975 1 T AB 30:121, 1976 Lake County S end of Clear Lake 28 Jun 1973 1 N? AB 27:915, 1973 Sonoma County Laguna de Santa Rosa 3 Aug 1884 1 N Specimen CAS 5 mi SE of Sebastopol Jun-Jul pre-1910 FC N Shelton 1911 Petaluma 18 Jun ? ? ? Bent 1940 Copeland Ck, Sonoma State College May 1975 2 N? Erik Ferry pers. comm. Napa County Napa Valley Summer 1862 ? N Cooper 1870 Napa Valley 15 May 1881 ? N Egg set WFVZ Marin County Point Reyes 19 Jul 1919 1 ? Hansen 1919 Point Reyes 19 Jun 1976 1 ? AB (regional records) KLAMATH-MODOC REGION Siskiyou County Edgewood Jul 1899 several N? Merriam 1899 Edgewood late May 1920 several N? Mailliard 1921 Sisson (Mt. Shasta City) Jul 1916 1 T Dawson 1923 Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery 3 Jul 1951 ? N AFN 5:307, 1951 Modoc County Surprise Valley July pre-1927 FC? N? Mailliard 1927 Lassen County Honey Lake Wildlife Area 27 Aug 1971 1 ? Tim Manolis pers. comm. CENTRAL COAST REGION Alameda County Oakland pre-1927 1 ? Grinnell & Wythe 1927 Hayward 1882 1 ? Emerson 1894 Hayward late Jul 1894 1 ? Specimen CAS Santa Clara County Palo Alto 22 Jul 1901 1 ? Specimen CAS 10 mi N of San Jose 17 Jun 1899 uc N Atkinson 1899 Santa Clara Valley pre-1904 ? N Wheelock 1904 San Jose 6 Jun 1885 ? ? Belding 1890 San Benito County Paicines 4 Jun 1899 ? N? Specimen CAS 53 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 1 (Cont.) Locality Date Abundance Status Source San Francisco County SE Farallon Island 7 Aug 1965 1 T Condor 69:582 24 Sep 1974 1 T AB 29:115, 1975 Jun 1975 1 T AB 29:1027, 1975 San Luis Obispo County 19 Jun 1976 1 T AB 30:999, 1976 San Luis Obispo 30 Jun 1921 ? N? Specimen SBCM San Luis Obispo County 5 Jul 1932 ? N Egg set SBNHM Mono Bay Jul 1961 1 ? Thomas Heindel pers. comm. SACRAMENTO VALLEY REGION Shasta County Near Redding 1854 ? N? Newberry 1857 Tehama County 3 mi W of Paynes Creek 14 Jul 1930 1 Compton 1932 Woodson Bridge St. Recr. Area 8 Sep 1971 1 ? Laymon pers. obs. Todd Island 12 Sep 1975 2 N? Laymon pers. obs. Butte County Chico 4 Jun 1884 VR N? Belding 1890 Butte Sink Jun-Jul until 1950s FC N? Roger Wilbur E Bank of Sacramento River 16 Jun- 14 Jul 1974 2 N? pers. comm. Syd Thomas pers. comm. Between Indian Fisheries Slough and mouth Big Chico Creek 17 Jun-30 Jul 1975 2 N? AB 29:1027, 1975 Lower Butte Sink 5 Jul-2 Aug 1973 5 N? Gaines 1974b Wild Goose Country Club 27 Jun 1976 1 N? AB 27:915, 1973 Gray Lodge W.A. 27 Jun 1974 1 ? Bruce Deuel pers comm. Glenn County W bank of Sacramento River 16 Jun-14 Aug 1974 2 N? Louis Heinrich pers. comm. 0,5 mi N of Jacinto 11 Jun-4 Aug 1975 24 May-25 Aug 1976 N? N? AB 27:815. 1973 AB 29:1027, 1975 1.5-2 mi N of Princeton 6-29 Aug 1973 2 N? Michny et al. 1975 Colusa County Vicinity of Colusa Jun-Jul until 1940s FC N? Roger Wilbur pers. comm. Colusa State Park 1 Sep 1963 1 ? AFN 18:70, 1964 Sutter County Vicinity of Yuba City Jun-Jul until 1940s FC N? Roger Wilbur pers. comm. Berry Patch Gun Club 19 Jun 1974 2 N? Bruce Deuel pers. comm. Confluence Yuba and Feather rivers 27 Jun 1976 1 N Bruce Deuel fide Jon Winter Yuba County Vicinity of Marysville Jun 1878 19 May-7 Jul 1884 1 May 1885 C N Belding 1879 Belding 1890 Belding 1890 54 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 1 (Cont.) Locality Date Abundance Status i Source Sacramento County Vicinity of Sacramento 1 May-1 Sep 1865 C N Cooper 1870 Orangevale 2 Jul 1962 1 ? AFN 16:504, 1962 Carmichael 23 Apr-6 May 1964 1 ? Peter Brown pers. comm. Sacramento 1 Aug 1962 1 ? AFN 16:504, 1962 Yolo County Sacramento Bypass Jul 1952 ? N AFN 7:325, 1953 Jun 1953 ? N AFN 15:73, 1961 18 Sep 1960 ? N fide Betty Kimball Yolo Bypass 4 Aug 1956 1 N? AFN 10:407, 1956 Sacramento River 4 Jun 1941 1 N? John Emlen pers. comm. Clarksburg 5 Jun 1896 ? N? Specimen MVZ Putah Creek near Davis 28 Aug 1937 31 Jul, 17 Sep 1939 25 Aug. 17 Sep 1940 26 Jun, 6 Jul 1941 4 Jul 1942 R N? ? ? N? N? John Emlen pers. comm. John Emlen John Emlen John Emlen John Emlen Willow Slough Sacramento Bypass 29 Jun 1965 29 Sep 1962 1 ? fide Betty Kimball Richard Stallcup pers. comm. Regionwide 15 localities Tehama -Colusa counties 18 Jun-10 Aug 1972 28 N AB 26:898, 1972; Gaines 1974a 21 localities Tehama -Colusa counties 16 May-28 Jul 1973 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION 29 N Gaines 1974b, Michney et al. 1975 Kern County near Bakersfield 17-20 Jul 1891 C N? Fisher 1893 Buena Vista Lake 11 Jun-8 Jul 1921 C N 17 specimens UCLA 7 Jun-22 Jul 1922 C N Specimen SDNHM, egg set WFVZ Tulare County Visalia 22-25 Jul 1891 ? ? Fisher 1893 Fresno County S of Clovis 10 Jul 1902 uc N Tyler 1913 6 mi NE Fresno 10 Jul 1907 uc N? Tyler 1913 San Joaquin River 4 Jul 1907 uc N? Tyler 1913 Mendota Pool 14 Jun 1918 c? N Specimen MVZ 21 Jun 1918 c? N Specimen MVZ Jun-Aug 1950 c? N AFN 4:291, 1950 Merced County Gustine Jun 1915 9 ? Specimen MVZ Hatfield State Park 8 Aug 1971 1 9 AB 25:902, 1971 55 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 1 (Cont.) Locality Date Abundance Status Source Stanislaus County Tuolumne River, Modesto 11 Jun 1914 7 N? Specimen CAS 17 Aug 1916 ? 7 Specimen CAS Mouth of Stanislaus River Sep 1962 5 N AFN 17:65, 1963 Jun-Aug 1963 2 N AFN 18:70, 1964 14 Jul 1965 3 N Betty Kimball pers. comm. SIERRA NEVADA REGION Kern County Weldon 10 Jul 1911 7 7 Specimen MVZ Kelso Creek 8 mi SSE of Weldon 13 Sep 1975 1 7 AB 30:127, 1976 Placer County Truckee River near Squaw Valley 18-19 Sep 1976 1 T fide Phillip Schaeffer SOUTH COAST REGION Ventura County Santa Clara River, Santa Paula Jun 1904 7 N Willett 1912 Mouth, Santa Clara River 18 Jul 1920 FC N Egg set WFVZ 31 Jul 1921 FC N Egg set WFVZ Montalvo 4 Jul 1942 7 N Egg set WFVZ Hueneme 4 Jul 1936 7 N Egg set WFVZ 21 Jul 1936 7 N Egg set WFVZ Sespe Canyon 24 May 1969 1 T AB 24:645, 1970 Santa Barbara Island 1 Jun 1973 1 T AB 27:821, 1973 Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 30 Jun 1963 1 7 Metcalf 1967 Montecito 22 Jun 1967 1 7 Metcalf 1967 Los Angeles County E of Santa Barbara 7 Jun 1889 FC N Grinnell 1898 Los Angeles River, Compton Jun-Aug pre-1918 FC N Jay 1911: Cookman 1915: Willett 1912, 1933; 2 specimens CAS; 3 specimens LACNHM: specimen MVZ; specimen WFVZ; 2 egg sets WFVZ Pasadena 16 May 1895 7 Specimen MVZ San Gabriel River. El Monte 12 Auq 1897 FC N Specimen UCLA 16 May 1911 FC N Specimen UCLA 20 Jul 1929 FC N Specimen UCLA Jun-Aug 1949 7 N? AFN 3:251, 1949 May 1951 9 ? AFN 5:309, 1951 San Gabriel River. Pico Rivera 5 May 1907 7 7 Jay 1911 San Gabriel River, Artesia 22 Jun 1912 FC? N Egg set WFVZ 56 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 1 (Cont.) Locality Date Abundance Status Source San Bernardino County Lake Arrowhead 2 Jun 1950 1 T Baumgardt 1951 Chino 16 May 1931 9 N Egg set SBNHM Santa Ana River and Warm Ck 3 mi E San Bernardino-Riverside County line Jun-Aug until 1930s C N Hanna 1937: specimens SBCM. MVZ: 7 egg sets SBCM: 6 egg sets WFVZ Rialto Riverside County Santa Ana River. 5 Jul 1970 1 9 AB 24:717. 1970: specimen SBCM Riverside 20 Jun 1890 9 9 Specimen MVZ 9 Jun 1888 7 7 Specimen MVZ Santa Ana River. Jun-Aug until 1950s c N Eugene Cardiff pers. comm. Corona Santa Margarita River. 26 May 1915 9 9 Specimen SDNHM Temecula Orange County Santa Ana River. 18 May 1947 19 Jun 1948 Jun-Aug until 1950s c N Specimens MVZ Egg set SBCM Eugene Cardiff pers. comm. Anaheim Jun-Jul 1899 c N Schneider 1899 San Diego County 10 Jul 1918 9 N Egg set WFVZ Escondido 20-22 Aug 1896 ? N Hatch 1896 30 Jun 1915 9 N Dixon 1916 2 Jul 1932 9 N Willett 1933: specimen MVZ Poway Sweetwater River. 1875-1876 9 9 Belding 1890 Bonita 1 Jul 1915 9 N Willett 1933 3 Jul 1915 9 N Specimen SDNHM Tijuana River 20 Jul 1931 ? 7 Von Bloeker 1931 Oceanside 23 Aug 1969 l 9 AFN 24:100 MOJAVE DESERT REGION Inyo County Bishop 11 Aug 1891 7 7 Fisher 1893 Aug 1956 9 9 Specimen CSULA 2 mi N Independence 29 Jun 1917 ? N 9 2 specimens MVZ 2 mi SW Big Pine Jul 1968 9 N? Steven Cardiff Scotty's Castle. Death Valley 30 May 1975 1 7 pers. comm. AB 29:909. 1975 Furnace Creek Ranch. 20 Jun 1891 l 9 Fisher 1893 Death Valley 3 Sep 1972 l 9 AB 27:915. 1973 29 May 1976 l 9 AB 30:891. 1976 13 Jun 1976 l 7 AB 30:1004. 1976 Amargosa River. Tecopa 15 Jul 1976 l N? AB 30 1004. 1976 57 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 1 (Cont.) Locality Date Abundance Status Source San Bernardino County Mojave River, Yermo 6-7 Aug 1910 1 ? Lamb 1912 Kelso 1 Jul 1976 1 ? AB 30:1004, 1976 Moron go Valley LOWER COLORADO RIVER 27 Jun 1964 REGION 1 ? AFN 18:536, 1964 San Bernardino County Needles Jun 1902 FC? N? Stephens 1903 Earp 27 Jun 1968 1 T Guy McCaskie pers. comm. Imperial County Potholes, 1 mi N of Laguna Dam 8 Jun-20 Jun 1930 FC? N? 4 specimens SDNHM Laguna Dam 24 Jun 1930 FC? N? 5 specimens SDNHM 26-28 Jun 1952 FC? N? 5 specimens SDNHM Bard 22 Jun-3 Jul 1915 FC? N? 2 specimens SDNHM Above Laguna Dam 18-19 Jul 1964 10 N? Guy McCaskie pers. comm. Jun-Jul 1965 12 N? Guy McCaskie 25 Jun 1966 1 N? Guy McCaskie 16 Jun 1967 3 N? Guy McCaskie Jun-Jul 1968 10 N? Guy McCaskie 14-15 Jun 1969 3 N? Guy McCaskie Jun-Jul 1970 4 N? Guy McCaskie 5 Jul 1971 2 N? Guy McCaskie 24 Jun 1972 4 N? Guy McCaskie Jun-Jul 1975 ? N? Guy McCaskie Colorado River, Davis Dam to Morelos Dam, Mexico Jun-Jul 1975-1976 244 N Bertin Anderson pers. comm. Bill Williams River Delta Jun-Jul 1975-1976 114 N Ken Rosenberg pers. comm. Near Blythe, Yuma County, Arizona 15 Jun 1929 ? N Egg set SBCM Status Source T Transient AFN N Positive nesting AB N? Suspected nesting WFVZ ? Status unknown CAS SBCM Abundance SBNHM FC Fairly common MVZ UC Uncommon UCLA VR Very rare SDNHM C Common LACNHM R Rare CSULA ? Abundance unknown Audubon Field Notes American Birds Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology California Academy of Sciences San Bernardino County Museum Santa Barbara Natural History Museum Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Los Angeles San Diego Natural History Museum Los Angeles County Natural History Museum California State University, Los Angeles 58 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO VALLEY REGION History of occurrence. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has been recorded in every county in this region with the exception of Placer. Breeding has been verified in Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa and Yolo counties (Tables 1 and 2). Early reports suggest that the cuckoo was formerly numerous along most, if not all, of the wooded streams and sloughs of the Sacramento Valley. Be- tween 1 May and 1 September 1865, Cooper (1870) found them “quite common” in large cottonwoods near Sacramento. Belding (1879) found them “common in willow and poplar thickets at Marysville in June 1878.” Roger Wilbur, a naturalist and long-time resident of Colusa County, observed cuckoos in Colusa, Butte, Sutter and Yuba counties during the 1920s and 1930s. He considered them to be fairly common during the sum- mer. He often found cuckoos in peach and prune orchards where they “were evidently feeding on tent caterpillars and canker worms.” He found a nest in a small willow thicket “surrounded by tules and weeds” in the Butte Basin, and another in a shrub overhanging Butte Creek (Wilbur pers. comm,). Cuckoos bred in Yolo County until the 1950s. Between 1937 and 1942 John T. Emlen (pers. comm.) recorded the species along Putah Creek and the Sacramento River. At least one pair nested in the Sacramento Bypass in 1952 and probably in 1953 (fide Betty Kimball, AFN 7:325, 1953). In- dividual birds were recorded from this and adjacent areas from 1956 to 1965 (AFN 10:407, 1956; 15:73, 1961; fide Betty Kimball). None have been found since. By 1970 most authorities believed that Yellow-billed Cuckoos had been extirpated from the Sacramento Valley. On 16 June 1971 the discovery of an individual near the mouth of Big Chico Creek revived hope that a few might still nest along the upper Sacramento River (AB 25:902, 1971). During the summers of 1972 and 1973, Gaines surveyed riparian habitat throughout the Sacramento Valley. In 1972, he found 28 cuckoos at 15 sites along the Sacramento River between Todd Island, Tehama Co. and Colusa State Park, Colusa Co. (Gaines 1974a, 1974b). The following year 29 cuckoos were detected at 21 sites along this same stretch (Gaines 1974b, Michny et al. 1975), and five additional birds were detected along Sanborn Slough in the Butte Sink, Butte Co. (Gaines 1974b) . From 1974 to 1976 ad- ditional observations were made in these areas. Birds were also sighted along the Feather River near Nicolaus, Sutter Co., in July 1977 (AB 29:898, 1975) and at the confluence of the Feather and Yuba rivers, Yuba Co., in June 1976 (Bruce Deuel fide Jon Winter). Results. Surveys were conducted along the Sacramento River on 20 days between 5 June and 31 July 1977; the Butte Sink on 3 days between 15 June and 31 July; along the Feather River on 26 June and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on 27 June. We detected 54 cuckoos at 33 sites: 44 at 29 sites along the Sacramento River, 9 at 3 sites in the Butte Sink (Figure 2), and 1 near Nicolaus, Sutter Co., along the Feather River (Figure 3), We did not find cuckoos on the Sacramento River south of Colusa or in the Delta. Of the 57 times cuckoos were actually seen, 68% were in willows, 26% in cottonwoods, 4% in English Walnuts, and 2% in Box Elders ( Acer 59 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA negundo ) . Habitat used by the cuckoo varied from dense willow-cottonwood forests to marshy bottomlands with scattered thickets of willows. Canopy height ranged from 5 to 25 m, canopy cover from 20 to 90%, and understory cover from 30 to 90% . Willows and open water were common to all sites. At most sites habitat was relatively extensive, being at least 100 m in width and 25 ha in surface area. Where the habitat was more confined, it was usually close to other more extensive patches of similar vegetation. The cuckoos occurred in very low densities. In all but three areas only a single bird or pair was found. The exceptions were site SR7, with five cuckoos in 50 ha, sites SRI 1-13, with six individuals in 600 ha, and sites BS1-3 with nine cuckoos in 550 ha. We detected cuckoos at about 50% of the sites that were thoroughly surveyed and that appeared to meet the habitat requirements delineated by Gaines (1974b). The Sacramento River from Red Bluff to Woodson Bridge, Tehama Co. , is a good example of an area with considerable habitat but few cuckoos. Only four were found (sites SR 1-3) despite two surveys of the area. Discussion. When the 1972-73 survey results are compared with those of 1977, the raw figures indicate that the cuckoo has maintained or increased its population, at least along the Sacramento River. If the amount of coverage each year is taken into account, however, the opposite conclusion is plausible. Only one cuckoo was detected along the Feather River in 1977, at the same site where one was reported in 1972, despite the existence of extensive and seemingly suitable habitat. In the Butte Sink, nine cuckoos were found at three sites in 1977 com- pared to five at two sites in 1973. In the earlier survey only the habitat east of Butte Creek was searched. In 1977 the entire area was surveyed and one pair was found west of Butte Creek (site BS2) . In the areas checked both years, there was an increase of two birds. Along the Sacramento River from Todd Island to Colusa State Park, 44 cuckoos at 29 sites were found in 1977 compared to 44 at 28 sites in 1972-73. These totals seem identical but are misleading; only about half of the stretch was surveyed in 1972-73, whereas the entire stretch was surveyed in 1977. If the new areas covered in 1977 are deleted, the results drop to 32 cuckoos at 22 sites, suggesting a substantial decline. A decline of this magnitude is possible, but far from certain. Two factors need to be con- sidered: the reliability of the survey technique and the year to year site attach- ment of breeding cuckoos. In the absence of wind or rain, the tape recorded calls have proven reliable in eliciting a response from most cuckoos from the onset of courtship in mid- June until the pre-basic molt begins in early August (Gaines 1974a), Since every site where cuckoos were found in 1972-1973 was thoroughly surveyed in 1977, it is improbable that cuckoos were missed at 11 of these sites. Either the birds and their progeny at 11 sites died since 1972-73, or they emigrated to other sites. In 1977 cuckoos were found at five sites that had been surveyed without success in 1972-73. These findings indicate that cuckoos may not breed in precisely the same location every year. 60 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Figure 2. Scattered willow thickets at Site BS3, Butte County, are typical of the habitat of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in the Butte Sink. Figure 3. The forest along the Feather River at Site FR1, Sutter County, is typical of the tall, very dense old-growth willows and cottonwoods inhabited by the Yellow- billed Cuckoo in the Sacramento Valley. 61 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA The combined 1972-73 total must be re-examined. Some sites occupied in 1972 may not have been occupied in 1973 and vice versa. The 1972-73 total may overestimate the population. Of the eight sites surveyed in both 1972 and 1973, six had cuckoos both years. If the totals are reduced by 25% the combined total is 33 cuckoos at 21 sites, almost identical to the 1977 totals, suggesting no decline. The total cuckoo population along the Sacramento River was estimated at 96 pairs as a result of the 1972-73 survey based on 10 ha per pair, 1200 ha of suitable habitat, and 80% occupancy (Gaines 1974b). The 1977 survey suggests that this figure is too high. The main problem lies in the occupancy rate of 80% , which was derived from the percent of occupied sites that were thoroughly surveyed under favorable weather conditions. It was then as- sumed that the entire river would have the same occupancy rate. The riparian areas in Tehama County have a much lower occupancy rate than the rest of the valley. This area was surveyed under less than optimum condi- tions in 1972-73 and was not used in occupancy calculation. If this area is in- cluded, the occupancy rate drops to 60%, which is close to the 50% rate found in the 1977 survey. When the 50% figure is used, the 1972-73 population estimate for the Sacramento River drops from 96 to 60 pairs. In 1977, 15 pairs and 14 solitary birds were found. If all solitary birds were mated, the minimum Sacramento River population is 29 pairs and the maximum is 60 pairs. If the Butte Sink and Feather River birds are added, the regional estimate is 35 to 68 pairs. Table 2. Records of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in California during 1977. Site Principal Locality No. Date(s) Total Status Observer NORTH COAST REGION Point Reyes, Marin Co. CENTRAL COAST REGION — 2 Jul 1 T Binford SE Farallon Island, San Francisco Co. 2 Jul 1 T Point Reyes Bird Observatory Lake Merced, San Francisco Co. — 7 Oct 1 T Metropolous SACRAMENTO VALLEY REGION Sacramento River Red Bluff to Woodson Bridge, Tehama Co. Mooney Island Unnamed island 1.6 mi SRI 29 Jul 1 N? Laymon S of Tehama Bridge Kopka Slough, Woodson SR2 7 Jun 1 N? Gaines Bridge State Park SR3 7 Aug 2 N? Laymon Woodson Bridge to Hamilton City. Tehama and Glenn Counties Mouth of Jewett Ck W bank 0.5 mi S of SR4 8 Jun 1 N? Gaines McIntosh Landing SR5 2 Jul 1 N? Laymon 62 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 2 (Cont.) Site Principal Locality No. Date(s) Total Status Observer Hamilton City to Ord Ferry Bridge, Glenn and Butte Counties Pine Ck 1.0 mi above Sacramento River Inside of bend 0.5 to 1.5 mi SR6 11 Jul 1 N? Laymon W of mouth of Pine Ck SR7 11 Jul 5 N? Laymon Indian Fishery SR8 9 Jul 1 N? Laymon Mouth of Indian Fishery Slough SR9 11 Jul 1 N? Laymon Mouth of Big Chico Ck SR 10 25 Jun 20 Aug 2 N? Thomas W bank 0.6 mi SW of mouth Big Chico Ck E bank 0.7 mi S of mouth SR11 29 Jun 3 N? Laymon Big Chico Ck E bank 1.3 mi S of mouth SR 12 12 Jul 2 N? Laymon Big Chico Ck Slough on W bank N of SR13 12 Jul 1 N? Laymon Ord Ferry SR14 14 Jun 2 N? Gaines Ord Ferry Bridge to Butte City, Butte ! and Glenn Counties E bank 0.2 mi S of Ord Ferry Bridge W bank across from SR 15 22 Jul 1 N? Snowden Parrott Landing SR16 14 Jun 2 N? Gaines W bank 0.2-0. 5 mi N of Jacinto SR17 10 Jun 18 Jul 2 N? Heinrich Jacinto (Hawaiian Gardens) Unnamed Island N of SR 18 14 Jun 1 N? Gaines Hartley Island E bank NE of Hanson Island 0.2 SR19 18 Jul 2 N? Laymon mi N of river mile 171 SR20 18 Jul 1 N? Laymon E end of Hanson Island E bank near river mile 170 0.8 SR21 18 Jul 1 N? Laymon mi N of Butte City W bank below Hanson Island SR22 25 Jul 1 N? Snowden 0.3 mi NW of Butte City SR23 18 Jul 1 N? Laymon Butte City to Colusa, Colusa Co. S end of Packer Lake W bank 1. 5-2.0 mi N of SR24 18 Jul 1 N? Laymon Princeton (W.C.B site) E bank 0,7 mi N of Glenn- SR25 23 Jul 1 N? Laymon Colusa Co. line SR26 23 Jul 1 N? Laymon W bank 0.5 mi SSE of Stegeman SR27 23 Jul 1 N? Laymon 0.6 mi NE of Hamilton Bend W bank 0.5 mi N of Colusa SR28 23 Jul 2 N? Laymon (Colusa State Pk) SR29 31 Jul 2 N? Laymon Butte Sink, Butte County 0.8 mi S of Sanborn Slough Gun Club BS1 31 Jul 1 N? Laymon Angei Slough 0.4 mi E of White Mallard Hunting Club 1.0 mi WNW of Wild Goose BS2 24 Jul 2 N? Laymon Country Club BS3 15 Jun 6 N? Gaines 24 Jul 6 N? Laymon YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 2 (Cont.) Site Principal Locality No. Date(s) Total Status Observer Feather River, Sutter County Slough on E bank 0.1 mi N of Garden Highway (SW of Nicolaus) FR1 25 Jun 1 N? Gaines SIERRA NEVADA REGION South Fork Kern River, Kern County 0.2 mi E of bridge on road to Onyx Ranch 0.5 mi E of bridge on road KR1 13 Jul 1 N? Gaines leading N of Weldon KR2 4 Jul 1 N? Gaines 0.5 mi E of Sierra Way Bridge KR3 4 Jul 1 N? Gaines Sierra Way Bridge KR4 3 Jul 2 N? Gaines 0. 2- 1.3 mi W of Sierra Way Bridge KR5 14 Jul 31 Jul 4 N? Gaines SOUTH COAST REGION Santa Ana River, Riverside County S of sewage disposal plant 1.5 mi SSW of Rubidoux (Santa Ana Regional Park) SA1 20 Jul 1 N? Gaines Prado Co. Park 0.5 mi W of River Rd (on Willow Flat Nature Trail) Prado Flood Control Basin 0.9 mi SA2 20 Jul 1 N? Gaines N of Prado Dam SA3 24 Jul 1 N? Gaines MOJAVE DESERT REGION Owens Valley, Inyo County Owens Valley Ranch 2.0 mi SW of Big Pine Hogback Creek 6.0 mi NW of OV1 16 Jul 3 N Gaines Lone Pine OV2 16 Jul 1 N? Gaines Amargosa River, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties Amargosa River 0.3-0. 9 mi A1 17 Jul S of Tecopa 31 Jul 2 N? Gaines 0.5 mi W of Willow Spring A2 2 Sep 1 ? Tarble China Ranch Confluence of Amargosa River A3 31 Jul 2 N? Tarble and Willow Creek A4 18 Jun 1 N? Henderson Furnace Creek Ranch, Death Valley N.M., Inyo Co. Fort Piute, NW of Needles, — 4 Jun 2 ? Heindel San Bernardino Co. — 25 May 1 ? Bailey LOWER COLORADO RIVER REGION San Bernardino County Willow Valley Estates, 5.0 mi N of Needles, AZ CR1 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson Havasu NWR (Topock Swamp) CR2 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson and vicinity 2. 0-4. 5 mi SE of 31 Jul- 7 N? Gaines Needles, CA-AZ Bill Williams River from its mouth 1 Aug to Planet Ranch, AZ CR3 Jun-Aug + N Anderson 30 Jul 11 Gaines Deer Island, CA-AZ CR4 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson 64 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Table 2 (Cont.) Site Principal Locality No. Date(s) Total Status Observer Riverside County NW of Lost Lake Resort. CA Unnamed island 5.0 mi SW CR5 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson of Poston, CA-AZ CR6 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson Inside of bend 1.5 mi CR7 Jun-Aug + Anderson SE of Waterwheel Camp. CA 0.7 mi N of Blythe Boat 29 Jul 2 N? Gaines Club (Clark Ranch), CA CR8 Jun-Jul 2 N? Clark E bank 2.0 mi SE of Palo Verde Dam. AZ Backwater at end of 10th Ave., 3.0 CR9 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson mi ENE of Blythe (Big Hole) . CA Backwater 0.8 mi N of CR10 2 Aug 2 N? Gaines Ehrenberg, AZ Backwaters 2. 2-3. 6 mi S of CR11 Jun-Aug 2 N Anderson Ehrenberg Bridge CR12 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson (Goose Flats). CA 1 Aug 2 Gaines Imperial County 0.6 mi S of 35th St. Horace Miller Co. Park, CR13 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson CA-AZ 28 Jul 2 Gaines E of Oxbow Lake. AZ 0.3 to 2.6 mi N of Paymaster CRM Jun-Aug + N? Anderson Landing (Walter's CR15 Jun-Aug + N? Anderson Camp), CA-AZ 28 Jul 2 Gaines Gilmore’s Landing. CA Walker Lake to N end of Draper CR16 5 Aug 1 N? Gaines Lake. Imperial NWR. CA-AZ Inside of bend NW of Taylor Lake. CR17 4 Aug 10 N? Gaines Picacho St. Recr Area and opposite bank. Imperial NWR. AZ CR18 5 Aug 8 N? Gaines W bank and islands from Picacho Mill 0.6 mi S. Picacho State Recr. Area and CR19 27 Jul 3 N? Gaines Imperial NWR, CA-AZ 5 Aug Ferguson Lake. CA E of Imperial Rd. 2.0 mi N of CR20 26 Jul 1 N? Gaines Laguna Dam and 0.3 mi S of Ferguson Rd . CA CR21 26 Jul 3 N? Gaines 0.4-0. 8 mi S of Laguna Dam between Imperial Rd. and Laguna Settling Basin CR22 25 Jul 6 N? Gaines (Shantytown). CA 26 Jul 1.7 mi W of Winterhaven. CA CR23 26 Jul 1 N? Gaines Status N nesting N? suspected nesting T transient ? probable transient 65 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION History of occurrence. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has been recorded in every county in the San Joaquin Valley region except Kings Co. (Table 1). Breeding has been verified in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno and Kern counties. Early reports vary in the assessment of cuckoo abundance. In mid- July 1891 Fisher (1893) found them “common” near Bakersfield, Kern Co., in the willows and cottonwoods which then lined the Kern River. They must have been numerous at the mouth of the Kern River in the early 1920s, for Van Rossem collected 17 specimens (UCLA) at Buena Vista Lake. In Fresno Co., according to Tyler (1913), the Yellow-billed Cuckoo could not “be called common” but “their retiring habits” made “it difficult to deter- mine in what numbers they are present.” He described the cuckoo as a sum- mer resident in the “tangles of willow brush and vines” along the San Joa- quin River and “a number of the larger canals.” A nest which held two newly hatched young on 10 July 1902 was situated in a “small, somewhat isolated willow” at the edge of an irrigation ditch. Cuckoos continued to breed along the San Joaquin River through at least the 1940s. In 1950 three pairs were located on 30 acres of open willow brush and marshland at Mendota Pool, Fresno Co. (AFN 4:291, 1950). The records suggest that cuckoos formerly nested along most of the wooded streams and sloughs of this region. The lack of sightings along the Tule, Kings and Merced rivers probably reflects an absence of ornithologists. Observations during the 1960s and 1970s suggest that a few cuckoos may still breed in the region. At the mouth of the Stanislaus River, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, the cuckoo was observed in 1962, 1963, 1965, 1972 and 1973. The numbers at this site fell gradually from five to one (AFN 17:65, 1963; 18:20, 1964; AB 26:878, 1972; 27:915, 1973; Betty Kimball pers. comm.). Results. We surveyed nine sites along the San Joaquin River between South County Park, San Joaquin Co., and Mendota Pool, Fresno Co., from 29 June to 1 July 1977. We surveyed the Stanislaus River from Caswell State Park to its mouth, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, on 29 and 30 June; the Merced River from Snelling to Merced Falls, Merced Co., on 30 June; the Kaweah River below Lake Kaweah, and the Tule River below and above Lake Success, Tulare Co., on 3 July. No cuckoos were found. Discussion. If Yellow-billed Cuckoos still breed in the San Joaquin Valley, the population is very small. Little habitat is extant, and that which remains may be too confined or widely scattered to support a viable population. SIERRA NEVADA REGION History of occurrence. Within the Sierra Nevada region, the Yellow-billed Cuckoo has occurred in Kern and Placer counties. A cuckoo was collected along the South Fork Kern River near Weldon, Kern Co. , in 1911 (specimen MVZ). The only other pre-1977 records are of probable transients. 66 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Results. We surveyed the South Fork Kern River between Bloomfield Ranch and Isabella Reservoir, Kern Co., on 3-4, 12-14 and 31 July 1977. Nine cuckoos— two pairs and five individuals— were observed at five sites. All sites were situated in the extensive, continuous and relatively broad strip of cottonwood-willow forest along the South Fork Kern River from Bloomfield Ranch west to Isabella Reservoir, a distance of 16 km (Figure 4). At its broadest point the strip is 1000 m wide and is probably the largest con- tiguous cottonwood- willow forest extant in California. We observed cuckoos in the foliage of willows on 13 occasions and in cot- tonwoods on 2. Canopy height ranged from 10 to 18 m, canopy cover from 10% to 70% and understory cover from 50% to 80% . Water was present at sites KR1-3, but not at sites KR4 and 5. At site KR5, we heard three cuckoos cooing simultaneously within about 120 ha of forest. Discussion. Grinnell and Miller (1944) include the “vicinity of Weldon” in the Yellow-billed Cuckoo’s breeding range, based on the specimen collected in 1911. This survey substantiates the presence of a nesting population in this area. At sites KR4 and KR5, cuckoos were found in the immediate vicinity of the dry riverbed. The lack of surface water was attributed to the drought condi- tions of the previous two years. Surface water is normally present. Figure 4. The forest of willows and cottonwoods at Site KR5, Kern County, is typical of the habitat of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo along the South Fork of the Kern River near Weldon and Onyx. 67 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA A thorough survey is needed to assess the density of this population. Two pairs and five solitary cuckoos were detected. Assuming the solitary birds were mated, seven pairs were present. Adjusting this total to take into ac- count areas that were not surveyed yields an estimate of 17 pairs. Observa- tions at Site KR5 suggest that a pair requires a territory of about 40 ha. At this density, the forest could support 25 pairs if all the habitat were occupied. If the adjusted survey total is considered a minimum, and the calculated total a maximum, a tentative population estimate is 17 to 25 pairs. SOUTH COAST REGION History of occurrence. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has occurred in every county in the South Coast Region. Numerous nesting records imply that the coastal lowlands of Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and probably San Diego counties were once a stronghold of the species (Table 1). Grinnell (1898) and Willett (1912, 1933), for example, considered cuckoos “fairly common” in the region. Six egg sets from Ventura Co. indicate that a population of cuckoos nested along the Santa Clara River and in the marshy coastal bottomlands between its mouth and Port Hueneme until at least 1942. The nests, found between 4 June and 31 July, were situated in willow thickets (Willett 1912; egg sets WFVZ). Jay (1911) studied the cuckoo near the Los Angeles River, Los Angeles Co., “within a few miles of the ocean.” The birds inhabited “swampy places and river bottoms surrounded by willows.” In some groves they were com- mon, whereas none were found in others. Between 1900 and 1910, 40 nests were found in willows less than 4.2 m tall. Nesting was at its peak from mid-June through mid-July. Between 1919 and 1930 Hanna (1937) discovered 24 cuckoo nests along Warm Creek and the Santa Ana River in the San Bernardino Valley, San Bernardino Co. The nests were concealed in “damp willow thickets mixed with cottonwood trees and with heavy underbrush of nettles, wild grape vines and cattails.” All but two were in willows at an average height of 4 m. Breeding reached its peak in late June and early July. Additional nesting records from throughout the region indicate the widespread breeding distribution of the cuckoo in the coastal lowlands. The cuckoo’s decline in southwest California has been attributed to habitat destruction. Soon after the turn of the century, the clearing of willows along the Los Angeles River became a threat to local populations (Jay 1911). Dur- ing the 1920s and 1930s, Hanna (1937) watched the “miles of cottonwood and willows” where he studied the species give way to “farms and pastures.” Cuckoos were present until the early 1950s. Nests were located along the Santa Clara River, Ventura Co., in 1942 (egg set WFVZ), along the Santa Margarita River near Temecula, Riverside Co., in 1948 (egg set SBCM), and along the San Gabriel River near El Monte, Los Angeles Co,, in 1949 and 1951 (AFN 3:251, 1949; 5:309, 1951). Decline of the cuckoo along the Santa Ana River between Riverside and Corona, Riverside Co., cannot be attributed to habitat destruction. Between 1 and 11 June 1963 Hamilton and Hamilton (1965) intensively surveyed 68 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA this area without success. They found the habitat reduced from Hanna’s times, but “considerable stretches of seemingly favorable habitat” remained. Eugene Cardiff found the cuckoo common in this area until the early 1950s, when it declined and disappeared abruptly without obvious cause. During this period the riverbottom was repeatedly sprayed with pesticides, probably DDT, by county mosquito abatement authorities (E. Cardiff pers. comm.). Despite increasingly thorough coverage by field ornithologists, the cuckoo was observed only six times in the region from 1952 to 1976. Oniy an in- dividual at Rialto, San Bernardino Co., in July 1970 raised hope that cuckoos might be breeding along the nearby Santa Ana River (AB 24:717, 1970). Results. We surveyed along the Santa Clara River, Ventura Co., 22 July 1977; at Harbor Park, Los Angeles Co., 7 August; on the San Joaquin Marsh Preserve, University of California, Irvine, Orange Co., 23 July; along the San Luis Rey River near Bonsall, San Diego Co., 24 July; and along the Santa Ana River and in the Prado Basin, Riverside Co., 20, 21 and 24 July and 8 August. On 20 July we found two cuckoos at two sites along the Santa Ana River between Riverside and Corona, Riverside Co. On 24 July we found a third cuckoo in the Prado Flood Control Basin north of Prado Dam. All three sites were situated in willow forest in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River be- tween Riverside and Prado Dam, a distance of 19 km. The forest varies in width from 100 to 1000 m along the river and broadens to 5 km in the Flood Control Basin. It is the largest continuous willow forest in California. Cuckoos were observed only in willows, the dominant tree at all sites. Vegetation varied from low dense thickets with intervening open ground (site SA1) to continuous forest (sites SA2 and SA3). Canopy height ranged from 5-10 m and canopy cover from 70% to 90%. At sites SA2 and 3, willows and blackberries (Rubus spp.) formed leafy understories with 80% cover. Open water and emergent marsh plants were present within 30 m of all sites. Despite intensive coverage of identical areas, we found no other cuckoos along the Santa Ana River. Sites SA1 and SA2 were resurveyed 24 July and 8 August without success. Discussion. The scarcity of Yellow-billed Cuckoos in this region is at- tributable to the loss of suitable habitat. Of the sites surveyed, only the Santa Ana River still supports a continuous growth of willow more than 50 m in width or 10 ha in area. Low densities of cuckoos along the Santa Ana River, however, cannot be attributed to lack of habitat. In 18 hours afield, we found only three in- dividuals in 3400 ha of suitable habitat. Eugene Cardiff (pers. comm.) says the vegetation has not changed appreciably since he and Wilson Hanna found “good numbers” of cuckoos in the area during the 1940s. Since that time, despite relatively thorough coverage, cuckoos were not found again until this year. Their reappearance suggests that the species may be resettling this extensive area. Some possible suitable habitat was not surveyed, e.g., along the San Luis Rey River and at Camp Pendleton, San Diego Co. Even if these areas sup- port cuckoos, the region’s population is very low. 69 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA MOJAVE DESERT REGION History of occurrence. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has been recorded in Owens Valley, Death Valley and near Tecopa, Inyo Co., and at Yermo, Morongo Valley, Kelso and Fort Piute, San Bernardino Co. (Table 1). Most of these records are of transients. Between 1972 and 1976 cuckoos were reported four times in Death Valley and once in nearby Tecopa (AB 27:915, 1973; 29:909, 1975; 30:891, 1004, 1976). These records suggest that a scattered population of cuckoos breeds in isolated pockets of suitable habitat across the deserts of the Great Basin. During July 1968 a cuckoo was heard cooing near Big Pine in the Owens Valley (Steven Cardiff pers. comm.). Its behavior and site attachment sug- gested it was nesting in the vicinity. Results. We conducted surveys in the Owens Valley, Inyo Co. , on six days between 5 July and 10 August 1977; in Death Valley, Inyo Co., 17 July; along the Amargosa River near Tecopa, Inyo Co. , on 17 July; along the Mo- jave River at Afton Canyon, San Bernardino Co. , on 17 July; along the Mo- jave River south of Mojave Narrows, San Bernardino Co. , on 18 July; and at Morongo Valley, San Bernardino Co., on 18 and 19 July. Between 25 May and 2 September we found a total of 14 cuckoos at nine sites in this region. Six at four sites near Tecopa and four at two sites in the Owens Valley were nesting, whereas the remaining birds were probably transients. We found three cuckoos at site OV1 southwest of Big Pine, Inyo County, on 16 July. Two appeared to be a mated pair; they were carrying twigs and long-horned grasshoppers (Tettigoniidae), but no nest was located. The same day we found a fourth cuckoo at site OV2 northwest of Lone Pine. Groves of willows were dominant at both Owens Valley sites, with boggy meadows interspersed among the groves. Canopy height ranged from 10-13 m, canopy cover from 40% to 50%, and understory cover from 50% to 70%. Habitat was extensive, but isolated from similar stands of willows by many miles of desert vegetation. At site OV1 three birds were found in 40 ha, and at site OV2 one bird was in 120 ha of willow groves and moist meadows. No cuckoos were detected in the more open willow groves along the Owens River. We observed six cuckoos in the dense willow and mesquite ( Prosopis juliflora ) thickets south of Tecopa, Inyo and San Bernardino counties. This corridor of mesic habitat covers 480 ha along 10 km of the Amargosa River and 3 km of its tributary, Willow Creek. About 30% of the suitable habitat was surveyed. Two cuckoos were found at site Al, where willow and mesquite formed impenetrable thickets about 5 m high. The thickets covered 70% of the can- yon bottom and were watered by the cattail-lined Amargosa River and by many springs. We found no cuckoos in seemingly suitable habitat along the Mojave River, San Bernardino County. This area warrants further study. Discussion. The existence of nesting populations in the Owens Valley and near Tecopa indicates that cuckoos are able to colonize “islands” of mesic 70 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA habitat within the desert. These habitat islands are characterized by surface water and dense groves of willows dispersed over several hundred con- tiguous hectares. Only a few widely scattered localities meet these re- quirements. Aside from those surveyed, the following areas might qualify: in Inyo Co., the area around Bishop and along the Owens River to Big Pine, the Owens River near Lone Pine Station, and Saline Valley; and Zzyxx Spring in San Bernardino Co. In contrast, the narrow bands of willow which line small streams in many desert canyons have not been found to support nesting cuckoos. Morongo Valley and Fort Piute, San Bernardino Co., for example, have both been surveyed intensively, but only transient cuckoos have been found. COLORADO RIVER REGION History of occurrence . The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has been recorded along most of the portion of the Colorado River that forms a boundary between California and Arizona (Table 1) . Sightings in San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties and in Arizona are included in this discussion. Early records for the region are few. Grinnell and Miller (1944) cite only Stephen’s (1903) observation of several cuckoos near Needles, San Bernar- dino Co., in 1902. Specimens were collected in Imperial Co. in 1915, 1930 and 1952 (SDNHM), and an egg set was collected near Blythe 15 June 1929 (SBCM). The paucity of historical data probably reflects an absence of observers at the proper time of year. Since 1974, B.W. Anderson, R.D, Ohmart and their co-workers have been censusing bird densitites along the Lower Colorado River. By ex- trapolation of their data, they estimated a population of 244 cuckoos be- tween Davis Dam and the Mexican border (Anderson pers. comm.) and an additional 114 near the mouth of the Bill Williams River (Ken Rosenberg pers. comm.). Centers of population are on the west side of Topock Swamp and near the mouth of the Bill Williams River, Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, California and Arizona, and on the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge and Picacho State Recreation Area, Imperial Co., California (Ken Rosenberg, Tim Brush, Paul Mack and Bertin Anderson pers. comm.). Another substantial population was found by Guy McCaskie (pers. comm.) north of Laguna Dam, Imperial Co., during the 1960s and 1970s, Results. We conducted surveys from 25 July to 5 August 1977, and found 65 cuckoos at 16 sites scattered along the river. Between June and August, other field ornithologists found cuckoos at seven additional sites. Of the 51 cuckoos actually sighted, 79% were perched in willows, 11% in mesquite, 8% in cottonwood and 2% in salt cedar ( Tamarix sp.) Fledglings were observed at sites CR2, 10, 11 and 22. The seven cuckoos found in Topock Swamp area (site CR2) occupied a large expanse of Arrowweed (Pluchea sericea), salt cedar, willow and mes- quite 3-4 m high. Willows 7-9 m tall formed an open overstory. Canopy cover varied from 10% to 20%, and understory cover, from 80% to 90%. Habitat at sites CR10-16 from 5 km north of Blythe, Riverside Co., to Gilmore Landing, Imperial Co. , and sites CR20-23 from Ferguson Lake to 3 71 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA km west of Winterhaven, Imperial Co. , was similar to that at Topock Swamp. Canopy height varied from 8-13 m, canopy cover from 20% to 40%, and understory cover from 60% to 90% . The highest cuckoo density was at site CR22, 0.8- 1.3 km north of Laguna Dam, Imperial Co. At least three pairs were found in 12 ha. Similar uncensused habitat stretches east and northeast 2-3 km to Mittry Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. We also found high population densities on Imperial National Wildlife Refuge and in Picacho State Park (sites CR17-19), with 21 cuckoos in 120 ha of dense willows. The canopy varied from 4-10 m and canopy cover from 80% to 90%. The willow groves formed 70 m wide strips along the river channel. The forests on the Bill Williams River floodplain (site CR3), Mojave Co., Arizona, supported the highest density of cuckoos. We detected 11, in- cluding 8 in about 12 ha of willows and cottonwoods. The canopy height of 17 m and canopy cover of 80% exceeded that of any other Colorado River site. In general, sites inhabited by cuckoos were characterized by at least 20% willow cover, dense shrub or understory foliage, and open water or marsh within 100 m. Cuckoos were found at every site which had these characteristics. Even patches of as little as 2 ha at times harbored the species. Only at Site CR7, a scrub forest of mesquite, salt cedar and Arrowweed in Riverside County, was a cuckoo found in the absence of willows. No cuckoos were found in areas dominated by salt cedar. Discussion. The survey supports Anderson’s and Rosenberg’s estimate of 358 Yellow-billed Cuckoos along the lower Colorado River. There is no evidence that suitable habitat is not being used, suggesting that habitat availability is limiting the population in this region. Willows and cottonwoods were formerly more widespread along the lower Colorado. When Grinnell (1914) studied the river in 1910, the entire floodplain was densely wooded, The Palo Verde Valley was covered by 40,000 ha of forest. The cottonwood trees south of Blythe extended 8 km in- land from the river in 1920 (Heath Angelo pers. comm,). The loss of these forests to agriculture, channelization and reservoirs has been accompanied by the encroachment of salt cedar, a native of northern Africa and Eurasia. Arriving in the southwest in the late 1800s, it has spread into riverbottoms “at the expense of nearly all the native plant life” (Robinson 1965). Salt cedar’s ability to out-compete willow is not well understood, but lack of flooding and increase in soil salinity may be responsible. Survival of the cuckoo in this region will require preservation of habitat. Sites such as CR4-16 and 21-23 are vulnerable to agricultural development and channelization projects. In 1974, for example, 5200 ha were cleared on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. Willow habitat near Cibola and Three Finger Lakes has been lost to channelization during the last 10 years (James Snowden, Gordon Gould pers. comm.). Fortunately, three of the major cuckoo population centers are on national wildlife refuge or state park lands. Even here, salt cedar control may be necessary to maintain the habitat. The fourth center near Laguna needs protection. 72 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA CAUSES OF DECLINE The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is at a critically low population level, not only in California, but in the northern Rocky Mountains, the Great Basin, and the Pacific Northwest as well (Tom Lund, Hugh Kingery pers. comm.). Declines are suspected in other parts of North America. The closest population to California that has not declined in recent years is in the riverbottoms of southern Arizona (Richard Stallcup pers. comm.). It is unlikely that the cuckoo’s decline has been caused by factors affecting its migratory route or wintering habitat in southern Brazil and Argentina. The clearing of forests in Latin America has probably favored the cuckoo by fostering the second-growth thickets it prefers (De Schaunsee 1970). Maintenance of populations in portions of North America suggests that the decline in California was caused by local changes. Loss of habitat is the most important cause of decline. By the late 1800s, large tracts of floodplain forest had already been cut or cleared for fuel or agriculture (Cronise 1868, Thompson 1961). Probably the density of cuckoos was even greater than the early literature suggests. Reclamation, flood control and irrigation projects accelerated this loss over the past 80 years, leading to only remnant riparian habitat in 1977. DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides rnay have hastened the cuckoo’s decline during the 1940s and 1950s when aerial spraying became common in fields, orchards and riverbottoms (Greib 1948, Eugene Cardiff pers. comm.). These sprayings undoubtedly affected non-target insect populations as well as the crop pests and mosquitos for which they were in- tended. This reduction in food might have caused an immediate decline in cuckoo populations already stressed by loss of habitat. The critical role of food supply as well as the abrupt disappearance of cuckoos from the Santa Ana River area during the 1950s supports this theory. PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT The presence of breeding populations of Yellow-billed Cuckoos in five regions of California gives hope that with preservation, enhancement and appropriate management of habitat, cuckoos will continue to nest at these localities and to recolonize other suitable habitat. To formulate a management strategy it is necessary to understand the fac- tors that limit the cuckoo’s population density. The few published studies and the data presented in this paper suggest that dense foliage, high humidity, ex- tensive habitat and adequate food are conditions that must be met before a cuckoo will nest. Vegetation. Groves of broad-leaved deciduous hardwoods, especially willows and cottonwoods, are characteristic of the cuckoo’s habitat throughout California. Height and dispersion of trees seem less important than foliage density. Yellow-billed Cuckoos occupy scattered groves and thickets as well as unbroken expanses of forest. Saplings 3-10 m in height and old-growth trees 10-27 m in height are both used. Dense foliage, especially within 10 m of the ground, is common to all areas. Forests with 73 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA o ON m r-H co rot o 13 u. CO CO t-H ro d> r> o id o o dd i; ; i i i d o ~ o oc u CM t-H CO ON 1 o t-H On O On rot i ! ! O O . i i m i o ro to 0 i- cn cd 1 - > rH m o 1 1 o : : ; ; i i i o ro t'' 1 rot • ■ i i II! CM E K < c =* CM m O o CM T — 1 CO it d NO o NO d i % : | ■ III 3 ro t-H m t — till 1 1 1 1 O > 1 O o i o 1 o i — i rot m m UO O CM »-h doom 'Oinoos o d o o o o f" on 0) E E 3 c n cn _c 3 2 'E i- o — I "to U c (C c < ro -*— < c ro c/5 CD > ac c §> cd .2 'X. cc CD i_ x: X! CD -*— < L> JD 0) to N-4— < o co J>n fC c -D fl3 I CO JD -D «3 a ^ 3 <£ CQ ^ c cd E CC *. . CJ «3 CO CD £5 o NO CO w O' o W m°° it CM m CM O CM no td o CM ON I I o o 1-1 CM £ c ro ro CD d) E E 3 3 cn cn 5 c <0 <13 ■ 00 d ON _C on CD -C 3 s a o c ro CD _D E Z O 0 D i, CD > 1- n > U 0 3 x ° o a 2 O CD C 13 ro c m CM o CO i o CM 00 ON NO co o m it o CM CO o o o o 00 00 co CM o o r-t CO o o o o t" r- NO NO o o o o o o CO co c ro CD £ 3 cn 3 ro c ro CD £ 3 on c ro $ O 13 0 o 3 c o a m -c 3 ,^ -2 < » — 3 X> d) <= -3 g -2 J5 2 3 CD 13 D J3 0 ^r 0 u=c;_^:i- 3 -' ^^Ucq^cqOcdS t? Jr i 3 t/j (D aJU to CD ro m ro J3 _c aj in > ro E S 1 Jr X O d) _C i- 13 cn 2 ro ai 3 'P 2 £ ^ t /1 m O _ ro ro — 2 CO C 0 < fO fO 0) CD c c bP fcp a -c CJ CJ a CQ c CD 13 O O o to 3 ■£ C _g "a -c a CD o -o E o -c co 3 C 74 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA taller trees have well-developed leafy understories. Dense low-level foliage is an important factor in the selection of nesting territories. Willows and cottonwoods are primarily riparian trees dependent on ground water near streams. An ample supply of subsurface water not only keeps their foliage green throughout the long summer dry period, but pro- motes high productivity. These trees thrive on unstable floodplains of meandering, aggrading streams. On the outside of curves such streams undercut their banks, dislodging soil and toppling trees. On the inside of curves they deposit sediment and form bars where new trees can germinate. Under these conditions, copious seed production, wind dispersal, and rapid sapling growth favor willows and cottonwoods. When streams are channel- ized or their flows modified by dams, the more stable conditions and/or lower water tables may favor other species of trees not utilized by the Yellow- billed Cuckoo. Dense groves of willow need to be maintained. It is essential to assure that extant habitat is not cleared. Once a preserve has been established, it may also be necessary to manage the vegetation in the interests of the cuckoo. Periodic flooding may be requisite to a dense growth of willows. If flooding is impossible, cultivation and selective removal of competing trees may be a viable alternative. The ecology of California willows needs further study. Reforestation warrants serious consideration. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is not restricted to old-growth willows and cottonwoods, but inhabits young trees as well. At 54% of the analyzed sites, canopy height was 10 m or less. Under favorable conditions, willows and cottonwoods attain this height in 10 to 15 years. In many areas, as along the rivers of the Central Valley, the Santa Clara River in Ventura Co. , the San Luis Rey River in San Diego Co. , and the Owens River in the Owens Valley, planting willows would create ad- ditional habitat in a relatively short time. Along the Colorado River, methods for controlling the spread of salt cedar, and for restoring conditions that favor more desirable native trees, need to be developed. Humidity. Throughout the arid west, breeding populations of the Yellow- billed Cuckoo are restricted to riverbottoms, ponds, swampy places and damp thickets where humidity is relatively high. In 1977 we detected the species only where surface water was usually present. Sloughs, creek mouths, oxbow lakes and marshes further increased local humidity at 74% of the analyzed sites. In eastern North America, where the species probably evolved, the cuckoo occurs in deciduous forests which are consistently humid during the summer. Hamilton and Hamilton (1965) suggest that such conditions may be necessary to prevent cuckoo eggs from dessicating. Colonization of western North America may have been possible only because riverbottoms offered sufficiently humid habitat. Surface water, such as oxbows, sloughs and marshes, needs to be main- tained. Maintenance of water will not pose a problem along the Sacramento, Colorado and other large rivers as long as they are employed for commercial water transport. Other areas, especially the Owens Valley, must be closely monitored. 75 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Wetland habitat is in greater danger. Channelization and flood control have stopped rivers from changing their courses, thus arresting the process by which riparian oxbows and marshes are formed. This process, which pro- vides ideal habitat for the cuckoo, is occurring only during “hundred-year floods” or not at all. Hence it may be necessary to maintain existing oxbows through dredging or manipulation of water levels. Dredging of new oxbows also deserves consideration. In conjunction with willow plantings, such a project holds promise of restoring viable habitat for the cuckoo. Habitat Breadth. Habitat breadth may be another important factor in the selection of nesting territories. In California, very few cuckoos were found where suitable vegetation was less than 100 m wide and under 10 ha in sur- face area (Gaines 1974b). A study of avian distribution patterns on forest “islands” in New Jersey suggests that cuckoos are very rare or absent on patches of under 24 ha (Galli et al. 1976). The Yellow-billed Cuckoo occupied 2 to 11 ha, a larger area than most birds of comparable size (Platt 1975, Ken Rosenberg pers. comm.). In ac- quiring preserves or undertaking habitat restoration or enhancement, priority should be given to areas with over 25 ha of contiguous habitat. Wherever possible, discontiguous parcels should be joined by acquiring or restoring habitat corridors between them (MacClintock et al. 1977). Food Supply. Fluctuations in Yellow-billed Cuckoo breeding densities from place to place and year to year have been attributed to cycles in the abundance of caterpillars, cicadas and other large insects on which they sub- sist (Clay 1929, Forbush 1927, Nolan and Thompson 1975). Hamilton and Hamilton (1965) postulate a nomadic phase prior to breeding during which the cuckoos appraise local food resources before establishing territories and laying eggs. The cuckoo may have adaptations for exploiting windfall outbreaks of suitable prey. In proportion to body weight, the eggs of Coccyzus cuckoos are among the heaviest of any nidicolous bird (Lack 1968). Energy cost of egg production may be as high as 30 percent of the female’s daily intake (Nolan and Thompson 1975). These energy-expensive eggs facilitate rapid development of both embryos and nestlings (cf. Schifferli 1973). The 17-day combined incubation and nestling period is shorter than that of any other known species (Hamilton and Hamilton 1965, Skutch 1976). Eggs may be laid at irregular intervals during a relatively prolonged breeding season. Clutch size, usually three to four, frequently varies from one to five and sometimes more depending on level of food supply (Hanna 1937, Bent 1940, Nolan and Thompson 1975). Hence the cuckoo can raise more young during years of abundant food. Because incubation begins with the initiation of egg-laying, nests may har- bor eggs and nestlings at strikingly different stages of development. This phenomenon, termed asynchronous hatching, permits survival of the oldest nestlings in the event that food supply proves inadequate to nourish the en- tire brood (Hamilton and Hamilton 1965). A healthy environment should produce an adequate supply of the large in- sects on which the cuckoo depends. Steps should be taken to assure that 76 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA pesticides sprayed on adjacent agricultural lands do not affect the vegetation in which cuckoos forage. Under no circumstances should spraying in riparian areas be allowed. Because of fluctuations in food supply, the Yellow-billed Cuckoo may not nest in the same areas every year. Importance of habitat must be judged over an extended period of time. Large-sized preserves will increase the prob- ability that pockets of food abundance will provide the conditions for optimal reproductive success. Research Needs. Past studies of cuckoos in California provide virtually no data on home range, foraging substrates and food sources. This information is needed for successful preserve design and habitat management. Hence a habitat use study involving radio telemetry should be undertaken. Knowledge of the context of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo’s calls and displays would augment the value of the surveys. Hamilton and Hamilton (1965) at- tribute the “cooing” call to un mated males and the “kowlp” series to territorial pairs. This information, if valid, would permit estimates of the numbers of mated and un mated birds. Such estimates could be confirmed by the type of study proposed above. SUMMARY Between June and August 1977 we attempted to locate the breeding populations and describe the habitats of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in Califor- nia. Historic occurrences were researched through published literature and museum records. Surveys were conducted where the species nested historically or where habitat appeared suitable. We detected a total of 141 cuckoos in six widely separated parts of the state: 54 in the Sacramento Valley, Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, and Sutter counties (estimated total 35 to 68 pairs); 9 along the South Fork Kern River near Weldon, Kern Co. (estimated total 17 to 25 pairs); 3 along the Santa Ana River, Riverside Co.; 4 in Owens Valley, Inyo Co.; 6 along the Amargosa River south of Tecopa, Inyo and San Bernardino counties; and 65 along the Colorado River (in- cluding the Arizona side) between the Nevada line and the Mexican border (estimated total 180 pairs). Most sites were characterized by willows, dense low-level or understory foliage, high humidity and suitable foraging space in excess of 120 m in width and 10 ha in area. Cuckoos were found to have undergone a major contraction of range and decline in numbers in the past 80 years. Based on the surveys and a review of the literature, we discuss management and preservation of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo and its habitat. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The 1977 Yellow-billed Cuckoo survey was a cooperative effort on the part of many field ornithologists. This report owes much of its value to the assistance, advice and encouragement of many who share the authors’ con- cern for the survival of California’s only arboreal cuckoo. Sally Judy assisted in the field and in the preparation of the paper. Bertin Anderson, Walt and Rebecca Anderson, Phyllis Bailey, Robert A. Barnes, Peter Brown, Timothy Brush, Robert Celantano, Denise Devine, Sharon 77 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Goldwasser, Thomas and Jo Heindel, Paul Mack, Marie Mans, Ken Rosenberg, James Snowden, G. Shumway Suffel, Jan Tarble and Dean Taylor aided in the field work. Keith Axelson, Eugene and Steven Cardiff, Barbara Carlson, Sue Clark, Gordon Gould, Louis Heinrich, Greg Howe, Eric Johnson, Lloyd Kiff, Hugh Kingery, John Lindsay, Tom Lund, Guy McCaskie, Van Remsen, Richard Stallcup, G. Shumway Suffel, Roger Wilbur and Jon Winter provided infor- mation on habitat and distribution. LITERATURE CITED Atkinson, W.L. 1899. Nesting of the California Cuckoo. Condor 1:95. Baumgardt, J.H. 1951. Yellow-billed Cuckoo in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Condor 53:207. Belding, L. 1879. A partial list of the birds of central California. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 1:388-449. Belding L. 1890. Land birds of the Pacific district. Occ. Papers California Acad. Sci. II. Bent, A.C. 1940. Life histories of North American cuckoos, goatsuckers, hum- mingbirds and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 176. Clay, M.B. 1929. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Bird Lore 31:189-190. Compton, L.F. 1932. Two new records for the Lassen Peak region. Condor 34:45. Cookman, A. 1915. Home of California Cuckoo discovered. Oologist 32:5. Cooper, J.G. 1870. Ornithology of California. Geol. Surv. California, Cambridge, MA. Cronise, T.F. 1868. The natural wealth of California. H.H. Bancroft, San Francisco. Dawson, W.L. 1923. The birds of California. Four vol. South Moulton Co,, San Diego. DeSchauensee, R.M. 1970. A guide to the birds of South America. Livingston Publ. Co., Wynnewood, PA. Dixon J. 1916. Mexican Ground Dove, Western Grasshopper Sparrow, and Cali- fornia Cuckoo at Escondido, San Diego County, California. Condor 18:84. Emerson, O. 1894. Cuckoo and flycatcher notes. Nidologist 2:8. Fisher, A.K. 1893. Report on the ornithology of the Death Valley expedition of 1891. N. Amer, Fauna 7:7-158. Forbush, E.H, 1927. Birds of Massachusetts and other New England states. Vol. II. Bewick & Smith Co., Norwood, MA. Gaines, D. 1974a. Review of the status of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in California: Sacramento Valley populations. Condor 76:204-209. Gaines, D. 1974b. Distribution, density and habitat requirements of the California Yellow-billed Cuckoo in the Sacramento Valley: 1972-1973, California Dep. Fish and Game, Nongame Wildl. Investigations, Progress Rep. W-54-R. Galli, A.E., C.F. Leek & R.T.T. Forman 1976. Avian distribution patterns in forest islands of different sizes in central New Jersey. Auk 93:356-364. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The birds of Canada. Natl. Mus. Canada Bull. 203. 78 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Greib, A.F. 1948. Experiences in the use of airplanes in the Kern Mosquito Abatement District. Proc. & papers 16th Conf. California Mosquito Control Assoc. :63-66. Grinnell, J. 1898. Birds of the Pacific slope of Los Angeles County. Pasadena Acad. Sci. Publ. II. Grinnell, J. 1914. An account of the mammals and birds of the lower Colorado Valley. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 12:51-294. Grinnell, J. & M. Wythe. 1927. Directory to the bird-life of the San Francisco Bay Region. Pac. Coast Avif. 18. Grinnell, J. & A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avif. 27. Hamilton, W.J., III & M.E. Hamilton. 1965. Breeding characteristics of Yellow- billed Cuckoos in Arizona. Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 32:405-432. Hanna, W.C. 1937. California Cuckoo in the San Bernardino Valley, California. Condor 39:57-59. Hansen, H E. 1919. California Cuckoo seen at Point Reyes. Gull 1:8 (August). Hatch, J.M. 1896. The Western Martin and the California Cuckoo at Escondido, California. Auk 13:347, Jay, A. 1911. Nesting of the California Cuckoo in Los Angeles County, California. Condor 13:69-73. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw & J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle. Lack, D. 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, London. Lamb, C. 1912. Birds of a Mojave Desert oasis. Condor 14:32-36. MacClintock, L., R.F. Whitcomb & B.L, Whitcomb. 1977. Evidence for the value of corridors and minimization of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity. Am. Birds 31:6-16. Mailliard, J. 1921. Notes on the birds and mammals of Siskiyou County, California. Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser, 4, 11:73-94. Mailliard, J. 1927. The birds and mammals of Modoc County, California. Proc. California Acad. Sci., ser. 4, 16:261-359. Merriam, C.H. 1899. Results of a biological survey of Mt. Shasta, California. N. Amer. Fauna No. 16. Michny, F.J., D. Boos & F. Wernette. 1975. Riparian habitats and avian densities along the Sacramento River. California Dep. Fish and Game Admin. Rep. No. 75-1. Newberry, J.S. 1857. Report of explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. No. 6, part 2, Report upon the zoology of the route. Washington D C. Pp. 73-110. Nolan, V. & C.F. Thompson. 1975. The occurrence and significance of anomalous reproductive activities in two North American non-parasitic cuckoos Cocc^zus species. Ibis 117:496-503. Platt, D.R. 1975. Breeding birds of the Sand Prairie Natural History Reservation, Harvey County, Kansas. Am. Birds 29:1146-1151. Robinson, T.W. 1965. Introduction, spread and areal extent of salt cedar (Tamarix) in western states. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 491-A. 79 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO IN CALIFORNIA Schifferli, L. 1973. The effect of egg weight on the subsequent growth of nestling Great Tits Parus major. Ibis 115:549-558. Schneider, J.J. 1899. Nesting of the California Cuckoo in Los Angeles County, California. Condor 2:34. Shelton, A C. 1911. Nesting of the California Cuckoo. Condor 13:19-22. Skutch, A.F. 1976. Parent birds and their young. Univ. Texas Press, Austin. Stephens, F. 1903. Birds notes from eastern California and western Arizona. Condor 5:75-78, 100-105. Thompson, K. 1961. Riparian forests of the Sacramento Valley, California. Annals Assoc. Am. Geog. 51:294-315. Tyler, J.G. 1913. Some birds of the Fresno district, California. Pac. Coast Avif. 9. von Bloeker, J.C., Jr. 1931. Perognathus pacificus from the type locality. J. Mammology 12:369. Wheelock, LG. 1904. Birds of California. A C. McClurg & Co., Chicago. Willett, G. 1912. Birds of the Pacific slope of southern California. Pac. Coast Avif. 7. Willett, G. 1933. A revised list of the birds of southwestern California. Pac. Coast Avif. 21. Yocum, C.F. & S.W. Harris. 1975. Status, habitats, and distribution of birds of northwestern California. Humboldt State Univ. Bookstore, Areata, CA. Accepted 2 December 1983 Yellow -Billed Cuckoo Sketch by Tim Manolis 80 POST-BREEDING AVIFAUNA AND MIXED INSECTIVOROUS FLOCKS IN A COLORADO SPRUCE-FIR FOREST JUDITH L. WAGNER, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 (present address: Department of Biological Sciences, California State University — Hayward, Hayward, California 94542) Few data are available on post-breeding behavior and migration dates for birds of many geographic areas, especially for mountainous regions like western Colorado whose avifaunas are poorly known in general (Bailey and Niedrach 1965, Davis 1969). This paper presents information on the late- summer birds of a high-altitude forest in western Colorado, with particular attention to the foraging and flocking behavior of small foliage- and bark- gleaners. The study site is of special interest because it is thought to be virgin forest, in a region much of which has been heavily logged. STUDY AREA AND METHODS My study site was part of the Gothic Natural Area, located at almost 3000 m elevation near the confluence of Quigley Creek and the East River, 5 km NW of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) at Gothic, Gunnison County, Colorado. The site supports a forest of Engelmann Spruce (Picea engelmartnii) and Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ) reaching 20 m in height, with a diverse herbaceous understory which becomes dense and waist-high in openings near water. There are few shrubs except for small individuals of the currant Ribes montigenum. There are many dead trees and fallen logs on the site. Bird species known to have occurred in the Gothic area are summarized in Keeler-Wolf et al. (1973), but few observations have been made later in the year than early August. I collected the data summarized here while making one or two complete circuits of a marked path (requiring about 1.5 hr per circuit) each morning from 10 August through 3September 1976, exceptfor 11, 15, 20, 21 and 23 August. All bird species seen or heard on the plot were recorded; in addition, perch sizes and heights and group sizes were noted for small foliage- and bark- gleaning species. Wagner (1977, 1981) provides further detail on methods. Weather data were not available for the site, but rain fell on about half the days in the study period, often alternating quickly with bright sunshine; many of the nights were frosty. RESULTS SHARP-SHINNED HAWK (Accipiter striatus) . Considered very rare in the Gothic area (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1973), this hawk was seen once on 25 August, when it was mobbed by Gray Jays. BROAD-TAILED HUMMINGBIRD ( Selasphorus plafycercus) . Observed twice, on 17 and 19 Aug. Fed at Delphinium barbeyi, a tall herb of moist openings. RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD (S. ru/us). Observed twice, on 12 and 14 Aug. Also fed at Delphinium, Western Birds 15: 81-84, 1984 81 SPRUCE-FIR AVIFAUNA NORTHERN FLICKER ( Colaptes auratus). Seen once, on 10 Aug. YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKER (Sphyrapicus varius) . Seen on four occasions between 19 and 26 Aug. WILLIAMSON’S SAPSUCKER (S. thyroideus) . An adult male was observed on 19 Aug. This species is rare in the Gothic area (Keeler-Woif et al. 1973). STELLER’S JAY ( Cyanocitta stelleri). Seen once, on 19 Aug. A rare species in the Gothic area (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1973). GRAY JAY ( Perisoreus canadensis) . Observed throughout the study, on 16 of the 20 observation days. MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE ( Pams gambeli). Observed on every day of the study. Foraged almost entirely at heights of 3-12 m from perches on twigs <1 cm in diameter (38% of the observations) or on small branches 1-5 cm (56%). These results are similar to those of Manolis ( 1977) for pine-juniper woodland, although collected differently. Of 89 individuals recorded, 6 were alone; the remainder were seen in 20 single -species and 9 mixed groups. Mixed flocks (except one whose members were not all identified) always included kinglets and sometimes other species (see below). RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH (Sitta canadensis) . More often heard than seen, only five individuals of this species were observed, although the species was recorded on 9 days between 10 and 25 Aug. Four of the birds seen were alone and one was with a flock of chickadees and Ruby-crowned Kinglets. This species is considered rare in the RMBL area (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1973) and the ones I observed may have been post- breeding wanderers. BROWN CREEPER ( Certhia americana ) . Recorded on 10 days between 12 Aug and 1 Sep. The 12 observations were of five single birds, one pair, and five members of four mixed flocks of chickadees and kinglets. GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET (Regulus satrapa ) . Flocks of this kinglet were seen on 12 of the 16 observation days from 14 Aug-2 Sep, but not before. These were very likely post-breeding wanderers. The 49 individuals recorded were observed in nine single-species groups, four mixed flocks with chickadees and sometimes other species, and one flock whose members were not all identified. This species perched almost exclusively on conifer twigs <1 cm in diameter. RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET (R. calendula). Apparently bred on or near the site: A male was observed feeding fledglings on 10 Aug. Eighteen individuals were seen during this study, on 8 days between 10 and 27 Aug. Of these, four were alone, eight were as pairs, and six were in four mixed flocks with chickadees and sometimes other species; one flock also included Golden-crowned Kinglets. As in California oak woodland (Wagner 1977, 1981), Ruby-crowned Kinglets perched almost entirely on twigs <1 cm in diameter. AMERICAN ROBIN (Turdus migratorius) . Recorded on four days between 10 and 16 Aug. HERMIT THRUSH (Catharus guttatus). Observed once, on 13 Aug. YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER ( Dendroica coronata) . Seen on only four occasions, on 12, 25, 28 and 30 Aug. In each case single-species groups of at least two birds were observed. TOWNSEND’S WARBLER (D. townsendi) . Single individuals of this species were identified on 10 and 18 Aug. Not recorded by Keeler-Wolf et al. (1973). WILSON’S WARBLER (Wilsonia pusilla). Observed on 4 days between 10 and 14 Aug and on 3 days between 30 Aug and 3 Sep. The later birds may have been migrants from outside the Gothic area. All observations were of single birds, although one appeared to be associated with a flock of chickadees and Ruby-crowned Kinglets. DARK-EYED JUNCO ( Junco hyemalis). The Gray-headed (caniceps) form of this species was observed on 15 days throughout the study, in single-species flocks which never associated with chickadees or kinglets. 82 SPRUCE-FIR AVIFAUNA PINE GROSBEAK (Pinicola enucleator). Seen on 12 days throughout the study, generally in small flocks which were always of this species alone. Observed feeding fledglings on 10 Aug. PINE SISKIN (Carduelis pinus). Observed only on 10 and 12 Aug, though large flocks were seen almost daily throughout the study period in weedy fields on the RMBL property 5 km away. DISCUSSION Although this study documented a period of turnover in the avian community, the most common and conspicuous species were probably all resident: Gray Jay, Mountain Chickadee and Dark-eyed Junco. There was no period of very high species diversity during the study; no large flocks of migrants were observed, although apparent migrant flocks have been seen at the same time of year on the forested slopes and ridges above the study area (R. L. Willey pers. comm.). In a detailed study of late-summer flocks, Morse (1970) reported a high diversity and rapid turnover of migrant species, especially paruline warblers, associated with flocks of Black-capped Chickadees (Paws atricapillus ) in Maine spruce forest and mixed forest. In that study Red-breasted Nuthatches were more common flock members than in my observations in Colorado. Golden-crowned Kinglets were apparently more usually seen in mixed flocks with chickadees than in separate, single-species flocks, again in contrast with my observations. It is not known what differences between Maine and Colorado forests or between Black-capped and Mountain chickadees might account for the predominance of single-species flocking in the Colorado study. In winter in California, where the high diversity of parulines is also lacking, Manolis (1977) observed the Mountain Chickadee most commonly in mixed flocks with highly gregarious species like Bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus) and Pygmy Nuthatches (S/fta pygmaea). The scarcity of woodpeckers in my observations is surprising, especially since there were many dead trees on the site. Three species considered common or very common in the Gothic area (Northern Flicker, Yellow- bellied Sapsucker, and Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens; Keeler-Wolf et al. 1973) were recorded rarely or not at all on my site. The distribution and possible migration of woodpeckers in the Gothic area would make an interesting study. Other groups missing from my data (e.g., flycatchers) are likely to be early migrants. Some common breeding species (e.g., Ruby- crowned Kinglet and Yellow-rumped Warbler) were seen in August but in small numbers; many individuals apparently leave the Gothic area soon after breeding and do not join late-summer mixed flocks. We need more information on altitudinal migration and post-breeding wandering for many species of mountainous regions like western Colorado. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 thank the staff of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, and especially Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich, for logistic assistance and the use of facilities. Present and former workers at RMBL whose correspondence or conversation helped me in planning this work include Curtis S. Adkisson, 83 SPRUCE-FIR AVIFAUNA Billy Barr, John Bizer, William A. Calder, Cynthia Carey, Frances S. Chew, John C. Johnson, Ward B. Watt, and Ruth L. Willey. I thank William A. Calder and Tim Manolis for comments on the manuscript. Financial support was provided by the Frank M. Chapman Memorial Fund of the American Museum of Natural History. LITERATURE CITED Bailey, A. M. & R. J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Mus. Nat. Hist., Denver. Davis, W. A. 1969. Birds in western Colorado. Colorado Field Ornithologists. 61 pp. Keeler-Wolf, T., V. Keeler- Wolf & W. A. Calder, Jr. 1973. Bird fauna of the vicinity of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Colorado Field Ornithol. 15:22-25. Manolis, T. 1977. Foraging relationships of Mountain Chickadees and Pygmy Nuthatches, West. Birds 8:13-20. Morse, D. H. 1970. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecology 40:119-168. Wagner, J. L. 1977. Insectivorous birds: flocking and foraging. Ph.D. diss. Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA. Wagner, J. L. 1981. Seasonal change in guild structure: oak woodland insectivorous birds. Ecology 62:973-981. Accepted 27 January 1984 84 Mountain Chickadee, Red-breasted Nuthatch and Golden -crowned Kinglet Sketch fay Narca Moore -Craig WYOMING’S JUNIPER BIRDS SAM D. FITTON, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming 82520 (present address: 113 Lucchesi, Areata, California 95521) OLIVER K. SCOTT, 5120 Alcova Route, Box 16, Casper, Wyoming 82604 The avifauna associated with Wyoming’s juniper plant community has largely been ignored. The purpose of this paper is to communicate informa- tion regarding 10 species of birds virtually confined, during the breeding season, to the Utah Juniper ( Jurtiperus osteosperma) community in Wyoming. Since 1979 we have made over 60 trips to juniper stands statewide. Most of our field work was conducted in 1982 in southern Sweetwater County of southwestern Wyoming, Few or no juniper-dependent birds were found on our visits to other portions of the state. Equal time was spent in the extensive stands of the Little Firehole Canyon area 13 km southeast of Green River and along the east-west ridge called Powder Rim 100 km southwest of Rawlins. Our objectives at each juniper stand were to document the presence and when possible the nesting of certain indicative species. The pinyon-juniper community of Utah and Colorado becomes the Utah Juniper community in Wyoming. Pinyon Pine ( Pinus edulis ) is very rare along the Utah-Wyoming border near Flaming Gorge Reservoir and absent elsewhere in the state. Nearly homogenous stands of Utah Juniper can be found widely scattered throughout the state but are most extensive in the southwestern quarter (Figure 1). The other species of erect juniper in Wyo- ming, the Rocky Mountain Juniper ( Jurtiperus scopulorum) , is found most often in association with Ponderosa Pine ( Pinus ponderosa ) or Limber Pine ( Pinus flexilis) and less frequently in association with Utah Juniper. Therefore, it is not a critical component of the juniper birds’ habitat. Wyo- ming’s juniper-dependent birds occupy habitats in Colorado (Kingery and Graul 1978) and Utah (Behle 1981) that are not found in Wyoming. The pinyon-juniper community is the only habitat similar. The 10 species of birds that we found confined to the Utah Juniper habitat in Wyoming are Gray Flycatcher, Ash-throated Flycatcher, Scrub Jay, Plain Titmouse, Bushtit, Bewick’s Wren, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Gray Vireo, Black-throated Gray Warbler and Scott’s Oriole. Their distributions are shown in Figure 1. The Gray Vireo is reported in Wyoming for the first time. The Scrub Jay, Bushtit and Black-throated Gray Warbler are documented as nesting species for the first time in the state. The ranges of the remaining six species are expanded considerably from those depicted in the last treatment of the state’s avifauna (Oakleaf et al. 1982). GRAY FLYCATCHER, Empidonax wrightii. The Gray Flycatcher is an abundant summer resident of the Utah Juniper community in southwestern and south-central Wyoming and occupies most conditions of canopy cover wherever mature trees are found (Figure 1). The 10 nests that we observed were built 1.0 to 2.4 m above the ground close to the trunk or substantial lateral branch of a juniper. The nest informa- tion for 1982 is as follows: four nests with three young each, 25, 26 and 27 June at Firehole Canyon; five nests with three young each and one nest with four young, 28 Western Birds 15: 85-90, 1984 85 JUNIPER BIRDS and 29 June at Powder Rim. The nests were made of loosely entwined juniper bark strips and lined with fine grass blades, feathers and hair. In 1982 nests were most easily found during the last week of June when the adults were feeding the nestlings. Confusion in the nomenclature led some Wyoming ornithologists to assign the wrong name to the Dusky Flycatcher (formerly E. wrightii, now £. oberholseri) . Any reference to “Wright’s Flycatcher” in Wyoming’s literature refers to the Dusky Fly- catcher, not the Gray Flycatcher. ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER, Myiarchus cinerascens. This species is an uncom- mon summer resident of southwestern and south-central portions of the state and is rarely seen elsewhere (Figure 1). The species is found most commonly among the old gnarled junipers growing on steep hogbacks or in low areas of severe erosion. We observed the Ash-throated Flycatcher using the tips of dead snags as perches from which to look out for flying insects. The two nests found near the Little Firehole Can- yon were less than 1.8 m above the ground in the natural cavities of Utah Junipers. Two / pairs of territorial adults were observed defending the above mentioned cavities, 27 June 1982. SCRUB JAY, Aphelocoma coerulescens. The Scrub Jay is an uncommon permanent resident of southwestern and south-central Wyoming (Figure 1). This jay prefers dry rocky slopes or ravines covered with sparse to medium tree cover. Most foraging takes place on the ground and in Mountain Mahogany ( Cercocarpus montanus ) , sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and the lower branches of junipers. We usually observed the species shyly swooping and gliding among the junipers and rocks making it one of the com- munity’s more elusive species. On 30 May 1982 we found a nest containing four fledglings at Powder Rim. The nest, 1.5 m above the ground, was constructed of large juniper and sagebrush twigs and lined with grass. The breeding record for latilong 27 in the Wyoming Auian Atlas (Oakleaf et al. 1982) is erroneous because the observer was actually in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Holden 1872). PLAIN TITMOUSE, Parus inornatus. A common permanent resident of southwestern and south-central Wyoming, the Plain Titmouse is found in most situations where mature Utah Junipers grow (Figure 1). It is restricted to stands of junipers old enough to have natural cavities or large enough to attract woodpeckers. Both types of cavity nest were found from 1.0 to 3.6 m above the ground. One nest was found in Little Firehole Canyon, 17 May 1982, with an undetermined number of young heard calling from within; and another nest, also with an unknown number of young, was found 29 May 1982 at Powder Rim. Small family groups of up to six individuals were often seen after fledging. The species forages among the thicker lateral branches of junipers, smaller deciduous shrubs and sagebrush. BUSHTIT, Psaltriparus minimus. The Bushtit is an uncommon resident of southwestern and south-central Wyoming (Figure 1). It is found at the edges of juniper stands foraging in Mountain Mahogany, sagebrush and the lower branches of junipers. The species’ distribution seems to be local within the Utah Juniper habitat. For exam- ple, in Little Firehole Canyon 29 km southwest of Rock Springs we found four breeding pairs, at least three of which had successfully reared young by 25 June 1982, in an area of less than 1 km 2 . We did not see the species elsewhere in spite of intensive search. The nesting phenology of one of the above mentioned breeding pairs was followed. We found the nest under construction 17 May 1982, full of an undeter- mined number of chirping juveniles 25 June, and empty 26 July. This nest (a long pendant intricate affair of juniper scales, fine grasses, seed hulls, and flowers inter- woven with spider webbing) was collected 9 October 1982 and is now in the Zoological Museum at the University of Wyoming. 86 JUNIPER BIRDS Species A B C D E F G H I J K L M Gray Flycatcher X X 4 4 X 4 4 4 Ash-throated Flycatcher 4 X Scrub Jay X X 4 Plain Titmouse X X X Bushtit X 4 Bewick's Wren X X 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher X X 4 X 4 Gray Vireo 4 Black- throated Gray Warbler X- 4 4 4 4 — Scott's Oriole 4 X Utah Juniper Stands All unlettered stands were visited X Nest or dependent young found but no Juniper birds were found. 4 Nest behavior observed Observed X No data avai lable Figure 1. Bird distribution in Wyoming’s Utah Juniper stands. 87 JUNIPER BIRDS BEWICK’S WREN, Thrpomanes bewickii. This wren is probably the most common juniper-dependent bird (Figure 1). During years with mild winters a few individuals may remain year-round. Bewick’s Wrens are found in most conditions of juniper size and canopy cover so long as natural or excavated cavities are present. The eight cavity nests we observed were at heights varying from 15.0 cm to 9. 1 m above the ground. We found five nests containing an undetermined number of young, 28 and 29 June 1982 at Powder Rim, and three nests also containing an unknown number of young, 26 and 27 June 1982 at Firehole Canyon. But adults feeding up to four fledglings were commonly observed after these dates. Although juniper is the most commonly used nest substrate in Wyoming, the first documented nest was found in a cottonwood tree ( Populus sp.) along the Green River (White and Behle 1960). This wren forages on the ground, in shrubs, and in branchlets and foliage of junipers. Even in the heat of the day we observed the Bewick’s Wren singing from the tops of juniper trees. In- truders are harassed by loud scolding until they are out of the first wren’s territory and into the next where the defense begins anew. BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER, Polioptila caerulea. This fairly common summer resident can be found nesting in several widely scattered juniper stands in the state and is currently the most widespread of the juniper-dependent species (Figure 1). It is probably most common in the extreme southwest, less so in the Casper area, and least common on the north slope of the Owl Creek Mountains. This species frequents areas where deciduous shrubs, sagebrush and junipers grow in close proximity. One nest was found near Powder Rim, 28 June 1982, containing three ready-to-fledge young. Blue-gray Gnatcatchers forage on the tips of branches of all available woody plants from ground level to the highest trees. GRAY VIREO, Vireo uicinior. This is the first report of the Gray Vireo for Wyoming. We came into contact with three or four different individuals in the junipers 13 km southeast of Green River from 26 June to 27 July 1982 (Figure 1) . We must consider it a rare sum- mer resident until additional information can be gathered. More investigation may docu- ment nesting; a singing male was followed 26 June 1982 until it dropped from cover and briefly but loudly scolded us. The birds were found in areas of moderate juniper canopy cover generously interspersed with Mountain Mahogany. We observed that this species uses its gray background- matching color, slow movements and quiet disposition to re- main unnoticed while being only a tree or two away from the would-be observer. BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER, Dendroica nigrescens. This species is a common summer resident of the Utah Juniper community. It and the Blue-gray Gnat- catcher are the only juniper-dependent species regularly found northeast of the con- tinental divide. This warbler is most common in the Casper area, less common southwest of Rock Springs and least common at Powder Rim (Figure 1). It frequents mature stands with a relatively high degree of canopy closure. These stands are found usually in protected and gently sloping areas where moisture is more readily available to plants. In 1982 we observed four nests at Little Firehole Canyon from 1.2 to 2.4 m above the ground in junipers; three nests with four young each and one nest with one young Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater), 16 and 17 May. The nests were made of fine strips of juniper bark and lined with fine grass blades, feathers and hair. Foraging took place mostly in junipers and to a lesser degree in deciduous shrubs and sagebrush. SCOTT’S ORIOLE, Icterus parisorum. This species appears to be a rare summer resi- dent. Recent records for this species in Wyoming, including the first nesting record, have been summarized by Findholt and Fitton (1983). An additional record not treated in the above mentioned summary needs clarification. In 1930 Kemsies added 88 JUNIPER BIRDS this species to the list of Wyoming’s birds as hypothetical. The record was based on what he referred to as “a perfect description of the Scott’s Oriole” which had been sent to him by Park Ranger Albert Bicknell. The ranger apparently had ample time to observe the birds since they reportedly nested near the Bechler River District Ranger Station in Yellowstone National Park. With that area’s lush meadows and tall dense stands of Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) , a more atypical setting for a nesting pair of this species can hardly be imagined when compared to the habitat in which recent observations have been made. All writers subsequent to Kemsies have either decided to ignore this record or were unaware of it. Kemsies’ business documents, stored in the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, are so unorganized that even if Bicknell’s descriptive letter was re- tained, it would be impossible to find according to Arthur Wiseman, the museum’s curator of ornithology (pers. comm. 1982) . Voucher specimens are no longer needed for a species to be included on the Wyoming list of avifauna, and the hypothetical designation is reserved for species for which some question exists concerning details given in the written documentation. Since Bicknell’s description cannot be obtained, we believe this record can be put to rest after 50 years of uncertainty. Two additional species that we usually found in junipers are not necessarily juniper-dependent. The Pinyon Jay ( Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus ) is found essentially in pinyon-juniper habitat in Colorado (Bailey and Niedrach 1965), Utah (Behle 1981) and Idaho (Burleigh 1972). In Wyoming, the Pin- yon Jay exhibits more flexibility in its habitat requirements; it is found wherever there are extensive juniper stands, but also in areas of Limber Pine and Ponderosa Pine. The only part of the state that lacks this bird is the northwest mountain region. In contrast, the House Finch ( Carpodacus mex- icanus ) is found in a wide variety of low elevation habitats in Colorado (Bailey and Niedrach 1965), Utah (Behle 1981) and Idaho (Burleigh 1972), but in Wyoming this species is restricted to juniper stands in the southern part of the state or to habitats adjacent to human dwellings throughout the state. Because of its close association with man, in addition to its use of the juniper habitat, we do not consider it juniper-dependent. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the use of Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins District, vehicles during 1981. Most of the field work was conducted under the auspices of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in 1982. Bob Oakleaf greatly encouraged this study and provided invaluable advice and discussion. We thank Fred Broerman for help with the 1981 field work and Terri Fitton for help with the 1982 field work and editorial assistance. Laurence C. Binford and Dominique G. Homberger provided helpful com- ments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Bailey, A M. & R.J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Mus. Nat. Hist., Denver. Behle, W.H. 1981. The birds of northeastern Utah. Utah Mus. Nat. Hist. Occas. Publ. No. 2, Univ. Utah, Salt Lake City. 89 JUNIPER BIRDS Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho. Findholt, S.L. & S.D. Fitton. 1983. Records of Scott’s Oriole from Wyoming. West. Birds 14:109-110. Holden, C.H. 1872. Notes on the birds of Wyoming and Colorado territories. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 15:193-210. Kemsies, E. 1930. Birds of the Yellowstone National Park, with some recent addi- tions. Wilson Bull. 42:198-210. Kingery, H E. & W.D. Graul. 1978. Colorado bird distribution latilong study. Colorado Div. Wild!., Denver. 58 pp. Oakleaf, B., H. Downing, B. Raynes & O K. Scott. 1982. Wyoming avian atlas. Wyoming Game and Fish Dep,, Cheyenne. 87 pp. White, C.M. & W.H. Behle. 1960. Birds of Flaming Gorge reservoir basin. Pp. 185-208 in Ecological studies of the flora and fauna of Flaming Gorge reser- voir basin, Utah and Wyoming. Univ. Utah Dep. Anthropology, Anthropological Paper No. 48., Salt Lake City. Accepted 2 November 1983 Scott’s Oriole, Ash-throated Flycatcher, Gray Vireo, Black-throated Gray Warbler and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. Sketch by Keith Hansen 90 NOTE FIRST RECORD OF HOODED WARBLER FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHANNEL ISLANDS BRENT S. STEWART, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 1700 South Shores Road, San Diego, California 92109 The Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) is a rare visitor to the southern California mainland (38 records reported, mostly from the interior), primarily in spring (Garrett and Dunn 1981). To my knowledge, it has never been recorded on any of the Southern California Channel Islands despite several recent surveys of the islands’ avi- fauna (Hunt and Hunt 1974, Jones and Diamond 1976, Diamond and Jones 1980, Hunt et al. 1980) and my own incidental observations while conducting pinniped research at San Miguel and San Nicolas islands since 1978. On 22 May 1983 I observed a male Hooded Warbler and a male Wilson’s Warbler (W. pusi//a)foraging at the western tip of San Nicolas Island (33°15’N, 119°33’W). They foraged within 100 m of my field quarters, just below the main Western Gull (Larus occidentalis) rookery, from about 1700 through at least sunset (1900) The two birds foraged within 5 m of each other during this period except occasionally when one or the other flew to a new location; the birds generally reunited within 10 to 15 minutes. At 2030, the Hooded Warbler flew into the field quarters, apparently at- tracted by the lights. 1 captured and photographed the bird (Figure 1) before releasing it at 2100. Neither bird was seen again. Wilson’s Warblers are common spring visitors V Figure 1. Hooded Warbler. San Nicolas Island, California, 22 May 1983. Photo by Brent S. Stewart 91 Western Birds 15: 91-92. 1984 NOTE to San Nicolas Island (Townsend 1968, G. McCaskie pers. comm., H.L. Jones pers. comm.). Although Hooded Warblers are rare visitors to the South Farallon Islands in northern California (DeSante and Ainley 1980), the observation reported here is ap- parently the first record of this species on the Southern California Channel Islands. I thank Joseph R. Jehl, Jr., Ralph W. Schreiber, Guy McCaskie, Kimball L. Garrett, Dennis M. Power, H. Lee Jones and William T. Everett, for commenting on the manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Diamond, J.M. & H.L. Jones. 1980. Breeding land birds of the Channel Islands. Pp. 597-612 in D.M, Power, ed., The California Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist., Santa Barbara, CA. DeSante, D.F. & D.G. Ainley. 1980. The avifauna of the South Farallon Islands. Studies in Avian Biol. No. 4. Garrett, K. & J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California: status and distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Soc., Los Angeles. Hunt, G.L., Jr., & M.W. Hunt. 1974, Trophic levels and turnover rates: the avifauna of Santa Barbara Island, California. Condor 76:363-369. Hunt, G.L., Jr , R. Pitman & H.L. Jones. 1980. Distribution and abundance of seabirds breeding on the California Channel Islands. Pp. 443-459 in D.M. Power, ed.. The California Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary sym- posium. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist.. Santa Barbara, CA. Jones, H.L. & J.M. Diamond. 1976. Short-time-base studies of turnover in breeding birds of the California Channel Islands. Condor 76:526-549. Jones, L . , R. Stefani & P.W. Collins. 1981. Birds of the Channel Islands National Park: an annotated list of the birds of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. Natl. Park Service, Ventura, CA. Townsend, W.C. 1968. Birds observed on San Nicolas Island, California. Condor 70:266-268. Accepted 1 7 March 1 984 BIRD ART Watercolor originals by L.B. McQueen, published in Audubon Society Master Guide to Birding. Chanticleer Phess, New York, 1983. Sizes from 5” x 7” to 9” x 12”. Prices from $200 to $500. For requests and information write L.B. Mc- Queen, P.O. Box 3037, Eugene, Oregon 97403. Original 14” x 21” watercolor plates by L.B. McQueen for forthcoming field guide to the birds of Peru, by Ted Parker and Dr. John P. O’Neill, are now available for sale. Prices start at $1000. For slides and information please write L.B. McQueen, P.O. Box 3037, Eugene, OR 97403. 92 BOOK REVIEW Birds of Southern California’s Deep Canyon. Wesley W. Weathers, 1983. University of California Press. Berkeley. 266 + x pp., 60 line drawings, 28 color plates, 33 halftones, 45 tables. $35.00. This book is the fifth in a series of natural history volumes originating from the Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center near Palm Desert. California. On the one hand it is a work of narrow geographic scope, set along a transect from the floor of the Coachella Valley (elevation 9 m) to the highest portions of the Santa Rosa Moun- tains (which crest at Toro Peak, 2657 m). On the other hand, this book should enjoy wide appeal among birdwatchers and ornithologists over a vastly larger area. One reason for such an appeal is that altitudinal transects which cover a gradient from harshly xeric desert to relatively mesic coniferous forest are repeatable over wide areas of western North America (and. indeed, elsewhere in northern Mediterranean and subtropical regions). Elevational gradients have enjoyed a special appeal among vertebrate ecologists, especially from the time of C. Hart Merriam to the present (the work of Terborgh and Weske et al. in the Andes, as just one example). Thus, Weathers’ book describes patterns which are relevant far beyond Deep Canyon. A second, and perhaps more important, reason why this book will be of wide in- terest is that the author employs a sophisticated yet intelligible ecological perspective throughout the work. Voluminous strip census data are interpreted for the reader vis a vis the ecology of competition, predation, and individual and community energy flux. In short, Weathers goes well beyond the basic “when” and “where” questions of standard distributional works. His attention to the “whys” (ecological/evolutionary causation) sets his work apart. Introductory chapters discuss the physical setting of the Deep Canyon region and outline the census methodology. From 43 to 142 censuses were conducted in each of nine habitats. These censuses provide the raw data for subsequent analyses; also drawn upon was a wealth of unpublished observations in the files of the Research Center. The bird census data are combined with data on the body mass of each species and with experimentally pre-derived formulas for daily energy expenditure to arrive at ah estimate of community energy demand. Much of Weathers’ analyses center around such considerations of avian energetics and inter-seasonal and inter-habitat com- parisons thereof; such discussions prove to be enlightening and are never too technical for those lacking formal training in ecology. A series of chapters discussing each habitat forms, along with the species accounts which follow, the bulk of the text. The habitats are described and the census data from each is interpreted season by season. Also included are specialized discussions of habitat modification by man and of fire succession in the chaparral. The species accounts (128 pp.) cover all but the scarcest visitors to Deep Canyon. Additionally, all species are treated in an appendix which shows seasonal occurrence and habitat use in standard bar-chart format. Species accounts include body mass, ap- propriate synonyms, overall range, status in Deep Canyon, and a discussion (variable in length) of certain interesting aspects of the biology of the species. The publication schedule of the book required that the taxonomy employed be that of the fifth edition of the AOU Check-list (with supplements through 1973) . By early 1984 this is already an annoying, yet unavoidable, drawback. The reader will gain much from the potpourri of modern biological tidbits liberally spread through the species accounts. Much of this is borrowed (and duly cited) from other researchers; thus the book also serves as a welcome, if somewhat erratic, in- troduction to the literature of avian ecology (particularly physiological ecology). Some of Weathers’ interpretations may be open to alternative explanations, e.g. the assertion that different densities of Verdins (Auriparus flauiceps ) and Black-tailed Gnatcatchers (Polioptila melanura ) in the desert washes may be a result of differential predation by Loggerhead Shrikes ( Lanius ludouicianus ) on nestlings living in the Western Birds 15: 93-94, 1984 93 respective very different types of nest. But all such statements are exciting food for thought. One must question the implication (p. 34) that Deep Canyon’s wintering Savannah Sparrows ( Passerculus sandwichensis) come north out of Baja California; the Col- orado River delta race rostratus now only very rarely comes as far north as the Salton Sea (south of the study site) , and breeding races of the interior such as rteuadensis are common in winter in the Coachella Valley. Weathers’ reference (pp. 96, 98) to breeding Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor ) in the coniferous forest of the Santa Rosa Mountains would seem to require confirmation. The statement (p. 153) that, among Empidonax, only the Western Flycatcher (E. difficilis) sings in migration is simply not true: Such singing is common, for example, in the Willow Flycatcher (£. traillii) . Whereas much of the data is apparently (hopefully) on file at the research center, many records of distributional interest are “lost” from easy access by being presented only in the format of the bar-charts in the appendix. Single records of Red-throated Loon, Western/Yellow-footed Gull, Black Tern (February), and Common Nighthawk (April) are without any more information than a month of occurrence. Rufous- crowned Sparrows (not in the index) are sparse, local residents on the desert slopes of southern California. A total of four dots from the valley floor, alluvial plain, and streamside habitats are from odd elevations and habitats. Any extralimital record of such a sedentary bird would be extremely interesting. All of the noteworthy records would have benefited from an assessment of their significance by the author and a definite date. As with the record of a migrating Bald Eagle from “March 1980,” very little extra space would have been needed to present a precise, citable date. Such problems (or surprises?) are rare, and one feels confident that the data base is indeed very sound. Also frustrating is the fact that the bar-charts do not attempt precision of greater than one month increments; surely it would not have been difficult to present more infor- mation in the bar-charts and the species accounts on arrival and departure dates and peak periods for some common migrants. It is entirely possible that the author has more experience with the arrival and departure of Gray Vireos than anyone else in California; more detail than “March” and “September” would certainly have been welcome. Still, there is much information for the student of distribution, and the lack of some detail does not change the fascinating description of the Deep Canyon transect. The book’s charts and figures are bountiful, attractive, and informative. The graphs of density by habitat along the elevational transect (e.g. p. 124) include a visually pleasing diagrammatic sketch of the habitat gradient. Although the uncredited line drawings of birds scattered through the text vary from acceptable to poor, the numerous black-and-white and color photographs are uniformly stunning. These photographs, by the author and his wife Debra, show a representative sample of Deep Canyon birds and go a long way toward justifying the relatively high price of the book. Many of the photographs appear to be of birds in a photographic cage set-up, but I say this only because they are so stunning and close. The photograph of a Yellow-rumped Warbler ( Dendroica coronata, p. 199) is a “Myr- tle,” not an “Audubon’s,” as implied in the text. A number of black-and-white photographs effectively show the tremendous range in elevation and the accompany- ing changes in vegetation. In summary, Wesley Weathers, The University of California Press, and the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center are to be congratulated for producing a stimulating and informative work. The price, while a bit steep, is not out of line with current books containing superbly reproduced color photographs. 1 recommend it. KIMBALL GARRETT, Section of Ornithology, L.A. County Natural History Museum, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007 94 Those of us with more than just a little knowledge of North American birdlife will unhesitatingly identify this issue’s quiz bird, at least generically, as a vireo, A small songbird with a uniformly deep, non-conical bill leaves no other choice except, perhaps. Northern Beardless Tyrannulet (Camptostoma imberbe). A tyrannulet, however; would have a smaller, daintier bill than the bird shown here. Let me add at this point (in an attempt to further confuse the issues) that although this is a black and white print, the color original reveals little more. In life, this bird was white below and gray above with scarcely a trace of green or yellow. Western Birds 15: 95-96, 1984 95 The first step in keying out North American vireos is noting the presence or absence of wingbars. Because the bird shown here clearly has them, Red-eyed (Vireo olivaceus). Black-whiskered (V. altiloquus), Philadelphia (V. philadelphicus) and Warbling (V. gilvus, which otherwise would be a definite contender) may be eliminated. White-eyed (V. griseus ), Black-capped (V. atricapillus) , Yellow-throated (V. flauifrons), and Solitary ( V . solitarius ) vireos may be rejected because of bright yellows and greens in the plumage (a bit hard to see in a black and white photo, eft?) and/or the presence of bold, sharply defined spectacles. Hutton’s Vireo (V. huttoni) may be excused because it has a stubbier bill, is never clear white below and does not appear “cresty.” This leaves only Bell's (V. betfii) and Gray (V. vicinior) vireos as finalists. Although Gray Vireo fits the basic pattern shown here, it does not show two distinct wingbars and would always show a round, discreet white eyering on a medium gray face. This leaves as the correct answer Bell’s Vireo, subspecifically one of the southwestern races, pusillus or arizonae (the probable race of the bird shown here). The older field guides generally neglected western races of Bell’s Vireo, which are longer-tailed and less brightly-colored than eastern races. The new wave of bird guides has helped solve this problem in part, two of them actually showing western birds. A western type is fairly well done on page 351 of the National Geographic Society’s Field Guide to the Birds of North America (Washington, D C., 1983), although the line through the eye is not strong enough and the white superciliary should wisp out behind the eye, not curl down behind it. Also, the anterior wingbar should be more distinct, as is evident in the photo shown here. The Audubon Society Master Guide to Birding, Part 3 (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1983) contains a photo of V.b. pusillus showing the white eyering broken by a dusky transocular line and pale but indistinctly margined lores that definitely do not qualify as spectacles. The Master Guide photo also shows the distinctly crested look typical of Bell’s Vireo. Gray Vireos typically look sleek and round-crowned, but can occasionally look a bit “cresty," as when scolding intruders near a nest. The poorest representation of Bell’s Vireo in any of the major North American guides is that by Arthur Singer in Robbins et al. (A Guide to Field Identifica- tion-Birds of North America, Golden Press, New York, 1983). The coloration and shape are acceptable for eastern races, but the facial markings and cheek-throat con- trast are unrealistic. Any attempt to use the illustrations in this guide to identify a Bell’s Vireo in the southwestern U.S. would probably result in misidentification as a Gray Vireo. Additionally, pre-1983 editions of this book erroneously state that Gray is “the only vireo that nervously twitches its tail.” Bell’s Vireos are easily as twitchy-tailed as Grays. The revised 1983 edition makes brief reference to gray and white races of Bell’s Vireo, but only alludes to tail-twitching by Bell’s in the text for Gray Vireo, The bird shown here was photographed in San Bias, Nayarit, Mexico, in December 1975 by Bruce Webb. RICHARD STALLCUP, Box 533, Inverness, California 94937 96 Volume 15, Number 2, 1984 Decline, Status and Preservation of the Yellow -billed Cuckoo in California Dauid Gaines and Stephen A. Laymon 49 Post- Breeding Avifauna and Mixed Insectivorous Flocks in a Colorado Spruce-Fir Forest Judith L. Wagner 81 Wyoming’s Juniper Birds Sam D. Fitton and Oliver K. Scott 85 NOTE First Record of Hooded Warbler for the Southern California Channel Islands Brent S. Stewart 91 Book Review Kimball Garrett 93 Identification Quiz Richard Stallcup 95 Cover Photo by Roger D. Harris: Northern Hawk- Owl (Surnia ulula) 17 June 1982, Cantwell, Yukon-Kuskokwim Co., Alaska Manuscripts should be sent to Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 254, Lakeview, CA 92353. For matters of style consult Suggestions to Contributors to Western Birds (6 pp. mimeo available at no cost from the Editor) and Council of Biology Editors Style Manual 4th edition, 1978 (available from the American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 for $12.00). Papers are desired that are based upon field studies of birds, that are both understand- able and useful to amateurs, and that make a significant contribution to scientific literature. Appropriate topics include distribution, migration, status, behavior, ecology, population dynamics, habitat requirements, the effects of pollution, the techniques for identifying, censusing, sound recording and photographing birds in the field. Papers of general interest will be considered regardless of their geographic origin, but particularly desired are papers dealing with studies accomplished in or bearing on Rocky Mountain states and provinces westward, including Alaska and Hawaii, adjacent portions of the Pacific Ocean and Mexico, and western Texas. Reprints can be ordered at author’s expense from the Editor when proof is returned or earlier. Good photographs of rare and unusual birds, unaccompanied by an article but with caption including species, date, locality and other pertinent information, are wanted for publication in Western Birds. Submit photos and captions to Photo Editor. Vol. 15, No. 3, 1984 WESTERN BIRDS Quarterly Journal of Western Field Ornithologists President: Terence R. Wahl, 3041 Eldridge, Bellingham, WA 98225 Vice-President: Laurence C. Binford, 985 Emily Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Treasurer/Membership Secretary: Garth Alton, 17 Camino Lenada, Orinda, CA 94563 Recording Secretary : Jean-Marie Spoelman, 4629 Diaz Drive, Fremont, CA 94536 Circulation Manager: Jerry R. Oldenettel, 4368 37th Street, San Diego, CA 92105 Directors: Laurence C. Binford, Jeanne A. Conry, Peter Gent, Virginia P. Johnson, John S. Luther, Guy McCaskie, Terence R. Wahl, Timothy Manohs, Janet Witzeman Editor: Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 254, Lakeview, CA 92353 Associate Editors: Cameron Barrows, Tim Manohs, Narca A. Moore-Craig, Dale A. Zimmerman Layout Artist: Virginia P. Johnson Photo Editor: Bruce Webb, 5657 Cazadera, Sacramento, CA 95822 Review Editor: Richard E. Webster, P.O. Box 6318, San Diego, CA 92106 Editorial Board: Robert Andrews, Alan Baldridge, William H. Behle, Andrew J. Berger, Laurence C. Binford (Chairman), Jeanne A. Conry, David F. DeSante, Jon L. Dunn, Richard Erickson, Kimball L„ Garrett, Joseph Greenberg, Joseph R. Jehl, Jr., Ned K. Johnson, Virginia P. Johnson, Kenn Kaufman, Brina Kessel, Charles S. Lawson, Stephen A. Laymon, Paul Lehman, John S. Luther, Brian J. McCaffery, Guy McCaskie, M. Timothy Myres, Harry B. Nehls, Dennis R. Paulson, Stephen M. Russell, Oliver K. Scott, Richard W. Stallcup, David Stirling, Charles Trost, Terence R. Wahl, Roland H. Wauer, Bruce Webb, Wayne C. Weber, Richard E. Webster Membership dues, for individuals and institutions, including subscription to Western Birds: Patron, $1000; Life, $250; Supporting, $50 annually; Contributing, $25 annually; Regular, $14 U.S. ($17 outside U.S.) annually. Dues and contributions are tax-deductible to the ex- tent allowed by law. Send membership dues, changes of address, correspondence regarding missing issues, and orders for back issues and special publications to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. Back issues of California Birds /Western Birds: $15 per volume, $4.00 for single issues. Xerox copies of out of print issues (Vol. 1, No. 1; Vol. 2, Nos. Iand4; Vol. 6, No. 2): $4.50 each. Checklist of the Birds of California: $2.00 each, 10 or more $1.50 each. Pelagic Birds of Monterey Bay, California: $2.50 each, 10 or more $2.00 each, 40 or more $1.50 each. All postpaid. Published November 26, 1984 WESTERN BIRDS ADVERTISING RATES AND SPECIFICATIONS Full page 4 x 6 3 A inches $60 per issue $200 per year Half Page 4x3% inches $40 per issue $130 per year Quarter Page 4 x V'/ Xb inches $30 per issue $110 per year Offset printing, one column per page, 4 inches wide. Glossy, black and white photos are ac- ceptable; half-tone screen size: 133 line. Photo-ready copy is requested. If this is not possible, extra charges for typesetting will be made as follows: $15 full page, $10 half page, $5 quarter page. Send copy with remittance to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. A 15% commission is allowed for agencies. WESTERN BIRDS Volume 15, Number 3, 1984 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF BIRDS OF HALEAKAI-A NATIONAL PARK, MAUI, HAWAII SHEILA CONANT, Department of General Science, University of Hawaii, 2450 Campus Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 MAILE STEMMERMANN KJARGAARD, P.O. Box 476, Volcano, Hawaii 96785 Haleakala National Fferk (Figure 1), especially its Crater District (Figure 2), is one of the natural areas in Hawaii most frequently visited by backpackers, day hikers and motorists. The Kipahulu District (Figure 3) of the park, a for- mally designated Wilderness Area, is not open to public access because it contains sensitive ecosystems with rare plants and animals. The park is Maui’s largest nature reserve, and one of the largest such areas in the state. It con- tains many examples of endangered or rare plants, animals and ecosystems. The avifauna of the entire park, which consists of these two districts, is the subject of this paper. No recent studies have focused intensively on the distribution and abun- dance of birds in Haleakala National Park. Dunmire (1961) listed and described the bird species present in Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes nation- al parks, but gave little detailed information on distribution and abundance. The unpublished report (Warner 1967) of an expedition to Kipahulu Valley (now partly included in the Kipahulu District of Haleakala National Pcirk) described the rediscovery of two endemic species of Hawaiian forest birds, but no other avifaunal surveys of Kipahulu took place until we began the work described here. Since our work was completed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also completed its surveys of forest birds on the island of Maui (Scott et al. ms.) , but their coverage of the park was less comprehensive than ours, and they were unable to survey areas repeatedly or at different seasons of the year. In 1975 the Cooperative National Parks Resources Studies Unit (CPSU) funded researchers at the University of Hawaii to con- duct inventories of the biota in Hawaii’s two national parks. The results of the avifaunal surveys of the Crater and Kipahulu districts of Haleakala National Park provided the basis for this checklist. Western Birds 15: 97-110, 1984 97 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK Figure 1. Location of the main Hawaiian Islands, the island of Maui, and Haleakala National Park. 98 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK METHODS The checklist is based primarily on field work conducted in Haleakala Na- tional Park (Figure 1) from 1976 to 1980. During that period of time we spent 184 days in the field: 79 days in the Crater District and 105 days in the Kipahulu District. We have included the time spent by several biologists who assisted us in our surveys (see Acknowledgments) . We also included infor- mation from the published literature, as cited in the text. Nomenclature follows the AOU Checklist (AOU 1983), except as noted. Some Hawaiian names for species follow Pyle (1983). The biogeographic status (i.e., endemic, indigenous, exotic) is given for each species, and was determined from the literature. In this paper an endemic species or subspecies is one whose natural (i.e., deliberate or accidental human influ- ence not involved) distribution is limited to the Hawaiian Archipelago or to a single island or group of islands in the archipelago. An indigenous species is Figure 3. Kipahulu District of Haleakala National Park, with elevation contours (in feet) and place names. 100 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK one whose natural distribution includes Hawaii and elsewhere in the world. An exotic species is one that has been deliberately or accidentally introduced to the Hawaiian Archipelago by human actions. Figures 2 and 3 show details of the two districts, including the place names used throughout the text. We identified five habitat types in the Crater District by using Whiteaker’s (1983) vegetation map for the area. Whiteaker identified 53 plant commu- nity types, but we combined these into five habitat types that were adequate for describing bird distributions. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the five vegetation types we will be using in this paper. Because no similar map of vegetation types for the Kipahulu District has been produced, our discussion of bird distribution in that district is more general. For detailed discussions of avian distribution and abundance, the reader is referred to two additional reports. The first of these contains detailed distribu- tion and abundance maps for the bird species found in the Crater District (Conant and Stemmermann 1979) . The second is a brief report on the birds of the Kipahulu District, with maps of endangered species’ distributions (Conant and Stemmermann 1980) . These reports may be obtained from the authors. ANNOTATED CHECKLIST Family Procellariidae — Shearwaters and Petrels DARK-RUMPED PETREL Pterodroma phaeopygia (Hawaiian Petrel, Uau) Endangered species; Hawaiian subspecies, P. p. sandwichensis, endemic. Recent studies by Simons (1983) indicate that nesting burrows within the park are found on the west rim from Red Hill to above Holua Cabin, on the eastern part of the south rim, and near the summit of Hanakauhi. Although Simons also found nesting colonies out- side the park itself, most of the breeding population of this endangered bird is within the Crater District. Our observations include sightings on the south rim above Kapalaoa Cabin, although a one-night search during the breeding season revealed no burrows. We heard this bird at Puu Mamane about one hour after sunset in June 1976 and June 1977. G. Teves (pers. comm.) heard this species at Fbliku 2-3 hours after sunset in June, July and August 1977. Simons estimated the total breeding population of this species on East Maui to be 575 pairs. Family Phaethontidae — Tropicbirds WHITE-TAILED TROPICBIRD, Phaethon lepturus (Koa e kea) Indigenous. Breeds on Maui (Berger 1982:50), but no nests reported from Haleakala National Park. One io four birds observed frequently in Kaupo Gap, especially west wall, during this study. Birds landed on cliff face of west Kaupo Gap on two different occasions (June 1976, January 1977). In July 1977 three birds were observed at Fbliku and one near Namana o ke Akua. Infrequently observed near waterfalls in Kipahulu Valley (T. Lind pers. comm.). Family Fregatidae — Frigatebirds GREAT FRIGATEBIRD, Fregata minor (Iwa) Indigenous. Individuals observed flying over lower parts of Kipahulu Valley or just offshore of the mouth of the valley. 101 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK CO & CD < X CD z> BC X co UJ > UJ X O X O O x x UJ o w c © o UJ X X o CO •=: CD < X CD 3 X X co UJ > Q UJ CO o «n 3 O o 81 E o -C o in © Q w c o K 6 o' UJ 2 CO g 3! O S g X E o X E 102 Figure 4. Distribution of five major vegetation types in the Crater District of Haleakala National Park (modified from Whiteaker 1983). BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK Family Anatidae — Ducks and Geese HAWAIIAN GOOSE, Nesochen sandvicensis (Nene) Endemic; endangered. May be seen flying throughout the areas of open vegetation in the park (i.e., all but closed forest). Particularly common in eastern half of Crater, especially the Paliku area. Frequently observed in alpine grasslands on Kalapawili Ridge and Kuiki. Total population estimated at 80-100 birds in the Crater District. Family Phasianidae — Quails, Pheasants and Francolins GRAY FRANCOL1N, Francolinus pondicerianus Exotic. Rare in Crater District although probably expanding its range into the xeric shrublands from the Kaupo Gap area. Observed in west Kaupo Gap twice during this study: once at about 1520 m elevation (C.W. Smith pers. comm.), and later at 1770 m (J.I. Kjargaard pers. comm.). Frequently observed on Kaupo Ranch (ranch hand pers. comm ). CHUKAR, Alectoris chukar Exotic. Frequently observed and widely distributed throughout closed native shrub habitats, grasslands and savannah. Particularly abundant in the closed native shrub on the northwest border of the Crater District (Kalapawili Ridge) . RING-NECKED PHEASANT, Phasianus colchicus Exotic. Widely dispersed in all open vegetated areas in the Park and at edges of forested regions. Family Charadriidae — Plovers LESSER GOLDEN-PLOVER, Pluuialis fulua. (Kolea) Regular migrant. Nomenclature follows Connors (1983). Widely distributed in shrublands and grasslands of the Park, including alpine grasslands and boggy areas. Present August through April; some birds may oversummer. Family Scolopacidae — Sandpipers WANDERING TATTLER, Heteroscelus incanus (Ulili) Regular migrant. Observed in streams in Kipahulu Valley, usually near stream mouth, but once as high as 800 m. Family Columbidae — Doves and Pigeons ROCK DOVE, Columba liuia (Pigeon) Exotic. Five birds observed roosting in a lava tube near Holua Cabin (F.G. Howarth pers. comm.). SPOTTED DOVE, Streptopelia chinensis (Chinese Dove, Lace-necked Dove) Exotic. Observed in lowlands of Kipahulu Valley, especially wet exotic forest. ZEBRA DOVE, Geopelia striata (Barred Dove) Exotic. Like the Spotted Dove, observed in lowlands of Kipahulu Valley. This species is more often observed in open fields and along roadsides than in the wet ex- otic forests. Family Tytonidae — Barn-Owls COMMON BARN-OWL, Tyto alba Exotic. Uncommon in shrublands and grasslands (including alpine grasslands on Kalapawili Ridge and Kuiki). Most frequently observed near southeast end of Crater District and near Hosmer Grove. 103 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK Family Strigidae — Typical Owls SHORT-EARED OWL, Asio flammeus {Pueo, Hawaiian Owl) Hawaiian subspecies, A.f. sandwichensis, endemic. Uncommon in shrublands and grasslands, at forest edges and in forests, especially in the eastern part of the Crater District, along Halemauu Trail and Hosmer Grove. Also observed in alpine grassland on Kalapawili Ridge and Kuiki during this study. Family Alaudidae — Larks EURASIAN SKYLARK, Alauda arvensis Exotic. Found throughout grasslands and open shrublands, including alpine regions, in the park. Less common within Crater itself than on the northwest slope (Kalapawili Ridge). Family Muscicapidae — Thrushes, Babblers, etc. MELODIOUS LAUGHING-THRUSH, Garrulax canorus (Hwa-mei, Chinese Thrush) Exotic. Uncommon; several birds observed on Kaupo Trail at about 1200 m during this study; reported from Halemauu Trail head by Smith (1975). Common below 1000 m in Kipahulu Valley, rare in the upper portions. RED-BILLED LEIOTHRIX, Leiothrix lutea (Leiothrix, Pekin Hill Robin, Japanese Hill Robin) Exotic. Seasonally abundant (i.e., present in June 1976 and March 1977, absent January 1977) in Paliku area. Also observed in and adjacent to Hosmer Grove in this study. Reported from Halemauu Trail head, Hosmer Grove and east of Puu Nianiau by Smith (1975) . Probably present though not common in most wet forests. Relatively common throughout Kipahulu Valley. Family Mimidae — Mockingbirds NORTHERN MOCKINGBIRD, Mimus polyglottos Exotic. Occurs in dry forest, grasslands and shrublands, including cliff faces, throughout Crater District. Reported from Halemauu Trail head, Hosmer Grove, Puu Nianiau by Smith (1975). Family Sturnidae — Mynas and Starlings COMMON MYNA, Acridotheres tristis Exotic; A few birds present at occupied buildings in the Park outside the Crater itself (e.g., Park Headquarters), Hosmer Grove and Halemauu Trail head. Relatively com- mon in cattle pastures and campgrounds of lower Kipahulu District. Family Zosteropidae — White-eyes JAPANESE WHITE-EYE, Zosterops japonicus (Mejiro) Exotic. Common (in sparsely vegetated areas) to abundant (in forested areas) throughout most of the Park, absent from grasslands and aeolian habitats (e.g., cinder and rock at Puu o Pele). Probably the most abundant bird in the Park. Family Emberizidae — Cardinals, Blackbirds, etc. NORTHERN CARDINAL, Cardinalis cardinalis Exotic. Uncommon; observed in Kaupo Gap during July 1977. Also reported from Hosmer Grove and Puu Nianiau by Smith (1975). Somewhat more common below about 1000 m in Kipahulu District. 104 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK Family Fringillidae — Finches, Hawaiian Honeycreepers Subfamily Fringillinae — Fringilline Finches HOUSE FINCH, Carpodacus mexicanus (Linnet, Papayabird) Exotic. Common to abundant throughout the Crater District except in wet forests. By far the most abundant bird in shrublands, grasslands and dry forests in the Crater. Occasionally observed in very large flocks (500 or more birds). Uncommon in lower Kipahulu Valley. Subfamily Drepanidinae — Hawaiian Honeycreepers MAUI PARROTBILL, Pseudonestor xanthophrys Endemic. Observed at Lake Waianapanapa, in Kipahulu Valley at about 1700 m, and on Kuiki at about 2040 m. Other recent sightings have been made in the Koolau Forest Reserve just outside park boundaries (Conant 1981, Carothers et al. 1983, Scott et al. ms.). COMMON AMAKIHI, Hemignathus uirens Endemic species; H.v. wilsoni (Maui Amakihi) endemic to Maui, Molokai and Lanai. Uncommon in shrublands on northwest slope (i.e., from Park Headquarters to Puu Nianiau, including Hosmer Grove). NUKUPUU, Hemignathus lucidus Endemic; H.l. affinis (Maui Nukupuu) endemic to Maui. Two sightings in Kipahulu Valley: one (by Conant) at 1460 m in August of 1978, one (by M.S. Kjargaard) at 1470 m in March 1979. These and other sightings reported by Conant (1981). AKEPA, Loxops coccineus Endemic; L.c. ochraceus (Maui Akepa) endemic to Maui. Recent sightings outside of Haleakala National Park were reported by Scott and Sincock (1977). We saw one bird at about 1900 m in Kipahulu Valley in August 1979. MAUI CREEPER, Paroreomyza montana (Alauwahio) Endemic to Maui Island. Uncommon but widespread in wet forests of the Park, in- cluding Paliku region and Hosmer Grove. Somewhat more common above 1000 m to tree line in Kipahulu District. CRESTED HONEYCREEPER, Paimeria dolei (Akohekohe) Endemic to Maui and Molokai. Molokai population extirpated since late 1800s. Found in Kipahulu District and the Kuiki region of the Crater District from tree line to as low as 1100 m in Kipahulu Valley, but usually above 1680 m in the winter months. APAPANE, Himatione sanguinea Endemic; H.s. sanguinea endemic to main Hawaiian Islands. Present in shrublands and dry forests; abundant in wet forest. Probably the most abundant native bird in the park. IIWI, Vestiaria coccinea Endemic. Uncommon in wet forests. Observed at Hosmer Grove, Paliku, Kuiki, Kaluanui and Kalapawili Ridge in the Crater District, and throughout the upper por- tions (above 1000 m) of Kipahulu Valley. Family Estrildidae — Waxbills and Mannikins NUTMEG MANNIKIN, Lonchura punctulata (Spotted Munia, Ricebird) Exotic. Uncommon; observed in July 1977 at Paliku and in Kaupo Gap. Also reported from Hosmer Grove and Puu Nianiau (Smith 1975). Common but not abun- dant in cattle pastures in lower (below 500 m) part of Kipahulu Valley. 105 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK WARBLING SILVERBILL, Lonchura malabarica Exotic. Observed in lower Kipahulu Valley in 1978 (Conant 1983) . No observations made during this study. STRUCTURE AND ECOLOGY OF THE AVIFAUNA Native Birds During our surveys we found 11 (34%) endemic (including endemic subspecies), 4 (13%) indigenous, and 17 (53%) exotic birds in Haleakala National Park. In the Crater District there were 7 endemic, 2 indigenous and 13 exotic species, whereas the Kipahulu District had 9 endemic, 4 in- digenous and 13 exotic species. Table 1 lists the species and their presence or absence in the two districts. Kipahulu District, with its extensive, nearly un- disturbed rain forests, is clearly a more important area for the endangered and rare forest birds, whereas the Crater District is an important area for Dark-rumped Petrel and Nene. Since the arrival of Europeans, three endemic Hawaiian birds formerly found on Maui have apparently been extirpated (Hawaii Audubon Society 1981). The Ou ( Psittirostra psittacea) is likely to have been found in Haleakala National Park. Dramatic changes in vegetation within the Crater District caused by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and especially feral goats (Capra hir- cus) have probably been responsible for eliminating suitable habitat for several forest birds from the Crater District (e.g., Akepa, Nukupuu, Maui Parrotbill and Crested Honeycreeper) . Although these birds may still be Table 1. Birds found in Haleakala National Park, Crater and Kipahulu districts, 1976-1980 (* = endangered, C = Crater District, K = Kipahulu District). EXOTIC (17; 53%) Chukar C, K Gray Francolin C Common Barn-Owl C, K Rock Dove C Spotted Dove K Barred Dove K Eurasian Skylark C, K Melodious Laughing- thrush C, K Red-billed Leiothrix C, K Northern Mockingbird C Japanese White-eye C, K Common Myna C, K House Finch C, K Northern Cardinal C, K Nutmeg Mannikin C, K Warbling Silverbill K ENDEMIC 1 (11; 34%) ‘Dark-rumped Petrel C ‘Nene C, K Short-eared Owl C, K ‘Maui Parrotbill K Common Amakihi C, K ‘Nukupuu K ‘Akepa K Maui Creeper C, K * Crested Honeycreeper C,K Apapane C, K Iiwi, C, K INDIGENOUS (4; 13%) White-tailed Tropicbird C, K Great Frigatebird K Lesser Golden-Plover C, K Wandering Tattler K TOTALS: 17 families, 32 species, 15 native species ‘Includes endemic subspecies 106 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK found within the Kipahulu District, they cannot be seen in the areas where in- terested hikers are usually permitted to go. Native passerines in the Kipahulu District occur from tree line (usually about 2000 m) to as low as 500 m in Kipahulu Valley. The low elevation limit is considerably below the 850 m lower limit noted by the Kipahulu Valley Expedition (Warner 1967) . It may be that this apparent range increase represents a seasonal difference which was not apparent in 1967, Of the four common native passerines in the Kipahulu District, two, the Apapane and the Amakihi, are found in virtually all forested areas above ap- proximately 500 m. The Iiwi and the Hawaiian Creeper were not found below about 1000 m. The Crested Honeycreeper was somewhat more limited in its distribution (see discussion below), and the remaining native passerines were very rare. Detailed descriptions including maps of other sightings of the rare species were reported by Conant (1981). The Crater District provides relatively little suitable habitat for native forest passerines. Wet forest near Hosmer Grove and the Paliku Cabin area have the heaviest concentrations of these birds. However, habitat for nonpasserine native species, especially the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel and Nene, is considerable in extent. Seasonal Variation Seasonal variation was observed in some species. Two species are absent during their non-breeding months, the Dark-rumped Petrel from November to February, and the Lesser Golden-Plover from late April to early August, although some first- year plovers may oversummer. Chukar chicks are com- mon during late spring and summer, whereas the more secretive Ring- necked Pheasant and its offspring are less obvious during breeding months, January through July. Only two introduced passerines show much seasonal variation. House Finches are more obvious in spring and summer because they travel in large flocks (500 birds) during this time. Perhaps this behavior is related to the fruiting times of grasses, important food sources for this species. The second such species, Red-billed Leiothrix, is much more abundant in the Paliku area in late spring and early summer, undoubtedly in response to fruiting of Akala ( Rubus macraei) shrubs and exotic plum trees ( Prunus cerasifera ) . Among the endemic forest birds, the Crested Honeycreeper showed an in- teresting seasonal variation in its distribution pattern. The upper elevation limits of this bird occur at the upper tree line, about 2070 m. In spring months, Crested Honeycreepers are found down to about 1680 m. In the summer, however, they may be found at lower elevations: sightings which occurred in August included several at 1430 m and one as low as 1100 m in Kipahulu Valley. At all times of the year, this species is decidedly more com- mon above 1680 m, and at times seems to be particularly common in a band from the tree line to about 150 m lower elevation. While nearly half the species in the Kipahulu District are exotic, only two (the Japanese White-eye and the Red-billed Leiothrix) are common throughout the region. The remaining exotics are most abundant either in the alpine grasslands or below about 1000 m in Kipahulu Valley, especially in cattle pastures at the bottom of the valley. 107 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK Impacts of Exotic Birds Long-established introduced species form the the largest contingent of the Crater District avifauna, in terms of both species composition and abun- dance. Changes in the structure and plant species composition of the various communities in the Crater District have undoubtedly facilitated the successful establishment of many of the exotic birds. Granivorous birds (Eurasian Skylark, Nutmeg Mannikin, Northern Cardinal, House Finch) and frugivorous or browsing birds (Red-billed Leiothrix, Chukar, Ring-necked Pheasant) are successful in dry forest or savannah communities. Some species appear to be using resources not used by native forms on Maui (e.g., seeds) , whereas others may compete with native species . A few of the exotic species are rare (e.g., Gray Francolin, Melodious Laughing-thrush, Common Barn-Owl) and, at present, may have minimal impact on native forms, unless they are important as reservoirs of disease. However, several species (e.g., Chukar, Ring-necked Pheasant, Common Barn-Owl, Melodious Laughing-thrush, Northern Cardinal, Nutmeg Man- nikin) may continue to expand their ranges, changing the situation. Very little is known of the impact of the exotic bird species on native ecosystems, particularly the avifauna. The possibility of competition exists among at least three groups of native and exotic birds. Ground-nesting herb- ivores, the Chukar and the Ring-necked Pheasant, may exploit some of the same resources as the Nene. The Common Barn-Owl and the Short-eared Owl undoubtedly prey on some of the same mammal and bird species and may compete for food. Two common passerines, the Japanese White-eye and the Red-billed Leiothrix, and possibly the Melodious Laughing-thrush, may impact native forest bird populations via competition for food or as disease reservoirs. Given continued impact of exotic biota, avifaunal structure and in- terspecies relationships will remain in a state of flux. Reduction of exotic species is desirable for the welfare of native birds, but impractical for many species. Native avifauna stands the best chance of survival if pristine, relative- ly intact native ecological communities are restored. ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENT Simons (1983) has provided an excellent discussion of the various factors that must be considered in managing the habitat of the Dark-rumped Petrel. Major problems include predation and alteration of habitat by exotic organisms such as feral goats and various game birds. Predators— both natural (e.g., Short-eared Owl) and exotic (e.g., cats, mongoose) — appear to be an important problem for the species. However, it is not clear how these problems can best be solved. Certainly if resources are available an active predator control program within the important nesting areas should be a high priority. The Nene, which apparently disappeared from Maui in the early 1900s (Berger 1982), is being reintroduced to Haleakala via the release of captive- raised birds. However, our census data do not indicate that these birds have established successfully self- maintaining populations. This conclusion is based on the fact that over 460 captive-raised birds have been released since 108 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK 1962, and our estimates indicate that the present population is less than 100 birds total. Similarly, recent research (Banko and Manuwal 1982) on the status, distribution and life history of this species indicates that the species will be able to establish self-maintaining populations only if appropriate manage- ment programs are implemented. Their results indicate that the primary aim of management should be to reduce predation by the introduced small Indian Mongoose ( Herpestes auropunctatus) . Reduction of populations of exotic game birds which may compete with the Nene for food and reduction of negative impact to ecosystems by feral ungulates are two other priorities discussed by Banko and Manuwal (1982). Careful and continuous monitor- ing of Nene populations will be essential to allow managers to keep abreast of the status of this bird. Clearly this is a species which has not been saved from extinction yet, and one for which intensive management will be required for some time, perhaps on a permanent basis. While direct management (e.g., predator and feral mammal control) for endangered species should have a high priority, management of ecosystems to enhance habitat quality for native birds in general is also of great impor- tance. We suggest that management efforts be concentrated on the elimina- tion of feral ungulates and exotic plants. Another important priority for Na- tional Park Service management programs is their continued support and en- couragement of basic research on the biology of native bird species, par- ticularly endangered species, with emphasis on habitat requirements and fac- tors affecting breeding success. Since we began this research there have been two excellent intensive studies of endangered species that have begun to meet management planners’ needs, Simons (1983) on the Dark-rumped Petrel and Banko and Manuwal (1982) on the Nene. Research is also need- ed on the more successful exotic species, with the objectives of determining their effects on other ecosystem components. For example, Jacobi (1980) suggested that exotic game birds may have negative impacts on vegetation. SUMMARY During field surveys of Haleakala National Park, we recorded 32 species in 17 families. Eleven species are endemic, and contain subspecies endemic to Maui Nui (i.e., Maui, Molokai and Lanai). Of four indigenous species pre- sent, two contain subspecies endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago. Among the 11 endemic species and subspecies, 6 (Nene, Dark-Rumped Petrel, Maui Parrotbill, Nukupuu, Akepa and Crested Honeycreeper) are on the Federal list of endangered species. Seventeen introduced species were observed in the park. Two of these, the Japanese White-eye and the House Finch, were widespread and abundant, but their impact on native bird populations is unknown. Ecological relationships of the avifauna and management pro- grams for the endangered species are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Barbara Hoshida for typing the manuscript, Clifford Smith for assistance with planning and logistics of field work, and Patrick Conant, Terry Parman and Dana Peterson for assistance with field surveys. The staff of Haleakala National Park has been most helpful in providing logistic sup- 109 BIRDS OF HALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK port throughout the project. The project was funded by the National Park Service through the Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit (CPSU contract number CX 8000 6 0031). LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds. 6th ed. Am. Ornithol. Union, Lawrence, KS. Banko, P.C. & D. Manuwal. 1982. Life history, ecology and management of Nene (Bronta sand vice ns is) in Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala National Parks. Wildlife Sci. Group, Coll, of For. Resour., Univ. Washington, Seattle. Berger, A.J. 1981. Hawaiian birdlife. 2nd ed. Univ. Press Hawaii, Honolulu. Carothers, J.H., S.R. Sabo & R.B. Hansen. 1983. Ecological observations on an endangered species: the Maui Parrotbill, Pseudonestor xanthophrys. Am. Birds 37:820-821. Conant, S. & M. Stemmermann. 1979. Haleakala National Park Crater District Resources Basic Inventory: birds. CPSU/UH Tech. Rep. 26. CPSU/UH, Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu. Conant, S. & M. Stemmermann. 1980. Birds in the Kipahulu District of Haleakala National Park. Pp. 67-76 in C.W. Smith, ed. Proc. 3rd Conf. in Nat. Sci., Hawaii Volcanoes Natl. Park, 4-6 June 1980. CPSU/UH, Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu. Conant, S. 1981. Recent observations of endangered birds in Hawaii’s national parks. Elepaio 41:55-61. Connors, P,G. 1983. Taxonomy, distribution and evolution of the golden plovers Pluvialis dominica and Pluvialis fulva. Auk 100:607-620. Dunmire, W.W, 1961. Birds of the national parks in Hawaii. Hawaii Nat. Hist. Assoc., Hawaii Volcanoes Natl. Park. Hawaii Audubon Society. 1981. Hawaii’s birds. 3rd ed. Hawaii Audubon Soc., Honolulu. Jacobi, J.D. 1980. Problems with the long-term maintenance of Mamane (Sophora chrysophylla) in the central crater area on Haleakala National Park. Pp. 167-172 in C.W. Smith, ed. Proc. 3rd Conf. in Nat. Sci., Hawaii Volcanoes Natl. Park, 4-6 June 1980. CPSU/UH, Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu. Pyle, R.L, 1983. Checklist of the birds of Hawaii. Elepaio 44:47-58. Scott, J.M. & J.L. Sincock. 1977. Recent observations on the birds of the Koolau Forest Reserve, Maui. West. Birds 8:113-116. Smith, HE,. 1975. Summary of bird species and status of birds during Haleakala Resources Basic Inventory. Pp. 132-141 in C.W. Smith, ed. Haleakala National Park Resources Basic Inventory 1975 Narrative Rep. CPSU/UH Tech. Rep. 9, Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu, Warner, R.E., ed. 1967. Scientific report of the Kipahulu Valley Expedition. Unpubl. rep. The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu. Whiteaker, L.D. 1983. The vegetation and environment of the Crater District of Haleakala. Pac. Sci. 37:1-24. Accepted 1 May 1984 110 THE BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND PAUL D. JORGENSEN, Wildlife and Natural Resources Office, Staff Civil Engineer, Code 1843, NAS North Island, Bldg. 3, San Diego, California 92135 (present ad- dress: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 3990 Old Town Ave., Suite 300-C, San Diego, CA 92110) HOWARD L. FERGUSON, 7009 Weller St., San Diego, CA 92122 Presented here is the first compilation of published and unpublished infor- mation on the birds of San Clemente Island since Howell’s 1917 account of the birds of the California Channel Islands. The absence of any published synthesis of records since that time clearly invites this update. The majority of observations have been made over the past 10 years by numerous re- searchers who visited the Island. The classic reasons for listing island bird faunas have been amply explained by Jehl (1977) and DeSante and Ainley (1980). But, San Clemente Island presents a special case because the status of many bird species is expected to change rapidly as feral animals are removed. The Navy’s current attempts to remove all goats, pigs, cats and deer, if successful, will assuredly bring about drastic changes to the Island by reversing more than a century long trend of habitat devastation. The information presented here will be helpful in measuring the changes in the avifaunal and ecological conditions of the Island. We only wish there were more data on conditions prior to the arrival of exotic animals. ISLAND DESCRIPTION San Clemente Island (SCI) is the southernmost of the California Channel Islands, its center lying at about 32°50’N latitude, 118°30’W longitude (Figure 1). It is 103 km west-northwest of San Diego and 80 km south- southwest of San Pedro, the nearest mainland point. Santa Catalina Island, the closest land, is 34 km to the north. San Clemente Island is 34 km long, ranging from 2.4 km wide near the north end, to 6.4 km wide near the south end; its long axis runs approx- imately northwest. The total land area of the Island is approximately 150 km z and its high point, called Mount Thirst, reaches 599 m and lies near the center of the Island. For convenience the steep northeast side of the Island is herein referred to as the “east” side and the gentler sloping southwest side as the “west” side. Most of the San Clemente Island coastline is rugged and precipitous, especially on the east side and at Seal Cove on the west side. Sandy beaches are few, the largest occurring at the southern end of the Island at China Cove, Horse Beach Cove, and Pyramid Cove. Two large offshore rocks at the northern end of the Island are also of significance to birds. Other smaller rock islets are located along the western shore of the Island particularly be- tween Eel Point and Lost Point. Geologically, San Clemente Island is described as the upper part of a tilted and gently arched block with a steep east slope and a more gentle west slope (Olmstead 1958) . It is principally composed of volcanic rocks of Miocene Western Birds 15:111-130, 1984 111 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND age. The 20 distinct wavecut terraces on the west side extend up to a level of 450 m. The Island is everywhere dissected by deep, geologically young can- yons, those on the east side dropping precipitously over 500 m to the sea. Apparently, the Island has never been connected to the mainland. San Clemente Island has a distinct maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters. Based on weather records since the 1940s, the mean an- nual temperature is 16° C, with mean summer temperatures of 18° C, and mean winter temperatures of 14° C. The average daily temperature range is approximately 5° C. Freezing temperatures are very rare. Occasionally, when Santa Ana conditions prevail in August through October, temperatures exceeding 38° C have been recorded. Gale force winds are frequent in the higher regions of the Island, whereas at the northern airfield, the average wind speed for all months is under 10 knots. The predominant wind direc- tion is from the west with short periods of northerly to easterly winds associated with Santa Ana conditions. Annual precipitation ranges between 13 and 20 cm. The wettest months are November through March and the driest months from June through September. CURRENT VEGETATION Vegetation and floral accounts of San Clemente Island and other Califor- nia Channel Islands have been reviewed and discussed in several publica- tions (Dunkle 1950, Raven 1963, Axelrod 1967, Philbrick 1967, Thorne 1969, Philbrick and Haller 1977, Ferguson 1979, Brumbaugh 1980, Power 1980, Sward and Cohen 1980). All authors mention the substantial deleterious effects that feral animals, particularly sheep or goats, have had on the distribution, abundance, and condition of the native plants. Virtually no reproduction of woody species has occurred in this century because of feral animal depredation upon their fruit and seeds. Bunchgrass, prickly-pear, cholla, and the less common velvet-cactus are dominant native species. In addition, much of the Island is densely covered by introduced Mediterranean annual grasses, e.g., Avena, Bromus, Hordeum, Vulpia. Native shrubs and trees are essentially restricted to the precipitous eastern canyons and cliffs, but may also be found less frequently in most of the large western canyons. When compared to the shrub com- munities found on the northern Channel Islands, San Clemente’s shrub com- munities are relatively depauperate. San Clemente Island is unique among the California Channel Islands because it harbors the highest number of endemic plants— a total of 15 distinctive taxa. In addition, 41 Channel Island endemics are found there and the total known flora for San Clemente Island is 331 taxa (Ferguson unpubl. ms.) . At least three species have been extirpated either by man or introduced herbivores. Seven plant communities are found on San Clemente Island. Dominant species occurring in each community are Avena barbata, Bromus sp., Stipa pulchra (Grasslands); Lycium californicum, Bergerocaetus emoryii, Opuntia sp. (Maritime Desert Scrub); Quercus tomentelia, Lyonothamnus floribun- dus (Island Woodland) ; Malva leprosa, Salsola iberica (Disturbed) ; Abronia sp., Ambrosia chamissonis, Astragalus miguelensis (Coastal Strand/Dunes) ; 112 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND Figure 1. Map of San Clemente Island showing place names and the location of the Island on the California coast. 113 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND Artemisia nesiotica, A. ealifornica, Opuntia sp. (Maritime Sage Scrub); Salicornia subterminalis, Frankenia grandifolia, Distichlis spicata (Salt Marsh) . The Grassland community, being the largest, covers approximately 45% of the Island. Maritime Desert Scrub, Island Woodland and “Disturbed” areas are next in size covering approximately 35%, 7% and 5% of the Island, respectively. Coastal Strand/Dunes, Maritime Sage Scrub, and Salt Marsh cover 4%, 3%, and 0.2% of the Island (Ferguson unpubl. notes). MAN AND HIS IMPACT ON SCI VEGETATION Man modified the Island vegetation before botanists had visited the Island. We can therefore only speculate on the historical or pristine condition of the Island flora. Unfortunately, goats were introduced to San Clemente Island in the 1800s (Johnson 1975). By 1883, there were 10,000 sheep on the Island (Doran 1980). Britton, in 1897, also noted the presence of cattle on the Island (Doran 1980). Sheep grazing continued until 1934 when the San Clemente Island Sheep and Wool Company lost its lease and the Island was transferred to the Navy. Apparently all of the sheep were removed at that time, but the goats remained on the Island, their population unchecked. Their numbers increased to a peak of 12,000 in the early 1970s. In 1972, the Navy initiated a feral animal removal program. By 1983 there were fewer than 1000 goats left and it is hoped that they will be removed soon , Deer and feral pigs were introduced onto the Island in the early 1950s for the sake of sport hunting. Most, if not all, of these animals have also been removed. Naval use has had various environmental effects on the Island. Numerous roads and rifle ranges have been constructed, a new airfield was built on the northern end of the Island in the early 1950s, and ship to shore gunnery practice directly impacts about 2% of the Island. Some idea of the Island’s vegetation prior to the introduction of feral animals may be gained from the notes of early botanists. William Lyon, who visited the south end of San Clemente Island in 1885, noted great dead masses of Dudleya ( uirens ) which had formerly covered the ground throughout the entire Island (Raven 1963). Today Dudleya uirens is restricted to steep canyon walls and the lowest western terrace near Eel Point. Another report from about 1883 states that Lavatera assurgentiflora (California Tree-Mallow) “constituted an unbroken forest, extending for miles upon the high plateaus” (Raven 1963). Today there are only a few Lavatera remaining. The drastic reduction of these two species serves as a powerful reminder of what the Island once looked like. The reduction of Lauatera probably parallels that of many other plants, particularly woody species favored by goats, that were not adapted to life on the cliffs— the one area out of reach of the exotic animals. At least three Island endemic plants have already become extinct. HISTORICAL REVIEW OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND AVIFAUNA Early accounts of the birds of San Clemente Island began when Cooper (1870) collected several species in 1863. Major contributions since include annotated lists by Grinnell (1897a), Linton (1908, 1909), and Howell (1917) . Howell gathered all available records up to 1917 and reported a total 114 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND of 114 species. There followed brief visits by several investigators up to 1941, but during a crucial period from 1941 to 1968, when several species were apparently extirpated, there are very few records from the Island. Recent work began with Cody and Diamond documenting the presence of breeding species (unpubl. notes 1968). Johnson (1972) examined the origin and dif- ferentiation of resident land birds on all the Channel Islands. His analysis of San Clemente birds was based on existing information. Later, Jones (1975) and Jones and Diamond (1976) reported on avifaunal turnover rates for breeding species on all of the California Channel Islands. Their work was based on extensive field work, including 11 visits to San Clemente Island by Jones from 1972 to 1975. Jones was the first person to make a special effort to record migrant and transient species. Since 1972, the Navy has hosted several hundred visits by more than 25 different bird observers. SCOPE AND METHODS The current list includes all birds for which there are adequate records, in- cluding several tentative records as well. Although San Clemente Island has been a favorite location for pelagic birdwatching trips since the 1950s, the numerous reports of seabirds (particularly in Audubon Field Notes and American Birds) are generally not included in this present account unless they were reported within 1 km of the Island. Thus, pelagic species recorded as “off” or “near” San Clemente Island are omitted. All records are sight records unless noted. Generally, each record for a species is listed when there are five or fewer records. Otherwise, records are summarized. Unpublished records are cited with the initials of the observer. Site locations are used sparingly and only when useful. Nomenclature follows the AOU Check-list (1983). In cases where the existence of a specimen is known and where it may be important in documenting information on that species, the initials of the museum holding the specimen are given in the annotation: California Academy of Sciences (CAS), Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH), Chicago Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM), Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology (WFVZ), University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The authors' work began in 1972 and has included over 150 days of field work during all seasons, with the majority of visits occurring since 1977. Most recent records are by the authors and were obtained during visits of 1 to 10 days, at which time the survey of birds was usually the primary task. Abundance categories are assigned according to a species’ occurrence on San Clemente Island and are not intended to reflect regional status. Abundant Very Common Common Fairly Common Uncommon Rare 200 + per day in appropriate habitat and season 50-200 per day in appropriate habitat and season 20-50 per day in appropriate habitat and season 7-20 per day in appropriate habitat and season 1-6 per day in appropriate habitat and season 1-6 per season in appropriate habitat 115 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND CONTRIBUTORS R. Mitchell Beauchamp (RB), Henry Childs (HC), William Clow (WC), Martin Cody (MC), Robert Cohen (RC), Elizabeth Copper (EC), Jared Diamond (JD), William Everett (WE), Howard Ferguson (HF), David Garcelon (DG), Kimball Garrett (KG), Ken Hyde (KH), Barry Jones (BJ), Lee Jones (LJ), Leslie Jorgensen (LJo), Paul Jorgensen (PJ), Paul Kelly (PK), Hugh Kingerly (HK), Greg Kunz (GK), Jan Larson (JLa), Julian Lee (JL), *Guy McCaskie (GM), Rob Morrow (RM), Tom Oberbauer (TO), Paul Opler (PO), Dennis Parker (DP), Robert Stewart (RS), Larry Sward (LS), Philip Unitt (PU) , Richard Webster (RW) , Sanford Wilbur (SW) . *GM et al. = GM, EC, HF, PJ, DP, RW SPECIES ACCOUNTS ARCTIC LOON ( Gauia arctica ) . Three records: Linton (1909) noted “a few” during winter months of 1908; about 15 on 3 Jun 1972 (LJ); one 25 Jul 1979 (PJ). COMMON LOON (G. immer). Four records: one 2 May 1974 (RS, WC); one 4 Nov 1976 (PJ); two 10 Dec 1976 (LJ); one 13 May 1979 (HF, PJ). PIED-BILLED GREBE ( Podilymbus podiceps). Two records: Howell (1917) reported that H. Wright shot a female on 26 Aug 1908; one 12 Jul 1915 (CAS). EARED GREBE ( Podiceps nigricollis ). Rare to uncommon winter visitor: recorded from 19 Sep to 13 May. Linton (1908) noted large flocks Dec 1907 to Mar 1908. WESTERN GREBE (Aechmophorus occidentals ) . Rare winter visitor: seven modem records from 8 Oct to 21 Apr. Howell (1917) reported that C.B. Linton had seen this species at different times in the winter, although Linton (1909) does not mention them. NORTHERN FULMAR ( Fulmarus glacialis) . Three records: one 2 Dec 1972 no details (LJ) ; one found dead on beach at Mosquito Cove 5 May 1974 (WC, RS); one off NOTS Pier 5 Apr 1981 (HF, BJ). SOOTY SHEARWATER ( Puffinus griseus) . Three records: Miller ( 1936) reported a raft of 200 just west of the Island on 31 Jul 1935; one 0,4 km offshore near Pyramid Point 10 Jul 1974 (LJ); one viewed from several meters in Seal Cove 17 May 1980 (HF, PJ). ASHY STORM-PETREL ( Oceanodroma homochroa). One record: Miller (1936) reported this species attracted to his ship at Pyramid Cove on 30 Aug 1935. BLACK STORM-PETREL (O. melania). Two possible records: Grinnell (1897a) reported hearing storm-petrels at night in Mosquito Cove sometime between 28 Mar and 7 Jun 1897 (he listed this observation under O. melania ); Miller (1936) reported them about the ship at night while at Pyramid Cove in Jul or Aug 1935. RED-BILLED TROPICBIRD (Phaethon aethereus). Rare regular summer and fall visitor: there are at least 1 1 records from 27 Jul to 21 Oct, with four being the highest number observed at one time. Most sightings are from Pyramid Cove which is regularly visited by pelagic bird watchers. BROWN PELICAN { Pelecanus occidentals) , Very common to abundant from Jul to Mar, com- mon Mar to Jul. No breeding records. Highest count is roughly 1800 reported by Briggs et al. (1981) in Oct 1977 during a circumnavigational count. DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT ( Phalacrocorax auritus). Fairly common year-round but no breeding records: 12 modern records from 17 Nov to 30 Jul. Linton (1908) reported a flock of 200 or more 5 Feb 1907 and listed them as fairly common. Possibly overlooked in large flocks of Brandt’s Cormorants. Eggs collected by Babcock 3 May 1914 (WFVZ) and labeled as Double- crested cannot be positively identified (Kiff pers. coum.). BRANDT’S CORMORANT (P. penicillatus) . Abundant year-round, breeds in small numbers. Most numerous Jan to Apr when large feeding flocks of up to 4550 have been recorded. Nesting records: NW coast, small numbers, 1907 (Linton 1908); Seal Cove, nest with young, 9 Apr 1972 (Leatherwood and Coulombe 1972); Bird Rock, 15 nests; Castle Rock, 1 nest; Seal Cove 6 nests, all 10 Jul 1974 (LJ); Castle Rock, 1 nest 8 May 1975 (LJ); Seal Cove, 2 nests; south of Mail Pt., 4 nests; east end of the active airfield, 3 nests, all 15 May 1976 (RC); and Seal Cove, 12 nests 18 Jul 1975 (LJ). 116 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND PELAGIC CORMORANT ( P . pelagicus). Uncommon year-round, no breeding records. Breninger (1904) said “they were reported to have nested,” but he furnished no evidence. GREAT BLUE HERON ( Ardea herodias). Uncommon year-round visitor. No breeding records. GREAT EGRET ( Casmerodius albus). Two records: one 27 Dec 1972 (JLa); one 4 Nov 1976 (PJ). SNOWY EGRET ( Egretta thula). One record: three 9 Sep 1972 (LJ); two the next day (JL) at the opposite end of the Island. TRICOLORED HERON (E. tricolor ). One record: one 20 May 1981 (WE). CATTLE EGRET ( Bubulcus ibis). Regular fall-winter visitor: recorded from 13 Oct to 19 Mar. First recorded 2 Nov 1973 (PJ). Highest single count, 21 on 13 Oct 1976 (LJ). GREEN-BACKED HERON (Butorides striatus). One record: one 12 Sep 1974 (LJ). BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON ( Nycticorax nycticorax) . Three records: 11 on 24 Aug 1894 (Mearns unpubl. notes); one adult 17 Jul 1972 at Wilson Cove Pier (PJ); one subadult 16 Sep 1981 (KH). (FLAMINGO (Phoenicopturus?)] . One tentative record: one near Mosquito Cove 17 Nov 1976 (DG). No other details but no doubt an escapee. BRANT ( Branta bemicla). One record: two 13 Apr 1973 (PJ). GREEN-WINGED TEAL (A. crecca). Two records: one collected 13 Feb 1903 by Breninger (FMNH); one 24 Aug 1979 (HF, PJ). MALLARD (A. platyrhynchos) . Two records: one male 15 Nov. 1978 (LJo); one male 21 and 23 April 1981 (WE). NORTHERN PINTAIL (A. acuta) . Ten fall records from 5 Sep to 1 Nov and one spring record on 4 Apr 1915 (Howell 1917). Highest count 32 on 21 Oct 1978 (PJ). BLUE- WINGED TEAL (A. discors). One record: one male 19 Mar 1979 (PJ). CINNAMON TEAL (A. cyanoptera) . Rare to uncommon migrant: recorded in the fall from 8 Aug to 22 Sep and in the spring from 14 Feb to 3 May. NORTHERN SHOVELER (A. clypeata). One record: two females 13 and 21 Oct 1978 (PJ). AMERICAN WIGEON (A. americana ) . Eight fall records from 22 Sep to 15 Nov. First recorded 22 Sep 1976 (LJ). REDHEAD ( Aythya americana) . One record: one 1-4 Jun 1981 (HF, BJ). This is the second Channel Islands record. RINGED-NECKED DUCK (A. collaris). One record: one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al.). LESSER SCAUP (A. affinis). One record: one female 21 Oct 1978 (PJ). SURF SCOTER (Melanitta perspicillata ) . Irregularly recorded winter-spring visitor: recorded from 2 Nov to 30 Apr. Recorded by Linton (1909) in 1908 (no date). WHITE- WINGED SCOTER (M. fusca). One record: four on 16 Sep 1979 near shore (PJ). RED-BREASTED MERGANSER ( Mergus senator). Rare winter-spring visitor; six records from 25 Nov to 1 1 Apr. RUDDY DUCK (Oxyura jamaicensis) . Four records: three 12 Oct 1978 (PJ); one 24 Aug 1979 (HF); one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al.); one 17 Sep 1981 (KH). TURKEY VULTURE ( Cathartes aura). Uncommon visitor: 18 records from 27 Feb to 3 Nov but never more than 1 individual seen at once. First recorded 25 May 1968 (MC, JD) . Not recorded on the other Channel Islands. OSPREY ( Pandion haliaetus) . Formerly a common breeder (Grinnell 1897a; Breninger 1904; Linton 1908; Howell 1917; Willett 1912, 1933), now a rare visitor. Two modem records: one 13-20 Oct 1975 (RC) ; one 13 Jun 1978 remained 3 weeks (JLa) . SCI had the largest breeding population off the coast of California with 20 active nests found in 1907 (Linton 1908) . Kiff (1980) reported that the last nest record was for 26 Mar 1927 and that the species was declining and may have ceased to breed by 1930. Persecu- tion by humans, particularly shooting by fishermen, appears to have led to their decline, although Kiff (1980) speculated that “some deleterious change in food supply” could also have contributed to the Osprey’s extirpation as a nester on the Channel Islands. BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE (Elanus caeruleus). Two records: two 9 Sep 1981 (JL); the original two were apparently still present on 5 Nov 1981 when a total of four were seen (KH) . 117 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND BALD EAGLE ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) . Once a fairly common resident but now extirpated (Grinnell 1897, Linton 1908, Howell 1917). The last record was for 26 Mar 1927 when three or more pairs were reported to be on the Island (Kiff 1980) . The species certainly did not survive through the 1950s on the Channel Islands, but the date of its demise on SCI is not documented. Between 1 Nov 1976 and 24 Aug 1978 one adult male, two adult females and one immature were released on the Island by Dave Garcelon in an attempt to reestablish them on SCI. The adult male and one of the adult females were recaptured and removed because they did not forage on their own. The other two birds left the Island soon after release and were not seen again. NORTHERN HARRIER (Circus cyaneu s ) . Rare fall-winter visitor: recorded from 21 Oct to 14 Apr. First recorded 3 Nov 1973 (LJ). Highest count was four on 31 Oct 1981 (KH). SHARP-SHINNED HAWK (Accipiter striatus) . Four records: several in canyons near Mosquito Cove Dec 1908 (Linton 1909) ; one collected by Sefton 13 Dec 1925 (SDNHM 10183) ; one 9 May 1974 (WC, RS); one 17 Jan 1979 (PJ, JLa). COOPER’S HAWK (A. cooperii). One record: one 8 Apr 1979 (PJ). RED-TAILED HAWK ( Buteo jamaicensis) . Rare throughout the year, two breeding occurrences: Linton (1908) noted that several pairs were nesting on the Island in 1907, but gave no details; an adult was observed feeding a recently fledged immature bird (determined by plumage) in Cave Canyon 28 Jun 1980 (HF). [GOLDEN EAGLE ( Aquila chrysaetos)] . Two tentative records: Mearns (unpubl. notes 1894) lists this species in his SCI notes for 23-28 Aug 1894, but did not include it in his published account of 1907 or give any details; a Navy research team, working with falcons, reported seeing a subadult on 6 Nov 1974 but gave no conclusive description. AMERICAN KESTREL ( Falco s parverius) . Common resident. Apparently much more numerous at present since they were not recorded by Grinnell (1897a) or Mearns (unpubl. notes) and were reported as occasional by Linton (1908). Fledglings seen as early as 29 Apr (PJ). An index of the current population was obtained on 2 Jan 1980 when 70 were counted during a census along all maintained roads from Mt. Thirst to the north end of the Island. MERLIN (F. columbarius ) . Three records: two seen together 30 Mar to 11 Apr 1915 (Howell 1917); one 19 Sep 1978 (PJ); one 4 Dec 1979 (KH). PEREGRINE FALCON (F. peregrinus ). Formerly a rare resident (Grinnell 1897, Breninger 1904, Mearns 1907, Linton 1908, Howell 1917), now a rare migrant. Five modern records: one 13 Nov 1979 (PJ) ; one 4 Dec 1979 (KH) ; one adult 17 Oct 1980 (KH) ; one 22 Apr 1981 (WE, HF, PJ) ; a different individual 23 Apr 1981, (EC, WE). There are no specific nest records, however, reports indicate that one or two pairs were nesting prior to 1915 when the last known observation of resi- dent peregrines was recorded (Kiff 1980). Kiff attributes the decline to pesticide DDE. CHUKAR (Alectoris chukar). Fairly common introduced resident since 22 Aug 1960 when the California Department of Fish and Game released 176. GAMBEL’S QUAIL ( Cailipepla gambelii ) . Common introduced resident. Probably brought to the Island from Banning, California, about 1912, when 10 dozen were released (Huey 1932). CALIFORNIA QUAIL (C. cafifornica ) . Introduced, but no longer present. Grinnell (1897a) saw 20 and took 6 specimens. He was told that 12 dozen were released 10 years prior to his visit. No other records. VIRGINIA RAIL ( Rallus limicola). One record: one 19 Sep 1975 at Wilson Cove Canyon (LJ). SORA (Porzana Carolina) . Four records: one partially eaten remains 1908 (Linton 1908) ; one immature 21 Sep 1975 (LJ, JLa); one adult 24 Jan 1979 (PJ); one immature 22 Sep 1981 (WE, HF, BJ). AMERICAN COOT ( Fulica americana ) . Rare fall, spring visitor: four fall records from 19 Sep to 16 Nov and two spring records 20 Mar 1979 and 8 May 1981. First recorded 20 Sep 1975 (LJ). BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER (Pluuialis squatarola ) . Fairly common to common migrant and winter visitor. Numbers reduced in May and June, but a few are present all year. LESSER GOLDEN-PLOVER (P. dominica ). Nine records: recorded from 21 Sep to 4 Mar. First recorded 21 Sep 1975 when 11 were seen (LJ). Highest count 18 on 18 Feb 1981 (HF, BJ). SNOWY PLOVER (Charadrius alexandrinus ). Fairly common: recorded from 10 Jul to 8 Apr. No breeding records. Highest count 23 on 6 Dec 1980 at West Cove (PJ). SEMIPALMATED PLOVER (C. semipalmatus) . Uncommon migrant: two spring records 4 May 1974 and 16 Apr 1981 and eight fall records from 24 Jul to 20 Sep. KILLDEER (C. vociferus). Rare visitor: recorded from 9 Sep to 25 Mar. Highest count eight on 5 Dec 1978 (PJ). 118 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND MOUNTAIN PLOVER (C. montanus). Status unclear: Breninger (1904) took the only specimen he saw (FMNH) and said a member of the SCI Wool Co. told him that they wintered in “incredible numbers.” No other records. AMERICAN BLACK OYSTERCATCHER ( Haematopus bachmani). Rare year-round resident. Ap- parently breeds near Seal Cove where a pair was seen repeatedly entering and leaving a crevice on the rocky shore on 27 Apr 1975 (RC, JLa). Highest count five on 10 Apr 1981 at Eel Point (HF). BLACK-NECKED STILT (Himantopus mexicanus) . One record: one 6 Apr 1979, photo on file (PJ) . The second record for the Channel Islands. AMERICAN AVOCET (Recuruirostra americana) . Three records: one 19 Sep 1975 (LJ); one 11 Sep 1980 (EC, HF, PJ); six 23 Oct 1981 (WE). GREATER YELLOWLEGS ( Tringa melanoleuca) . Four records: apparently the same bird 12, 17, 18 Oct 1979 (HF); two 1 Oct 1980 (EC, HF, PJ); one 21 Apr 1981 (WE, HF); one 13 May 1981 (HF, BJ). LESSER YELLOWLEGS (T. flavipes). Two records: apparently the same individual 19, 22, 26 Sep 1978 (PJ); one 16 Aug 1980 (PJ). SOLITARY SANDPIPER (7. solitaria). Four records: one collected 22-29 Aug 1894 (Mearns 1907); one 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); two 5 Sep 1979 (HF); two 12 Aug 1981 (HF). WILLET ( Catoptrophorus semipaimatus) . Uncommon visitor: recorded from 23 Jul to 18 May. WANDERING TATTLER (Heteroscel us incanus). Fairly common most of the year, numbers re- duced in Jun and Jul. SPOTTED SANDPIPER (Actitis macularia) . Uncommon visitor: recorded from 28 Jul to 14 May. Also a specimen (LACMNH) collected 6 Jul 1939 by J. Von Bloeker. WHIMBREL ( Numenius phaeopus). Fairly common from Jul to Apr and rare in May and Jun. LONG-BILLED CURLEW ( N . americanus) . Rare migrant: six fall records from 24 Jul to 28 Sep and three spring records 18 Feb to 30 Mar. First recorded 9 Sep 1972 (LJ). Highest count, 14 on 18 Feb 1981 (HF, BJ). MARBLED GODW1T ( Limosa fedoa). Rare visitor: 12 records from 11 Sep to 8 Oct. RUDDY TURNSTONE ( Arenaria interpres). Fairly common visitor: recorded from 23 Jul through 20 Jun. BLACK TURNSTONE (A. mebnocephala). Common visitor: recorded from 14 Jul through 17 Apr. RED KNOT ( Calidris canutus). Two records: one 28 Jul 1973 (LJ); one 4 May 1974 (WC, RS). SANDERLJNG (C. alba). Common to very common visitor: recorded from 26 Jul to 15 Apr. WESTERN SANDPIPER (C. mauri ) . Rare to uncommon migrant, eight fall records 14 Jul to 19 Sep; one spring record 15 Apr 1973 (LJ); and one winter record Dec. 1908 (Linton 1909). LEAST SANDPIPER (C. minutilla ) . Rare to uncommon migrant: ten fall records from 19 Jul to 20 Oct and one winter record in Dec 1908 (Linton 1909). BAIRD’S SANDPIPER (C. bairdii). Rare fall migrant: recorded from 4 Aug to 11 Sep. PECTORAL SANDPIPER (C. melanotos). Rare fall migrant: eight records from 11 Sep to 8 Oct. DUNLIN (C. alpina). Four records: two 29 Dec 1975 (RC); seven 20 Oct 1976 (LJ); seven 8 Dec 1976 (PJ); one 28 Nov 1980 (PJ). SHORT-BILLED DOWTTCHER ( Limnodromus griseus) . Seven fall records from 24 Aug to 20 Oct. LONG-BILLED DOWITCHER (L. scalopaceus) . Five records: one flock seen and one collected by Mearns 27 Aug 1894 (unpubl. notes); feather remains found 2 Nov 1975 (LJ); one 5 Dec 1978 (PJ); one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al.); one 21 Oct 1981 (HF, PJ). COMMON SNIPE (Gallinago gallinago ). Four records: one 26 May 1979 (PJ) ; three 27 Aug 1980 (EC, HF); one 11 Sep 1980 (EC, HF, PJ); one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et a].). WILSON’S PHALAROPE (Phalaropus tricolor). Two records: one 28 Jul 1973 (LJ); one 11 Sep 1980 (EC, HF, PJ). RED PHALAROPE (P. fulicarius) . One or two records: collected 22-29 Aug 1894 (Mearns 1907) ; two phalaropes seen at a distance 8 Dec 1976 were thought to most likely be P. fulicarius because of the date (LJ) . 119 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND PO MARINE JAEGER (Stercorarius pomarinus). Two records: one adult 18 Feb 1981 (EC, WE); one 24 Sep 1981 (WE). PARASITIC JAEGER (S. parasiticus ). Three records: one 9 Sep 1976 (LJ); one adult light phase 13 Oct 1976 (LJ); one inrun. 20 Oct 1976 (LJ). [LAUGHING GULL ( Larus atricilla )]. Two tentative records: one 31 Jul 1980 and one 16 Aug 1980 (PJ) . Both appeared to be adults with solid dark wing tips, solid black head and all white tail. The possibility exists that they were Franklin’s Gulls as bill and body size were not noted and Franklin's are more numerous off the southern California coast. BONAPARTE’S GULL (L. Philadelphia) . Five records: a wing was found 5 May 1974 (WC, RS); one adult 19 Dec 1976 (LJ); one adult 20 Apr 1981 (BJ); four 4 Dec 1981 (BJ); another wing found 19 Feb 1982 (HF). HEERMANN’S GULL (L. heermanni) . Very common visitor Jul through Feb. Numbers reduced Mar through May. No Jun records. MEW GULL (L. conus). One record: nine 10 Dec 1976 including four subadults (LJ). RING-BILLED GULL ( L . delawarensis) . Three records: one immature 26 Mar 1915 (Howell un- publ. notes); five 1 Nov 1975 including adults and subadults (LJ); one 8 Oct 1980 (RW). CALIFORNIA GULL (L. califomicus). Abundant in winter: recorded from 27 Nov to 1 Apr. Highest count was an estimated 7000 along 3 km of east shore 2 Mar 1979 (PJ) . HERRING GULL (L. argentatus) Six records: two 5 Apr 1915 (Howell 1917); one 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); 40 on 9 Nov 1975 (PJ); five 30 Dec 1975 (RC); one 4 Nov 1976 (PJ); two 15 Nov 1978 (PJ). THAYER’S GULL (L. thayeri). One record: one first-year plumaged bird 10 Dec 1976 (LJ). WESTERN GULL (L. occidentalis) . Very common to abundant resident. Nests at: Mail Point (23 nests on 13 Jun 1979, PJ); Seal Cove (estimate 20 nests 14 Jun 1980, PJ); Coast NW of Cave Canyon (1 nest 9 Jun 1973, LJ); Bird Rock (38 nests 17 May 1980, HF, PJ). Highest single day count was 350 birds during circumnavigation 18 Jul 1975 (LJ). GLAUCOUS-WINGED GULL (L. glaucescens) . Rare winter-spring visitor: six records from 18 Feb to 11 Apr. BLACK-LEGGED KITTIWAKE (Rissa tridactyla) . Five records: one 4 May 1974 found oiled and dead on the beach at China Canyon (WC, RS); three immature 28 May 1975 (LJ); one immature 1 Apr 1977 (GK, LS); one immature 17 Apr 1977 (GK, LS); one 14 Feb 1978 (PK). CASPIAN TERN ( Sterna caspia ). Three records: possibly the same individual on 9 Aug 1980 and 27 Aug 1980 at same location (HF); two 20 Jun 1981 (KH, BJ); two 28 Jul 1981 (HF). ROYAL TERN (S. maxima). Fairly common visitor: recorded from 25 Jul to 28 Mar. Most numerous in fall. ELEGANT TERN (S. elegans ). Three records: three 16 Aug 1969 (LJ); one 9 Sep 1972 (LJ); nineteen 12 Aug 1981 (HF). COMMON TERN (S. hirundo ). One record: one 13 Sep 1975 (Garrett and Dunn 1981). FORSTER’S TERN (S. forsteri). One record: one 28 Mar 1975 (LJ). COMMON MURRE ( Uria aalge ). One found beached 5 Aug 1981 which had died much earlier (PJ). XANTUS’ MURRELET (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) . Rare breeder. Six records: one specimen secured in Dec 1908 by Linton (1909); seen in the summer 1912 by H. Wright (Willett 1912); two adults with two downy young just off China Point 27 Jul 1968 (GM); two adults with one chick north of Wilson Cove (LJ); twitter calls, possibly of this species, heard at Seal Cove on 2 and 15 April 1977 and unsuccessful nest search made of China Point and Seal Cove (GK, LS) . One found dead on beach at Pyramid Cove 17 May 1980 (HF, PJ). The only definite breeding record is by Hunt, Pitman and Jones ( 1980: 462) who reported finding an egg shell of a Xantus’ Murrelet on 1 1 Jun 1977 that had hatched earlier in the season. The egg was in a crevice in Seal Cove. They fur- ther stated that “the almost insignificant Murrelet population on SCI is probably held in check by the abundant terrestrial predators and the lack of offshore rocks.” 120 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND ANCIENT MURRELET (S. antiquus). One record: several seen and two collected Nov and Dec 1908 (Linton 1909). CASSIN’S AUKLET ( Ptychoramphus aleuticus). Four historical records: one or more specimens taken (Cooper 1870); one specimen taken 25 Jan 1889 (Townsend 1890); Breninger (1904) reports that “along the shores and on the water, dead Auklets were everywhere” (he could not ac- count for the mortality among P. aleuticus) ; seen frequently in 1907 near shore, especially com- mon that year on the West Coast (Linton 1908) . RHINOCEROS AUKLET ( Cerorhinca monocerata ). One record: Linton (1909) collected two specimens and found several skeletons on beach in 1908. ROCK DOVE ( Columba lima), Rare throughout the year. First recorded 28 Jul 1973 (PJ). BAND-TAILED PIGEON (C. fasciata ). Rare spring migrant, casual in fall: eight spring records 9 Apr to 8 Jun and three fall records 9 Sep to IS Oct. First recorded May 1968 (MC, JD), WHITE- WINGED DOVE ( Zenaida asiatica ). Rare migrant: 10 fall records from 28 Aug to 8 Nov; two seen 17 May 1980 (TO). First recorded 9 Sep 1972 (LJ). MOURNING DOVE (Z. macroura ) . Common breeding resident. COMMON BARN-OWL (Tyto alba). Uncommon year-round, probably breeds. Cody and Dia- mond (unpubl. notes) reported that “Bob Delong found them nesting in a barn at the old air strip” but gave no other details. BURROWING OWL (Athene cunicularia) . Uncommon fall-winter resident, one breeding record. Recorded from 28 Sep to 10 Mar and several young reported in a burrow in Larkspur Canyon dur- ing summer, 1975 (RB). LONG-EARED OWL (Asio otus). In Dec 1908, Linton (1909) secured one specimen and saw three more in wooded canyons. SHORT-EARED OWL (A. flammeus). Two records: one 3 Mar 1979 (PJ, JLa); one 28 Nov 1980 (PJ). COMMON POORWILL ( Phalaenoptilus nuttallii). Three records: Grinnell (1897) reported hearing poorwills each evening 30 Mar to 2 Apr at Pyramid Cove, with one female specimen secured on 31 Mar; one 14 Mar 1974 (JL); one 24 Mar 1981 (PJ). VAUX’S SWIFT (Chaetura vauxi). Two records: three 22 Sep 1978 (PJ, JLa); one 21 Oct 1981 (HF, PJ). WHITE-THROATED SWIFT { Aeronautes saxatalis). Fairly common: recorded from 19 Feb to 29 Nov, probably breeds. Grinnell (1897a) observed swifts entering crevices west of Pyramid Cove, and said they probably nested there. Linton (1908) observed birds entering crevices in the cliffs near Wilson Cove on 7 Mar 1907. More recent indications of breeding are: 2 May 1974, mating ac- tivity observed near Eagle Canyon (WC, JLa, RS); two seen copulating near Seal Cove 30 Apr 1980 (PJ). ANNA’S HUMMINGBIRD (Cafypte anna) . Ten records from 15 Mar to 12 Feb. No breeding records, but Howell (1917) observed one at his skinning table collecting bits of cotton on 15 Mar 1915. COSTA’S HUMMINGBIRD (C. costae) . Four spring records: one adult male 30 Mar 1897 (Grin- nell 1897); one 24-27 May 1968 (MC, JD); one male mist netted 3 May 1974 (WC, RS); one adult male 29 Apr 1981 (PJ). CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD ( Stellula calliope). One record: one adult male 3 May 1974, netted and released 5 May 1974, photo on file (WC, RS). RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD ( Selasphorus ru/us). Two records: one adult male 1 May 1974 (WC, RS); one male 12 Feb 1981 (EC, WE). ALLEN’S HUMMINGBIRD (S. sasin). Fairly common resident. Nesting records range from 28 Mar to 10 May. The race sedentarius is reportedly present year-round but only one winter record is known: five 10 Dec 1976 (LJ). Either it is very inconspicuous in winter and/or a portion of the population departs. BELTED KINGFISHER (Cery/e alcyon). Uncommon fall, winter resident: recorded from 25 Jul to 21 Apr. LEWIS’ WOODPECKER ( Melanerpes lewis). One record: one 8 Apr 1972 (Leatherwood and Coulombe 1972). ACORN WOODPECKER (M. formiciuorus). Three records: two 19 Sep 1978 (PJ); four 21 Oct 1978 (PJ); one 24 Oct 1981 (WE). 121 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER {Sphyrapicus ruber). One record: two imm. apparently collected above Mosquito Cove 11 Oct 1907 (Linton 1908). The numerous drilling holes currently found on oak and cherry trees indicate that sapsuckers may visit the Island more regularly than records reflect. NORTHERN FLICKER (Colaptes aurafus). Uncommon visitor: red-shafted type recorded regularly from 20 Sep to 22 Apr; one yellow- shafted seen 18 Oct to 3 Nov 1976 (RM). OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER (Contopus borealis). Three records: one 2 May 1974 (WC, RS); four 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); one 14 Sep 1980 (KH). WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE (C. sordidulus) . Uncommon migrant: recorded from 9 Apr to 4 Jun in spring and 15 Jul to 22 Sep in fall. WILLOW FLYCATCHER ( Empidonax traillii). Six records: three fall records 8 to 19 Sep and three spring records 2 to 13 May. First recorded 2 May 1975 (WC, RS). HAMMOND’S FLYCATCHER ( E . hammondii), Five records: one collected 9 Apr 1915 by L. Huey (specimen UCLA); one 14 Apr 1973 (LJ) ; one each on 1 1 and 12 Sep 1974 (LJ); one 1 Oct 1980 (EC, HF, PJ). DUSKY FLYCATCHER (E. oberholseri) . One record: one 23 Apr 1981 (EC, WE). GRAY FLYCATCHER (E. wrightii). Eight spring records from 19 Apr to 12 May. First recorded 8 May 1974 (WC, RS). WESTERN FLYCATCHER (E. difficilis) . Fairly common migrant and summer resident: recorded from 1 Apr to 1 Oct. Most numerous in eastern wooded canyons where up to 20 have been counted in Eagle Canyon in one day (10 Jun 1973, LJ). Breeding behavior has been reported by Grinnell (1897a), Linton (1908) and Jones (1975) but no nests or young have been reported. Once thought to be a separate species (E. insulicola) on the California Channel Islands (Oberholser 1897), it was soon rejected (Grinnell 1905) and relegated to the subspecific status E. d. insulicola (Brodkorb 1949). BLACK PHOEBE (Sayornis nigricans). Uncommon in fall, rare in spring and winter: recorded from 11 Sep to 28 Apr. Breeding status uncertain. The only evidence of nesting was an unfinished nest fastened to the side of a cave on 20 Mar 1907 (Linton 1908). SAY’S PHOEBE (S. saya). Fairly common Oct through Nov, uncommon in winter and spring: recorded from 14 Sep to 11 Apr and collected 6 Jul 1939 by G. Willett (LAC.MNH). ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER (Myiarchus cinerascens ) . Uncommon in fall from 9 Jul to 12 Sep; rare in spring from 29 Apr to 9 May. One My larch us flycatcher, thought to be an Ash- throated, was seen 3 Jan 1980 (PJ). TROPICAL KINGBIRD ( Tyrannus melancholicus) . One record: one imm. 13 Oct 1976 (LJ). CASSIN'S KINGBIRD (T. vodferans). Five records: two 27 Jul 1973 (LJ); one 10 Aug 1973 (PJ); two 12 May 1979 (PJ); one 13 May 1979 25 km from preceding record (HF); one 29 Jul 1981 (HF). WESTERN KINGBIRD (T. uerticalis ) . Uncommon fall, spring migrant: four records 27 Jul to 9 Sep and seven records 3 Apr to 14 May. EASTERN KINGBIRD (T. tyrannus). Three records: one 22 Sep 1976 (LJ); one 13 May 1979 (PJ); one 24-26 May 1980 (JLa). HORNED LARK (Eremophila alpestris). Abundant resident. The resident race, insularis, is endemic to the Channel Islands. It is probably the most numerous breeding bird on SCI. The status of migrant races on the Island is not clear. TREE SWALLOW (Tachycineta bicolor) . Three records: three 30 Aug 1978 (PJ) ; 35 on 26 Sep 1978 (PJ); one 12 Mar 1981 (HF). VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW (T. thalassina). Rare migrant: six records from 25 Feb to 9 Apr. NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) . One record: One 20 Sep 1976 (LJ). BANK SWALLOW ( Riparia riparia ). One record: one 2 May 1974 (WC, RS). CLIFF SWALLOW (Hirundo pyrrhonota). Two records: two 10 Jun 1973 (LJ); ten 25 Sep 1978 (PJ). BARN SWALLOW (H. rustica) . Fairly common summer resident: recorded from 26 Mar to 8 Nov. Apparently breeds but the only nesting records have been one unattended nest found in 1974 122 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND (Jones 1975) and one empty, recently-active nest found 24 Mar 1981 (BJ). Six fledglings were seen being fed by adults 9 Jun 1981 (PJ). COMMON RAVEN (Coruus corax) . Very common resident. Nests are frequently found in rock crevices along the coast and in canyons. Highest single count to date was 193 on 8 Sep 1976 along a 4 km stretch of road (LJ) . RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH (S/tta canadensis) . Four records: one 22 Sep 1975 (U); one 7 Sep 1979 (HF, PJ); one 17 Oct 1979 (HF); one 31 May 1980 (JLa). (CACTUS WREN (Campy lorhynchus brunneicapillus )]. One tentative record: Mailliard (1918) reported that a Dr. E verm an was positive that he saw several near Wilson Cove. No specimen was obtained. ROCK WREN (Salpinctes obsoletus) . Very common resident. There has been an apparent increase in the population since the early 1900s. Early observers (Grinnell 1897, Linton 1908, Howell 1917) all reported the Rock Wren as fairly common. Since 1972, all reports list them as common or abundant. BEWICK’S WREN ( Thryomanes bewickii leucophrys) . Formerly very common, now extinct. Reported as a “very common” or “abundant” resident by Grinnell (1897), Linton (1908) and Howell (1917). Pacific Coast races were described by Swarth (1916). There is no record of the endemic race since George Willett collected a male at Middle Ranch on 17 Feb 1941 (LACMNH). Cody (unpubl. notes) searched and found none in 1968. A Bewick's Wren was found in Horse Beach Canyon 15 Apr 1973 (LJ) . A singing male, assumed to be the same individual, was found 4 May 1974 in the same location and was mist netted, measured and photographed by R. Stewart (Stewart et al. 1974). He concluded that the bird was not the endemic race, but possibly T. b.catalinae from neighboring Santa Catalina Island. HOUSE WREN (Troglodytes aedon). Uncommon fall-winter visitor: recorded from 15 Jul to 3 Jan. First recorded 15 Jul 1972 (PJ). MARSH WREN (G'stothorus palustris). Three records: one collected 13 Nov 1939 by G. Willett (LACMNH); one 23 Sep 1976 (LJ); one 28 Sep 1978 (PJ). GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET ( Regulus satrapa). Two records: one 2 Nov 1975 (LJ); one 11 Sep 1980 (EC, HF). RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET ( R , calendula) . Uncommon visitor: recorded from 23 Aug to 9 May; only one winter record 10 Dec 1976 (LJ). First recorded 14 Apr 1973 (LJ). BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER ( Polioptila caerulea). Five records: one 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); single birds on 14 Apr 1973, 23 Sep 1976, 13 Oct 1976 (LJ), and 27 Aug 1980 (EC, HF). WESTERN BLUEBIRD (Siafia mexicana). One record: adult male collected Dec 1908 (Linton 1909). Unfortunately, we cannot locate this specimen. MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD (S. currucoides) . Irregular winter visitor: recorded from 19 Nov to 2 Mar. Flocks of up to 50 individuals have been reported. TOWNSEND’S SOLITAIRE ( Myadestes townsendi). Two records: one 2 May 1974 (WC, RS); one 24 Oct 1981 (WE). SWAINSON’S THRUSH (Catharus ustulatus) . Rare fall, spring migrant: four spring records 9 May to 10 Jun and six fall records 9 Sep to 21 Oct. HERMIT THRUSH (C, guttatus). Uncommon visitor: recorded from 8 Oct to 15 May. AMERICAN ROBIN (Turdus migratorius) . Rare to uncommon migrant: recorded from 21 Oct to 16 May. VARIED THRUSH ( bcoreus naevius). One record: several were collected in Jan- Apr 1907 (Linton 1908). NORTHERN MOCKINGBIRD (Mimus polyglottos) . Fairly common resident. SAGE THRASHER (Oreoscoptes montanus) . Uncommon migrant: seen regularly in the fall since 1974, occasionally overwinters; one spring record 3 May 1974 (WC, RS). First recorded 9 Sep 1972 (JL, JLa). BENDIRE’S THRASHER (Toxostoma bendirei ). Two records: one 15 Sep 1979 (HF); one 17 Aug 1980 (PJ). WATER PIPIT ( Anthus spinoletta). Uncommon visitor: recorded from 6 Oct to 16 Apr. 123 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND CEDAR WAXWING ( Bombycilla cedrorum). Rare irregular visitor: eleven records scattered throughout the seasons. PHAINOPEPLA { Phainopepla nitens). Six records: one 15 Apr 1973 (PJ); one 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); one 13 Oct 1976 (LJ); two 25-27 Sep 1978 (PJ); one 20 Oct 1978 (PJ); two 19 Aug 1981 (BJ). LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE ( Lanius ludouicianus mearnsi). Uncommon resident and SCI endemic race. The Secretary of the Interior has listed this subspecies as endangered because of its low numbers and continued destruction of habitat by feral herbivores. Early nesting accounts are found in Grinnell (1897a), Linton (1908) and Howell (1917). Howell reported “young strong on the wing” by 23 Mar 1915. The population levels prior to 1973 are not well documented but have ap- parently declined. Howell (1917) commented that “no matter which birds we shot there always seemed to be others that came in to take their places.” The current estimate of the population is 12-15 pairs (Hyde 1981). EUROPEAN STARLING (Sfurnus vulgaris) . Abundant resident: reported as common by 1968 (MC, JC) and abundant thereafter. First sighted 5 Jun 1966 (HC). GRAY VIREO ( Vireo vicinior) . One record: one 23 Sep 1976 (LJ). SOLITARY VIREO (V. so/itarius) , Rare fall, spring migrant: recorded from 5 to 16 Sep and 21 Apr to 5 May. First recorded 1 May 1974 (WC, RS). WARBLING VIREO (V. giluus). Fairly common fall, spring migrant: recorded from 31 Aug to 8 Oct and 9 Apr to 15 May. First recorded 9 Sep 1972 (LJ). TENNESSEE WARBLER ( Vermivora peregrina). Three records: one each 12 Sep 1974, 22 Sep 1976, and 13 Oct 1976 (LJ). ORANGE- CROWNED WARBLER (V. ceiata). Fairly common to common resident. The race sor- dida is found on the Channel Islands, Palos Verdes Peninsula and Point Loma, California, while other races are thought to reach the islands in migration. There are several reports of breeding ac- tivity but the only records of nests from SCI are by Howard (1906) who found six in 1905. NASHVILLE WARBLER (V. ruficapilla). Rare fall, spring migrant: recorded from 16 Jul to 2 Nov and 14 Apr to 16 May. VIRGINIA’S WARBLER (V. uirginiae). Two records: four 11-13 Sep 1974 (LJ); one 16 Sep 1979 (PJ). NORTHERN PARULA (Parula americana). One record: one 2 Nov 1983 (SW). YELLOW WARBLER ( Dendroica petechia). Uncommon fall, spring migrant: recorded from 27 Aug to 6 Oct and 28 Apr to 12 May. First recorded 29 Sep 1972 (LJ). MAGNOLIA WARBLER (D. magnolia). Two records: one 11 Sep 1980 (EC, HF, PJ); one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al ). YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER (D. coronata) . The “Audubon’s” type is a fairly common migrant and uncommon winter resident: recorded from 11 Sep to 2 May but most numerous in the fall. The “Myrtle” type was reported as fairly common in the winter of 1908 (Linton 1909). BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER (D. nigrescens) . Ten fall records 9 Sep to 8 Oct and three spring records 11 to 16 Apr. First recorded 9 Sep 1972 (JL, JLa). TOWNSEND’S WARBLER ( D . townsendi) . Uncommon fall, spring migrant: recorded from 23 Aug to 10 Nov and 14 Apr to 15 May. One winter record, Dec 1908 (Linton 1909). HERMIT WARBLER (D. occidentals) . Uncommon fall, spring migrant: recorded from 7 to 22 Sep and 16 Apr to 14 May. First recorded 10 Sep 1972 (JL, JLa). BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER (D. fusca). One record: one 21 Sep 1981 (HF, BJ). PRAIRIE WARBLER (D, discolor). One record: one 22 Sep 1981 (WE, HF, BJ). No other Chan- nel Island record. PALM WARBLER (D, palmarum). Three records: one 26 Mar 1975 (U); one 31 Oct to 3 Nov 1975 (LJ); one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al.). BAY-BREASTED WARBLER (D. castanea). One record: one 9-11 Jul 1975 (KG). BLACKPOLL WARBLER (D striata). Four records: one 22 and one 23 Sep 1976 (LJ); two 22 Sep 1981 (WE, HF, BJ); one 6 Oct 1981 (HF, BJ). 124 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER (Mniotilta varia). Four records: one 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); one female 22 Apr 1981 (WE, PJ); one male 1 Jun 1981 (BJ); one male 31 Oct 1981 (KH). AMERICAN REDSTART ( Setophaga ruticilla). Five records: two 11, 12 Sep 1974 (LJ); six 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO) ; two 19-22 Sep 1975 (LJ) ; two 22Sep 1976 (LJ) ; one 1 1 Sep 1980 (EC, HF, PJ) . NORTHERN WATERTHRUSH (Seiurus noveboracensis) , Rare fall, spring migrant: recorded six times in the fall from 11 Sep to 8 Oct and once in the spring, 1 Apr 1977, MACGILLIVRAY’S WARBLER (Oporornis tolmiei) Rare fall, spring migrant: recorded from 22 Apr to 24 May and 12 to 27 Sep. First recorded sometime during 24-27 May 1968 (MC, JD). COMMON YELLOWTHROAT ( Geothlypis trichas). Five records: one 23 Mar 1915 (Howell 1917); one 11-13 Sep 1974 (LJ); two 22 Sep 1976 (LJ); one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al.); three 22 Sep 1981 (WE, HF, BJ). WILSON’S WARBLER (Wilsonia pusi/la). Fairly common fall, spring migrant: recorded from 20 Aug to 22 Sep and 14 Apr to 20 May. The first record was 20 May 1972 (PJ). CANADA WARBLER (W. canadensis) . Two records: one male 20 Oct 1974 (JLa); one male 3 Nov 1976 (PJ). YELLOW- BREASTED CHAT ( Icteria uirens). Three records: one 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); one 19 Sep 1975 (LJ); one 21 Apr 1981 (WE, HF, BJ). SUMMER TANAGEK ( Piranga rubra) . One record: one female collected 1 1 Oct 1907 (Linton 1908) . WESTERN TANAGER (P. ludouiciana ) . Fairly common fall, spring migrant: modern records range from 29 Jul to 20 Oct and 21 Apr to 9 Jun. Also recorded 23 Mar 1915 (Howell 1917). ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK ( Pheucticus ludouicianus) . Two records: one singing male 9 Jun 1973 (LJ); one imm. 27 Aug 1980 (EC, HF). BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK (P. metanocephalus) . Uncommon fall, spring migrant: recorded from 29 Jul to 27 Sep and 21 Apr to 11 Jun. First recorded 9 Sep 1972 (JL). BLUE GROSBEAK ( Guiraca caerulea) Four records: two 21 Apr 1914 (Kimball 1922); one 13 Sep 1974 (LJ); and two 23 Sep 1976 (LJ); one female 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al.). LAZULI BUNTING (Passerine amoena). Rare to uncommon fall, spring migrant: recorded from 6 Sep to 13 Oct and 14 Apr to 9 Jun. First recorded 14 Apr 1973 (LJ). INDIGO BUNTING (P. cyanea). Four records: one 3, 5 May 1974 (WC, RS); one 15 May 1976 (PU); two 16 Sep 1979 (HF); one 8 Oct 1980 (GM et al.). [DICKCISSEL. (Spiza americana )|. Two tentative records: one seen at a distance and heard 19 Sep 1975 and three heard 23 Sep 1976 “but no positive I.D." (LJ). GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE ( Pipilo chlorurus ) . Rare migrant: eight fall records from 8 Sep to 9 Nov and one spring record 23 Apr 1981 (EC, WE). First recorded 30 Sep 1973 (JLa). RUFOUS- SIDED TOWHEE (P. erythrophthalmus) . The Channel Islands endemic race, clemen- tae , was formerly a resident but apparently is now extirpated from SCI. Grinnell (1897a) collected 16 specimens from 28 Mar to 7 Jun 1897 and considered it “not uncommon.” He later reported on their taxonomic status (Grinnell 1897b). Others collected specimens but no nests or young were reported. Documentation of the demise of the resident race is unavailable because of the lack of observers from 1915 to 1968 and because of the occurrence of migrant subspecies on SCI. One bird collected by Linton in 1908 was of the race P. e. oregonus\ presumably most of the 12 modern records, observed mainly in the fall, are also of this migrant race. Possible modern sightings of the endemic race are: 2 males in Bryce Canyon 9 Apr 1972 (Leatherwood and Coulombe 1972); one singing male 15 Apr 1973 in Horse Beach Canyon (LJ); and one 9-11 Jul 1975 (KG, no details). As with the Bewick’s Wren and Song Sparrow, the most likely reason for the towhee’s absence is the widespread destruction of the island’s shrub habitat by feral herbivores. AMERICAN TREE SPARROW (Spizella arborea). One record: one 2 Nov 1975 (LJ). CHIPPING SPARROW (S. passerina) . Uncommon summer resident: recorded from 27 Mar to 29 Nov. One winter record: two specimens taken 2 Dec 1908 (Linton 1909). Most numerous in wooded canyons where breeding behavior and fledglings have been observed but no nests found. CLAY-COLORED SPARROW (S. pallida). One record, one 12 Sep 1974 (LJ). 125 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND BREWER’S SPARROW (S. breweri). Three records: two 11 Sep 1974 (LJ); fifteen 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); four imm. 1 Oct 1980 (EC, HF). BLACK-CHINNED SPARROW (S. atrogularis) . Four records: one female collected 5 Dec 1908 (Linton 1909); one heard 2 May 1974 (RS, WC); one 23 Sep 1976 (LJ); one 23 Aug 1979 (PJ). VESPER SPARROW ( Pooecetes gramineus ) . Rare to fairly common visitor: recorded from 1 Oct to 9 Apr. First recorded 26 Mar 1975 (LJ). LARK SPARROW ( Chondestes grammacus) , Rare fall, spring migrant: recorded from 11 to 25 Nov and 21 Apr to 13 May. First recorded 11 Sep 1972 (JL). BLACK-THROATED SPARROW ( Amphispiza bilineata ). One record: one 9 Nov 1980 (BJ). SAGE SPARROW (A. belli). The endemic race, clementae, is an uncommon Island resident, restricted primarily to the boxthorn-cactus covered lower western terraces of SCI. The Secretary of the Interior has listed it as threatened because of habitat destruction by feral herbivores. Early ac- counts (Grinnell 1897, Howell 1917) describe them as common. Hyde (1981) estimated the population at 250-300 individuals. One female of the Great Basin race, A. b. nevadensis, was col- lected by G. Willett on 25 Nov 1939 (LACMNH). LARK BUNTING (Calamospiza melon ocorys) . Two records: one male 10 Jun 1973; one 8 Sep 1976 (LJ). SAVANNAH SPARROW (Passerculus sandwichensis ) . Fairly common migrant and winter visitor: recorded from 13 Aug to 23 Apr, FOX SPARROW ( Passerella ilica) . Uncommon visitor: recorded from 23 Sep to 18 Apr. SONG SPARROW ( Melospiza melodia). The race clementae, endemic to the Channel Islands, is now extirpated from SCI, apparently due to the loss of shrub vegetation. This race was once reported as a common or even abundant resident (Mearns unpubl. notes, Grinnell 1897, Howell 1917). Several modern records which may or may not be of the endemic race: 9 10 Jun 1962 no details (HK); two 24-27 May 1968 (MC, JD): one 9 Apr 1972 (GC); one singing male 14 Apr 1972 (LJ); one 9 Nov 1975, one 5 Nov 1976, one Sep 1978, one 19 Mar 1979, one 12 Mar 1980 (PJ) ; one 27 Aug 1980 (EC, HF) . Two birds observed singing, one by Cody and Diamond in 1968 and the other by Lee Jones in 1973, could be individuals of the resident clementae race. However, Stewart and Clow, during their May 1974 visit, conducted a fairly extensive search and failed to detect any Song Sparrows. The last definite record of the resident race is a breeding female col- lected on 17 Feb 1941 by George Willett (LACMNH). LINCOLN’S SPARROW (M. lincolnii). Rare fall and spring migrant: recorded from 13 Sep to 9 Nov and 23 Mar to 4 May. Two winter records: one collected by J. C. Von Bloeker 19 Feb 1941 (LACMNH) and one 9 Dec 1976 (LJ). GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW ( Zonotrichia atricapilla) . Uncommon winter visitor: recorded from 5 Oct to 9 May. WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW (Z. leucophrys). Common to very common visitor: recorded from 22 Sep to 16 May. HARRIS’ SPARROW (Z. querula). Two records: one collected 15 Oct 1907 (Linton 1908) and one 9 Dec 1976 (LJ). DARK-EYED JUNCO ( Junco hyemalis). Uncommon visitor: “Oregon” Junco (subspecies group oreganus ) recorded from 11 Sep to 14 Apr; subspecies caniceps recorded once on 27 Mar 1975 (LJ). CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR (Calcarius ornotus). Two records: one 16 Dec 1980 (HF); one 15, 22 Apr 1981 (EC, WE). BOBOLINK ( Dolichonyx oryzivorus ). Six records: one 12 Sep 1974 (LJ); one 10-12 Sep 1975 (PO); one 19 Sep 1975 perhaps the same one (LJ); one 13 Oct and 20 Oct 1976 (LJ); one male 22 Jul 1979 (HF, PJ); one 11 Sep 1980 (EC). RED- WINGED BLACKBIRD (Agelaius phoenice us). Six records: one male 10 Jun 1973; one 26 Mar 1975; 65 on 2 Nov 1975 and one 22 Sep 1976 (LJ); one 11 Sep 1980 (EC, HF, PJ); one male 30 Nov 1980 (PJ). WESTERN MEADOWLARK ( Stumella neglecta ) . Very common resident, YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD ( Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) . Rare migrant: recorded from 14 Jul to 2 Nov. One spring record, 28, 29 Apr 1981 (HF, PJ). First recorded 14 Jul 1972 (LJ). 126 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND RUSTY BLACKBIRD ( Euphagus carolinu s). Two records: one collected 20 Nov 1908 (Linton 1909); two 1-2 Nov 1975 (LJ). BREWER’S BLACKBIRD (£. cyanocephalus) . Rare to common: recorded from 10 Sep to 2 May. Recorded annually in fluctuating numbers since first being reported on 15 Dec 1972 (FJ). BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD { Molothrus ater). Fairly common to common in fall especially when livestock are present, numbers reduced the rest of the year. Breeding status unknown. First recorded 17 Jul 1972 (LJ). HOODED ORIOLE (Icterus cucullatus ). Rare migrant: recorded from 11 Sep to 20 Oct and from 16 to 28 Apr. First recorded 11 Sep 1974 (LJ). NORTHERN ORIOLE (I. galbula) . Rare to uncommon migrant: recorded from 9 Aug to 19 Sep and 24 Mar to 13 May. First recorded 31 Mar 1907 (Linton 1908). PURPLE FINCH (Carpodacus purpureus ) . Three records: one 15 Apr 1973 (LJ) ; one 3 May 1974 (WC, RS); one 8 Nov 1975 (PJ). HOUSE FINCH (C. mexicanus). Common resident. California Channel Island birds were classified as a separate race ( dementis ) by Mearns (1898) and have been examined in some detail (Power 1979). Nevertheless, their taxonomic status remains unclear. PINE SISKIN ( Carduelis pinus). Two records: 22 on 8-9 Nov 1975 (PJ); eight 31 Oct to 1 Nov 1975 (LJ). LESSER GOLDFINCH (C. psaltria). Uncommon migrant: ten fall records from 5 Sep to 9 Nov and two spring records 27 Mar 1975 and 11 Apr 1980. First recorded 11 Sep 1974 (LJ). LAWRENCE’S GOLDFINCH (C. lawrerrcei). Three records: one 9-11 Jul 1975 (KG); two 14 May 1976 (PU); three 23 Sep 1976 (LJ). AMERICAN GOLDFINCH (C. iristis). Two records: one 12 May 1980 and two 10 km away 13 May 1980 (HF). HOUSE SPARROW ( Passer domesticus ) . Fairly common resident of inhabited areas. First recor- ded 30 Mar 1915 (Howell 1917). DISCUSSION On San Clemente Island 24S species have been recorded, including five ten- tative records. There is substantial evidence to show that 31 species have bred on the island; however six of these— Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Osprey, Bewick’s Wren, Rufous-sided Towhee and Song Sparrow— no longer nest on San Clemente Island. Three additional species— Barn Owl, Anna’s Hummingbird and Black Phoebe— may have bred or do breed, but direct evidence is lacking. There are no major seabird colonies (see Xantus’ Murrelet account for a possible explanation) , but there are small numbers of nesting Brandt’s Cormorant, Western Gull and Xantus’ Murrelet. The only nesting shorebird is the American Black Oystercatcher. Of the 248 taxa recorded, seven are California endemics while three others, Bewick’s Wren, Loggerhead Shrike and Sage Sparrow, are endemic to San Clemente Island. The once common Island race of Bewick’s Wren ( T.b . leucophrys) is now extinct, whereas the Rufous-sided Towhee (P.e. clementae ) and Song Sparrow ( M.m . clementae ) are still present on other California Channel Islands, but have been extirpated from San Clemente Island. The most compelling explanation for the loss of these terrestrial species is the reduction of brushy vegetation by introduced herbivores. One only needs 127 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND to read Grinnell’s or Mearns’ unpublished accounts of how abundant the Loggerhead Shrike, Rufous-sided Towhee and Song Sparrow were during their early island visits in order to appreciate how much more common woody vegetation was at that time. Mearns reported that the Song Sparrow was “the most abundant land bird of Clemente,” In addition to the loss of six resident species, significant changes in status have apparently occurred for several other species since Howell’s 1917 list. The arrival of Cattle Egret, European Starling and House Sparrow is consis- tent with regional trends, but increases in American Kestrel and Rock Wren may be attributable to Island habitat changes. Mountain Plover, if as abun- dant as once reported (Breninger 1904), may have been attracted to the Island during the brief time prior to 1920 when cultivated fields were present. The arrival and dramatic rise in the starling population will assuredly affect the Island avifauna. Within an hour’s time it is common to see flocks of a hundred or more starlings in the grasslands, along the rocky shore and in in- habited areas. The proliferation of records of migrant and vagrant species beginning in 1972 is a direct result of the dramatic increase in observers and the recent at- tention focused on non-resident birds. This new information is particularly enlightening because over 220 of the recorded species are migratory or wintering birds, including subspecies of several resident species. Even with the increased coverage of the Island, many water birds and vagrant land birds are probably more common than this report reflects. The Navy has undertaken measures aimed at protecting plant and animal species at San Clemente Island since the first Natural Resources Management Plan was written in 1975. The principal effort has been a continuing program to remove feral animals. Preservation of bird species and their habitats has focused on SCI’s federally-listed endangered Loggerhead Shrike and threatened Sage Spar- row. Efforts to protect and stabilize the populations of these two species have recently been formalized by R.M. Beauchamp, K. Hyde and W. Mautz in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service draft recovery plan for San Clemente Island endangered, threatened and candidate species. The plan calls for the follow- ing: continue research and monitoring programs to delineate critical habitat, establish distribution information, determine habitat requirements and establish baseline population level counts for both listed bird species. The plan also emphasizes the need for removal of all feral herbivores, a goal which the Navy is actively pursuing. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are thankful to the many people who graciously provided their obser- vations and field notes (see “contributors”). Paul Collins, Elizabeth Copper, William Everett, H. Lee Jones, Barry Jones, Jan Larson and Philip Unitt reviewed the manuscript and made many helpful and critical suggestions. H. Lee Jones not only contributed extensive field notes but is gratefully recog- nized for the detailed and comprehensive compiling work he did prior to 1977. His work has resulted in a higher level of interest and investigation in the birds of the California Channel Islands. 128 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND Jack Von Bloeker vividly described for us what the Island was like during his visits in the 1930s and 40s with George Willett. He also helped clear up several questions about the whereabouts of field notes and specimens from those early trips. Jan Larson, who is in charge of the Navy Natural Resources Program on the Island, has for the past 10 years made it possible for the many or- nithologists to visit San Clemente Island. We are indebted to the people who helped in museum collections: J.P. Angle (National Museum of Natural History), Paul Collins (Santa Barbara Natural History Museum), Stephen Bailey (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley) , Eugene Cardiff (San Ber- nardino County Museum), Lloyd Kiff (Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology), Jim Northern (Dickey Collection, UCLA), Amadeo Rea (San Diego Natural History Museum), Jacqueline Schonewald (California Academy of Sciences), David Willard (Chicago Field Museum of Natural History), and Ralph Schreiber (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History) . LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologist’s Union. 1983. Check list of North American birds. 6th ed. Am. Ornithol. Union, Lawrence, KS. Axelrod, D.I. 1967. Geologic history of the California insular flora, Pp. 267-316 in R.N. Philbrick, ed. Proceedings of the symposium on the biology of the California Islands. Santa Barbara Bot. Gardens, Santa Barbara, CA. Breninger, G.F 1904, San Clemente Island and its birds. Auk 21:218-233. Briggs, K.T., D.B. Lewis, W.B. Tyler & G.L. Hunt, Jr. 1981. Brown Pelicans in southern Califor- nia: habitat use and environmental fluctuations. Condor 83:1-15. Brumbaugh, R W. 1980. Recent geomorphic and vegetal dynamics on Santa Cruz Island, Califor- nia. Pp. 139-158 in D.W. Power, ed. The California Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist., Santa Barbara, CA. Cooper, J.G. 1870. Fauna of California and its geographical distribution. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 4:76-78. DeSante, D.F. & D.G. Ainley. 1980. The avifauna of the South Farallon Islands, California. Studies in Avian Biol. No. 4. Doran, A.L. 1980. Pieces of eight, Channel Islands. Arthur H. Clark Co. Dunkle, M.B. 1950. Plant ecology of the Channel Islands of California. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions 13:247-386. Ferguson, H.L. 1979. The goats of San Clemente Island. Fremontia Oct:3-8, Garrett, K. & J. Dunn, 1981. Birds of Southern California: status and distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles. Grinnell, J. 1897a. Report on the birds recorded during a visit to the islands of Santa Barbara, San Nicolas and San Clemente in the spring of 1897. Pasadena Acad. Sci. 1:4-26. Grinnell, J, 1897b. Description of a new towhee from California. Auk 14:294-296. Grinnell, J. 1905. The flycatcher from the Santa Barbara Islands. Condor 7:51-52. Howard, O.W. 1906. Nesting of the Dusky Warbler (Helminthophila celata sordida). The Warbler 2(1) :8- 10. Howell, A.B. 1917. Birds of the islands off the coast of southern California. Pac. Coast Avif. 12. Huey, L. 1932. Some light on the introduction of Gambel’s Quail on San Clemente Island, California. Condor 34:46. Hunt, G.L., R.L. Pitman & H.L. Jones. 1980. Distribution and abundance of seabirds breeding on California Channel Islands. Pp. 443-459 in D.W. Power, ed. The California Islands: pro- ceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist., Santa Barbara, CA. 129 BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND Hyde, K. 1981. San Clemente Island Loggerhead Shrike and Sage Sparrow study. Report to U.S. Navy Natural Resources Off., NAS North Island. 40 pp. Jehl, J.R., Jr. 1977. An annotated list of birds of Islas Los Coronados, Baja California, and adjacent waters. West. Birds 8:91-101. Johnson, D.L. 1975. New evidence on the origin of the fox, Urocyon literalis clementae, and the feral goats on San Clemente bland, California. J. Mammal. 56:825-828. Johnson, N.K. 1972. Origin and differentiation of the avifauna of the Channel Islands, California. Condor 74:295-315. Jones, H.L. 1975. Studies of avian turnover, dispersal and colonization of the California Channel Islands. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. California, Los Angeles. 194 pp. Jones, H.L. & J.M. Diamond. 1976. Short-time-base studies of turnover in breeding bird popula- tions on the California Channel Islands. Condor 78:526-549. Kiff, L.F. 1980. Historical changes in resident populations of California bland raptors. Pp. 647-651 in D.W. Power, ed. The California Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary sym- posium, Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist., Santa Barbara, CA. Kimball, H 1922. Bird records from California, Arizona and Guadalupe Island. Condor 24:96-97. Leatherwood, S. & H.N. Coulombe. 1972. San Clemente Island natural resources survey: a progress report to Naval Ocean Systems Center. Report on file, Naval Air Station, North Island, 28 pp. Linton, C.B, 1908. Notes from San Clemente Island. Condor 10:82-86. Linton, C.B. 1909. Further notes from San Clemente bland. Condor 11:193-194. Mailliard, J. 1918. New records for some of the islands off the coast of southern California. Condor 20:189-190. Mearns, E.A. 1898. Descriptions of two new birds from the Santa Barbara Islands, southern California. Auk 15:258-261. Mearns, E.A. 1907. Birds of the Mexican boundary. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 56:140-142. Miller, L. 1936. Some maritime birds observed off San Diego, California. Condor 38:9-16. Oberholser, H.C. 1897. Description of a new Empidonax with notes on Empidonax difficilis. Auk 14:300-303. Olmstead, F.H. 1958. Geologic reconnaissance of San Clemente Island, California. U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1071-8:55-68. Philbrick, R.N., ed. 1967. Proceedings of the symposium on the biology of the California Islands. Santa Barbara Bot. Garden, Santa Barbara, CA. Philbrick, R.N. & J.R. Haller. 1977. The southern California Islands. Pp. 893-906 in M.G. Barbour & J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Power, D.M. 1979. Evolution in peripheral isolated populations: Carpodacus finches on the California Islands. Evolution 33:834-847. Power, D M., ed. 1980. The California Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist., Santa Barbara, CA. Raven, P.H. 1963. A flora of San Clemente Island, California. Aliso 5:289-387. Stewart, R. et al. 1974. The status of the Song Sparrow and Bewick’s Wren on San Clemente bland, California. Unpubl. report to U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. , Office of Endangered Species, Washington, DC. 45 pp. Sward, W.L. & R.H. Cohen. 1980. Plant community analysis of San Clemente Island. Unpubl. report to Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA. Swarth, H.S. 1916. The Pacific Coast race of the Bewick’s Wren. Proc. California Acad. Sci., 4th ser., Vol 6 (4):53-85. Thorne, R.F, 1969. A supplement to the floras of Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands, L. A. Co., California. Aliso 7:73-83. Townsend, C.H. 1890. Birds from the Pacific Coast. Proc. Natl. Mus. 13:138-141. Willett, G. 1912. Birds of the Pacific slope of southern California. Pac. Coast Avif. 7. Willett, G. 1933. A revised list of the birds of southwestern California. Pac. Coast Avif. 21. Accepted 8 January 1984 130 NOTES OBSERVATIONS ON THE DIVING BEHAVIOR OF THE NORTHERN FULMAR TERENCE R. WAHL, Department of Biology, Western Washington University, Bell- ingham, Washington 98225 Northern Fulmars are relatively light weight, aerial seabirds, and are not anatom- ically well-adapted for diving or underwater swimming. However, Fisher (1952) stated, “the literature is full of controversy about the diving of fulmars.” He listed eight observers reporting diving; presumably their reports represented most of the detailed descriptions of this behavior discovered during an extensive literature search con- ducted on the species (see Fisher 1952). Subsequent published reports are few if any. Descriptions in more recent references (e.g. Palmer 1962, Cramp 1977) apparently are derived from Fisher’s synthesis. Ashmole (1971) listed the fulmar’s feeding methods as surface seizing, surface filtering, scavenging and pursuit diving (which is classified as “of minor importance”). Cramp (1977) stated pursuit-plunging is “infre- quently” employed. There is disagreement on the depth to which fulmars dive, with estimates of depths ranging from 18” to 2 fathoms (0.5 to 4 m) or more. On 4 July 1983 1 was aboard the T. V. Oshoro Maru which was leaving a salmon gill-net sampling station at 55°00'N 147°30'W in the northern Gulf of Alaska. About 25 Northern Fulmars ( Fulmarus glacialis), 4 Black-footed Albatrosses ( Diomedea nigripes) , 6 Fork-tailed Storm-Petrels ( Oceanodroma furcata ) and 1 Short-tailed Shearwater ( Puffinus tenuirostris) were gathered at the offal slick which was apparent even on the relatively calm sea surface. This group was typical of the relatively small assemblages noted during my 2-week cruise. As the ship got under way, a dark-phase fulmar flew in and landed within 1 m of another dark-phase fulmar already present. The newcomer lunged aggressively with opened beak and half-opened wings to drive the other bird back 1-2 m, and then abruptly reared-up on the surface and dove almost vertically with wings partially opened. It popped to the surface 6 seconds later, swallowed something, waited perhaps 4 seconds, and dove again for 6 seconds. I then lost track of the bird as the ship moved off station. After I recovered from the surprise of actually seeing a fulmar dive, questions came to mind. How frequently do fulmars dive? Under what conditions are fulmars likely to dive? I contacted other observers who have watched numbers of fulmars feeding at sea and found two who recall seeing fulmars dive. R.G.B. Brown (pers. comm.) reported seeing fulmars dive on three occasions in the Greenland Sea and Baffin Bay. Single birds on two occasions and two birds on another submerged for 3 to 5 seconds while feeding apparently on planktonic items. In all cases birds dove from the surface. A bird submerged for 3 seconds was feeding where Black-legged Kittiwakes ( Rissa tridactyla) were plunging and submerging to tails and wingtips— a depth of about 40-50 cm. In the North Pacific, H. Ogi (pers. comm.) experimented with baits suspended from a floating wooden bar at seven depths, ranging from 20-200 cm. Many fulmars were unwilling to approach the floating bar and birds were frightened away after one became hooked on the line. Some fulmars dove for bait during three “sets,” but they did not try for bait at a depth greater than 80 cm. Fisher (1952) thought that fulmars will dive, “with enough stimulus, e.g. for light- coloured fatty stuff.” I have seen frenzied fulmars rush to choice, just-jettisoned fish entrails only to watch the food sink, just out of reach, with no more effort employed by Western Birds 15:131-133, 1984 131 NOTES the birds than submerging head and neck before giving up. The bird I saw dive for 6 seconds was probably well below the surface and could have retrieved large amounts of food other fulmars missed. Is food normally so plentiful that individual fulmars become sufficiently motivated to dive only when desperately hungry? The aggressive feeding behavior displayed by fulmars on many occasions may make it hard to distinguish extremely hungry birds. And of course certain choice food items might “turn-on” any fulmar to diving. This possibility should be investigated. “Natural” foods taken by fulmars (see Fisher 1952) apparently come from the surface layer. The relative importance of nocturnal feeding by fulmars and other seabirds, particularly pelagic species, is almost unknown. Possibly fisheries discards are less important in the fulmar’s diet under many circumstances than is often believed. Perhaps enough of this offal is available at the surface so that what sinks is usually unimportant and not worth the effort of underwater retrieval. Do fulmars dive only when more agile underwater retrievers (e.g. shearwaters) are not present? Fulmars feeding at vessels in areas where aggressive surface-feeders like gulls and underwater feeders like shearwaters are present can be seen to be at an ob- vious competitive disadvantage because they neither feed by “dipping” from flight nor fly as adeptly in close quarters as gulls, nor do they (normally) catch or retrieve items underwater like shearwaters. Fulmars often appear to compensate for this disadvan- tage by crowding closer than other species and aggressively contending for whatever comes within reach. Even where there was no subsurface avian competition for sink- ing food, however, I have seen thousands of fulmars feeding at pelagic sources of discards and have witnessed just this one incident of diving. And when this incident took place there was much less competition for discards than on many other occa- sions. Several times I have observed adult Glaucous-winged Gulls ( Laws glaucescens) diving from about 1 m above the surface and (barely) submerge while attempting to retrieve sinking food. However, I observed this behavior only when very few other birds were competing for the food. To gulls and fulmars, diving is likely only margin- ally worthwhile energetically. Are these birds more inclined to dive when competition is minimal or lacking? Have fulmars learned to dive only recently, with the advent of “industrial fishing?” While this presumably could have been the case in the Atlantic (see Fisher 1952), observations by Anthony (1895) and Linton (1908) would seem to predate intense, large scale effort in the Pacific. It is clear that this aggressive, successful species, with its long-documented association with man, has long included at least some individuals that could and did dive. Fulmars have been known to dive for many generations, and diving is not restricted to one population or another. Have only certain individuals adopted the diving technique? Due to the apparent in- frequency of encounters with diving fulmars, this question is likely unanswerable. The value of diving behavior may be marginal enough for fulmars so as not to reflect in its spread throughout a population. The reports given here indicate fulmars may dive at natural feeds and also for fishing discards, and to relatively shallow depths. Further experiments would be of great in- terest. Descriptions of prey taken during diving are needed to document the type of “pursuit diving” employed Do fulmars actually “pursue” or do they simply extend their reach toward relatively inactive plankton? In the case of discards, perhaps “retrieval diving” is what fulmars actually perform. Perhaps, though it seems unlikely, other observers are seeing lots of fulmars diving. Response to this note may document and explain the extent of this “controversial” behavior in a species otherwise well-known. Thanks are due the Faculty of Fisheries, Hokkaido University, Dr. H. Ogi, and Capt. T. Fujii of the T. V. Oshoro Maru for my attendance on several research cruises in the North Pacific. J.R. Jehl, Jr., and S.M. Speich very helpfully reviewed an early version of this note. R.G.B. Brown and H. Ogi also kindly furnished field notations. 132 NOTES LITERATURE CITED Anthony, A W. 1895. The fulmars of southern California. Auk 12:100. Ashmole, N.P. 1971. Seabird ecology and the marine environment. Pp. 223-286 in D.S. Farner, J.R. King & K.C. Parkes, eds., Avian biology, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York. Cramp, S., ed. 1977. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The birds of the western Palearctic, Vol 1. Oxford Univ. Press New York. Fisher, J. 1952. The fulmar. Collins, London. Linton, C.B. 1908. Pacific fulmars and Pacific kittiwakes at Long Beach. Condor 10:238. Palmer, R.S., ed. 1962. Handbook of North American birds, Vol. 1. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Accepted 26 April 1984 Northern Fulmar Sketch by Tim Manolis 133 NOTES NOTABLE RECORDS OF BIRDS FROM EASTERN SONORA, MEXICO THOMAS O. CLARK, Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85281 (present address: 118 Lynda Lane, Queen Valley, Apache Junction, Arizona 85220) A literature survey of bird distribution in Sonora, Mexico, indicates a conspicuous lack of information from east-central portions of the state. Most ornithologists travel via Hermosillo to Guaymas, thence southeast along the coast to more tropically vegetated southern states (as outlined by Alden 1969) . Exploring many areas of east Sonora requires a four-wheel drive vehicle because of rough mountainous dirt roads. This inaccessibility enhanced by poor maps, is a major reason for avoidance by ornithologists. From 27 April to 8 May 1978, Dean Hendrickson and 1 observed birds in Sonora while on a trip to collect fish in the Rio Yaqui drainage (itinerary and detailed maps in Hendrickson et al. 1980) . Historical records are from van Rossem (1945) , Friedmann et al. (1950), and Miller et al. (1957), unless noted otherwise. We found 102 species; ac- counts of the most noteworthy records follow. On 29 April we observed an adult White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albicaudatus) for several minutes as it flew over oak ( Quercus spp.) woodlands 20 km north of Nacozari de Garcia (30°29’N, 109°38’W, elev. 1500 m [Figure 1]). The white underparts and contrasting thin black terminal tail band of an adult were apparent as the bird soared in early morning ther- mal air currents. Although the White-tailed Hawk has been recorded farther north, sightings have been scarce, warranting its inclusion in this note. The northernmost previous record of Military Macaws (Ara militaris) in Sonora is a 1931 sighting near Soyopa (van Rossem 1945). Don Ducote of the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum saw two Military Macaws in a Kapok tree (Ceiba acuminata ) 11 km from El Novillo on the Bacanora-Sahuaripa road on 27 April 1977 (Gale Monson pers. comm.). On 7 May we observed and photographed two Military Macaws in a side canyon of the Rio Yaqui (29°25’N, 109°15’W, elev. 500 m). We were first attracted by a flash of color and raucous calls when the birds flew over our vehicle. As we walked up the canyon, we saw two birds perched in an Acacia. The birds became alarmed at our approach, dove at us, and flew down the canyon. The sighting was approximately 5 km from the Rio Yaqui along the Sahuaripa-Diviaderos road as it climbs west from the river. The side canyon con- tained a lush growth of vegetation consisting of Fremont Cottonwood ( Populus fremontii) , Acacias, fan palms ( Erythea aculeata) , Common Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora ) , seep-willow (Baccharis salicifolia) and numerous unidentified shrubs and forbs. We searched for a nest to determine if the birds were a breeding pair but found none. These recent sightings in- dicate that Military Macaws’ northern range may follow the Rio Yaqui canyon, and quite possibly the Rio Moctezuma canyon between San Pedro and Moctezuma. Five other Military Macaws were seen farther south, near Nuri. Blue Mockingbirds (Melanotis caerulescens) are fairly common in thick vegetation in the extreme southeast corner of Sonora. We observed a Blue Mockingbird on 6 May near Santo Tomas (28°57’N, 109°12’W, elev. 460 m). It was perched low on a branch in a mesquite thicket with a dense forb undergrowth along the Rio Sahuaripa 10 km south of Sahuaripa. This species probably reaches its northern limits somewhere in the dense thorn forest between Nuri and Alamos. The bird sighted at Santo Tomas may have wandered down the south-to- north flowing Rio Sahuaripa. Tropical Parulas ( Parula pitiayumi ) have been recorded in Sonora from the southeast corner and as an isolated population near La Chumata mine on 26 May 1905 55 km north of Ures (Thayer and Bangs 1906, van Rossem 1945) . On 6 May we observed a group of 10-15 Tropical Parulas in early morning, foraging among mesquite along Rio Sahuaripa 5 km south of Guisatnopa (28°38’N, 109°07’W, elev. 690 m). This sighting, which may 134 Western Birds 15:134-136, 1984 NOTES have been of late migrants going north, was within the large void between La Chumata and Alamos. A Flame-colored Tanager ( Piranga bidentata) collected at Alamos on 30 March 1888 and two other southeastern sightings are the only Sonoran records for the species (van Rossem 1945) On 4 May we observed a single Flame-colored Tanager near Movas 40 km northwest of Nuri along a side canyon of the Rio Chico (28°12’N, 109°28’W, elev. 300 m). The brilliant red individual was first seen 15 m away perched on a thorny tree. White wing bars and tail edges became evident as it flew 10 m to another tree. The habitat was thorn forest on volcanic ridges leading down to lush cottonwood (Populus monticola ) and willow (Salix spp.) riparian woodland along Rio Chico. Although there is one breeding record for Sonora (Miller et al. 1957), Flame-colored Tanagers are still rare in the state and sightings are probably of vagrants. In the same canyon where we sighted the Military Macaws, we observed a solitary fully adult male Orchard Oriole ( Icterus spurius) . Orchard Orioles were unrecorded in Sonora (Miller et al. 1957) until specimens were taken from the southeast in late 1950s (Hubbard and Crossin 1974) During spring 1979 and 1980, Scott Terrill and Kenneth Rosenberg (pers. comm.) saw several Orchard Orioles in riparian vegetation along the Rio Sonora near Ures. These sightings indicate this species may be expanding its range northwesterly from Chichuahua and Sinaloa, where nesting has been recorded. 135 NOTES The east central portion of Sonora is very poorly known biologically; as evidence, several undescribed species and subspecies of fish were collected from the area during 1978 (Hen- drickson et al. 1980) , No undescribed species of birds are likely but many species reach their northwestern range limit in Sonora. Owing to the lack of information, evaluation of sightings of uncommon birds is difficult and based primarily on conjecture. Some species may be dependent on thorn forest and associated vegetation types but occasionally wander, whereas others could be in the process of expanding their ranges. I wish to thank Gale Monson and Dale Zimmerman for their informative comments and review, and Kenneth Rosenberg for his initial encouragement to write this note. This trip was sponsored by Arizona State University from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contract. LITERATURE CITED Alden, P. 1969. Finding the birds in western Mexico. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. Friedmann, H., L. Griscom & R.T. Moore. 1950. Distributional check-list of the birds of Mexico, Part I. Pac. Coast Avif. 29. Hendrickson, D.A., W.L. Minckley, R.R. Miller, D.J. Siebert & P.H. Minckley. 1980. Fishes of the Rio Yaqui basin, Mexico and United States. Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci. 15(3): 1-106. Hubbard, J.P. & R.S, Crossin. 1974. Notes on northern Mexican birds— An expedition report. Nemouria, Occas. Pap. Delaware Mus. Nat. Hist. 14. Miller, A.H., H. Friedmann, L. Griscom & R.T. Moore. 1957. Distributional check-list of the birds of Mexico, Part II. Pac. Coast Avif. 33. Thayer, J.E. & O. Bangs. 1906. Breeding birds of the Sierra de Antonez, north central Sonora. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 19:17-22. van Rossem, A.J. 1945. A distributional survey of the birds of Sonora, Mexico. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Louisiana State Univ. 21. Accepted 5 December 1983 Blue Mockingbird Sketch by Narca Moore-Craig 136 BOOK REVIEW Island Biogeography in the Sea of Cortez. Case, Ted J. and Martin L. Cody, eds. 1983. University of California Press, 2120 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94720. xii + 508 pp., 72 line drawings, 11 halftones, 33 tables. $55.00. The birth of this volume was a symposium on the same subject at the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1977. That this title has come along so many years later is a blessing, presumably to be attributed to the editors. For once the papers from a sym- posium have been rewritten, reviewed and assembled with the idea that a collabora- tion can be coherent and cohesive. One would not expect 15 writers to agree on everything; they certainly do not. But at least they are discussing the same region and addressing some of the same issues. Individual writers were given the choice between using “Sea of Cortez” and “Gulf of California” (so the reviewer gets his choice, too) . Whichever name is used, the body of water is the 1070 km-long, 100 to 200 km-wide division between the peninsula of Baja California and mainland Mexico. The specific focus was the islands, of which there are about 25 major ones, including 67 km-long Angel de la Guarda (elevation 1315 m) and Tiburon with an area of 1,000 km 2 , and about 10 very small islets. These desert islands are, on relative terms, some of the most pristine in the world. The species of plants and vertebrates present on the various islands are now reasonably well known, partly through the efforts of the authors. Many gaps remain (and are freely admitted), and with basic inventories only just completed, one can imagine the potential for the study of the biology of individual species and of community ecology. Discussions of invertebrates are not included. Two chapters deal with birds. Chapter 8 (pp. 210-245) by Martin L. Cody is on the land birds. Cody begins the chapter with a discussion of the potential sources of the island avifaunas, especially the Sonoran desert which borders the Gulf of California. The Sonoran desert as a whole does not have a particularly distinct avifauna; most species occur widely in other deserts or other habitats. The “Gilded” Flicker is the closest to being typical of the region and endemic. Because the islands are low and dry, montane colonists need not apply, and the nearby montane regions come in for only limited discussions. Also included is a brief but adequate discussion of patterns of (primarily) subspecific differentiation along Baja, as well as other oddities of the peninsular avifauna. To provide comparative data for his investigations of the islands, Cody did some basic census work on the mainland (the species lists are in the appendices) . Seven sites are in the typical desert habitats around the northern and central Gulf, and four in the thorn scrub of the summer rain region on both sides of the mouth of the Gulf. Not surprisingly, the birds of the islands are drawn from the surrounding deserts. No species are endemic to the islands, and only a few weakly differentiated races are unique to the islands. It is always interesting to see which species are absent: Greater Roadrunner is not a surprise, but the absence of Cactus Wren from all but one of the cactus-rich islands is startling. Perusal of the species lists reveals other interesting occurrences — for instance, Great Horned Owl, which has not colonized the Channel Islands of California, is present on 10 of the large islands. Much of the purpose of this volume is to discuss island biogeography, and Cody devotes most of his chapter to a discussion of the observed patterns. While I am not facile with the mathematical models of this discipline, most of Cody’s conclusions seemed reasonable. A latitudinal change in the species composition is related to the brushier thorn scrub habitats of the southern islands and adjacent source areas. The richest island, Tiburon, is the largest, lies only 2 km from the mainland, and was formerly connected by a landbridge (current channel depth: 3 fathoms). Cody found that 79% of the variability in bird species could be attributed to the area of the island. Distance from shore (never too far in the Gulf anyway) and the former Western Birds 15:137-140, 1984 137 presence of a landbridge were relatively unimportant. For a given size of island, the species present are quite predictable. As island size increases, there are changes in hydrology and thereby floristic diversity, which is in turn related to an increased number of bird species present; Cody attempts, with mixed success, to develop a stadial model for this relationship. Species present on small islands are also present on large islands; the presence of a habitat is more important than the presence (or absence) of other species. Undoubtedly extinctions occur from time to time, but in most cases there is probably rapid replacement by the same species. It is also impor- tant to realize that in this desert avifauna, few taxonomically closely related species act as substitutes; there are few “either/ or” situations, although obviously some reduc- tions occur in groups such as wrens and thrashers from mainland to island sites. A couple pages of discussion of migrant landbirds contribute little. Appendix 8.8 gives a number of records island by island for migrants and wintering species. Although the records increase substantially the meager amount published previously, Cody does not indicate which were recorded in spring or fall, a fact of considerable im- portance, given the different routes some species take coming and going. Black- lored and white-lored White-crowned Sparrows can be easily separated as adults; such in- formation would provide preliminary sorting of the populations of that species. The presence of wintering Savannah Sparrows in the intertidal zone is nice, but are they small-billed or large-billed salt marsh forms, or pale interior birds? Migration was not the main focus of the author, nor has he had the chance to do extensive field work on all the islands; the subject of trans-gulf migration (both directions in both seasons) of landbirds is an exciting field deserving much study. There are other quibbles. I am uncomfortable with statements such as the one that Xantus’ Hummingbird complements “Costa’s hummingbird in a role comparable to that of the black-chinned hummingbird elsewhere.” Some of the range maps (e.g. Xantus’ Hummingbird and Bendire’s Thrasher) seem a bit generous. However, the factual basis is sufficiently solid, and most of the conclusions have been erected on firm scaffolding. This interesting and thought provoking article should leave most readers much better informed about the biogeography of the entire region. Chapter 9 (pp. 246-264) by Daniel Anderson is about the seabirds. To some extent it does not fit into the rest of the book. Seabirds are extremely mobile animals which seek oceanic islands for refuge and often to avoid the dangers of the mainland. Thus, many of the central concerns of island biogeographers expressed in other chapters simply do not apply. However, the seabirds are a conspicuous and well publicized part of the gulf biota, and the chapter is a welcome one. Anderson briefly considers biogeography. Considering the Gulf of California as a region, only 1 of the 14 breeding seabirds is endemic: the Yellow-footed Gull. If the region on the western side of Baja is included, the figure becomes 4 of 14: Heermann’s Gull, Elegant Tern and Craven’s Murrelet are added to the total. Even so, the percentage of endemism is substantially less than that of the San Diego pro- vince/California region. In terms of origin, Anderson calculates that 73% of the breeding birds of the Gulf of California have a southern, warm water origin, whereas 27% are of northerly, cold water affinities. Many of the breeding species largely leave the Gulf after breeding, including post-breeding dispersal north along the Pacific Coast and migration south to wintering grounds. Anderson reviews methods of feeding, the typically estuarine species which breed on island shorelines, and the characters that make islands suitable breeding sites. He also points toward some basic subjects still in need of study, such as the degree of com- petition between Black and Least storm-petrels, or Royal and Elegant terns, and the adaptations of some nesting species to desert conditions. Three appendices sum- marize characteristic feeding areas and methods, food, nesting substrate, general range in the Gulf and the number of islands used for breeding, and general population estimates, and present an assessment of the importance of the Gulf as a breeding 138 ground for a given species and/ or race. I found the estimates of population size par- ticularly interesting, and some of Anderson’s information on these topics will prove useful to conservationists wishing to extend the limited protection now received by the islands in the Gulf. Anderson’s chapter is mostly a review, although his field work has added to what was known. Clearly much remains to be learned about seabirds in this region. I was somewhat frustrated by this chapter, partly because a number of topics were only men- tioned in passing. The statement that “In fact, I have studied at least six seabird species that freely migrate across the peninsula (Anderson, field notes)’’ leaves me climbing up the wall — which ones? Elegant Tern has not been conclusively recorded in the interior of the southwestern U.S., and yet is common in the northern Gulf; I have always wondered if the birds breeding on Isla Rasa reached California via Cabo San Lucas or by hopping Baja California. Also, the importance of the Gulf as a wintering ground for many waterbirds and as a corridor for migration deserved more attention. Although some of these topics are only distantly related to island biogeography, they are related to the Gulf as a whole, and I suspect that the author knows a great deal about these subjects, subjects which arouse the curiosity of many. In addition to the two chapters on birds, there are ten other chapters on which I shall comment briefly. I wish to stress that the subject of the title, the islands of the Gulf, may seem limiting because few people will actually visit the islands. However, biogeography must deal with the source areas, which principally include Baja Califor- nia, Sonora, Sinaloa and the Sonoran desert portions of the United States. Many of the chapters serve to introduce these vast and fascinating areas in as much detail as the islands themselves. Chapter 1 by George E, Lindsay is a brief history of the scientific exploration of the region and introduces the reader to some of the major figures and important institu- tions. A “recommended reading” section might have been a nice touch and a good way to pick the most important titles from the extensive bibliographies presented later. Chapter 2 is on the geology of the islands. By Gordon Gastil, John Minch and Richard P. Phillips, this chapter is not too technical and provides an overview of the formation of the entire Gulf. Two tables give the principal rocks, probable ages and origins, areas, distances to the nearest land, and depths of the intervening channels for all the islands. Linda Yvonne Maluf wrote the chapter on physical oceanography. A number of figures help present a clear picture of the bottom of the Gulf, tides, salinity, water temperature, currents and dispersal of sediments. 1 particularly enjoyed this chapter; for instance, I was intrigued by the fact that the evaporation from the Gulf is greater than the inflow of fresh water. Plants are the subject of Chapter 4 by Martin Cody, Reid Moran and Henry Thompson. A long chapter, the first parts add to the preceding chapter by giving valuable information on the physical setting, including temperature and rainfall. Other topics include the phytogeographic regions around the Gulf, the paleohistory of those regions, plant communities on the islands, and all the subjects of concern to an island biogeographer in relation to those communities. A final section considers in detail the ecology of a few major families (e.g. cacti) . For this very poor botanist, the chapter was still readable and interesting. Chapter 5 is on the rocky -shore fishes. I hadn’t thought about the island biogeography of salt-water, inshore fishes before, so 1 cooked up a few quick theories. Donald Thomson and Matthew R. Gilligan wrecked them in the course of an educa- tional chapter on fish. Reptiles are the subject of Chapter 6 (Robert W. Murphy: Origins and Evolution) and Chapter 7 (Ted J. Case: Ecology). Chapter 10 by Timothy E. Lawlor is on the mammals. The result of their work is 103 pages of information on the distribution and ecology of these vertebrates, obviously more than can be easily summarized. I will 139 confine myself to saying that it is interesting to consider the many differences between birds and other groups of organisms in relation to island biogeography. For instance, the former presence of a landbridge often has much greater lingering effects on a rep- tile or mammal fauna than it has on the more vagile bird and plant communities. In Chapter 11 Conrad Bahre discusses the human impact on the Midriff islands. I felt that the author, by sticking closely to a thoroughly collected assortment of facts, leaned too far backward from making even some tentative conclusions about the effect humans have had. Still, Bahre presents much of interest on the diet of the Seri Indians, mining of guano, and hunting of sea turtles, and provides a good reminder that this region, particularly its fisheries, will come under increasing pressure as the population of northwestern Mexico continues to grow rapidly. Chapter 12 by Case and Cody concludes and summarizes the preceding chapters; it also might be the best chapter to read first. For those with little knowledge of the prin- ciples of island biogeography, there is an extended introduction. 1 don’t think any punch lines would be spoiled by reading the conclusions first, and the conclusions might make the individual chapters more instructive by providing a framework on which to hang the more isolated facts and inferences. If you are looking for some real conclusions, well, “there is no unanimous support for the equilibrium theory.” Still, this volume conveys the usefulness and excitement of island biogeography, and sug- gests that although no laws are carved in stone, there is much order in a seemingly random world. The 157 pages of appendices present two baste types of information: details to sup- port statements by the authors and detailed lists of the flora and fauna of the islands. These lists are very dry, but will undoubtedly be an essential reference for those visiting the islands or starting research projects. Although this book was easy to read and attractive, I feel that the technical editing was a bit lax. In the bird chapters I found a number of lapses, such as “Gilded Woodpecker” and “black -throated hummingbird;” in another case, a more serious er- ror was “black-chinned sparrow” (p. 239) where “black -throated” was meant. 1 was particularly struck by the number of maps, figures and tables which had errors (misspelled names of islands, switched captions) or omissions (unexplained symbols). While not of epidemic proportion, and generally detectable and correctable, the errors do leave me hoping that the appendices were very carefully checked. The book has one serious problem: a 500-page, hardcover volume without color art or photographs seems very expensive at $55. This volume is an absolute must for regional libraries and institutions in the Southwest and for serious research libraries around the world. It witl be valued by people studying this region, planning extensive visits, or studying the biology of islands. But for the less affluent who wish, as the dust cover suggests, to vicariously explore this region, I would suggest visiting the first refuge of the vicarious explorer: the library. RICHARD WEBSTER, P.O. Box 6318, San Diego, California 92106 140 IDENTIFICATION QUIZ The key to making a correct identification of this bird is to pay close attention to its en- vironment as well as its appearance. At first glance it appears we have little to go on. However, if we focus our attention on the bird’s face, we note a broad, flat bill; large, dark eyes; faint, light eyerings; and pale lores These features can belong to only a few North American birds, specifically Empidonax flycatchers and female or immature male American Redstarts ( Setophaga ruticilla ) . A redstart would not show pale edges to the ter- tials or a long tail no darker than the back. At this point, some of us might think of vireos, e.g.. Hutton's (Vireo huttoni ) or Solitary ( V. solitarius ), but these have narrower bills and Western Birds 15:141-142. 1984 141 build pendant nests suspended by the rim from the arms of a forked branch. The bird, what can be seen of it, has the overall look of an Empidonax sp., which in fact it is. Now most Empidonax flycatchers are difficult to identify even when the entire bird is in view. What makes us think this bird can be identified to species? Here’s where a shift in focus, from bird to environment, is in order. The bird is obviously on a nest, and Empidonax spp. are quite distinctive in their nesting habits (consider the choices confined to those species nesting in western North America) . There are really two taxonomic iden- tifications to be made in this photo: the bird and the shrub in which it is nesting. Careful ex- amination of the ieaves around the nest reveals the characteristic size and shape of leaves of many species of manzanita ( Arctostaphylos ) , the preeminent plants of western mon- tane chaparral. The characteristic Empidonax of this habitat is the Dusky Flycatcher (E. oberhoiseri) , which often nests in manzanita bushes. Is there any reason to suspect another species? Gray (E. wrightii) and Hammond’s (E. hammondii ) flycatchers are the only other reasonable candidates, but neither fits the pic- ture. Gray Flycatcher should show a bright pale base to the lower mandible and usually builds a less-tidy nest in Big Sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata ) or other plants of the Great Basin deserts. A Hammond’s Flycatcher would show a shorter tail and longer wings, and would usually build its nest on a high, horizontal branch of a conifer. All aspects of this bird’s appearance and nest environment best fit Dusky Flycatcher — the correct conclusion. The bird was photographed in August 1974 at Castle Crags State Park, Siskiyou Coun- ty, California, by Bruce Webb. TIM MANOLIS, 3532 Winston Way, Carmichael, California 95608 Dusky Flycatcher 142 Sketch by Keith Hansen Volume 15, Number 3, 1984 Annotated Checklist of Birds of Haleakala National Park, Maui, Hawaii Sheila Conant and Maile Stemmermann Kjargaard 97 The Birds of San Clemente Island Paul D. Jorgensen and Howard L. Ferguson 111 NOTES Observations on the Diving Behavior of the Northern Fulmar Terence R. Wahl 131 Notable Records of Birds from Eastern Sonora, Mexico Thomas O, Clark 134 BOOK REVIEW Richard Webster IDENTIFICATION QUIZ Tim Manolis BULLETIN BOARD 137 141 143 Cover Photo by Kenneth W. Fink: Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) displaying about 4 km SE of Highwood, Chouteau Co., Montana, 0530 approximately 20 May 1979. ASA 64, 560 mm lens, overcast. Manuscripts should be sent to Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 254, Lakeview, CA 92353. For matters of style consult Suggestions to Contributors to Western Birds (6 pp. mimeo available at no cost from the Editor) and Council of Biology Editors Style Manual 4th edition, 1978 (available from the American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 for $12.00). Papers are desired that are based upon field studies of birds, that are both understand- able and useful to amateurs, and that make a significant contribution to scientific literature. Appropriate topics include distribution, migration, status, behavior, ecology, population dynamics, habitat requirements, the effects of pollution, the techniques for identifying, censusing, sound recording and photographing birds in the field. Papers of general interest will be considered regardless of their geographic origin, but particularly desired are papers dealing with studies accomplished in or bearing on Rocky Mountain states and provinces westward, including Alaska and Hawaii, adjacent portions of the Fbcific Ocean and Mexico, and western Texas. Reprints can be ordered at author’s expense from the Editor when proof is returned or earlier. Good photographs of rare and unusual birds, unaccompanied by an article but with caption including species, date, locality and other pertinent information, are wanted for publication in Western Birds. Submit photos and captions to Photo Editor. ^ t.W “ y * *' l . JKn WESTERN BIRDS Quarterly Journal of Western Field Ornithologists President: Terence R. Wahl, 3041 Eldridge, Bellingham, WA 98225 Vice-President: Laurence C, Binford, 985 Emily Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Treasurer/Membership Secretary: Garth Alton, 17 Camino Lenada, Orinda, CA 94563 Recording Secretary: Jean-Marie Spoelman, 4629 Diaz Drive, Fremont, CA 94536 Circulation Manager: Jerry R. Oidenettel, 4368 37th Street, San Diego, CA 92105 Directors: Laurence C. Binford, Jeanne A. Corny, Peter Gent, Virginia P. Johnson, John S. Luther, Guy McCaskie, Terence R. Wahl, Timothy ManoGs, Janet Witzeman Editor: Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 254, Lake view, CA 92353 Associate Editors: Cameron Barrows, Tim Manohs, Narca A. Moore-Craig, Dale A. Zimmerman Layout Artist: Virginia P, Johnson Photo Editor: Bruce Webb, 5657 Cazadera, Sacramento, CA 95822 Review Editor: Richard E. Webster, P.O. Box 6318, San Diego, CA 92106 Editorial Board: Robert Andrews, Alan Baldridge, William H. Behle, Andrew J. Berger, Laurence C. Binford (Chairman), Jeanne A. Conry, David F. DeSante, Jon L, Dunn, Richard Erickson, Kimball L. Garrett, Joseph Greenberg, Joseph R. Jehl, Jr., NedK. Johnson, Virginia P. Johnson, Kenn Kaufman, Brina Kessel, Charles S. Lawson, Stephen A. Laymon, Paul Lehman, John S. Luther, Brian J. McCaffery, Guy McCaskie, M. Timothy Myres, Harry B. Nehls, Dennis R. Paulson, Stephen M. Russell, Oliver K. Scott, Richard W. Stallcup, David Stirling, Charles Trost, Terence R. Wahl, Roland H. Wauer, Bruce Webb, Wayne C. Weber, Richard E. Webster Membership dues, for individuals and institutions, including subscription to Western Birds: Patron, $1000; Life, $250; Supporting, $50 annually; Contributing, $25 annually; Regular, $14 U.S. ($17 outside U.S.) annually. Dues and contributions are tax-deductible to the ex- tent allowed by law. Send membership dues, changes of address, correspondence regarding missing issues, and orders for back issues and special publications to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. Back issues of California Birds/Westem Birds: $15 per volume, $4.00 for single issues. Xerox copies of out of print issues (Vol, 1 , No. 1; Vol. 2, Nos. 1 and 4; Vol. 6, No. 2) : $4.50 each. Checklist of the Birds of California: $2.00 each, 10 or more $1.50 each. Pelagic Birds of Monterey Bay, California: $2.50 each, 10 or more $2.00 each, 40 or more $1.50 each. All postpaid. Published April 26, 1985 WESTERN BIRDS ADVERTISING RATES AND SPECIFICATIONS Full page 4 x 6 3 A inches $60 per issue $200 per year Half Page 4x3% inches $40 per issue $130 per year Quarter Page 4 x l i y i6 inches $30 per issue $110 per year Offset printing, one column per page, 4 inches wide. Glossy, black and white photos are ac- ceptable; half-tone screen size: 133 line. Photo-ready copy is requested. If this is not passMe, extra charges for typesetting will be made as follows: $15 full page, $10 half page, $5 quarter page. Send copy with remittance to the Treasurer. Make checks payable to Western Field Ornithologists. A 15% commission is allowed for agencies. WESTERN BIRDS Volume 15, Number 4, 1984 BREEDING PHENOLOGY AND MID-SEASONAL SOCIAL BEHAVIOR OF THE SOOTY GUILLEMOT ON TEURI ISLAND, JAPAN ASA C. THORESEN, Biology Department. Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104 The breeding biology of the genus Cepphus (Alcidae) is represented in literature for two of the three species: Cepphus grille, the Black Guillemot and Cepphus columba, the Pigeon Guillemot (Asbirk 1978, 1979a and b; Cairns 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981; Drent 1965; Hyde 1936, 1937; Preston 1968; Storer 1952; Thoresen and Booth 1958; Winn 1950). Notations within larger compilations (Dement’ev and Gladkov 1951, Kozlova 1957) and a short paper by Nazarov and Labzyuk (1972) have been the only reports published on the habits of Cepphus carbo, the Sooty (or Spectacled) Guillemot. Austin and Kuroda (1953) recorded a population of at least 7000 Sooty Guillemots on Teuri Island, Japan, in 1949, which was at that time the largest known aggregation of the genus anywhere in the world. Unfortunate- ly, this figure is difficult to substantiate and the present number on Teuri Island does not exceed 400 birds, including non-breeders (Environmental Agency 1973). Colonies twice the size inhabit Soviet islands to the north (Nazarov and Labzyuk 1972). I camped on Teuri Island in June and July 1981, to observe the breeding habits of this little studied species. All three species of Cepphus nest as individual pairs, in small groups, or in larger groups — up to 10,000 pairs for the Black Guillemot (Nettleship 1974) — according to the availability of nesting cavities and abundance of food sup- ply, The Sooty Guillemot ranges from the coasts of northern Japan, Korea, and southern Kuriles to the shores of the Okhotsk Sea (Dement’ev and Gladkov 1951). The bird differs from the other two species in being slightly larger, lacking white wing patches, and possessing white eyelids which merge with white facial plumage. As in the other two species, the Sooty has con- spicuously red feet and legs. The interior lining of the mouth is flesh pink as opposed to the bright coral red of the Black and Pigeon guillemots. Western Birds 15:145-160. 1984 145 SOOTY GUILLEMOT STUDY AREA AND METHODS Teuri Island (lat. 44°4’N, long. 141°3’E), is one of two islands located ap- proximately 38 km off the northwest coast of Haboro, Hokkaido, Japan. Teuri is famous in Japan as a National Monument for seabirds and is a well- known tourist attraction (Environmental Agency 1973). Teuri Island is approximately 5.5 km 2 and has almost 12 km of coastline, one third of which is suitable for breeding seabirds. The island rises gently at the north end from east to west and more abruptly at the south end to high points of approximately 100 m. The rock is composed of volcanic breccia overlain with ash conglomerates. Several rocky stacks along the western shoreline also provide nesting places for birds. A village of just over 1000 persons is located at the sheltered northeastern end of the island. The sea was remarkably calm during June and July although a few wet, foggy and windy days impeded observations. Air temperatures varied be- tween 16 and 20° C, and the sea temperatures at shore were just a degree or two below air temperature. Tidal effect was practically nil, with a difference of less than 1 m between high and low tides throughout June and July. Teuri Island is the site of the largest known colony of Rhinoceros Auklets ( Cerorhinca monocerata) where a minimum of 500,000 and a maximum estimation of 785,000 individuals breed (Environmental Agency 1973). Other breeding species include Black-tailed Gull, Laws crassirostris, 40,000; Slaty-backed Gull, Laws schistisagus, 400; Common Murre, Uria aalge, 700 to 800; Sooty Guillemot, Cepphus carbo, 380 to 400; and a few scattered Ancient Murrelets, Synthliboramphus antiquus. (All figures represent individuals.) I camped on Teuri from 3 June to 31 July 1981, observing for more than 700 hours. From within 25 to 50 m of the campsite 20 or more Sooty Guillemots could be observed. An additional group of birds could be seen Figure 1. Part of the study area on Teuri Island, Japan. 146 SOOTY GUILLEMOT easily with binoculars to the south. To the north, beyond rock piles, the remaining 300 plus birds were counted each day shortly after dawn and at intervals throughout the day. Attendance counts were made by counting every hour all birds within view of the campsite area on the sea and on land near nesting sites. Locations of nest cavities were determined by observing the movements of the birds to and from the cliffs. Sightings of birds carrying fish were used to determine locations of nest sites in which chicks were present. A rock blind was constructed from which the entrance to eight nests known to contain chicks could be seen. Among the boulder piles at the base of the cliff 20 nests were located but only 7 of these were shallow enough to permit access to their contents. Binoculars, notebook, tape recorder, a 16 mm motion picture camera and a 35 mm motor- driven camera were used for recording behavior. The early mating behavior was entirely missed, nevertheless social activities continued throughout June and July. Figure 1 pictures the campsite and part of the observation area on Teuri. Figure 2 shows four adult birds. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Breeding Chronology and Development of Young Storer (1952) indicated that the prenuptial (prealternate) molt of the Sooty Guillemot appeared to occur in January and February in northern Japan. This observation fits in well with the early onset of breeding activities which take place on Teuri Island. Eggs were already hatching on 2 June 1981. On 5 June, five of seven accessible nests contained eggs: three contained two eggs and two only one. Matutoshi Aotsuka. warden of birds on Teuri Island, informed me that the Figure 2. Adult Sooty Guillemots perched near a nesting area. One bird utters the alarm Scream from a resting position. 147 SOOTY GUILLEMOT eggs usually hatched at about the same time every year and that, in 17 years of banding birds on Teuri, he had never found more than one Sooty Guillemot chick being fledged from a nest. Nazarov and Labzyuk (1972) also could find only one chick in each nest they examined. My observations showed that although two chicks may hatch, only one fledges. In one nest the second chick to hatch was found dead on the second day with its head severely pecked. On 4 July 1981 the first fledgling was seen on the bay, where it was observed daily until 20 July. Allowing 40 plus days for the nestling stage (based on records from three nests) and assuming that the incubation period averaged 30 days, the first eggs of the Sooty Guillemot on Teuri probably were laid about 26 April and hatched 26 May. To the north Nazarov and Labzyuk (1972) found the earliest eggs on 8 May with the greatest number being laid after 20 May. Of a maximum population of about 400 individuals, no more than 200 were breeders in 1981. In other words, there may have been a maximum of 100 nests with a lesser number of pairs rearing young, Nests were located under rock piles, in crevices, and under rocks higher on the slopes. Sixty percent of the nest sites, as determined by observing birds flying to them, were more than 20 m above sea level (see Figure 3). Nest sites were often defended late in the season by adults without eggs or young being raised in them. Preston (1968) noted this behavior also in the Black Guillemot on Kent Island in all five years of his study. Throughout June and July, I observed daily 5 to 10 non-breeders which were still in mottled -grey belly plumage. These immature birds displayed with the other members of the colony. Kozlova (1957) and Nazarov and Labzyuk (1972) have also noted that young birds frequently retain white feathers late into June. The eggs of the Sooty Guillemots resemble in appearance those of the other two species. The two eggs of a single clutch are not always marked alike, a feature also noted in the Pigeon Guillemot (Thoresen and Booth 1958). However, Asbirk (1979b) commented that the two eggs from the same clutch of Danish Black Guillemots always have the same ground color and the same pattern of spots. Ten eggs on Teuri averaged 60.37 x 41.70 mm with a range of 57.60 - 63.80 x 40.3 - 43.8 mm. These were smaller than 14 eggs measured by Nazarov and Labzyuk (1972) who on more north- erly islands found a range of 61. 1 - 66.8 x 41. 1 - 45.2 mm. Nine eggs at late stages of incubation had an average weight of 55.57 g with a range of 50.0 - 60.1 g. Chicks were fed at varying periods during the day. Early morning and late evening feedings were more frequent than midday feedings in 20 nests observed. Three to eight feedings per day, with an average of five, were observed on four different days, from dawn until sunset. Small chicks were usually fed fish 4-6 cm long. Occasionally a fish, too large for a chick to swallow, was either left at the nest site or carried away again by the parent. The most common fish seen being brought to the nest were sand lance ( Am - modytes sp.) , rock blennies (Pholis sp.) and small sculpins. Three 20 cm sand lance weighing between 28 and 29 were dropped at one nest. (A single 4.0 cm sand lance weighed only 2.0 g). As is well known, Cepphus feed 148 SOOTY GUILLEMOT upon practically any small fish they are capable of catching. For example, Follett and Ainley (1976), in a study of the Pigeon Guillemot in central California found representatives of 10 families of fish including 19 genera and 24 species to form the prey of that species. The Sooty Guillemot is pro- bably just as adaptable in its diet. The chicks of Sooty Guillemots, upon hatching, look just like the young chicks of the other two species. They have a full covering of sooty-black down. The legs and feet are pink, turning black in a day or two. The bill is also black with a prominent white egg-tooth on the top mandible, while at the tip of the lower mandible a smaller egg tooth is also present. These features match those of the other species of Cepphus (Sealy 1970). Both egg teeth gradually wear off, but in the three chicks observed to fledging, a rem- nant of the upper one remained up to the 40th day. A single chick hatched with a body weight of less than 40.0 g, reached a peak of 605 g by Day 38, and declined to 545 g the day before fledging. Body feathers and remiges began to show on Days 12 and 15 after which the belly feathers developed a mixture of white and sooty black. The head, neck and dorsum including the wings and tail were a uniform sooty- black by fledging time. The eyelids were white and an area around the eyes, destined in maturity to become white, remained naked until close to fledging when it filled in thinly with fine grey feathers. The feet and legs upon fledging were black or dark grey. Figure 4 pictures a juvenile in the nest cavity the day before it fledged. Figure 3. Profile of Teuri Island cliffs showing distribution of Sooty Guillemot nests above sea level. 149 SOOTY GUILLEMOT One fledgling was observed for 16 days from 4 July through 19 July, feeding alone very close to shore. It was a remarkably tame bird often allow- ing my approach to within a few meters. When first sighted it was midway out in the bay among adult-plumaged birds which kept threatening it and driving it away from the group. One adult dived repeatedly after the young one until both were out of sight behind rocks at the bay entrance. At that time the feet and legs of the fledgling were noticeably as dark in color as a nestling’s. After 12 days its plumage had changed from slaty to brown. Dement’ev and Gladkov (1951) also described the brownish color of the juvenal plumage in Cepphus carbo. Nazarov and Labzyuk (1972) noted that in August the juveniles become brown. Also by 12 days the feet and legs had become a brownish -red and by 19 July they were almost as bright red as an adult’s. The bird never attempted to fly in the 16 days it was observed. The fledgling, unlike the mature birds, always swam with its neck withdrawn. It also boldly defended itself. On one occasion I saw the fledgling attack a bathing Black- tailed Gull so vigorously that it ploughed up onto the gull’s back, causing the gull to fly away. Fledging of three birds in observed nests occurred on 20 July (Day 45), 21 July (Day 44) and 29 July (Day 40). As evidenced by missing wing feathers in five adults, and the greying of the back of the head and neck plumage in four birds, the annual prebasic molt began at the beginning of July. All four birds seen to be in molt were still feeding young. Colony Attendance Toward the end of the first week of July a noticeable switch in the pattern of attendance occurred. Figure 5 shows a gradual shift in attendance to later in the day. This unexplained change of pattern in colony attendance by the Figure 4. A 44-day-old Sooty Guillemot nestling in its nest cavity the day before it fledged. 150 4 -20 JUN 40 30 20 10f ' 14 10 7 8 8 8 00 UJ o 2 40f UJ 3 30 ct: g 204 X o 10- o z c Q 40- 30- 20 - 10 - o i o o 4a 30- 20- 10 - 14 8 21 JUN - 11 JUL 7 15 8 7 6 21-30 JUL 9 10 9 8 l— n~T 8 7 7 12 -20 JUL 6 5 9 11 10 13 14 13 20 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 HOUR OF DAY 18 20 Figure 5. Colony attendance of Sooty Guillemots at intervals during June, July and August 1981. Figures at the top of each graph represent number of counts averaged for each 2-hour period. Colony attendance includes birds on land and on the water close to shore. 151 SOOTY GUILLEMOT Sooty Guillemots was unlike the uniform attendance patterns throughout the breeding season demonstrated by the Pigeon Guillemot (Drent 1965), and the data presented by Asbirk (1976b) and Cairns (1979) for the Black Guillemot. In June, birds arrived in large numbers at dawn and were active on the sea and at the breeding sites until 1500 to 1600 after which time only a few scattered individuals were observable within 0.5 km of shore. By 20 June, a detectable lowering of numbers occurred between 0900 and 1100 each day. By noon a large percentage of the population returned to the rocks and cavity entrances to defend either empty or occupied nest cavities. By 12 July, only the few birds feeding young were ever close to land before 1000. Most other birds returned at about 1300 and stayed until 1900. Sunset at this period was between 1915 and 1930. A few were still at their perches near their nests until 2000. Slight variations occurred with the weather but in general the weather appeared to have little effect on activity. The low numbers of birds carrying fish during the latter half of July indicated that the change in colony attendance had nothing to do with growing demands for food by young. Behavior The habits of the Sooty Guillemot closely resemble those of the other two species of the genus. Sooty Guillemots on Teuri were very sensitive and suspicious birds. Kozlova (1957) also noted their shyness. I partially attributed their caution to the alarm calls and frequent panic flights of the Black-tailed Gulls. Incubating birds would flush at the slightest sound such as a falling rock within 10 m. However, in an area immediately below a tourist observation platform near the top of the cliffs on Teuri, one pair showed little concern for the presence of man. There they seemed to be conditioned to people. Sooty Guillemots when not disturbed almost always made a direct flight into the nest when carrying fish to their young. If a fish -carrying bird did hesitate it was chased by a gull (six out of seven observations) attempting to snatch the fish. Discussion of Behaviors The sounds produced by the Sooty Guillemot were found to be less intense than those of the Pigeon Guillemot. For example, the strong “seeeooo” of the alarm or warning scream of the Pigeon Guillemot is reduced to a thinner sounding “seeee” in the Sooty Guillemot (Figure 6c). The “tsit” or “chip” sound (Figure 6d) is similar in all three species of Cepphus and is given at varying intervals, even in flight. The contexts and interpretations of behaviors observed are summarized in Table 1. The trilled call (Figure 6a and b) lacked the “seeeooo” addition in the middle of the call usually heard in Pigeon Guillemots and in this respect more closely resembled the descriptions given for the Black Guillemot (Preston 1968, Storer 1952, Thoresen and Booth 1958, Drent 1965). Asbirk (1979a) refers to this call in the Black Guillemot as the “Nest song,” which I believe rightly identifies it with nest territory ownership, Squat-peeping or Hunch-whistle is one of the most common social displays seen in all three species of guillemots (Figure 7a). Some observers 152 SOOTY GUILLEMOT have interpreted it as an aggressive display (Asbirk 1979b, Drent 1965, Preston 1968). However, my observations on the Sooty Guillemot did not always reveal an aggressive action. Squat-peeping was sometimes demonstrated by a single bird in a group or at the nest site when an intruder landed nearby. In all of my hundreds of observations of Squat-peeping, Strut-circling by a second bird accompanied it. Strut-circling was characterized by frequent Head -dipping while swimming around the squat- peeper. Squat-peeping may be a sign of being mated both in the Sooty and the Pigeon Guillemot. Numerous observations on both species indicated that when a mated bird, sitting near its nest entrance or on the water below the nest site, was approached by an intruder the former began to Squat-peep. This attracted the mate if it was within calling distance. When the mate arrived it responded by circling the squat-peeping bird. This demonstration usually encouraged the intruder to leave without attack. Otherwise the arriving mated bird displaced the intruder by Strutting, Hunching or attack. Twitter- waggle (see Figure 7b) is an aggressive display common to ail three species of the genus although Drent (1965) interpreted Twitter- waggle in the Pigeon Guillemot to be an appeasement action. In the Sooty Guillemot, the action was strongly aggressive and frequently performed by individuals among groups on the water or on land. Birds jostling for the highest position on the rocks displayed Twitter- waggle constantly. It was also a major part of aquatic displays and was always a mechanism for increasing distance between birds. On one occasion I watched, for 15 minutes, a single Sooty Guillemot continuously Twitter- waggle towards a group of communally a b k A A A <1 -t A A a A A ^ 5- d 3- L SECONDS r 4 Figure 6. Sonographs of (a) the Trilled song of Cepphus carbo (song varies from 4 to 5 seconds in duration and always lacks the central upslur most often included by C. col- umba) . (b) the Trilled song of C. columba. (c) the Scream (“seeeee”) of C carbo, followed by four "tsits” or “chips,” and (d) the “tsit” or "chip.” the most frequent call heard in C. carbo. These "chips” are portrayed here as a series lasting more than 2 seconds. Most often "chips” are given well spaced and are heard in varying situations — even in flight. 153 SOOTY GUILLEMOT bathing Black-tailed Gulls. This bird was obviously attempting to drive the gulls away, although the gulls appeared to ignore it. Frequently, Twitter- waggle began by a bird distantly removed from a group which would swim quickly toward the group, picking on, it seemed, any individual that would turn and Twitter -waggle back towards it. An attacking lunge and fight often followed with the two birds splashing — > “Leap-frogging” (Asbirk 1979a, Preston 1968) — and diving just below the surface. The rest of the group joined the subsurface twisting and turning as individuals, ending with skittering over the surface in all directions. This action dispersed the groups temporarily. The fighters may continue to duel or they may fly from the scene in aerial chase. In the Pigeon Guillemot, Drent (1965) called the water phase of this action the “Water Dance”, and the aerial chase the “Duet Flight”. However, the terms “Water Duel” and “Duel Flight” are preferred because they describe the activities more accurately. Milling around on and under the water is not a dance, nor is an aggressive aerial chase a duet, since the term “duet” implies song. Duel Flight in guillemots results from an initial flight encounter started with Twitter -waggle. It should not be confused with a pair of birds merely flying together which is a common phenomenon among water birds in general. Duel Flight is an active duel between two birds in which the birds fly high and low frequently crossing each other’s flight paths. In the Sooty Guillemot this duel sometimes ended by fighting in the water among groups of other guillemots as much as 0.5 km away from the initial encounter. The fight usually triggered communal subsurface Water Duelling by the new group: a confusion which tended to break up the fight. While in the air a bird being chased may turn its head and open its beak towards the chaser, but in most encounters observed, Duel Flight was merely a contest to outfly the other. Most frequently the duel ended when con- siderable space developed between the two birds. In more than 100 sightings of Duel Flight among Sooty Guillemots I never witnessed actual contact in the air, such as tail twigging, or sudden 180° turns with falls into the sea as are commonly displayed by the Pigeon Guillemot. Erect Display as seen in the Sooty Guillemot is apparently the same as “Neck Stretch,” as Nelson (1982) calls it, in Cepphus columba. 1 have also observed a similar stance in Tufted Puffins ( Lunda cirrhata) and Rhinoceros Auklets, which occasionally stand for a minute or more with their bills pointed upward. According to D. Nelson (pers. comm.) Lunda, Fratercula, Cerorhinca and Cepphus columba all vocalize during Erect Display. No vocalizations were noted in Cepphus carbo although I may have missed the sounds. In the Atlantic Puffin ( Fratercula arctica) the attitude is accompanied by frequent Head-flicking, but in the Sooty Guillemot Head-flicking is rare and is much less pronounced (Figure 7d). A strutter waddled on land or when on water swam excitedly, toward the bird to which it displayed. Strutting accompanied by holding the wings stiffly over the body (Wing-flagging) indicated a stronger aggressive action. This posture has also been described in the Black Guillemot which when on land embellishes the action with a distinctive high stepping gait (Preston 1968). Wing-flagging display may be more meaningful in the Black Guillemot which flashes white underwings. The Sooty Guillemot lacks white underwings but 154 SOOTY GUILLEMOT does occasionally flag its wings when strutting and momentarily as a flight- intention signal. In a nonsocial context the Sooty Guillemot may hold its wings over the body for balance when walking over rocks. Hunching is also an aggressive approach toward an intruder and is demonstrated by all three species of Cepphus (Figure 7c). The intruder usually moves away; otherwise a lunging attack occurs. Headbobbing, a rare display, I interpreted as a threat in the Sooty Guillemot. Headshaking, a side to side motion, as described by Preston (1968) in the Black Guillemot, was not seen in the Sooty Guillemot. Figure 7. Displays of the Sooty Guillemot: (a) Squat-peeping or Hunch-whistle, (b) Twitter-waggle, (c) Hunching, and (d) Erect Display with Head-flicking. 155 Table 1. Behaviors of Sooty Guillemot (Cepphus carbo ). SOOTY GUILLEMOT c o g O c 3 u. c •2 15 3 i. S' 3 cn c c 1m - JP s £ c 3 E -4—1 c 1 1m o 0 ) cn ~ § 'S O £ ^ -a c O c o a, ra t-i J2> cO uu IV (V a tn C '5 c 3 E cj „ •■= v .2 c/) Ci 2 X 3 Iv E cn _c *5 x — *g CO C ON cn i-i 'in 2 | x 3 0 ) cj c 0 ) tn 0 ) 0 ) X C/5 IV 3 Lfi c c t cn ra p c Lm (0 'S 3 X X tn in £ ~ ch -g. cn .SP (0 1- 3 o cn c -* I | +* Xj cO tv 0 ) o e IV X c o CJ Q < o £ tn iv tn 9 - in O 1j & £ (V 3 "3 -a c IV 3 in 0 ) X E c o o v x 0) CD X £ 0 ) ■4-J ’I?) t/> CD c 0 ) ft - tn c J5 a-g I g O o U CD _ U 2 a E 5 g 5 0) 3 .3 X ^ ~ •4M 'g 3t o v a 3 £C in g O "5 CO x c JV l-l . o S « ra E 3 T3 CD > IV C o tn _m a a 3 tn X 3t O 1m cn •3 3 c . IV (V -*-< — M tn cj C O O c o 3 in 3 Q nzj d) u -4-^ a a) X CD CD 05 CD X CD CD cn x .2 » -g X -n cj cj l« IV C w c X 3 H ■£ c IV a E o ni CJ CJ (V 3 X -4—1 X c IV x 3 X CJ o u X 3 a o o x J3 cn cn IV 3 i i-i a) to co "3 c 10 41 Z Q o -4-< cn c o o u < CjO Z O (— D O X H x 41 c o 4 > E o to t- cp 4 — To c o nu 0 ) 4— (0 X 03 to Q) to to to to O O C O M_i '■a o a d> & -£ CL a *“ - :> c i- o o 41 v c ro t 5 < |x cd to ~o c _2 "K -a lx c oo to ”3 •“ <0 J£ 41 cd T 41 1 = SC ,C .2 * .& c o JS S C Q O 41 -3 33 *3 5 *J 0 ) 3 > js; .y O gif. •£ = §-g 2 = _c -2 •o £J $ 2 £ 8 -4— 1 CO O 41 3 > 'io to 4 ) >- cn cn < cn c a 41 4 ) nu a Im i "io u 3 Q) CT "S, -C f/n ^ co cn 4 -* 0 to 10 £ 41 3 33 cn to — to MX CP i-> fu So > 10 E jc g 33 3 33 u (0 o Q. a v (0 t; CD j 2 •I « S C g >-3 c/5 lo < S 2 U T3 lx 33 ID 33 -*-« o c to co T3 Cm 10 3 o - 4—1 to £ 33 cn c •3 3 c . a; TJ - 1 -’ O _ 33 U 32 ‘5 c 5 a» i— nC gj o JC .2 33 TJ C <0 ^ ® O X -a -g CD JC to x lx (O 'O to cn cn c c c i-o o T 3 •a (0 CD JC -a c to n 3 3 T 1 O CD JC ^ O §2 0 ) JZ -*— < o c (0 to T3 CD > ‘to to CD lx cn cn < * to to a 3 ; o) n <3 cn 2 CD £ " TnE- “c “ X. - So cn cn ra-g w I JC -4 3 | c o CD CD 01 “ it) § ilo - c O i t„ a; ' JC C -C w CpJ= JS Jr ^ cn D.'S CQ c id o •3 41 X* C >i TJ 0 o Ot 33 ffi 4 ) E *x to fight, tfly 13 41 xD 33 o o 33 JC ? 10 3 33 a 4 ) JC 4 — 4 — E ° £ ° 4 ) >- <0 X 13 CP > o 1 C 33 5 ' 4—1 — XB ^ CO 0 ) (J 41 T 3 CD a o o -a 1 § s ° Si < CP — (fl a) • js 3 T? "5 *° J 5 « S » ix o JC CD JC +x to oj o C 01 01 <■ -C JC X X c o X U C lx 3 4) X -X 10 3 x CD -a c 3 (0 u o to O Z .■s' > > 2 u to cn 4 — #— i JC -Q rt3 'c CD i- .2 >• CD ft) 2 w a ~ ■a c to -o L to (0 CD rv j= Jr CD 2 JC V (— to 4 ) 05 lx C. ro 5 DC ^ Oi \5> u to cn c ’c CD 0 ) 4) O c (0 -D Si 2 Q, 2 JC ^ 1 | -a 3 CD (0 c CD a o = CC JD t_l to O 2 io U < J= JtC CJ to 3 4) JC 4) to 3 lx 4) -a c 3 -a to 4) JC CD 4 ) JC JC cn cn c c c a (- Q E - £ jc Jc .S’ to cc C 01-2 .S 4 ) -o Jj C CD CD to a - E 15 — to CD CD i; to £ c tD x ^ o to +- 1 4 * 3 i • to -J 1 — < 0 x 0 — 2 ’5> 2 cl •£ <0 to 3 33 4) CD C to 33 lx 3 JC ±C J2 3 ^ 8 ^ to j2 4) u> l-« r- g § M o CD <0 3 41 JC O • 4 -^ C 41 JC 4 — < 0 cn c ‘o. a Q 4— C o U c/D DC O § > <0 a to Q cn c cn c '05 cn JO Mx 1 cn c JC 4— JC .S’ X cn c _o o JC cn c ‘5 lx D 4— cn c a a ■3 i cn c a Q. X o 4 — u d) 4 — 3 cn e CD c -3 to -a 10 "3 <0 £ 41 33 10 LU 1 m lx 3 3 41 41 41 ’ ; CQ o -c CD tu CO $ X Q X X X OQ F CQ CQ fH c\i CT 3 F iri cb F 00 05 157 SOOTY GUILLEMOT Preston (1968) described Headturning display in the Black Guillemot as a turning of the bill over or into the scapulars. Pigeon Guillemots also Headturn (Nelson in press) . This display occasionally occurred in the Sooty Guillemot. However, in over 300 observations I was uncertain only a few times that turn- ing the head toward the rear and tucking the bill in the scapulars was not associated with preening. Otherwise, Head -turning may be a signal for ap- peasement toward a Twitter- waggler. Bill and Head-dipping are habits common to all alcids, as well as to some other waterbirds, and are no less frequent in the Sooty Guillemot. I observed a single bird actively feeding close to shore, and obviously Head -dipping to locate prey before diving to catch it. From about 2 m above, 1 could also see the fish in the clear water, which left me with no doubts as to the function of Head-dipping in that instance, for the bird peered under water to the right and left until it spied a fish then dashed after it. However, disturbances above or below water also increased the frequency and length of Head -dipping among Sooty Guillemots. For example, a cormorant swimming under a group of Sooty Guillemots precipitated bouts of Head-dipping. Increased Bill -dipping frequency, a lesser but more rapid response with only the bill in- volved often indicated impending flight. SUMMARY A maximum of 400 birds made up the Teuri Island colony of Sooty Guillemots in 1981. No more than half the population defended nests and some of these did not rear young. Although two chicks were often hatched, no pairs were found to rear more than one chick. Three chicks hatched at about 40 g and reached as much as 605 g at 40 to 45 days of age before fledging. One fledgling was seen daily for 16 days feeding alone close to shore. During this time its plumage changed from sooty to mottled brown, and its legs and feet from dark grey to red. Although behavior patterns were similar to those of other species of Cep- phus, some displays were less energetic than those demonstrated by related species at the same phase of the breeding season. Behaviors accompanied by vocalizations and other displays were identified. Colony attendance gradually changed to later in the day as the season pro- gressed. No explanation was discovered for this change. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due to Dr. Hisashi Abe of the University of Hokkaido for ob- taining the necessary permit for me to work in Teuri Island and for kindly hosting me at the University in Sapporo. Yutaka Watanuki gave unselfishly of his time to work with me on logistics and setting up camp on the island. Without his help this study would not have been possible, Matutoshi Aothuka, warden for birds on Teuri Island, also assisted by banding chicks and by providing other information. Thanks are also due my wife, Shirley, who accompanied me in the field and assisted with recording of data. An- drews University provided travel funds. 158 SOOTY GUILLEMOT Zaravko and Bozana Stefanovic translated Russian literature and the helpful criticisms of Doug Nelson, Clare Lloyd and Spencer Sealy greatly im- proved the initial drafts of this paper. LITERATURE CITED Ainley, D.G. & T.J. Lewis. 1974. The history of Farallon Island marine bird popula- tions, 1854-1972. Condor 76:432-446. Asbirk, S. 1978. Tejsten Cepphus grille som ynglefuhl i Danmark. Dansk Ornithologisk Forening Tidsskrift 72:161-178. Asbirk, S. 1979a. Some behaviour patterns of the Black Guillemot Cepphus grille. Dansk Ornithologisk Forening Tidsskrift 73:287-296. Asbirk, S. 1979b. The adaptive significance of the reproductive pattern in the Black Guillemot, Cepphus gry//e, Videnskabelige. Meddelelser dansk naturhistorisk Forening. 141:29-80. Austin, O.L. & N. Kuroda. 1953. The birds of Japan: Their status and distribution. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 109:280-737. (1972 reprint) . Cairns, D. 1978. Some aspects of the biology of the Black Guillemot ( Cepphus grglle) in the estuary of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. M. Sc. thesis, Univ. Laval, Quebec. 91 pp. Cairns, D. 1979. Censusing hole-nesting auks by visual counts. Bird-Banding 50:358-364. Cairns, D. 1980. Nesting density, habitat structure, and human disturbance as factors in Black Guillemot reproduction. Wilson Bull. 92:352-361. Cairns, D. 1981. Breeding, feeding, and chick growth of the Black Guillemot ( Cep- phus grille) in southern Quebec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:312-318. Dement’ev, G.P. & N.A. Gladkov. 1951. Birds of the Soviet Union, Vol. 2:196-281. Transl. by IPST, Jerusalem, 1968. Drent, R.H, 1965. Breeding biology of the Pigeon Guillemot, Cepphus coiumba. Ardea 53:99-160. Environmental Agency. 1973. Research on birds and environmental conditions on Teuri Island. Environmental Agency, Japan. Pp. 63-81. (In Japanese). Follett, W.I. & D.G. Ainley. 1976. Fishes collected by Pigeon Guillemots Cepphus coiumba (Pallas), nesting on Southeast Farallon Island, California. California Fish and Game 62:28-31. Hyde, L.B. 1936. Life cycle of the Black Guillemot ( Cepphus grglle). 1st Ann. Rep. Bowdoin Sci. Stat. 14-16. Hyde, L.B. 1937. Life cycle of the Black Guillemot ( Cepphus grille). 2nd Ann. Rep. Bowdoin Sci. Stat. 30-33. Kozlova, E.V. 1957. Charadriiformes, Suborder Alcae. Fauna of USSR: Birds, 2:1-140. Transl. Israel Progr. Scient. Transl. 1961. Kuroda, N. 1963. A survey of sea birds of Teuri Island, Hokkaido with notes on land birds. Misc. Rep. Yamashina Instit. Zool. Ornithol. 3,5:61-81. Nazarov, Y.N. & V I. Labzyuk, 1972. Some data on the biology of the auk Cepphus carbo in the southern Primorye. Nauchnye Doklady vysshei shkoly. Biologischeskie Nauki 15(3):32-35. (in Russian). Nelson, D.A. 1982, The communication behavior of the Pigeon Guillemot, Cepphus coiumba. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor. 159 SOOTY GUILLEMOT Nettleship, D.N. 1974. Seabird colonies and distributions around Devon Island and vicinity. Arctic 27:95-103. Preston, W.C. 1968, Breeding ecology and social behavior of the Black Guillemot, Cepphus grille. Ph D. thesis, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Sealy, S.G. 1970. Egg teeth and hatching methods in some alcids. Wilson Bull. 82:289-293. Storer, R.W. 1952. A comparison of variations, behavior and evolution in the seabird genera Uria and Cepphus. Univ. California Pub!. Zool. 52:121-222. Thoresen, A.C. & E.S. Booth, 1958. Breeding activities of the Pigeon Guillemot, Cepphus columba (Pallas). Walla Walla Coll. Pubis. Dep. Biol. Sci. 1-36. Winn, H E. 1950. The Black Guillemots of Kent Island, Bay of Fundy. Auk 67:477-485. Accepted 28 December 1983 Sooty Guillemot Sketch by Keith Hansen DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF MARINE BIRDS BREEDING BETWEEN AMBER AND KAMISHAK BAYS, ALASKA, WITH NOTES ON INTERACTIONS WITH BEARS EDGAR P, BAILEY and NINA H. FAUST, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 202 W. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603 In 1980 Congress established the 3.5 million-acre Alaska Maritime Na- tional Wildlife Refuge, the world’s largest marine bird and mammal sanc- tuary. In a continuing effort to assess the seabird colonies on the some 2500 islands comprising this refuge, the mainland cliffs and islands along the eastern half of the Alaska Peninsula were surveyed in 1980 and 1981. Much of the survey area also lies within the Becharof National Wildlife Refuge and Katmai National Park. Recent offshore oil leasing in Shelikof Strait and lower Cook Inlet requires better documentation of the region’s nesting seabirds. General information on the Alaska Peninsula and some adjacent islands is provided by Murie (1959) and Gabrielson and Lincoln (1959). The first cur- sory reconnaissance of some of the seabird colonies between Amber and Kamishak bays was conducted in June 1973 (Sowls et al. 1978). In 1973 only a week was spent observing seabirds along this 1000 -km stretch of the Alaska Peninsula from a boat. Bailey and others visited parts of this region opportunistically in 1976, and some colonies were more closely viewed from inflatable boats (Sowls et al. 1978), but generally no landings were made, and no time was spent on islands at night in search of nocturnal nesting seabirds. The coastline to the southwest from Amber Bay to Mitrofania Island was surveyed in 1979 (Bailey and Faust 1981), and Kamishak Bay to the north was surveyed in 1978 (Sowls et al. 1978). Breeding avifauna on Ugaiushak Island has recently been studied extensively (Wehle et al. 1977, Wehle 1978). The purpose of surveying this segment of the Alaska Peninsula was to locate seabird colonies, determine species composition, and estimate numbers, or at least depict orders of magnitude of species or concentrations which are difficult and time consuming to enumerate. Only after preliminary surveys can key sites be identified for future long-term monitoring of popula- tion trends. Proper management of marine birds can then follow based on assessments of long-term population fluctuations of seabirds in relation to commercial fishing, offshore oil exploration, and changes in climatic and oceanographic factors. STUDY AREA AND METHODS The 150 islands and adjacent irregular coastline between Amber and Kamishak bays cover roughly an 8000 km 2 area, approximately 56°45’N, 157°20’W to 59°10’N, 154°05’W (Figures 1 and 2). The islands range from unnamed rocks and islets less than 1 ha in size to 300-ha Takli Island; eleva- tions of islands range from a few meters above sea level at Douglas Reef to Western Birds 15:161-174. 1984 161 BREEDING MARINE BIRDS IN ALASKA 160 m at David Island. Most islands are rugged like the adjacent coast of the Alaska Peninsula, but some, like Shaw and Jute islands and those in Wide Bay, are low and relatively flat. Frequent cloud cover, wind and precipitation prevail in this area. Climatic data for the overall region are available only from Kodiak Island and sporadically from Chignik, the only village on the southeastern part of the Alaska Peninsula. The July mean temperature at Chignik is 11°C with a range of 24°C to 1°C. Chignik receives an annual average of 323 cm of precipitation. Alpine and moist tundra characterize the islands and much of the adjacent coast. Insular vegetation is dominated by Beach Wildrye ( Elymus arenarius) and other grasses, sedges and umbellifers. Inland portions of larger islands with few surface- and burrow- nesting seabirds, such as those in Wide Bay, are generally dominated by Crowberry ( Empetrum nigrum ) , whereas those with large numbers of burrowing birds, such as Central Island, are covered by grasses and umbellifers, primarily Common Cowparsnip ( Heracleum lanatum), Seawatch Angelica ( Angelica lueida ) and Conioselinum chinense. Scattered Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis) and Balsam Poplar ( Populus balsamifera ) occur on a few islands in Katmai National Park. A 4- week reconnaissance involving roughly 500 km of coastline began at Jute Bay on 17 June 1980 and proceeded southwestward toward Amber Bay. On 1 July 1981 a 3- week survey began in Kanatak Lagoon in Portage Bay and proceeded northeastward to Nordyke Island in Kamishak Bay. Por- tage Bay was bypassed in 1980 because of bad weather. We surveyed all islands and nearly all of the adjacent Alaska Peninsula with a 5-m Avon in- flatable boat and two 25- hp outboards. In addition to circumnavigating all islands, we went ashore on over 65 islands. It was not necessary to land on many of the smaller islands in the study area because of the absence of any evidence of breeding seabirds, and a few islets with birds were inaccessible or could not be landed on because of rough seas. Ugaiushak Island was not visited in 1980 because of recent studies there (Wehle 1978). No counts were conducted during periods of high winds, heavy rain, in- adequate light, or markedly low ceilings and visibility. Colonies were in- dicated on 1:63,360 scale USGS maps. We noted nocturnal nesting species by their vocalizations after dark and by checking burrows. Population estimates for kittiwakes and cormorants were derived from nest counts, and for murres were based on numbers seen on nesting cliffs and on the water below cliffs. Estimates of murre populations were made in good weather during the middle of the day between the end of egg-laying and the start of fledging, when numbers are most stable (Birkshead and Nettleship 1980) . Our counts represent numbers present at a particular time and should be regarded as only approximations of actual breeding populations because of considerable variability in daily and hourly colony attendance and because of the presence of unknown numbers of nonbreeding murres. Accurate determination of the numbers of breeding murres at each colony requires establishment of study plots and repeated counts over a period of several days, efforts beyond the scope of this reconnaissance. From the inflatable, we counted the numbers of murres on cliffs and rafted on the water below them in groups of 10 and 100, using cracks and other features in the cliffs to 162 BREEDING MARINE BIRDS IN ALASKA 163 BREEDING MARINE BIRDS IN ALASKA Figure 2. Islands south of the Alaska Peninsula between Jute Bay and Kamishak Bay, showing location of largest seabird colonies in 1981 . 164 KODIAK ISLAND ^ JV f / I V If AFOGNAK ISLAND BREEDING MARINE BIRDS IN ALASKA partition big colonies, Except for a few colonies visited at the end of the 1981 survey, counts occurred during incubation. Gull estimates were formulated from numbers of nests and pairs observed on given islands. On small islands we walked the entire area to locate nests; at large colonies, such as on Ninagiak and Shaw islands, we counted gull nests on a portion of the island and then made extrapolations for remaining gull habitat; counts of obviously paired birds in nesting areas were also used. Estimates of gulls nesting on cliff ledges and atop inaccessible stacks were based on counts of evidently territorial birds. Gulls were incubating at the first part of the survey; chicks were present on islands visited later in the survey. Puffin numbers were derived from a combination of adults repeatedly seen at specific locales and from estimates of burrow numbers in dense colonies. Like most other colonial nesting seabirds, attendance at puffin colonies varies with season, time of day and weather. The large number of islands, extensive distances, foul weather and limited time to complete the reconnaissance precluded establishing any transects or quadrats to determine numbers of burrows and frequency of occupancy. Since insufficient time and personnel were available to establish adequate numbers of census plots on any island to determine statistically valid populations (Nettleship 1976), our estimates should be regarded as minimal indices of population size. Estimates are most useful for comparisons in orders of magnitude between different islands. Since we camped on all islands with large puffin colonies, repeated counts of numbers of birds observed were made at different times of day, or on suc- cessive days in some instances, and the highest estimates were used in each case. Puffin burrows were excavated periodically on various islands; birds were still incubating, except on some of the last islands examined, where some downy chicks were encountered. On some islands numbers of active burrows appeared more abundant than accounted for by puffins in the area. In such cases estimates were based more on burrow numbers than on numbers of puffins seen. Populations of nocturnal hydrobatids and alcids were described as “pres- ent” (only a few present) or “abundant” (thousands), depending on the in- tensity of activity and vocalization and the extent of habitat used. Estimates of Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus columba ) and Piarakeet Auklets ( Cyclorrhynchus psittacula), which utilize rock crevices, represent the number of birds sighted at various islands. No breeding estimates were made for Kittlitz’s or Marbled murrelets ( Brachyramphus brevirostris or B. mar- moratus) , both of which are solitary. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Estimated numbers of breeding marine birds on various islands in 1980 and 1981 are indicated in Table 1 and 2, respectively. The 18 species record- ed are discussed below in approximate descending order of abundance in the region. The data for Ugaiushak Island are taken from Wehle et al. (1977) MURRES. Most of the 85,000 murres in the region nest on the cliffs in or west of Puale Bay, and the only other large colony is on Ugaiushak Island. Murre numbers reported along the cliffs in the Puale Bay area in 1976 (Sowls et al. 1978) were nearly 20% 165 BREEDING MARINE BIRDS IN ALASKA o 00 o JS 3 m C C cS! ro zz in <0 CD .x: o TJ '33 -C 3 O in 0) JZ +- c o ia CQ in cn c x CD 0) Lm X -a X (5 SIVlOl S3D3dS 3|6B3-U3pJBQ EjpiSH Buo'] ,,V„ s ! paujBuuQ [BI4U30 >JBL(SniB6fJ suuun |03 >jBuBniv dnojB /teg jjEBBUiBiqQ /SAB(sJ babiioj piABQ >jBuqsv SlJDOa HBlJO|!a dncuB /teg e/»nui| dnojB Aeg apvy\ /teg aSB^oj ainp ^H X X 03 t-H X o X o X o o r- ^H X t-H o X o X X O -H X o X o o X X X X o X X X t-H Tt O O 1-1 o o o xx r- ^H t" X X 0 X 0 o X o CO 1-1 •St t-H XXX o o o X o 1 it It X t-H t-H r-~ X t-H t-H t-H X T 1 o O it ox o o o XX X 1-1 r-H t-H o X o X t-H Tt o o o oo X o t-H X cn cu ■b 0) a £ Ur o CO TJ _CD ‘(5 •4— < Jc. u 0 ) .. a o CO uu c ta u o £ 2! i- 10 t- rn § £ 0 s e I s E u 6 ■§ .y !d D5 '-V J 2 XI 01 Cl- DC CD X U 13 o) U CD -S JS O 2 '<£ u £ s cq a ■3 2 ID its wb: f -s 3 P? O -v y -i 3 w JS jo U 03 o £ jd a 3 HO CD £ § j~ CD 3 cn CD CD -5C {!|Bdnn!>j f-H in co O f-H s} 3 [si umjeqg o o o o o o o o r-H O CO H o f-H rH o m CO CO in ON puB[S[ ^BiBeuifsj o CM o o o o T—i o o o o o o © CO o CM rH CM m B 3 JB Asg o rH O O O m o NO CO CM in i—i r^- rH ON eajB |[r >9 adB 3 in 00 o m © o 00 no © CM in in CO •Nt S/feq >fBUl>J->(I|BUiV o o o o „ in © © © in i-i co CO o CM H Cl f-H r'' rH rH 00 CM m rH rH iSBg IBIU}B>{ o o CM o o m in in r-~ t-h H CM b 3 jb (Sag >pipu!|y m LD o o ro f-H co t'- ,-H sp|S[ ;oujn>( 3 >] m m © o o o o m CO H in co cm in On CM Lfi o m o o o © teg 3 |Bng r- o T — 1 T— t m CM rH in © m i-h co o o m 3 iw ade D ms o o o © in in » — t i — < /tyupIA pUB HbaBbl(S!|buq adB 3 m m O O o o o o ^H ^ o no o on f-H co o [> On" C <0 k- o E »- o U c A3 c o £ E - 1 o « E u _c u ■4—1 <13 U 3 e? ~a 0) CD C 0) to 5 S £ S 3 $ _o o o 3 a o to O .y w cn'v JS "O fl) 01 CL IX >-5 S o u S ii S2o O Q jse E in 0) .. C 0) SJ ° u C oi ® JS 3 .cn !5 OQ S Cl Cl TJ o cn cn o c ic .£ 3 5t; -a 0 -o C Ol Lfl -»— * ° 3 1 (- to rJ 2 o H Q z; < _j cn c 0) (J C/5 < 0 C 05 in 05 Q o’ 2 csl 00 Cvi CO CO CM VO i-h i— I CO CM q q q oo CD i-i cd cm CM O l-H 05 cd 1-H CO o CO CM X> CM i-h CM co co r'- o Os 05 -4—1 3 CT (A 05 2 < DO 6 2 ro c _05 <5 TD >= o 9- DQ“ < cd o 2 -a c (0 in in «S O < cd o 2 < cd o 2 i-h 00 rH CM rH CM rH CM CM cd CM vd lD vd CO rH rH rH 'cf O CM CD lO VO CO CO T— 1 rH rH o q o q o o q rH V Q 00 cd CM C^ T— 1 CM LO rH CO I-H 1—1 i — i CM CM T 1 CM q q cn rH o CO ^ 00 q l-H 00 l-H lT 5 1— ( cd r-H O I-i CM l-H l-H vd" CM rH CO o CM vo o 4 3 rH 00 CM i-i CM CM VO CO i—i CM lO l-H ^ 00 CO 05 CO Tt l-H ^ CO q vO VO i-i CM 00 CM rH ^ I-H r-i l-H l-H l-H LO 05 lO 00 l-H 05 O CO r- VO CM 1—1 CO 05 LO l-H t'u 00 r- h- CO CM LO VO l-H CM ui CL CQ < X on U4 U U4 CL C/5 JC QJ <0 ral 05 « 3 05 UJ (0 c UJ g -a 2 «3 O CQ O -a "re "O <55 DC JC $ <0 X.* T3 3 Q) <0 cox 05 Q) if) 3 (0 I m 3 O C 0) _c w 3 co a t 3 O w o o LL DC U JX 3 <0 05 ■a V c « c X x: c (A ' a> P--C <0 cO c o _o «3 Uu 05 05 Uh +J (A 0) q c (0 w re £ 3 O -a 05 c tu o X .2 ex- o» £ < re 01 05 c c 3 h. "O re O CC I— 05 u re 05 <3 U 05 3C ‘C x: cO "O re 05 jz lu 0> 05 05 O uJ re o H 180 ‘Represents Bald Eagles sighted during a separate inventory effort. Table 3 (Cont.) c '5 x> V 3 E- l— 3 J= o co -C l/l 3 X) 0) o l/) o 0) fc- u C O) o a c 5 .= 3 Cl "3 jo: i/i 3 £ ~ic m JO 3 _C in 10 l — o CO CO CO < CM CM d d DC t-H No. CO t-H t-H CM t'- , , r-- oo ID co o q q q q < i— i lO d cd d cm t-H CM T-i d DC t-H CO c- 6 cm a> 00 O' VO CO CM CO 00 uO 2 i — i CO 00 _L q q o < cd cd DC 00 o t-H t-H CM 2 _L \D t-H oo i-i t-H lO CM < id d cd d d o CM DC CM CO CM Ov 6 m t-H io i—i t-H ^ 00 2 t-H , ; CO t-H t-H t-H Ov q < d 00 00 00 d DC t-H to O' CM O CM t-H t-H t-H t-H 2 LU CL > H 1 DQ < X m w U LU Cl w J£ 3 a) ra a>X criLU ^ UJ § jg 2 12 d 3 10 X in 3 O c D1 3 !» V LL XC 3 X£ 3 (O X -a Q) O) 0) 3 O P J-H 0) -*— < -C k> “3 XX 0) A3 to cn ‘5 k-l a> E 0) i-m 0) W-. cn O £ s < o u X 10 o H 181 WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN ARIZONA darily in desert grasslands. Craig (1978) recorded similar habitat utilization in Idaho. Of the 110 kestrels observed in this study, 56 (50%) were males and 54 (50%) were females. This even sex ratio differs from the preponderance of females reported by Koplin (1973), Mills (1975, 1976), and Wilkinson and Debban (1980). Female kestrels preferred grassland (55% female vs 45% male), Creosotebush (67% vs 33%), and agricultural lands (53% vs 47%). Males predominated in mesquite (75% males vs 25% females), saltbush (100% vs 0%), and desert scrub (62% vs 38%). Female kestrels, presumably dominant, occupied the preferred habitat types; whereas, males were displaced to marginal habitats. We encountered Great Horned Owls, which are primarily nocturnal, in desert grasslands and desert scrub. We do not believe that this finding ac- curately reflects their habitat utilization or preference. Roadrunners occurred in seven of the habitats. Relative abundance, indices indicated a preference for agricultural lands, saltbush and mesquite. We observed Loggerhead Shrikes in every habitat, except pinyon-juniper. Relative abundance indices indicated a preference for agricultural land, grassland, half-shrub and mesquite. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Paul Tankersley for assisting with the field work. We would also like to thank Stephen M. Russell for his editorial review and comments on the draft. LITERATURE CITED Brown, D.E., C.H. Lowe & C.P. Pase. 1980. A digitized systematic classification for ecosystems with an illustrated summary of the natural vegetation of North America. USDA Forest Serv. General Tech. Rep. RM-73, 93 p. Rocky Moun- tain For. & Range Exp. Station, Fort Collins, CO. Craig, T.H. 1978. A car survey of raptors in southeastern Idaho 1974-1976. Raptor Res. 12:40-45. Craighead, J.J, & F.C. Craighead. 1956. Hawks, owls, and wildlife. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, PA. Edwards, C.C. 1969. Winter behavior and population dynamics of American eagles in western Utah. Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT. Hickey, J.J., ed. 1969. Peregrine Falcon populations: their biology and decline. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. Johnson, D. & J.H, Enderson. 1972. Roadside raptor census in Colorado — winter 1971-72. Wilson Bull. 84:489-490. Koplin, J.R. 1973. Differential habitat use by sexes of American Kestrels wintering in northern California. Raptor Res. 7:39-42. Mills, G.S. 1975. A winter population study of the American Kestrel in central Ohio. Wilson Bull. 87:241-247. Mills, G.S. 1976. American Kestrel sex ratios and habitat separation. Auk 93:740-748. Millsap, B.A. 1981. Distributional status of Falconiformes in west-central Arizona . . . with notes on ecology, reproductive success, and management. Tech. Note TN-355. USD1. Bur. Land Manage. Denver, CO. 182 WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN ARIZONA Office of Arid Lands Studies. 1976. Vegetation map of the Upper Gila-San Simon grazing environmental statement area. Univ. Arizona, Tucson. Page, G. & D.F. Whitacre. 1975. Raptor predation on wintering shorebirds. Condor 77:73-83. Schnell, G.D. 1968. Differential habitat utilization by wintering Rough-legged and Red-tailed hawks. Condor 70:373-377. Southern, W.E. 1963. Winter populations, behavior and seasonal dispersal of Bald Eagles in northwestern Illinois. Wilson Bull. 75:42-55. Wakely, J.S. 1978. Factors affecting the use of hunting sites by Ferruginous Hawks. Condor 80:316-326. Weller, M.W. 1964. Habitat utilization of two species of buteos wintering in central Iowa. Iowa Bird Life 34:58-62. Wilkinson, G.S. & K.R. Debban. 1980. Habitat preferences of wintering diurnal raptors in the Sacramento Valley. West. Birds 11:25-34. Woffinden, N.D. & J.R. Murphy. 1977. A roadside raptor census in the eastern Great Basin— 1973-1974. Raptor Res. 11:62-66. Accepted 17 May 1984 183 BULLETIN BOARD GRASSHOPPER SPARROW STATUS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Information on the past and present status of the Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus sauannarum ) as a breeding species in southern California (south of Monterey — Inyo counties) is needed, for a preliminary study on the current popula- tion status and possible decline of this species in recent years. Please include the following information: 1) exact location of breeding birds; 2) date of observation; 3) number of birds; 4) evidence of breeding; 5) current status of site, if known; 6) habitat type, if known. All contributors will be gratefully acknowledged. Robert L. McKernan, Section of Ornithology. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. 900 Exposition Blvd.. Los Angeles, California 90007. RAPTOR RESEARCH FOUNDATION CONFERENCE -NOVEMBER 1985 ANNOUNCEMENT AND FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS The 1985 Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) International Meeting and Sym- posium on the Management of Birds of Prey will be held at the Capitol Plaza Holiday Inn in Sacramento, California, 2- 10 November 1985. Highlights of the meeting will in- clude 1) the Second RRF Conference on Raptor Conservation Techniques— Twelve Years of Progress. 1973-1985; 2) a Western Hemisphere Meeting of the World Work- ing Group on Birds of Prey (ICBP); 3) the Second International Vulture Symposium: 4) A Western North American Osprey Symposium; 5) a Workshop on North American Candidate Endangered Raptors: 6) an Internationa! Symposium on Raptor Rein- troduction: and 7) a Symposium on Raptor Rehabilitation. Captive Breeding, and Public Education. For more information or if you are interested in presenting a paper, please contact Dr. Richard R. Olendorff, US Bureau of Land Management. 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825, or Nancy Venizelos. San Francisco Zoological Society. Sloat Blvd. at the Pacific Ocean. San Francisco. California 94132. WESTERN BIRD BANDING ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING The Western Bird Banding Association will hold its annual meeting 3-5 June 1985. prior to the joint meeting of the Wilson and Cooper ornithological societies to be held in nearby Boulder, Colorado. The WBBA meeting, at YMCA of the Rockies. Estes Park (adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park) , will include paper sessions, informal workshops and demonstrations, and field trips. Planned owling trips(s) will provide a chance of hearing or seeing Boreal Owls. — Ronald A. Ryder. Dept, of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. 184 NOTES FIRST RECORD OF Le CONTE S SPARROW IN OREGON JEFF GILLIGAN, 26 N.E. 32nd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232 OWEN SCHMIDT, 1220 N.E. 17th Avenue #2-D, Portland, Oregon 97232 DAVID IRONS, 4005 S.E. Lambert, Portland, Oregon 97202 RICHARD SMITH, 12415 N.W, Haskell Court #18, Portland, Oregon 97229 Gilligan spotted Oregon’s first Le Conte’s Sparrow ( Ammodramus leconteii ) while birding with Schmidt, Irons and Smith on 27 Sep 1983, in the tiny oasis town of Fields, Harney Co. We first saw the bird around 0900 in 3 m high willows ( Salix sp.) along the creek that flows through town. These trees were filled with migrating passerines including a Blackpoll W f arbler ( Dendroica striata ) and a Clay-colored Spar- row ( Spizella pallida ), both vagrants in Oregon. The record has been submitted to the Oregon Bird Records Committee. The Le Conte’s Sparrow soon disappeared into a nearby swale, mostly grassy with small willows and brush that had been killed 2 years earlier by fire. We saw it many times over the next 6 hours, in some cases getting views as long as a minute but usually just catching glimpses. One diagnostic photograph (Figure 1) was obtained when the bird was flushed onto a small snag. The click of the camera shutter fright- ened the bird back into the grass. Figure 1. Le Conte’s Sparrow, Fields, Harney Co., Oregon, 27 Sep 1983. Photo by Jeff Gilligan 185 Western Birds 15:185-186. 1984 NOTES This description was taken from field notes prepared by Irons and Gilligan im- mediately after the sighting: Size— small, about the size of a Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii ). Head— very pale central crown stripe bordered by a distinct blackish line on each side; broad, bright orange-buff supercilium; black postocular streak; distinct gray ear patch, lower face orange-buff, somewhat paler than super- cilium. Bill — short, conical. Eye— large, dark. Nape — grayish, steaked with reddish- brown. Chest— orange-buff. Sides— orangish, well streaked with dark brown. Abdomen— whitish. Back— feathers blackish-brown, broadly edged with buff, forming several broad buffy lines running the length of the back. Wings— brown, feather fringes paler brown. Tail— short; undertail— orangish -buff. The broad buffy streaks on the blackish-brown back, the distinct gray earpatch, and the orange-buff supercilium eliminate any race of the Grasshopper Sparrow (Am- modramus savannarum) . The distinct gray earpatch, the steaked nape, the pale crown stripe, and the broadness and buffy color of the back streaks eliminate the in- land race of the Sharp-tailed Sparrow ( Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni) . Le Conte’s Sparrow breeds as far west as southern Mackenzie, east-central British Columbia, and north-central Montana (Godfrey 1979, AOU 1983). It migrates regularly through the Great Plains to its wintering grounds in south-central and southeastern United States (Terres 1980, AOU 1983). The AOU (1983) lists Le Conte’s Sparrow as “casual west to Washington, Idaho . . . and California,” but Burleigh (1972) calls it rare in Idaho, “apparently of casual occurrence in the northern part of the state,” with only one documented record. Washington has two records, one of a bird that killed itself against a window in Kennewick, Benton Co., on 29 May 1964 (Roberson 1980, Weber and Larrison 1977), and one of a bird seen 15 Nov 1982 at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge in Pacific Co. (Hunn and Mattocks 1983). Roberson (1980) lists seven records for California, six of which he considered to be fall vagrants. The earliest was 13 Oct 1970, on Southeast Farallon Island. Winds were from the southwest on the morning this bird was seen. In fall 1983, as in fall 1982 when we birded the same area on about the same date, “eastern” vagrants were seen at Fields during periods of southwest winds. LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, 6th ed. Am. Ornithol. Union, Lawrence, KS. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, ID. Godfrey, W.E. 1979. The birds of Canada. Natl. Mus. Canada, Ottawa. Hunn, E.S. & P.W. Mattocks, Jr. 1983. Northern Pacific coast region. Am. Birds 37:218. Roberson, D. 1980. Rare birds of the West Coast. Woodcock Publications, Pacific Grove, CA, Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Weber, J.W. & E.J. Larrison. 1977. Birds of southeastern Washington. Univ. Press Idaho, Moscow, ID. Accepted 1 7 October 1 984 186 NOTES BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE AND NORTHERN GOSHAWK INTERACTIONS WITH PEREGRINE FALCONS AT SAN MIGUEL ISLAND, CALIFORNIA BRENT S. STEWART, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 1700 South Shores Road, San Diego, California 92109 ROBERT L. DELONG, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS, NWAFC, 7600 Sand Point Way, NSA Bldg. 32, Seattle, Washington 98115 Although the Black-shouldered (White-tailed) Kite ( Elanus caeruleus) has not been known to nest on the California Channel Islands, it was locally abundant in mainland coastal areas of California in the 19th century (Waian and Stendall 1970). The kite population in the Santa Barbara region has increased substantially during the last 30 years, after being reduced to very small numbers by habitat destruction, shooting and egg collecting in the early 1900s (Waian and Stendall 1970, Garrett and Dunn 1981). The species has not been previously reported from San Miguel Island, although there are four recent autumn sightings from nearby Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands (Garrett and Dunn 1981). On 28 October 1982, Stewart observed an adult Black-shouldered Kite hunting near Nidever Canyon on San Miguel Island. The kite was seen again the next morning hunting in the same area. An adult Black-shouldered Kite was seen on 14 November 1982 hunting over the dry lake bed near the west end of the island. Stewart observed the bird for about 20 minutes before a Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus ) flew over Green Mountain from the east. The falcon harassed and chased the kite as they both ascended and flew to the south. They disappeared from sight about 15 minutes after the encounter began. A third sighting of an adult Black-shouldered Kite was made near Nidever Canyon on 17 November 1982. The Northern Goshawk ( Accipiter gentilis) has been observed occasionally on the southern California mainland in Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties but it has never been reported from any of the Channel Islands (Garrett and Dunn 1981) . Peregrine Falcons nested, although apparently in small numbers, on San Miguel Island in the early 1900s but the population was extinct by the 1940s (Kiff 1980). Peregrines have been regularly sighted at San Miguel Island in autumn and winter in recent years (Jehl 1980, Stewart unpubl. data). Most of these sightings are thought to be of transient birds although a few peregrines may have wintered on the island. On 12 November 1982, as we were observing a Peregrine Falcon hunting from a bluff at Harris Point, an adult Northern Goshawk suddenly appeared over the bluff. It flew directly at and began harassing the peregrine. The two birds interacted for about 15 minutes before the goshawk flew off towards the east. The apparent “aerial combat” consisted of the goshawk initially stooping on the peregrine. The birds fell together to within about 1 m of the ground, with the goshawk above the falcon, at which time the falcon countered by chasing the goshawk vertically to about 100 m to 150 m altitude. The birds never made physical contact and the sequence was repeated eight times before the goshawk departed to the east. The peregrine then resumed hunting at the same location. Later, on 14 November 1982, Stewart observed an adult goshawk (probably the same bird) at the south end of the dry lake bed near Green Mountain and watched it for about 40 minutes before it flew off to the southwest. These observations are apparently the first records of the Black-shouldered Kite and the Northern Goshawk at San Miguel Island and the first record of the Northern Goshawk on the Southern California Channel Islands. Western Birds 15:187-188, 1984 187 NOTES We thank Joseph R. Jehl, Jr., Ralph W. Schreiber, Guy McCaskie, H. Lee Jones, Dennis M. Power, Kimball L. Garrett and William T. Everett for commenting on the manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Garrett, K. & J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California: status and distribution. Los <- Angeles Audubon Soc., Los Angeles. Jehl, J.R., Jr. 1980. Status of Peregrine Falcon in the Channel Islands, 1979-1980. In J.R. Jehl, Jr. & C.F. Cooper, eds. Potential effects of Space Shuttle sonic booms on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: research reports. San Diego State Univ. Center for Marine Studies Tech. Rep. 80-1. Kiff, L.F. 1980. Historical changes in resident populations of California island raptors. Pp. 651-673 in D.M. Power, ed. The California Islands; proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist., Santa Barbara, CA. Waian, L.B. & R.C. Stendall. 1970. The White-tailed Kite in California with obser- vations of the Santa Barbara population. California Fish & Game 56:188-198. Accepted 5 June 1984 Northern Goshawk and Peregrine Falcon Sketch by Tim Manolis 188 SOME RECENT NESTING RECORDS FOR THE SNOWY PLOVER IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GARY L. IVEY, Kern National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 219, Delano, California 93216 (present address: Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 113, Burns, Oregon 97720) A survey to determine the breeding status of the western race of the Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nioosus ) in California was conducted from 1977 to 1980 (Page and Stenzel, West. Birds 12: 1-40, 1981) . The San Joaquin Valley was surveyed in 1978 but the only Snowy Plovers found there that were suspected of breeding were one pair at Goose Lake, Kern County. Page and Stenzel (1981) also summarized historical breeding records for California, including the San Joaquin Valley. Gary Zahm (pers. comm.) reported two pairs of Snowy Plovers with broods on and near tile drainage evaporation ponds at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, Merced County, in June 1981. On 1 June 1982 1 located nesting Snowy Plovers on newly developed tile drainage evaporation ponds, approximately 30 km south of Corcoran, Kings County. I conducted periodic surveys of the Snowy Plover nesting population on two groups of evaporation ponds through the summer of 1982. I was able to survey only about 80% of the potential nesting habitat because some of it was on remote islands which were difficult to census. I observed several nests containing from one to three eggs, one nest with four eggs, and numerous young. The peak count was 126 adult-sized birds in early July. This total may have included some young of the year because I did not attempt to distinguish adults from fledged young. 1 estimated that approximately 60 pairs of Snowy Plovers nested on these areas in 1982. Tile drainage evaporating ponds were developed in arid regions where summer evaporation is high and evaporating irrigation waters carry accumulations of salts. These ponds, described by Summers (American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. 75-2064, 1975). are similar structurally to commercial salt evaporation ponds in the San Francisco Bay Area, which are also used extensively by nesting Snowy Plovers (Page and Stenzel 1981). Ponds surveyed in 1982 were constructed in 1980 and 1981 in southeastern Kings County. The ponds encompassed the combined total of 998 ha. About 95% of the total area was covered with water; the remainder consisted of dikes, islands and ser- vice roads. Snowy Plovers nested on the dikes, islands and roads around the ponds. These areas were generally devoid of vegetation because of high salinity. High populations of brine flies (family Ephydridae), a major food source for Snowy Plovers (Purdue, Southwestern Naturalist 21:347-357, 1976), occurred along the margins of the ponds. Other invertebrates were also present in high densities. Water salinity in the ponds (measured by specific conductance) ranged from about 10,000 to 100,000 micromhos per centimeter at 25°C (S. Hall pers. comm.). During the summer 1982, an additional 259 ha in Kern County were incorporated into the evaporation pond complex. The new area was filled with water during fall and winter 1982-83, and supported nesting Snowy Plovers during the 1983 breeding season (D. Severson pers. comm.) . This observation indicates that Snowy Plovers will readily colonize new habitats of this type. Because of the magnitude of the soil salinity problem, several areas are currently being developed as evaporation basins in the San Joaquin Valley. It is likely Snowy Plovers will colonize these new basins when they are completed. Although these ponds are providing additional Snowy Plover habitat, the levels of potential toxicants accumulated in tile drainage waters, and how these toxicants may affect Snowy Plovers and other nesting birds, need to be investigated. 1 would like to express my thanks to C.D. Littlefield and Gary Page for their com- ments on this manuscript, and to Dee Ehlers for typing assistance. Accepted 21 August 1984 189 Western Birds 15:189, 1984 REPORT TO MEMBERS TERENCE WAHL, President, Western Field Ornithologists Western Field Ornithologists’ annual meeting was held at San Rafael, California, 28-30 September 1984. Registration was about 50, with the usual predominance of California members. The WFO Board of Directors met on Friday, 28 September, from 1700-2200. The membership business meeting took place on Saturday, 29 September, prior to the papers session. A brief board meeting took place following the papers session, and the annual ban- quet and program followed. Field trips were offered Friday, Saturday and Sunday. WFO s situation has improved considerably in the past year. Western Birds publication is almost up to date and the journal continues to improve, thanks to the efforts of Editor Alan Craig, associate editors, contributors. Editorial Board, and members of the Board of Directors. Our financial condition has strengthened past the point of solvency to a welcome degree of security. This reflects new memberships, sales of reprints and T-shirts, income from boat trips and last year’s annual meeting, and at- tention from board members. Board members, officers and members on the membership promotion committee have set WFO on an enthusiastic drive in soliciting memberships through advertisements in ornithological publications, distributing brochures at meetings throughout western North America, and other efforts too detailed to describe here. All this good news reflects the dedication of WFO members and officers toward strengthening the organization and its journal. We hope all members will point out to others interested in western field ornithology the value of belonging to WFO, receiving the journal, attending annual meetings (see below for further information), and being able to publish papers in what we believe is a quality scientific journal with its emphasis on identification, distribution, and western field ornithology. New members increase our ability to publish more articles on these subjects. Dave Shuford gave a presentation on the Marin County breeding bird atlas. Tim Manolis discussed creating a county recording system in Califor- nia. Jon Winter told us about the status of the Great Gray Owl in California. Joe Morlan discussed problems of identification of fall warblers. And Ed Harper presented an identification quiz, using a series of slides of mystery birds. Ed also presented the post-banquet program of beautiful slides of birds from many parts of western North America. As usual, these presentations were well received and much appreciated. The membership elected Tim Manolis, Guy McCaskie and Joe Morlan to 3-year terms as WFO directors. The board elected Laurie Binford to be Presi- dent. Tim Manolis Vice-President, Garth Alton Treasurer/ Membership Secretary, and Jean-Marie Spoelman Recording Secretary for 1-year terms. Field trips during this annual meeting visited a number of the well-known birding spots in Marin County and the Point Reyes area and. while vagrants were minimal, were enjoyed by all. Undoubtedly the most memorable event of the weekend, however, was the now-famous discovery of the Dusky 190 Warbler and subsequent convening of seemingly all California birders within a matter of hours at the Hayward Shoreline Marsh. Naturally, we believe that circumstances associated with our meeting led to its discovery at that time — another reason for attending meetings! We thank John Luther, Tim Manolis, Kurt Campbell and all those who served on the local committee for their efforts. I thank all the members of WFO’s board, its officers and members for their efforts over the past 3 years in getting us to where we are now, and feel confident that the efforts have laid the groundwork for further strengthening of WFO and growth of Western Birds. Snowy Plover Sketch 6y Donna Dittmann 191 INDEX, WESTERN BIRDS, VOLUME 15, 1984 Compiled by Mildred Comar Accipiter cooperii 17, 41, 118, 177, 179, 180, 181 gentilis. 187-188 striatus. 17, 81, 118, 177, 179, 180, 181 Acridotheres tristis, 104, 106 Actitis macularia , 18, 119 Aechmophorus occidentalis, 10, 16, 116 Aegolius acadicus, 19 Aeronautes saxatalis , 121 Aethia pusilla, 43 Agelaius phoeniceus, 126 Akepa, 105, 106. 109 Alauda arvensis, 104, 106, 108 Albatross, Black-footed, 131 Alectoris chukar, 103, 106, 107, 108, 118 Amakihi, Common, 105, 106, 107 Ammodramus leconteii. 185-186 Amphispiza belli. 22, 126, 127, 128 bilineata, 126 Anas acuta. 10, 16, 117, 171 americana, 17, 117 clypeata, 16, 117, 171 collaris, 117 crecca. 16. 117. 171 cyanoptera, 16, 117 disco rs. 117 platyrhynchos, 4, 5, 6, 117, 171 strepera. 16 Anser albifrons, 16 Anthus spinoietta, 21. 123 Apapane, 105. 106, 107 Aphelocoma coerulescens, 32. 85. 86, 87 Aquila chrysaetos, 37-38, 118, 177. 178. 180, 181 Ara militaris, 134 Ardea herodias. 4. 5, 8. 12, 16, 117 Arenaria interpres. 11, 119 melanocephala, 119. 171 Asio flammeus. 19. 104, 106, 108, 121. 171 otus. 121 Athene cunicularia. 121 Atwood. Jonathan L.. High elevation occurrence of Scrub Jays in the San Bernardino Mountains. A. 32 Auklet, Cassin's. 121 Least, 43 Parakeet. 165. 166, 167. 170. 173 192 Rhinoceros, 11, 12. 121, 146, 154, 166, 170, 172 Avocet, American, 18, 119 Aythya affinis, 17. 117 americana, 17, 117 collaris, 17 sp., 10 ualisineria. 17 Bailey, Edgar P., and Nina H. Faust, Distribution and abundance of marine birds breeding between Amber and Kamishak bays, Alaska, with notes on interactions with bears, 161-174 Barn-Owl, Common, 103, 106. 108, 121, 127 Bayer, Range D., Notes on the feeding behavior of gulls and crows on clams and crabs at Yaquina Estuary, Oregon, 35-36 Bittern, American, 16 Blackbird, Brewer’s, 127 Red-winged, 126 Rusty, 127 Yellow-headed, 126 Bluebird, Eastern, 40 Mountain, 39-40, 123 Western, 20, 123 Bobolink. 126 Bombycilla cedrorum. 124 Botaurus lentiginosus. 16 Brachyramphus breuirostris. 165. 170, 171 marmoratus. 4, 5, 8, 12, 43, 44, 165, 170, 171 Brant, 117 Branta bernicla. 117 canadensis. 6 Bryant. Laurie J.. and L.D. Courtright. Jr., Unusual behavior of a Red- throated Loon. 29-31 Bubo uirginianus. 177, 180. 181. 182 Bubulcus ibis. 117, 128 Bucephala albeola. 10. 17 clangula. 10, 17 Bufflehead. 10. 17 Bunting, Indigo. 125 Lark. 126 Lazuli. 21. 125 Snow. 171 Western Birds 15:192-200. 1984 Bushtit, 85, 86, 87 Buteo albicaudcrtus, 134 lagopus , 17 , 171 , 177 , 179 , 180 , 181 jamaicensis, 17, 118, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 regalis, 177, 179, 180, 181 swainsoni, 17 Butorides striatus, 117 Calamospiza melanocorys, 126 Calcarius ornatus, 126 Calidris alba. 119 alpina, 18, 119 bairdii, 18, 119 canutus, 119 mauri, 11, 18, 119 melanotis, 18, 119 minutilla, 18, 119, 170 ptilocnemis, 171 Callipepla californica. 118 gambelii, 118 Calypte anna, 23-27, 121, 127 costae, 121 Campbell, Erick G., see Parker, R. Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus, 123 Canvasback, 17 Cardinal, Northern, 104, 106, 108 Cardinalis cardinalis, 104, 106, 108 Carduelis lawrencei, 127 pinus, 22, 83, 127 psaltria, 127 tristis. 127 Carpodacus mexicanus, 89, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 127 purpureus, 127 Case, Ted J., and Martin L. Cody, eds., Island biogeography in the Sea of Cortez (review), 137-140 Casmerodius albus, 16, 117 Cathartes aura, 17, 117 Cartharus guttatus, 20, 82, 123 ustulatus, 20, 123 Catoptrophorus semipalmatus, 18, 119 Centrocercus urophasianus, 37-38 Cepphus carbo, 145-160 columba, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 14, 145, 148. 149, 152, 153, 154, 158, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172 grylle , 145, 148, 152, 154, 155, 158 Cerorhinca monocerata, 11, 12, 121, 146, 154, 166, 170, 172 Certhia americana, 20, 82 Ceryle alcyon, 4, 5, 9, 121 Chaetura uauxi, 121 Charadrius alexandrinus, 118 a. nivosus, 189 montanus, 119, 128 semipalmatus, 18, 118, 170 uociferus, 6, 118 Chat, Yellow-breasted, 21, 125 Chen caeruiescens, 16 rossii, 16 Chickadee, Mountain, 20, 82, 83 Chlidonias niger, 19 Chondestes grammacus, 22, 126 Chordeiles minor, 19 Chukar, 103, 106, 107, 108, 118 Circus cyaneus, 17, 118, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 Cistothorus palustris, 123 Clan gala hyemalis, 10 Clark, Thomas O., Notable records of birds from eastern Sonora, Mexico, 134-136 Coccothraustes uespertinus, 22 Coccyzus americanus, 49-80 Cody, Martin L., see Case T. Colaptes auratus, 19, 82, 83, 122 Columba fasciata, 121 livia, 103, 106, 121 Conant, Sheila, and Maile Stemmermann Kjargaard, Annotated checklist of birds of Haleakala National Park, Maui, Hawaii, 97-110 Contopus borealis, 19, 122 sordidulus, 19, 122 Coot, American, 11, 18, 118 Cormorant, Brandt’s, 10, 116, 127 Double-crested, 10, 12, 16, 116, 166, 167, 169. 173 Pelagic, 2, 7, 12, 117, 166, 167, 169, 173 Red-faced, 166, 167, 169, 173 Comely, John E., see Littlefield, C. Coruus brachyrhynchos. 35-36 caurinus, 4, 5, 9 corax, 123 Courtright, L.D., Jr., see Bryant, L. Cowbird, Brown-headed, 33-34, 88, 127 Crane, Greater Sandhill, 18 Creeper, Brown, 20, 82 Maui, 105, 106, 107 Crow, Common, 35-36 Northwestern, 4, 5, 9 Cuckoo, Yellow-billed, 49-80 Curlew, Long-billed, 18, 119 Cyanocitta stelleri, 82 Cyciorrhynchus psittacula, 165, 166, 167, 170, 173 Cygnus columbianus, 16 193 Delong, Robert L., see Stewart, B. Demaree, Salome Ross, Bathing habits of the Cooper’s Hawk, 41 Dendroica castanea, 124 coronata, 21, 82, 83, 124 discolor, 124 fusca, 124 magnolia , 124 nigrescens, 85, 87, 88, 124 occidentalis, 124 palmarum, 124 petechia, 21, 33, 124 striata, 124, 185 townsendi, 21, 82, 124 Dickcissel, 125 Diomedea nigripes, 131 Dolichonyx oryzivorus, 126 Dove, Mourning, 19, 121 Rock, 103, 106, 121 Spotted, 103, 106 White-winged, 121 Zebra, 103, 106 Dowitcher, Long-billed, 18, 119 Short-billed, 119 Duck, Harlequin, 10, 171 Ring-necked, 17, 117 Ruddy, 17, 117 Dunlin, 18, 119 Eagle, Bald, 6, 12, 17, 118, 127, 171, 177, 178, 180, 181 Golden, 37-38, 118, 177, 178, 180, 181 Eider, Common, 171 Egret, Cattle, 117, 128 Great, 16, 117 Snowy, 16, 117 Egretta thula, 16, 117 tricolor, 117 Elanus caeruleus, 117, 187-188 Ellis, Kevin, L,, Behavior of lekking Sage Grouse in response to a perched Golden Eagle, 37-38 Empidonax difficilis, 20, 122 hammondii, 122 oberholseri, 19, 122, 141-142 trailhi , 19, 122 wrightii, 20, 85, 87, 122 Eremophila alpestris, 122 Euphagus carolinus, 127 cyanocephalus, 127 Falco columbarius, 118, 177, 179, 180, 181 mexicanus, 17, 177, 179, 180, 181 peregrinus, 118, 127, 171, 187-188 rusticolus, 171 sparverius, 17, 118, 128, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 Falcon, Peregrine, 118, 127, 171, 187-188 Prairie, 17, 177, 179, 180, 181 Faust, Nina H., see Bailey, E. Ferguson, Howard L., see Jorgensen, P. Finch, House, 89, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 127 Purple, 127 Fitton, Sam D. and Oliver K. Scott, Wyoming’s juniper birds, 85-90 Flicker, Northern, 19, 82, 83, 122 Flycatcher, Ash-throated, 20, 85, 86, 87, 122 Dusky, 19, 122, 141-142 Gray, 20, 85, 87, 122 Hammond’s, 122 Olive-sided, 19, 122 Western, 20, 122 Willow, 19, 122 Francolin, Gray, 103, 106, 108 Francolinus pondicerianus, 103, 106, 108 Fratercula arcticia, 154 cirrhata, 154, 166, 167, 168, 172 corniculata, 166, 167, 168 Fregata minor, 101, 106 Frigatebird, Great, 101, 106 Fulica americana, 11, 18, 118 Fulmar, Northern, 116, 131-133 Fulmarus glacialis, 116, 131-133 Gadwall, 16 Gaines, David, and Stephen A. Laymon, Decline, status and preservation of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in Califor- nia, 49-80 Gallinago gatlinago, 119 Garrett, Kimball, review by, 93-94 Garrulax canorus, 104, 106, 108 Gauia arctica, 10, 116 immer, 10, 116 stellata, 29-31, 171 Geococcyx californianus, 175, 177, 180, 181, 182 Geopelia striata, 103, 106 Geothlypis trichas, 21, 125 Gilligan, Jeff, Owen Schmidt, David Irons and Richard Smith, First record of Le Conte’s Sparrow in Oregon, 185-186 Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray, 85, 87. 88, 123 194 Godwit, Marbled, 18, 119 Goldeneye, Common, 10, 17 Golden-Plover, Lesser, 103, 106, 107, 118 Goldfinch, American, 127 Lawrence's. 127 Lesser, 127 Goose, Canada, 6 Greater White-fronted, 16 Hawaiian, 103. 106, 107, 108, 109 Ross’, 16 Snow, 16 Goshawk, Northern, 187-188 Grebe, Eared, 10, 16, 116 Pied-billed, 16, 116 Western, 10, 16, 116 Grosbeak, Black-headed, 21, 125 Blue, 125 Evening, 22 Pine, 83 Rose-breasted, 125 Grouse, Sage, 37-38 Grus canadensis tabida, 18 Guillemot, Black, 145, 148, 152, 154, 155, 158 Pigeon, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 14, 145, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 158, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172 Sooty, 145-160 Guiraca caerulea, 125 Gull, Black-tailed, 146, 150, 152, 154 Bonaparte’s, 11, 19, 120 California, 11, 19, 120 Franklin’s, 19, 120 Glaucous- winged, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 35-36. 120, 132, 166, 167, 169, 173 Heermann’s, 11, 120 Herring, 120 Laughing, 120 Mew, 11, 120, 167, 169 Ring-billed, 11, 19, 120 Slaty-backed, 146 Thayer’s, 120 Western, 35-36, 120, 127 Gyrfalcon, 171 Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus , 89 Haematopus bachmani, 6, 7, 12, 119, 127, 166, 167, 170, 172 Haliaeetus leucocephalus, 6, 12, 17, 118, 127, 171, 177, 178, 180, 181 Hanka, Ladislav R., Brown-headed Cowbird parasitizes Northern Orioles, A, 33-34 Harrier, Northern, 17, 118, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 Hawk, Cooper’s 17, 41, 118, 177, 179, 180, 181 Ferruginous, 177, 179, 180, 181 Red-tailed, 17, 118, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 Rough-legged, 17, 171, 177, 179, 180, 181 Sharp-shinned, 17, 81, 118, 177, 179, 180, 181 Swainson’s, 17 White-tailed, 134 Hemignathus lucidus , 105, 106, 109 virens, 105, 106, 107 Heron, Great Blue, 4, 5, 8, 12, 16, 117 Green-backed, 117 Tricolored, 117 Heteroscelus incanus, 103, 106, 119 Himantopus mexicanus , 18, 119 Himatione sanguinea, 105, 106, 107 Hirundo pyrrhonota, 20, 122 rustica, 20, 122 Histrionicus histrionicus, 10, 171 Honeycreeper, Crested, 105, 106, 107, 109 Hummingbird, Allen’s, 26, 121 Anna’s, 23-27, 121, 127 Broad-tailed, 81 Calliope, 121 Costa’s, 121 Rufous, 19, 26, 81, 121 Ibis, White-faced, 16 Icteria virens , 21, 125 Icterus cucullatus, 127 galbula. 22, 33-34, 127 parisorum, 85, 87, 88 spurius , 135 liwi, 105, 106, 107 Irons, David, see Gilligan, J. Ivey, Gary L., Some recent nesting records for the Snowy Plover in the San Joaquin Valley, California, 189 Ixoreus naeuius, 21, 123 Jaeger, Parasitic, 120, 166, 170, 173 Pomarine, 120 Jay, Gray, 81, 82, 83 Pinyon, 89 Scrub, 32. 85, 86, 87 Steller’s, 82 Jorgensen, Paul D,, and Howard L. Ferguson, Birds of San Clemente Island, The, 111-130 195 Junco, Dark-eyed, 22, 82, 83, 126 Junco hyemalis, 22, 82, 83, 126 Kestrel, American, 17, 118, 128, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 Killdeer, 6, 118 Kingbird, Cassin’s, 122 Eastern, 20, 122 Tropical, 122 Western, 20, 122 Kingfisher, Belted, 4, 5, 9, 121 Kinglet, Golden-crowned, 20, 82, 83, 123 Ruby-crowned, 20, 82, 83, 123 Kite, Black-shouldered, 117, 187-188 Kittiwake, Black-legged, 120, 131, 166, 167, 168, 173 Kjargaard, Maile Stemmermann, see Conant, S. Knot, Red, 119 Lanius excubitor, 21 ludouicianus, 175, 177, 180, 181, 182 I. mearnsi, 124, 127, 128 Lark, Horned, 122 Larus argentatus, 120 atricilla, 120 californicu s, 11, 19, 120 canus, 11, 120, 167, 169 crassirostris, 146, 150, 152, 154 delawarensis, 11, 19, 120 glaucescens, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 35-36, 120, 132, 166, 167, 169, 173 heermanni, 11 , 120 occidentalis, 35-36, 120, 127 Philadelphia, 11, 19, 120 pipixcan, 19, 120 schistisagus , 146 thayeri, 120 Laughing- thrush. Melodious, 104, 106, 108 " Laymon, Stephen A., see Gaines, D. Leiothrix, Red-billed, 104, 106, 107, 108 Leiothrix lutea, 104, 106, 107, 108 Limnodromus griseus, 119 scolopaceus, 18, 119 Limosa fedoa, 18, 119 Littlefield, Carroll D., and John E. Comely, Fall migration of birds at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon, 15-22 Lonchura malabarica, 106 punctulata, 105, 106, 108 Longspur, Chestnut-collared, 126 Loon, Arctic, 10, 116 Common, 10, 116 Red-throated, 29-31, 171 Lophodytes cucullatus , 17 Loxops coccineus, 105, 106, 109 Lunda, see Fratercula Macaw, Military, 134 Mallard, 4-6, 117, 171 Mannikin, Nutmeg, 105, 106, 108 Manolis, Tim, Identification Quiz, 141-142 Meadowlark, Western, 126 Melanerpes formicivorus, 121 lewis, 19, 121 Melanitta fusca , 10, 117, 171 perspicillata, 10, 117, 171 Melanotis caerulescens, 134 Melospiza lincolnii, 22, 126 metodia, 126, 127, 128 Merganser, Common, 10, 17, 171 Hooded, 17 Red-breasted, 11, 117, 171 Mergus merganser, 10, 17, 171 serrator, 11, 117, 171 Merlin, 118, 177, 179, 180, 181 Mimus polyglottos, 104, 106, 123 Mniotilta uaria, 125 Mockingbird, Blue, 134 Northern, 104, 106, 123 Molothrus ater, 33-34, 88, 127 Murre, Common, 11, 120, 146, 168, 172 sp., 165, 166, 167, 168 Thick-billed, 168 Murrelet, Ancient *43, 44, 121, 146, 166, 170, 172 Cravens, 44 Kittlitz’s, 165, 170, 171 Marbled, 4, 5, 8, 12, 43, 44, 165, 170, 171 Xantus’, 43, 44, 120, 127 Myadestes townsendi, 20, 123 Myiarchus cinerascens, 20, 85, 86, 87, 122 Myna, Common, 104, 106 National Geographic Society, Field guide to birds of North America (review) , 45-47 Nesochen sandvicensis, 103, 106, 107, 108. 109 Nighthawk, Common, 19 Night-Heron, Black-crowned, 16, 117 Nucifraga columbiana, 32 196 Nukupuu, 105, 106, 109 Numenius americanus, 18, 119 phaeopus, 119, 171 Nutcracker, Clark’s, 32 Nuthatch, Red-breasted, 82, 83, 123 Nycticorax nycticorax, 16, 117 Oceanodroma furcata, 131, 166, 169, 172 homochroa, 116 leucorhoa, 166, 169, 172 melania, 116 Oldsquaw, 10 Olor coiumbianus, 171 Oporornis tolmiei, 21, 125 Oreoscoptes montanus, 21, 123 Oriole, Hooded, 127 Northern, 22, 33-34, 127 Orchard, 135 Scott’s, 85, 87, 88 Osprey, 6, 17, 117, 127 Owl, Burrowing, 121 Great Hopned, 177. 180, 181, 182 Long-eared, 121 Northern Saw-whet, 19 Short-eared, 19, 104, 106, 108, 121, 171 Oxyura jamaicensis, 17, 117 Oystercatcher, American Black, 6, 7, 12, 119, 127, 166, 167, 170, 172 Palmeria dolei, 105, 106, 107, 109 Partdion haiiaetus, 6, 17, 117, 127 Parker, Robert E., and Erick G. Campbell, Habitat use by wintering birds of prey in southeastern Arizona, 175-183 Paroreomyza montana. 105, 106, 107 Parrotbill, Maui, 105, 106, 109 Parula, Northern, 124 Tropical, 134 Parula americana, 124 pitiayumi, 134 Parus gambeli, 20, 82, 83 inornatu s, 85, 86, 87 Passer domesticus, 127, 128 Passerculus sandwichensis, 22, 126 Passerella iliaca, 22, 126 Passerina amoena, 21, 125 cyanea, 125 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, 16 occidental is, 116 Pelican, American White. 16 Brown, 116 Perisoreus canadensis , 81, 82, 83 Petrel, Dark-rumped, 101, 106, 107, 108, 109 Phaeihon aethereus, 116 lepturus, 101, 106 Phainopepla, 124 Phainopepla nitens , 124 Phalacrocorax auritus, 10, 12. 16, 116, 166, 167, 169. 173 pelagicus, 2, 7, 12, 117, 166, 167, 169, 173 penicillatus. 10, 116, 127 urile, 166, 167, 169, 173 Phalaenoptilus nuttallii, 121 Phalarope, Red, 119 Red-necked, 19. 170 Wilson’s, 18, 119 Phalaropu s fulicarius, 119 lobatus. 19, 170 tricolor, 18. 119 Phasianus colchicus, 103, 107, 108 Pheasant, Ring-necked, 103, 107, 108 Pheucticus ludovicianus, 125 melanocephalus, 21, 125 Phoebe, Black, 122, 127 Say’s, 20, 122 Picoides pubescens, 83 villosus, 19 Pigeon, Band-tailed, 121 Pinicola enucleator. 83 Pintail, Northern, 10, 16, 117, 171 Pipilo chlorurus, 22, 125 erythrophthalmus, 22, 125. 127, 128 Pipit, Water, 21, 123 Piranga bidentata, 135 ludouiciana , 21, 125 rubra, 125 Plectrophenax nivalis, 171 Plegadis chihi, 16 Plover, Black-bellied, 18, 118 Mountain, 119, 128 Semipalmated, 18, 118, 170 Snowy, 118, 189 Pluvialis dominica, 118 fulua, 103, 106. 107 squatarola, 18, 118 Podiceps nigricollis, 10, 16, 116 Podilymbus podiceps, 16, 116 Polioptila caerulea, 85, 87, 88, 123 Pooecetes gramineus, 22, 126 Poorwill, Common, 121 Porzana Carolina, 18, 118 Psaltriparus minimus, 85, 86. 87 Pseudonestor xanthophrys. 105, 106. 109 197 Pterodroma phaeoppgia , 101, 106, 107, 108, 109 Ptpchorarnphus aleuticus, 121 Puffin, Atlantic, 154 Horned, 166, 167, 168 Tufted, 154, 166, 167, 168, 172 Puffinus griseus , 116 terwirostris, 131 Quail, California, 118 Gambel’s, 118 Rail, Virginia, 18, 118 Rallus limicola, 18, 118 Raven, Common, 123 Recuruirostra americana, 18, 119 Redhead, 17, 117 Redstart, American, 21, 125 Regulus calendula, 20, 82, 83, 123 satrapa, 20, 82, 83, 123 Rich, Terrell, Mountain Bluebird use of treeless lava flows for nest sites, 39-40 Riparia riparia, 20, 122 Rissa tridactpla, 120, 131, 166, 167, 168, 173 Roadrunner, Greater, 175, 177, 180, 181, 182 Roberson, Don, Identification Quiz, 43-44 Robin, American, 82, 123 Salpinctes obsoletus, 123, 128 Sanderling, 119 Sandpiper, Baird’s, 18, 119 Least, 18. 119, 170 Pectoral, 18, 119 Rock, 171 Solitary, 119 Spotted, 18, 119 Western, 11, 18, 119 Sapsucker, Red-breasted, 122 Williamson’s, 82 Yellow-bellied, 19, 82, 83 Sapornis nigricans, 122, 127 sapa, 20, 122 Scaup. Lesser, 17, 117 sp., 10 Schmidt, Owen, see Gilligan. J. Scoter. Surf, 10, 117, 171 White-winged. 10. 117, 171 Scott. Oliver K., see Fitton. S. Seiurus noueboracensis. 125 Selasphorus platpcercus, 81 ru/us, 19, 26. 81, 121 sasin. 26, 121 Setophaga ruticilla , 21, 125 Shearwater, Short-tailed, 131 Sooty, 116 Shoveler, Northern, 16, 117, 171 Shrike, Loggerhead, 124, 127, 128, 175, 177, 180, 181, 182 Northern, 21 Sialia currucoides, 39-40, 123 rnexicanna, 20, 123 sialis, 40 Silverbill, Warbling, 106 Siskin, Pine, 22, 83, 127 Sitta canadensis, 82, 83, 123 Skylark, Eurasian, 104, 106, 108 Smith, Richard, see Gilligan, J, Snipe, Common, 119 Solitaire, Townsend’s, 20, 123 Somateria mollissima, 171 Sora, 18, 118 Sparrow, American Tree, 125 Black-chinned, 126 Black-throated, 126 Brewer’s, 22, 126 Chipping, 22, 125 Clay-colored, 125, 185 Fox, 22, 126 Golden-crowned, 22, 126 Harris', 126 House, 127, 128 Lark, 22, 126 Le Conte’s, 185-186 Lincoln’s, 22, 126 Sage. 22, 126, 127, 128 Savannah, 22, 126 Song, 126, 127, 128 Tree, American, 125 Vesper, 22, 126 White-crowned, 22, 126 Speich, Steven M., see Wahl, T. Sphprapicus ruber, 122 thproideus, 82, 83 uarius, 19, 82 Spiza americana, 125 Spizella arborea. 125 atrogularis, 126 brewed, 22, 126 pallida, 125, 185 passerine, 22. 125 Stallcup. Richard, Identification Quiz, 95-96 Starling. European, 124. 128 Stelgidopterpx serripennis, 20. 122 Stellula calliope, 121 Stercorarius parasiticus. 120. 166. 170, 173 198 pomarinus, 120 Sterna caspia, 11, 19, 120 elegans, 120 forsteri, 19, 120 hirundo, 120 maxima, 120 Stewart, Brent S., First record of Hooded Warbler for the Southern California Channel Islands, 91-92; and Robert L. Delong, Black-shouldered Kite and Northern Goshawk interactions with Peregrine Falcons at San Miguel Island, California, 187-188 Stilt, Black-necked, 18, 119 Storm-Petrel, Ashy, 116 Black, 116 Fork-tailed, 131, 166, 169, 172 Leach’s, 166, 169, 172 Streptopelia chinensis, 103, 106 Sturnella neglecta, 126 Sturnus uulgaris, 124, 128 Swallow, Bank, 20, 122 Barn, 20, 122 Cliff, 20, 122 Northern Rough-winged, 20, 122 Tree, 20, 122 Violet-green, 122 Swan, Tundra, 16, 171 Swift, Vaux’s, 121 White-throated, 121 Synthliboramphus antiquus, 43, 44, 121, 146, 166, 170, 172 craveri, 44 hypoleucus , 43-44, 120, 127 Tachycineta hicolor , 20, 122 thalassina, 122 Tanager, Flame-colored, 135 Summer, 125 Western, 21, 125 Tattler, Wandering, 103, 106, 119 Teal, Blue-winged, 117 Cinnamon, 16, 117 Green-winged, 16, 117, 171 Tern, Black, 19 Caspian, 11, 19, 120 Common, 120 Elegant. 120 Forster’s. 19, 120 Royal, 120 Thoresen, Asa C., Breeding phenology and mid-seasonal social behavior of the Sooty Guillemot on Teuri Island, Japan, 145-160 Thrasher, Bendire’s, 123 Sage, 21, 123 Thrush, Hermit, 20, 82, 123 Swainson’s, 20, 123 Varied, 21, 123 Thryomanes bewickii, 85, 87, 88 b. leucophrys , 123, 127 Titmouse, Plain, 85, 86, 87 Towhee. Green-tailed, 22, 125 Rufous-sided, 22, 125, 127, 128 Toxostoma bendirei, 123 Tringa flauipes, 18, 119 melanoleuca, 18, 119 solitaria, 119 Troglodytes aedon, 20, 123 Tropicbird, Red-billed, 116 White-tailed, 101, 106 Turdus migratorius, 82, 123 Turnstone, Black, 119, 171 Ruddy, 11, 119 Tyrannus melancho/icus, 122 tyrannus , 20, 122 uerticalis, 20, 122 vociferans, 122 Tyto alba, 103, 106, 108, 121, 127 Uria aalge, 11, 120, 146, 168, 172 lomvia, 168 Vermivora celata, 21, 124 peregrina, 124 ruficapilla, 21, 124 virginiae, 124 Vestiaria coccinea, 105, 106, 107 Vireo, Bell’s, 95-96 Gray, 85, 87, 88, 124 Solitary, 21, 124 Warbling, 21, 124 Vireo bellii, 95-96 giluus , 21, 124 solitarius, 21, 124 vicinior, 85, 87, 88, 124 Vulture, Turkey, 17, 117 Wagner, Judith L., Post-breeding avifauna and mixed insectivorous flocks in a Colorado spruce-fir forest, 81-84 Wahl, Terence R., Observations on the diving behavior of the Northern Fulmar, 131-133; President’s message, 190-191; and Steven M. Speich, Survey of marine birds in Puget Sound. Hood Canal and waters east of Whidbey Island, Washington, in summer 1982, 1-14 199 Warbler, Bay-breasted, 124 Black-and-White, 125 Black-throated Gray, 85, 87, 88, 124 Blackburnian, 124 Blackpoll, 124, 185 Canada, 125 Hermit, 124 Hooded, 91-92 MacGiilivray’s, 21, 125 Magnolia, 124 Nashville, 21, 124 Orange-crowned, 21, 124 Palm, 124 Prairie, 124 Tennessee, 124 Townsend's, 21, 82, 124 Virginia’s, 124 Wilson’s, 21, 82, 91, 125 Yellow, 21, 33, 124 Yellow-rumped, 21, 82, 83. 124 Waterthrush, Northern. 125 Waxwing, Cedar, 124 Weathers, Wesley W., Birds of southern California’s Deep Canyon (review), 93-94 Webster, Richard, reviews by, 45-47, 137-140 Welker, Heather J., Food color preference in the Anna’s Hum- mingbird, 23-27 Whimbrel, 119, 171 White-eye. Japanese, 104, 106, 107. 108. 109 Wigeon, American, 17, 117 Willet, 18, 119 Wf/sonia canadensis, 125 citrina, 91-92 pusilla, 21, 82, 91, 125 Wood-Pewee, Western, 19, 122 Woodpecker, Acorn. 121 Downy, 83 Hairy, 19 Lewis’, 19, 121 Wren, Bewick’s, 85, 87, 88, 123, 127 Cactus, 123 House, 20, 123 Marsh, 123 Rock, 123, 128 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus. 126 Yellowlegs, Greater, 18, 119 Lesser. 18, 119 Yellowthroat, Common, 21, 125 Zenaida asiatica, 121 macroura, 19. 121 Zonotrichia atricapilla. 22, 126 leucophrys, 22, 126 queruia, 126 Zosterops japonicus, 104. 106, 107. 108. 109 Copies of articles from this publication are now available from the UMI Article Clearinghouse. Cleaniigto ouse Mail to: University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road. Box 91 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 200 Volume 15, Number 4, 1984 Breeding Phenology and Mid-seasonal Social Behavior of the Sooty Guillemot on Teuri Island, Japan Asa C. Thoresen 145 Distribution and Abundance of Marine Birds Breeding Between Amber and Kamishak Bays, Alaska, with Notes on Interactions with Bears Edgar P. Bailey and Nina H. Faust 161 Habitat Use by Wintering Birds of Prey in Southeastern Arizona Robert E. Parker and Erick G. Campbell 175 NOTES First Record of LeConte’s Sparrow in Oregon Jeff Gilligan, Owen Schmidt, David Irons and Richard Smith 185 Black-shouldered Kite and Northern Goshawk Interactions with Peregrine Falcons at San Miguel Island, California Brent S. Stewart and Robert L. DeLong 187 Some Recent Nesting Records for the Snowy Plover in the San Joaquin Valley, California Gary L. Ivey 189 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Terence Wahl 190 INDEX Mildred Comar 192 Cover photo by Edward Harper: Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminata) , Alexai Point, Attu Island, Alaska, 13 September 1983. Manuscripts should be sent to Alan M. Craig, P.O. Box 254, Lakeview, CA 92353. For matters of style consult Suggestions to Contributors to Western Birds (6 pp. mimeo available at no cost from the Editor) and Council of Biology Editors Style Manual 4th edition, 1978 (available from the American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 for $12.00). Papers are desired that are based upon field studies of birds, that are both understand- able and useful to amateurs, and that make a significant contribution to scientific literature Appropriate topics include distribution, migration, status, behavior, ecology, population dynamics, habitat requirements, the effects of pollution, the techniques for identifying, censusing, sound recording and photographing birds in the field. Papers of general interest will be considered regardless of their geographic origin, but particularly desired are papers dealing with studies accomplished in or bearing on Rocky Mountain states and provinces westward, including Alaska and Hawaii, adjacent portions of the Pacific Ocean and Mexico, and western Texas. Reprints can be ordered at author’s expense from the Editor when proof is returned or earlier. Good photographs of rare and unusual birds, unaccompanied by an article but with caption including species, date, locality and other pertinent information, are wanted for publication in Western Birds. Submit photos and captions to Photo Editor.