Skip to main content

Full text of "The Avicultural magazine"

See other formats 


HSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOIlfUUSNI  NVINOSH1IWS  S3iavaan  L I B 
z  r~  2;  [I 

w  °  o  ><tvV^T"X  m 

,/  /•  / 


^  m  x  _  ___ 

CO  ™  —  £/)  X  Z  CO 

osHiiws  saiavaan  libraries  Smithsonian  institution  noiir 

'*  Z  CO  p* 


o 
z 

Z  CO  *  Z  ^  *•  Z  ,  ,  _ 

HSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOIlfUUSNI  NVIN0SH1IWS  SBiaVaail  LIBR 


C 
•H 

o  \;»q^  _  xg-uigy  5  ^  “  '^ijru^y'  o 

0SH1IWS  S3  lavaan^LIBRARI  ES^SMITHSONIAN^INSTITUTION  NOlin 


HSONIAN  INSTITUTION  MOIlfUllSNI  NVIN0SH1IINS  S3iavaan  LIBR, 

^  I  1  4ts>-  i  I  4fe.  i  ^ 

I  I  I  (%M  1  |  X 

"Sfisgy  t  2 .  */  /•  t  S  t  >? 

JVASJ^X  *•  w  ts  '  *5  XlOvosv^V^  >  2 

IOSHimSv/S3  IBVU  arTuBRAR  I  ES~'SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlin 
<o  _  -  m  -  _  CO 

m  xTSJoX  u 

V  f/v  ^v. 

■  ^  J  """  ^  ^  „J 

•HSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOUfUllSNI  NVIN0SH1IWS  S3 1  a  va  a  11  _L  I  B  R 

r"  -t’  r~ 

^5  2 


73 

X  ~~  Ir'w  w°/  ^ 

00  m  I  m  ^  ^  ^ 

co  £  co  X  £ 

J0SH1IIAIS  S3  lava  an  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOIlf 

CO  Z  »♦*.  co  2  <o 

-  ./  x  "*1  I  1  1 


>ai 


>  ^  2  ^\  >  _ 

rHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOIlfUllSNI  ~NVINOSHillMS^S3  I  a  Va  3  II”  L*  B  R 

2  . — — ^  _  •-?  ^ 

><Tu<;ru7>v  lil  v^TicvTT^v 


5  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOliflillSNI  NVINOSH1IWS  SHIHVHSn 

II~NVIN0SH1IWS  S3  I  a  va  a  n~LI  B  RARI  es^smithsoni'an-institution. 

tn ~  *  iff  2  o 


S  SMITHSONIAN2  INSTTrUTIONl”NOIXniliSN|ZNVINOSHJ.INSt/>S3  l  ava  a 

oo  2  _ _ _  ^  _  _  ~  .  co 

4  W 


o 

I^NVINOSHIMS  S3  I  dVd  a  ll^LI  B  RAR  I  ES^SMITHSON!AN~INSTITUTION  _ 


w 


4m/}  ^ 

> 

/VV*  ^ 

CO  — -  co  S 

S  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlifUllSNI  NVIN0SH1IWS  S3IMVH9n_ 
^  _  2  co  z:  co  ^  ^ 

S  S  ^  |  ^  i 

S  ’  W  > ''  2S  Xftosv^X  >’  2 

co. 


I  NVIN0SH1IIMS  S3IHV^ai1  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION 
~  co 


CO 


0£ 

,  < 

Of 

_  CO 

O  .W1  ™  o  X^yosB^  ”  o 

2  <~J  2  j  2 

S  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlifllliSNI  NVIN0SH1IIAIS  S3IHVd8n 

2  Z  l-  Z 


ji  NviNOSHiiws  saiavaan  libraries  Smithsonian  institution 

2  . _ _  yi  2  ,c^,  CO  Z  ^ 

<  2  |  2  | 


p  CO 

f'§ 

-"DC-^'  >  w  s  x\  » 

S  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  N0lifUllSNI^NVIN0SHilWS"S3  I  ava  3  IT 

CO 


595?,  <30593 
l^rds 


AVICULTURAL 
MAGAZINE 


JANUARY  —  MARCH 


CONTENTS 


Breeding  the  Mauritius  Pink  Pigeon  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park  (with  plate) 
by  DAVID  JEGGO  . . . . . . .  I 

Breeding  the  Yellow-Streaked  Lory  (with  plate)  by  R.  T.  KYME . .  2 

A  Semi-Albino  Snow  Goose  (with  plate)  by  PROF.  S.  DILLON  RIPLEY  5 

Breeding  and  hand-rearing  the  Red-legged  Honeycreeper  by  LES  GIBSON  6 

Breeding  the  Red-headed  Laughing  Thrush  at  Padstow  Bird  Gardens  by 
DAVID  COLES  . . . . . . .  16 

The  Bahaman  Parrot  by  PATRICIA  and  CLARKE  CARRAWAY 
(Introduction  by  RAMON  NOEGEL)  . .  18 

The  hand-rearing  of  the  Roseate  Spoonbill  by  WALTER  CRAWFORD  . .  23 

Methods  used  by  the  Trochilidae  (Hummingbirds)  when  capturing  insects 
by  A.  J.  MOBBS  . 26 

Unusual  feeding  habit  of  a  Lesser  Sulphur-crested  Cockatoo  by  PAOLO 
BERTAGNOLIO  . 31 

The  Collection  of  Mr.  &  Mrs.  J.  Spenkelink . . .  32 

News  from  the  Berlin  Zoo  by  PROF.  DR.  HEINZ-GEORG  KLOS  .  33 

Breeding  results  during  1978  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park  by  DAVID  JEGGO  34 

News  from  South  Africa  by  F.  C.  BARNICOAT  . .  35 

News  and  Views  . 41 

Reviews  . 42 

The  Avicultural  Magazine  by  MARY  HARVEY . .  45 

Correspondence  .  46 

The  Avicultural  Society — Officers  and  Council .  50 

The  Avicultural  Society — Rules  (revised  17th  October,  1978) . .  53 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 

Founded  1894 

Membership  Subscription  is  £5.00  (U.S.A.,  $13.00)  per  annum,  due  on  1st 
January  each  year,  and  payable  in  advance.  Subscriptions,  Changes  of  Address, 
Names  of  Candidates  for  Membership,  etc.,  should  be  sent  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 
Hon.  Secretary  and  Treasurer:  Harry  J.  Horswell,  Windsor  Forest  Stud, 
Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


J 


Mauritius  Pink  Pigeon  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park 

Margaret  Redshaw 


Avicultural  Magazine 

THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


VoL  85,—No.  1 — All  rights  reserved  JANUARY  -  MARCH  1979 


BREEDING  THE  MAURITIUS  PINK  PIGEON  AT  JERSEY 
ZOOLOGICAL  PARK 

By  David  Jeggo  (Deputy  Curator  of  Birds) 

In  June  this  year  two  Mauritius  Pink  Pigeons,  Columbi  mayeri,  were 
hatched  and  reared  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park  by  the  same  pair  that  at¬ 
tempted  unsuccessfully  in  1977  and  who  still  remain  in  their  same  accom¬ 
modation. 

It  was  their  fourth  clutch  of  the  season.  The  male  began  to  court  in 
early  May  and  a  substantial  nest  of  dried  leaves,  twigs  and  strands  of 
woodwool  was  constructed  on  one  of  the  outside  platforms.  We  believe 
the  first  egg  was  laid  on  the  16th  May  as  the  female  was  on  the  nest  for 
the  whole  of  that  day  and  the  next  day  the  male  began  to  share  incubation. 
As  one  or  two  eggs  had  rolled  from  the  nest  and  broken,  we  removed 
one  of  the  clutch  to  foster  pigeons. 

Both  eggs  chipped  on  the  30th  May.  With  the  two  previous  attempts 
the  newly  hatched  chick  had  been  left  uncovered  to  die  of  cold  while  the 
female  happily  brooded  the  remaining  egg.  We  hoped  that,  by  leaving 
only  one  egg,  the  problem  might  be  eliminated. 

The  next  morning  the  one  young  one  was  moving  strongly  under  its 
brooding  parent.  In  the  afternoon  we  gave  the  second  young  one  back 
as  the  foster  pigeons  had  no  “milk”. 

Both  progressed  well  and  we  watched  them  develop  perfectly,  always 
one  a  little  more  advanced  than  the  other.  In  the  warm  afternoon  sun  of 
the  third  day  the  chicks  covered  in  yellowish  down  were  left  uncovered  for  a 
short  time.  When  9  days  old  they  were  well  pin  feathered  and  these  were 
opening  to  reveal  the  chestnut  colour  of  the  upper  parts,  and  buff*  on  the 
flanks.  In  the  evening  of  that  day,  the  8th  of  June,  the  male  was  displaying, 
cooing  and  bowing  to  the  female.  By  11  days  old  the  young  were  left 
unattended  for  much  of  the  day.  The  male  continued  to  display  and  the 
pair  began  to  nest  again,  this  time  on  an  inside  platform.  This  had  been 
modified  since  they  last  used  it.  An  oblong  frame  of  2"  x  2 "  timber  had 
been  fitted  into  it.  If  the  nest  could  be  confined  to  the  small  deep  interior 
this  created,  it  was  hoped  there  would  be  less  chance  of  a  chick  chilling. 

The  first  egg  of  the  fifth  clutch  was  in  the  nest  on  the  17th  of  June  and  a 
second  egg  was  added  later.  The  male  carried  out  normal  incubation  as 
well  as  most  of  the  feeding  of  the  two  young.  These  were  now  almost 
totally  feathered,  chestnut  upper  parts  and  tail  with  buffish  head  and 


2 


R.  T.  KYME— BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-STREAKED  LORY 


underparts,  legs,  feet  and  bill,  darkish  brown  with  a  dark  brown  eye,  a 
quite  distinctive  juvenile  plumage. 

At  twenty  days  both  left  the  nest  flying  strongly  and  landing  with  ac¬ 
curacy,  they  could  return  to  the  nest  with  no  problem  and  at  will.  Five 
days  later,  the  24th  June,  they  were  going  inside  and  feeding  from  the 
seed  bowl  and  although  they  still  begged  from  the  male  they  seemed 
largely  independent.  During  the  rearing  period  the  pigeons  changed  their 
diet  little,  feeding  mainly  on  seed,  particularly  wheat.  More  mashed,  hard- 
boiled  egg  sprinkled  with  Vitetrin  was  provided  than  usual  and  taken, 
and  a  plentiful  supply  of  fresh  leafy  willow  branches  was  available 
at  all  times.  Chopped  fruit  and  vegetables  were  almost  completely  ignored. 

On  the  third  of  July  the  young  were  moved  to  a  recently  completed 
range  of  aviaries  built  specifically  for  the  Fink  Pigeon  breeding  programme. 

One  of  the  eggs  of  the  sixth  clutch  unfortunately  broke  but  the  other 
hatched  on  the  1st  July  and  this  chick  was  raised  successfully.  While  it 
was  being  reared,  the  male  again  began  to  display.  However  the  female 
was  not  in  a  correct  state  to  commence  another  cycle  and  became  in  a  very 
distressed  condition  from  the  constant  driving  of  the  male.  We  separated 
her  while  he  continued  to  raise  the  young  one.  This  was  removed  at  the 
end  of  August  and  we  re-introduced  the  pair  who  soon  began  to  nest 
again,  laying  another  clutch,  the  seventh,  on  the  same  inside  platform 
on  the  8th  September.  Both  eggs  hatched  on  the  22nd  September, 
but  only  one  chick  survived  more  than  twenty-four  hours.  At  the  time  of 
writing  (October)  this  is  thriving  and  the  first  two  are  fast  completing 
their  adult  plumage. 

There  is  also  encouraging  news  from  the  aviaries  on  Mauritius  where 
a  number  have  been  bred  so  perhaps  we  can  soon  look  for  a  significant 
increase  in  the  world  population  estimated  to  be  only  between  30-35  in 

1976. 


BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-STREAKED  LORY 

Chalcopsitta  s( c)intillata 
By  R.  T.  Kyme  (Wyberton,  Boston,  Lines.) 

Starting  about  1972  Mrs  Stephanie  Belford  began  to  import  several 
aviculturally  rare  New  Guinea  parrots.  Included  amongst  these  were  the 
three  mainland  species  of  Chalcopsitta :  Duyvenbode’s  C.  duivenhodei ,  the 
Black  C.  atra  and  the  Yellow-streaked.  I  acquired  two  Duyvenbode’s — 
which  is  another  story — and  the  Yellow-streaked.  At  the  time  the  Yellow- 
streaked  appeared  to  be  a  true  pair:  they  often  mated  and  were  most 
different  in  appearance.  The  bigger  one  had  more  red  to  the  face  and  more 
colour  to  the  body.  However,  my  previous  experience  with  several  species, 
taught  me  that  the  only  genus  of  lory  that  is  sexable  from  external  appear- 


R.  T.  KYME— BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-STREAKED  LORY 


3 


ance  is  Charmosyna.  Nevertheless  it  took  me  two  years  to  make  up  my 
mind  that  they  were  both  male:  it  has  been  my  experience  that  lories  that 
have  made  no  attempt  to  breed  after  two  or,  at  most,  three  years  are 
like-sexed.  Two  more  Yellow-streaked  were  bought  in  April  1976  which 
the  vendor  (as  is  so  often  the  case  with  brush-tongued  parrots)  assured  me 
were  a  true  pair.  The  pairs  were  acquainted  with  one  another  by  housing 
them  side  by  side  and  then,  after  clipping  the  tips  from  the  tails  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  them  apart,  I  exchanged  one  bird  from  each  flight.  It  was  then 
immediately  obvious  that  the  newcomers  were  hens  and  the  original  “pair” 
were  male — as  suspected. 

It  was  not  long  before  chicks  were  hatched  from  both  pairs ;  unfortun¬ 
ately  after  a  few  days,  with  one  pair,  and  three  weeks  with  the  other,  the 
sets  of  chicks  died.  It  was  high  summer  and  the  deaths  appeared  inexplic¬ 
able  (on  reflection  I  believe  that  it  may  well  have  been  from  “chilling” — 
being  tropical  parrots  they  do  not  brood  too  closely — from  the  faeces- 
damp  nest-filler).  Worse  was  to  follow,  for  one  of  the  hens  was  later  found 
dead.  By  good  fortune  the  pet-shop-bought  replacement  proved  another 
hen.  She  and  her  partner  became  extremely  tame.  The  next  year,  1977, 
once  again  I  had  chicks  from  both  pairs  and,  again,  after  a  few  weeks  they 
were  found  dead;  to  be  followed,  later,  by  the  older  hen.  Her  mate  was 
sent  off  to  Pencynor  Bird  Gardens.  Now,  iter  losing  at  least  six  rounds  of 
youngsters — for  the  hens  laid  again  after  losing  the  chicks — I  had  quite 
despaired  of  getting  the  parents  to  rear  their  own  young.  This  year,  1978, 
I  had  firmly  decided  to  hand-rear  them  or,  should  the  layings  coincide, 
foster  them  out  with  my  very  successful  pair  of  Dusky  Lories  Psuedeos 
fuscata.  However,  neither  of  these  stratagems  proved  necessary,  for  the 
parents  raised  two,  slightly  feather-plucked,  chicks  which  left  the  nest  in 
late  August  and  early  September  from  eggs  laid  in  the  second  week  in 
March.  That  is  20  weeks,  140  days,  or  nearly  half  a  year  for  a  complete 
nesting  cycle.  It  is  assessed  that  the  chicks  are  still  dependent  on  the 
parents  for  some  nourishment  and  use  the  nest-chamber  as  a  roost  for 
some  weeks  after  fledging. 

It  has  been  my  experience  that  the  male  is  more  aggressive.  When  the 
pair  are  fed  it  is  the  cock  who  attacks  physically  although  it  is  both  sexes 
which  utter  the  high-pitched,  deafeningly  loud,  mobbing  calls.  While  they 
shriek  they  keep  the  tail  flared  right  out,  the  wings  outstretched  and  the 
long,  rather  narrow,  feathers  to  the  head  and  neck  ferociously  bristled. 
Yet  no  matter  how  fierce  they  appear,  they  only  too  readily  lap  nectar 
from  a  spoon  held,  safely,  on  the  other  side  of  the  wire  while  they  curse 
the  feeding  hand.  Curiously  although  they  hiss  in  courtship  display  they 
seem  not  to  in  aggressive  encounters  as  will,  say,  American  parrots,  the 
cockatoos  and  the  Cockatiel. 

This  year  the  first  egg  was  laid  on  the  8th  May  with  the  second  two 
days  later,  and  as  always  the  incubation  period  was  24  days.  On  hatching, 
the  chicks  are  covered  with  a  thin,  long,  whitish  down  which  is  very 


4 


R.  T.  KYME— BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-STREAKED  LORY 


sparse  over  the  head  and  neck.  The  ear-hole  is  open.  This  natal  down  is 
later  replaced  by  a  dark  grey  one  preceding  feather  quills.  The  rate  of 
growth  is  particularly  slow.  And  this  despite  the  youngsters  always, 
seemingly,  having  their  crops  bulging  with  a  nutritionally  very  rich 
nectar  food. 

This  diet  consisted  of: — 
i  tablespoon  honey 

1  „  sweetened  condensed  milk 

2  „  Farex 

i  „  Farlene 

i  „  baby  rice 

i  mustard  spoon  Marmite 

This  is  mixed  with  if  pints  of  hot  water.  Then  10  drops  of  Abidec,  6  drops 
of  Cyatem  B  12  and  a  mustard  spoonful  of  P.Y.M.  are  added.  Bread  and 
milk  was  offered  and  the  milk  was  taken,  but  the  bread  was  scattered  about 
in  typical  lory  fashion. 

The  nest  box  was  kept  reasonably  dry  by  adding  an  occasional  handful  of 
peat;  however  it  eventually  became  so  sodden  that  a  fortnight  before  they 
finally  fledged  quite  a  lot  of  the  insanitary  nest  box  filler  was  removed  and 
replaced  by  drier  material.  This  nitrogen-rich  compost  was  found  to  be 
full  of  maggots  (of  the  housefly  ?).  The  first  chick  left  the  nest  on  the 
26th  August  and  the  second  two  days  later.  They  were  very  different  in 
appearance  from  the  adults,  for  the  head  was  completely  black  and  the 
belly  had  only  a  slight  indication  of  yellow  streaking.  The  legs  were  jet 
black  contrasting  with  the  dark  grey  of  the  older  birds  and  the  periorbital 
skin  was  white — in  the  parents  it  is  black.  Within  a  few  days  the  chicks 
were  feeding  themselves  and  the  parents  are,  even  now,  extremely  pro¬ 
tective  towards  them. 

As  described  the  Yellow-streaked  Lory  Chalcopsitta  sintillata  (or 
scintillata )  has  been  bred  by  Mr  R.  T.  Kyme  and  this  is  believed  to  be  the 
first  success  in  this  country,  but  anyone  knowing  of  another  is  asked  to 
inform  the  Hon.  Secretary. 


Note 

When  Mr  Kyme’s  paper  was  received,  he  was  asked  whether  the  diet 
of  the  lories  included  fruit,  but  as  no  reply  had  arrived  at  the  time  of 
sending  the  copy  to  press,  it  was  concluded  that  no  fruit  was  given. 

We  have  since  heard  from  him  that  in  addition  to  the  diet  listed,  the 
birds  are  offered  grapes,  orange,  apple,  pomegranate,  raisins,  berries  of 
rowan  and  such  vegetables  as  beetroot  and  spinach.-— Ed. 


Pair  of  Yellow-streaked  Lories,  male  on  the  left 


R.  T.  Kyme 


Semi-albino  Snow  Goose 


S’.  Dillon  Ripley 


A  SEMI-ALBINO  SNOW  GOOSE 

Prof.  S.  Dillon  Ripley  (U.S.A.) 

In  late  June,  1978,  among  a  hatching  of  young  wild  geese  at  our  farm 
in  Litchfield,  Connecticut,  I  was  interested  to  note  one  gosling  which 
seemed  small  and  particularly  pale  in  downy  plumage,  with  a  faint  yellowish 
suffusion  to  the  tips  of  the  down.  Particularly  on  the  neck  this  suffusion 
was  strong  enough  to  give  the  impression  of  a  downy  Peking  (domestic) 
duckling. 

The  bill  and  legs  of  the  gosling  were  also  pale,  a  light  greyish  yellow, 
pale  enough  to  give  me  the  impression  that  our  hatchling  was  a  Ross’s 
Goose  Anser  rossii ,  of  the  pale  yellowish-white  phenotype. 

In  a  few  weeks  as  normal  growth  progressed  it  became  apparent  that 
our  pale  gosling  was  a  young  Snow  Goose  Anser  caerulescens  caerulescens. 
As  feathers  replaced  the  down,  the  bird  became  noticeably  different  from 
its  siblings  of  the  year.  The  last  pale  yellowish  down  to  be  replaced  by 
feathers  was  in  the  neck  area  (as  well  of  course  as  the  less  visible  back  and 
rump,  which  was  covered  with  purer  whitish  down),  Feathered  out,  this 
bird,  a  male,  appeared  surprisingly  different  in  colour ! 

(a)  Bill  and  feet  paled  to  pink.  At  eight  weeks  this  colour  was  similar 
to  the  adult  Snow  Goose  in  contrast  to  the  blackish-grey  bill  and  feet 
of  the  normal  juvenile.  The  iris  was  pale  blue,  not  brownish,  and  also  not 
pink  or  reddish,  as  might  have  been  the  case  with  an  albino. 

(b)  The  plumage  was  white  throughout,  totally  lacking  the  greyish- 
brown  suffusion,  especially  to  the  upper  parts  characterised  by  juvenile 
Snow  Geese. 

(c)  Uniquely,  the  primaries  in  the  juvenile  feathering  moulted  out 
pure  white. 

From  the  above  it  seems  apparent  that  this  individual  represents  an 
undescribed  white  “morph”  of  this  species.  I  can  find  no  listing  of  such 
a  plumage  in  the  literature.  The  most  recent,  and  rather  comprehensive 
reference  to  Snow  Goose  species  plumage  is  in  Ralph  S.  Palmer  (1976) 
HANDBOOK  of  north  American  birds,  Volume  2,  pages  123-127.  (Yale 
University  Press,  New  Haven  and  London.)  who  mentions;  “Aberrant 
individuals  reported  include  entirely  white  Lesser  Snows”  in  the  wild, 
without  further  characterization. 

I  hope  to  breed  this  individual  to  normal  Lesser  Snow  Geese  to  deter¬ 
mine  if  this  is  a  strain  which  will  persist  genetically  as  in  the  “silver” 
Bahama  or  White-cheeked  Pintail  Anas  bahamensis  which  occurs  among 
captive  populations,  especially  in  Europe. 


6 


BREEDING  AND  HAND-REARING  THE  RED-LEGGED 
HONEYCREEPER 

By  Les  Gibson,  (Burnaby,  British  Columbia,  Canada) 


Cyanerpes  cyaneus  is  known  variously  as  the  Red-legged  Honeycreeper, 
Yellow- winged  Honeycreeper,  or  with  the  term  honeycreeper  replaced 
by  sugarbird.  The  names  are  not  very  useful.  It  does  not  creep,  it  hops, 
and  the  yellow  is  only  under  the  wings  of  the  male,  where  it  is  scarcely 
visible.  Suggestions  for  a  better  name  are  welcome.  The  sexes  are  dimor¬ 
phic  and  the  cock  in  breeding  plumage  is  like  a  giant  Morpho  butterfly. 
The  hen  is  not  unattractive,  as  the  species  is  of  an  interesting  shape. 
They  are  good  aviary  birds  as  they  fly  about  constantly  and  never  skulk 
in  the  foliage  and  they  are  bold  and  unafraid  in  the  presence  of  other  birds 
or  people.  They  never  interfere  with  other  birds  and  will  live  with  others 
of  the  species  when  not  breeding. 

The  following  is  an  account  of  the  nesting  of  this  species  and,  for 
reasons  that  will  be  explained  later,  the  attempted  hand-rearing  of  two 
chicks. 

References  to  birds  in  the  wild  are  taken  from  “Life  Histories  of  Central 
American  Birds”  (Pacific  Coast  Avifauna  no.  31)  by  Alexander  Skutch. 
This  patient  and  astute  observer  of  birds  originally  went  to  Central 
America  as  a  botanist,  but  finally  settled  there  to  complete  these  works 
over  a  period  of  nearly  20  years.  Unfortunately  the  books  are  out  of  print, 
but  anyone  who  keeps  any  bird  found  in  Central  America  should  en¬ 
deavour  to  read  them. 

This  species  ranges  from  South  Mexico  to  South  Brazil,  and  into  the 
Caribbean.  The  nominate  race  comes  from  Trinidad  and  there  are  several 
very  similar  subspecies.  The  main  habitat  is  lowland  tropical  rain-forest, 
or  more  open  plantation  country  where  there  are  large  stands  of  tall  trees 
at  frequent  intervals,  for  the  Honeycreeper  is  arboreal,  foraging  well  up 
in  the  trees.  They  travel  far  in  small  flocks  when  not  breeding  and  may 
move  around  after  food  supplies. 

Like  other  arboreal  birds  they  bathe  in  the  treetops  in  wet  leaves,  or  in 
rain.  My  birds  did  the  same  whenever  the  plants  were  being  sprayed. 
Otherwise  the  only  time  they  were  ever  on  the  ground  was  to  bathe  in 
the  water  dish.  In  cold  weather  they  did  not  bathe  at  all,  but  usually 
kept  their  beaks  clean  by  wetting  them,  then  wiping  them  on  a  twig. 
Background 

The  pair  of  birds  under  study  were  two  of  six  birds  (4m  3f)  obtained 
in  June  1976.  One  cock  was  not  too  bad,  the  other  five  and  especially  the 
hens,  were  in  shocking  condition.  This  was  because  the  wholesaler  had 
had  them  for  some  time  because  of— believe  it  or  not— “lack  of  demand”. 
They  had  frayed,  dried  feathers  completely  glued  to  the  body  by  nectar, 
to  the  extent  that  none  could  fly  over  1 £'  (Jm).  A  good  wash  was  followed 
by  drying  with  a  hair  blow-drier.  The  latter  is  an  indispensable  piece  of 


LES  GIBSON— -THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYGREEPER 


7 


equipment  in  my  aviary.  This  produced  much  more  comfortable  birds, 
but  they  could  fly  no  better  because  of  the  poor  feathering.  The  exception 
was  the  present  cock,  who  could  get  around  quite  well. 

Two  cocks  died  within  a  month.  One  had  a  crippled  foot  on  acquisition 
and  an  abscess  on  this  yielded  a  pure  culture  of  the  yeast  Candida  albicans. 
This  is  unlikely  to  have  been  directly  connected  with  the  death.  The  other 
had  a  bloated  abdomen  (like  peritonitis)  but  for  some  reason  it  was  not 
examined.  The  four  cocks  were  all  in  full  colour  when  obtained. 

The  two  hens  had  been  in  the  worst  condition.  Neither  could  flap  at  all. 
One  had  a  dropped  wing  and  the  other  was  completely  threadbare. 

Within  two  months  the  good  cock  moulted  well,  out  of  colour,  and  in 
another  month  the  threadbare  hen  also  moulted  well.  These  two  could 
then  fly  normally  and  are  the  pair  in  this  account. 

The  hen  with  the  injured  wing  did  not  moult  and  showed  signs  of 
senility.  It  could  no  longer  sit  on  a  perch  and  it  shook  much  of  the  time.  It 
was  put  in  a  small  cage  without  perches  where  it  walked  to  its  food  by  using 
its  good  wing  as  a  crutch.  It  began  to  tremble  permanently  and  yet  it  still 
managed  to  eat  by  using  its  wing  as  a  support.  It  usually  fell  into  the  nectar 
and  eventually  it  had  to  be  bathed  at  least  once  a  day.  Remarkably  it 
went  on  like  this  for  three  months  and  it  was  in  such  a  pathetic  state  that 
euthanasia  was  administered  with  great  reluctance  on  my  part,  and  no 
doubt  on  its  part  too !  After  such  a  length  of  time  like  that  the  chances  of 
it  recovering  were  nil.  Two  weeks  later,  in  the  middle  of  December,  the 
cock  which  had  not  moulted  died  in  full  colour.  It  had  started  to  show 
signs  of  unsteadiness  like  the  hen  and  had  been  swaying  at  the  feeding 
dish  for  the  previous  two  weeks.  It  was  very  thin  at  io.5g.  The  other  two 
cocks  weighed  14  and  15.25^,  and  the  senile  hen  weighed  X2«6g.  The 
remaining  pair  moulted  beautifully  again  in  March,  the  cock  coming 
into  full  colour.  The  birds  had  overwintered  in  a  frost-free  conservatory 
where  they  had  remained  for  two  years  until  this  account  was  written. 
The  cock  weighed  15. yg  at  the  time  of  writing. 

Housing 

The  accommodation  was  a  lean-to  conservatory,  built  against  the  south 
side  of  the  house  and  covering  two  of  the  house  windows.  It  measures 
18  x  9  x  10  feet  high  (3  x  2.7  x  5.4m)  and  is  made  of  clear  acrylic  sheeting. 
It  is  only  heated  to  the  extent  that  it  is  not  allowed  to  drop  below  freezing 
point  in  the  winter.  It  is  poorly  ventilated  (to  conserve  heat)  and  con¬ 
sequently  is  always  very  humid.  The  dense  vegetation  gives  a  tropical  rain 
forest  appearance  with  masses  of  vines  on  the  walls  and  under  the  roof. 
Flowers  are  poorly  represented  because  of  the  heavy  shade.  It  gets  very 
hot  in  the  upper  air  layers  in  summer,  and  may  get  quite  warm  from 
solar  radiation  on  sunny  windless  days  in  winter,  (e.g.  over  y20F-220C). 
It  is  usually  always  below  40  F  (5°C)  in  January  and  February  and  this 
did  not  upset  the  cyaneuss  nor  the  pair  of  Zosterops  which  shared  the 


8 


LES  GIBSON— THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


accommodation.  Four  Red  and  White  Rails  ( Laterallus  leucopyrrhus ) 
wintered  there  also.  The  only  luxury  allowed  the  birds  was  that  their 
nectar  and  rice  pudding  was  warmed  on  very  cold  mornings. 

Temperatures  were  monitored  by  a  maximum/minimum  thermometer, 
visible  from  inside  the  house,  plus  another  outdoor-indoor  thermometer 
at  the  other  end  of  the  aviary. 

Feeding 

Four  of  the  Cyanerpes  originally  moulted  well  on  a  diet  of  banana 
and  milk-nectar  only.  This  latter  was  made  from  equal  parts  of  milk 
and  water,  to  which  2  teaspoons  of  honey  were  added  per  xooml.  of 
liquid.  Occasionally  both  honey  and  sugar  were  used.  No  difference  in 
the  birds  was  noted,  so  sugar  is  mostly  used  now  because  of  its  convenience. 
This  has  been  stepped  up  to  4-6  teaspoons  of  sugar  in  the  same  volume. 

The  Honeycreeper  loves  banana,  which  it  slices  off  with  a  sideways, 
scissor-like  action  of  the  bill.  Skutch  noted  that  the  favourite  food  of 
wild  birds  at  his  feeder  was  banana.  In  spite  of  the  rather  specialised- 
looking  bill,  wild  birds  take  a  wide  variety  of  foods  including  fruits  and 
berries,  small  insects  and,  of  course,  nectar  from  flowers.  They  often  hang 
head-down  to  pick  insects  from  the  underside  of  leaves  or  to  probe 
flowers. 

In  the  aviary,  the  Cyanerpes  sampled  a  wide  variety  of  fruits  and 
berries  but  none  became  a  regular  part  of  the  diet  like  banana.  Food 
must  be  soft  and/or  in  small  pieces.  Mealworms  are  normally  ignored. 
Small  spiders  and  caterpillars  are  taken.  Occasionally  they  hawk  fruit 
flies  ( Drosophila ),  but  aphids  and  other  very  small  insects  (smaller  than 
fruit  flies)  are  apparently  too  small.  Small  ants,  which  swarmed  over 
sweet  food  and  bloated  their  abdomens  with  nectar,  were  neither  used 
for  food  nor  for  anting. 

In  the  second  year,  rice  pudding  was  added  to  the  menu  of  all  my  birds, 
mainly  for  the  Chloropsis.  The  Cyanerpes  immediately  put  this  somewhat 
ahead  of  banana  as  their  staple,  and  these  two  foods  almost  exclusively 
supply  all  their  needs.  The  milk  nectar  is  still  drunk  copiously  with  a 
rapid  pumping  action,  without  lifting  the  head.  The  nectar  adds  nothing 
nutritionally  over  the  rice,  as  the  latter  is  made  with  equal  parts  of  rice  and 
sugar,  covered  with  milk  and  simmered  for  about  an  hour  until  soft. 
Rice  absorbs  about  twice  its  volume  of  liquid,  so  be  sure  and  add  more 
milk  during  cooking.  Use  long  grain  white  rice. 

These  birds  appear  to  be  physiologically  adapted  to  nectar  con- 
sumption,  and  I  certainly  would  not  try  and  keep  them  without  it.  The 
amount  of  nectar  consumed  goes  up  a  bit  in  hot  weather,  and  there  is  a 
noticeable  increase  in  cold  weather.  Milk  is  still  added  as  it  is  advantageous 
to  other  birds  that  do  not  eat  the  rice.  Nearly  all  my  birds  drink  some. 
There  is  a  drawback  to  the  milk  in  that  it  goes  sour  more  quickly  but 
there  is  an  advantage  in  that  you  can  see  when  it  needs  to  be  changed. 


LES  GIBSON — THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


9 


50/50  milk  and  water  was  originally  used  as  I  had  suspected  that  birds 
may  not  be  able  to  cope  with  lactose  (milk  sugar).  They  can’t  but  it 
takes  4%  (dry  weight)  in  the  diet  to  cause  trouble.  However  the  formula 
was  kept  at  this  as  it  does  not  sour  as  quickly  as  whole  milk.  Nothing  is 
measured  accurately  and  the  proportions  vary  from  day  to  day.  The  sugar 
content  was  increased  and  it  is  now  anywhere  from  15-25%  (usually  15-16%). 
Some  of  the  low  percentages  of  sugar  in  nectar  are  quite  ridiculous.  It 
must  be  particularly  hard  on  humming  birds  as  they  would  have  to 
drink  so  much  to  get  any  calories.  Humming  birds  in  my  garden  are  fed 
a  30-50%  sugar  solution.  Flower  nectar  can  be  up  to  75%  sugars,  and 
bees  won’t  even  collect  it  below  about  18%  as  they  are  expending  more 
energy  than  it  returns. 

Nectar  is  fed  in  cup-sized  glass  bowls,  which  are  easy  to  clean.  Drip- 
type  containers  do  just  that-— they  drip,  and  are  a  messy,  wasteful  nuisance. 
An  additional  hazard  is  that  fungus  grows  rampantly  on  nectar  stains. 

The  hen  changed  her  diet  at  only  one  point — just  before  laying.  She 
then  began  to  eat  mealworms  frantically,  and  this  is  a  good  indication 
that  laying  is  imminent.  A  few  mealworms  were  put  out  daily  the  year 
round  for  the  Zosterops,  and  except  at  the  above  point,  the  Cyanerpes 
never  touched  them.  The  hen  also  ate  some  scrambled  egg  as  well  as 
any  small  insects  that  could  be  supplied,  such  as  spiders  and  wasp  grubs. 

As  soon  as  the  eggs  were  laid,  she  went  back  to  her  normal  diet.  The 
cock  remained  conservative  throughout  this  period  and  ate  only  the 
original  diet.  The  feeding  of  chicks  will  be  detailed  later. 

Cyanerpes  cyaneus  can  be  kept  in  excellent  condition,  and  moulted, 
on  the  simplest  of  diets.  Their  food  can  be  kept  in  the  refrigerator  for 
several  days  until  needed.  Rice  pudding  should  be  tasted  after  about 
three  days  for  sourness  before  serving.  Often  it  will  smell  alright  but 
taste  sour.  Scrambled  egg  that  has  gone  off  is  readily  detected  by  the 
smell.  None  of  the  foodstuffs  should  be  left  with  the  birds  for  more  than 
one  day.  All  the  food  items  were  fed  ad.  lib.  No  vitamin  supplements  were 
added  to  their  nectar  or  other  foods. 

Calls  and  behaviour 

This  species  has  an  extremely  limited  vocal  range.  The  normal  call 
heard  throughout  the  year,  and  much  more  so  in  the  breeding  season,  is  a 
harsh  nasal  “chaa”  (as  described  by  Skutch,  and  I  can  think  of  no  better 
description).  This  ‘chaa’  is  used  by  both  sexes,  the  male  being  more  vocal. 
The  male  also  has  a  quiet  whistled  ‘chip’.  I  could  find  no  record  of  a 
song  in  the  literature  and  was  unaware  of  any  but,  amazingly,  after  having 
had  the  birds  for  two  years,  I  recently  heard  the  cock  singing.  He  had,  in 
fact,  been  singing  all  along  when  in  breeding  plumage.  The  song  was 
so  quiet  it  could  not  be  heard  outside  of  the  aviary.  It  was  not  unlike  the 
slightly  louder  warble  of  the  Zosterops  which  could  just  be  heard  outside, 
and  for  this  reason  it  had  been  missed.  When  working  inside  the  conserva- 


10 


LES  GIBSON — THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


tory  with  the  cock  Cyanerpes  being  the  only  bird  present  I  was  able  to 
confirm  that  he  was  singing.  It  is  difficult  to  transliterate,  but  the  song, 
such  as  it  was,  was  a  short,  not  unpleasant  warble,  consisting  of  a  short 
note  whistled  twice  quickly  then  a  longer  ascending  note,  followed  by  a 
rapid  double  note,  repeated  five  times.  This  sequence  was  repeated  at 
infrequent  intervals  with  no  variation.  It  was  so  quiet  that  I  was  unable 
to  record  it  on  my  poor  quality  equipment,  from  the  other  end  of  the 
aviary.  He  sang  on  and  off  all  day  for  a  week  after  the  hen  escaped,  then 
stopped  when  cool,  dull  weather  arrived. 

The  ‘chaa’  is  used  by  both  birds  when  showing  aggression,  usually  to 
each  other,  and  occasionally  towards  the  Zosterops,  who  were  unimpressed. 

The  same  note  is  more  frequently  used  during  the  mating  period  and  it 
is  difficult  to  see  where  the  aggression  stopped  and  the  passion  began. 
The  birds  continually  insulted  and  threatened  each  other  and  mating 
was  interspersed  with  chasing  and  fighting  to  the  extent  that  they  were 
often  rolling  on  the  ground.  The  cock  got  the  upperhand  in  these  battles 
until  the  eggs  were  laid.  Then  he  suffered  to  the  extent  that  he  became 
wary  of  approaching  the  nest  as  he  was  often  literally  beaten  to  the  ground. 
The  aggressive  posture  used  at  the  feeding  dish  and  also  in  courtship 
consisted  of  the  bird  crouching  with  the  head  drawn  into  the  shoulders 
and  the  beak  pointing  straight  up,  accompanied  by  the  endless  £chaa-chaa\ 
In  retrospect,  I  now  know  that  the  cock  serenaded  the  hen,  practically 
in  her  ear,  in  the  manner  of  Australian  finches.  The  cock  moulted  in 
March  into  his  breeding  plumage  and  stayed  in  colour  for  exactly  six 
months,  moulting  to  a  green  colour  in  September.  He  lost  only  the  body 
feathers  twice  a  year.  The  black  wing  and  tail  feather  were  only  moulted 
once  in  autumn  and  these  readily  distinguished  him  from  the  hen.  The 
hen  followed  the  same  pattern  but  remained  green  the  year  round. 
After  turning  blue,  the  cock  stepped  up  his  pursuit,  culminating  in  a 
nesting  attempt  in  the  first  week  in  July.  The  summer  had  been  hot  and 
dry  since  May.  The  first  indication  of  the  nesting  was  that  the  hen  sud¬ 
denly  began  eating  mealworms,  which  had  been  put  in  for  the  Zosterops 
(who  were  also  nesting).  The  long  beak  has  poor  pecking  capability  and 
she  took  from  5-8  minutes  to  soften  up  a  large  mealworm  before  consuming 
it.  After  a  few  days  of  this,  she  began  to  carry  very  fine  strands  unwound 
from  coarse  string,  or  strands  of  horsehair,  and  look  for  a  place  to  put  them. 
She  was  very  fussy  and  tried  many  spots.  Finally  a  loose  network  base  was 
laid  in  a  honeysuckle  at  a  height  of  5 Jft  (1.65m).  The  weather  turned  dull 
and  wet  and  the  work  was  abandoned.  After  two  weeks,  when  it  got 
sunny  and  hot  again,  the  whole  process  starting  with  the  mealworms  was 
recommenced.  The  cock  flew  about  after  her,  watching  all  this  and  calling 
incessantly.  She  had  even  more  difficulty  in  choosing  a  second  spot, 
trying  one  place  after  another.  This  took  two  to  three  days,  after  placing 
strands  of  building  material  in  at  least  4  sites. 


LES  GIBSON— THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


II 


Nesting 

The  nest  was  finally  built  in  2  days,  at  a  height  of  yjft  (2.25m)  in  a  jasmine 
vine,  directly  above  the  water  dish  and,  most  conveniently,  only  18  inches 
(46  cm)  from  the  kitchen  window.  Here  I  am  most  indebted  to  Skutch’s 
observations.  He  noted  that  building  in  the  wild  commenced  with  the 
collection  of  large  amounts  of  cobweb.  This  had  not  been  supplied  last 
year  when  a  halfhearted  attempt  at  breeding  was  made.  Nor  was  it  sup¬ 
plied  when  the  nest  base  was  built  two  weeks  earlier.  In  the  interval  I 
read  the  report  on  the  spiders’  webs.  This  was  supplied  and  the  very 
minute  it  was  put  in,  the  hen  began  to  collect  it.  Even  more  dramatic 
was  its  effect  on  the  Zosterops,  who  both  dived  in,  literally,  head  first 
and  carried  much  of  it  off.  In  view  of  the  reaction  of  these  birds  it  would 
be  worth  making  spiders’  webs  available  to  a  variety  of  species.  It  would 
almost  certainly  prevent  disintegrating  nests.  I  have  had  this  problem 
with  Zosterops  and  particularly  with  Pekin  Robins.  The  cobweb  was 
supplied  more  easily  than  might  be  imagined.  First  I  tried  to  pick  up  a 
whole  web  from  corners  in  the  garden  shed,  in  a  v-shaped  stick.  This  was 
then  transferred  to  plants  in  the  aviary.  The  collection  was  soon  simplified 
by  taking  a  large  umbelliferous  weed  flower-head,  cutting  the  flowers  off 
to  leave  a  network  of  stems,  and  leaving  it  to  dry  and  thus  stiffen.  Webs 
were  then  collected  by  simply  rolling  them  up  with  the  plant  until  it 
looked  like  a  candy  floss  stick.  The  crawlspace  under  the  house  provided 
all  the  cobwebs  needed  and  there  I  found  many  spiders  apparently  living 
well  on  escaped  mealworm  beetles,  (I  had  been  telling  my  wife  for  years 
that  beetles  “can’t  escape  from  a  plastic  container”.)  The  flower  head  was 
stuck  in  a  Hoya  vine  in  the  aviary  and  the  hen  Cycmerpes  and  the  Zosterops 
had  it  cleaned  off  in  minutes. 

It  could  be  argued  that  the  hen  stopped  building  and  re-started  because 
of  the  weather.  But  last  year  the  pair  were  both  in  excellent  shape  and 
circumstances  were  identical,  apart  from  the  absence  of  cobwebs.  Also 
the  reaction  of  the  hen  was  immediate.  She  was  literally  down  within 
seconds  to  gather  the  webs.  I  feel  sure  that  the  base  she  constructed  two 
weeks  earlier  was  abandoned  because  of  its  lack  of  proper  anchorage. 
She  did  not  commence  with  the  base  this  time  as  there  was  no  bottom 
support.  The  nest  was  slung  from  the  rim  at  two  points,  not  quite  op¬ 
posite,  on  stems  of  jasmine.  A  very  open  but  firm  outline  was  made  by 
first  sticking  the  anchor  threads  down  with  cobweb  while  she  worked 
them  around  the  stems.  The  anchors  were  of  fine  grass  and  fine  strands 
from  nylon  string.  A  horsehair  network  was  attached  to  these  using 
cobweb  and  weaving,  then  a  base  of  fine  grasses  was  added.  The  hen 
sat  inside  and  built  the  wall  around  herself.  The  wall  was  an  open  lace 
network  of  horsehair  reinforced  with  fine  grass.  There  were  many  spaces 
through  the  sides  and  it  looked  as  though  it  was  designed  for  a  hot  cli¬ 
mate.  The  final  result  was  a  securely  anchored  structure  with  open 
network  sides  and  a  thicker  base.  The  inside  diameter  was  2  inches 


12 


LES  GIBSON — THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


(5.25cm)  and  the  inside  depth  was  ij  inches  (3cm)  making  this  a  very 
shallow  nest.  The  base  added  a  further  |  inch  (1.5cm)  to  the  overall 
depth.  In  comparison  the  Zosterops’  nest  was  as  deep  as  it  was  wide. 
Unlike  nests  from  some  other  birds,  there  was  no  danger  of  the 
Cyanerpes  nest  coming  apart.  The  cock  took  no  part  at  all  in  building. 

Incubation  and  eggs 

The  day  after  the  nest  was  completed  the  first  egg  was  laid.  Observations 
of  wild  birds  showed  only  a  clutch  of  two.  However,  this  bird  laid  3  eggs. 
The  egg  is  greenish  white  with  purple-brown  markings  which  are  heavier 
from  the  middle  to  the  big  end.  The  hatched  shell  is  white,  the  yolk 
evidently  accounting  for  the  greenish  hue.  One  egg  measured  17  x  14.5mm. 
All  3  were  fertile  but  one  did  not  develop  past  about  8-9  days.  The  two 
eggs  hatched  on  successive  days,  at  13  days  incubation  for  each.  The  hen 
was  a  good  sitter  and  the  nest  was  examined  daily  when  she  was  off. 
She  was  off  a  lot  because  it  was  very  hot  and  the  cock  did  not  feed  her. 
In  comparison,  the  Zosterops  hen  which  had  one  fledged  chick  at  this 
time,  was  hardly  ever  off  as  the  cock  fed  her  on  the  nest.  Two  days  after 
the  Cyanerpes  laid  the  Zosterops  laid  again.  They  were  about  to  be  re¬ 
moved  as  they  were  pilfering  nesting  material  from  the  Honeycreepers’ 
nest  in  the  absence  of  the  hen.  The  cock  Cyanerpes  made  no  effort  to 
stop  them  in  spite  of  being  double  the  weight  of  a  Zosterops.  This  robbing 
was  only  when  there  were  no  eggs  in  the  nest.  It  was  stopped  by  plastering 
lots  of  grass  and  horsehair  around  the  Cyanerpes  nest  and,  finally,  when 
the  hen  Cyanerpes  was  sitting,  the  Zosterops  stayed  away.  I  made  it  a 
practice  to  be  working  in  the  greenhouse  all  the  year  round  so  that  all 
the  birds  were  used  to  my  presence.  This  made  examination  of  the  nest 
easy  and  the  hen  would  come  off  the  eggs  to  feed  and  go  back  on  while  I 
trimmed  the  vines  etc.  Whenever  I  hosed  the  place  (to  keep  the  heat 
down)  she  would  return  to  cover  the  eggs  at  the  first  sprinkle,  if  she  had 
been  off.  The  temperature  was  in  the  mid  nineties  °F  (mid  thirties  °C) 
during  the  day  throughout  the  incubation  and  the  hen  was  off  frequently. 
The  cock  did  not  incubate,  but  sat  throughout  the  whole  period  on  the 
same  perch  nearby.  If  the  hen  came  off  he  followed  her  like  a  shadow. 
If  he  came  too  near  the  nest,  or  annoyed  her  by  sticking  too  close,  she 
often  beat  him.  In  view  of  the  cock’s  lack  of  effort  at  protecting  the  nest 
from  the  Zosterops,  I  can  only  presume  that  he  was  standing  on  guard  to 
prevent  the  intrusion  of  another  cock,  or  another  pair  of  Cyanerpes. 
Indeed  he  often  spent  many  minutes  on  end  flying  at  his  own  reflection 
in  a  window,  prior  to  the  nesting. 

Chicks 

The  dark  grey  chicks  had  a  few  wisps  of  grey  down.  The  very  first  feed 
they  received  (from  the  hen)  was  the  rice  pudding.  Later  they  were  fed 
banana.  This  was  a  great  relief  as  the  hen  was  not  going  to  depend  solely 
on  live-food.  She  also  brought  a  few  fruit  flies.  Wasp  grubs  and  mealworms 


LES  GIBSON — THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


13 


were  not  used.  On  the  second  day  small  spiders  and  any  small  soft  insect 
was  used  in  addition  to  the  rice  and  banana.  Only  the  hen  fed  the  chicks, 
which  could  be  heard  cheeping  when  only  a  few  hours  old.  The  cock 
became  very  excited  when  the  chicks  hatched  and  he  hung  upside  down 
above  the  nest  with  large  billfulls  of  rice  or  banana.  This  food  was  con¬ 
stantly  proffered  and  eventually  taken  by  the  hen  who  gave  very  small 
pieces  to  the  chicks.  The  cock  had  never  previously  offered  food  to  the 
lien,  either  at  courtship  or  during  incubation.  He  never  went  to  the  nest 
when  the  hen  was  off  and  was  always  nervous  when  approaching.  He 
always  arrived  circuitously,  a  twig  at  a  time.  In  contrast,  the  hen  just  flew 
straight  on  to  the  nest.  My  relief  at  the  hen  feeding  her  normal  diet  was 
short-lived.  When  the  first  chick  was  two  days  old  (and  the  other  only  one) 
she  came  into  the  kitchen  through  the  open  window  when  I  was  putting 
out  food.  The  feeding  station  was  a  platform  just  outside  the  window.  I 
had  been  doing  this  for  two  years  without  a  problem.  But  she  was  looking 
for  insects  and  was  quite  unafraid.  She  hopped  along  the  sink  then,  in 
spite  of  being  in  a  very  enclosed  area,  she  bounced  off  my  shoulder,  went 
downwards  under  some  wall  cabinets,  went  out  to  an  enclosed  sundeck, 
into  a  narrow  passage  and  out  into  the  garden — no  easy  feat,  involving 
the  turning  of  four  corners. 

She  landed  in  a  cherry  tree  just  outside  of  the  aviary  and  immediately 
began  to  collect  insects.  She  hung  upside  down  and  poked  under  the 
broad  leaves  and,  within  a  few  minutes,  had  5  or  6  insects  lined  up  in 
her  beak.  I  had  walked  behind  her  by  this  time  and  she  actually  flew 
down  to  a  fence  post  within  6ft  (2m)  of  me,  and  I  could  clearly  see  the 
insects  she  had  gathered.  I  was  hopeful  that  she  would  go  back  into  the 
passageway.  Next  she  flew  higher  into  an  apple  tree  and  had  a  look 
around.  Moments  later  she  was  off  fast  and  straight  over  a  house,  at  a 
height  of  about  30ft  (9m).  She  has  not  been  seen  since. 

The  chicks  were  obviously  comfortable  in  the  95°F  (35°C)  heat,  so  I 
left  them.  The  cock  came  a  few  times  with  large  offerings  of  food  and 
jabbed  them  at  the  chicks  who  almost  choked.  He  even  brought  a  meal¬ 
worm  which  they  could  not  take,  so  he  finally  ate  it — the  first  time  I 
saw  him  eat  one. 

He  was  very  nervous  at  the  nest  and  never  once  landed  on  the  rim, 
always  hanging  from  above  and  looking  around  nervously  for  the  hen. 

The  chicks  were  hand-fed  in  the  nest.  They  begged  promptly  when 
the  nest  was  thumped  with  a  finger.  At  night  they  were  put  in  a  nest  of 
tissue  inside  a  small  portable  incubator  at  97-98^  (36-37°C),  and  spent 
the  night  safely.  They  were  cheeping  at  first  light  and  were  hand-fed 
5-6  times  an  hour,  for  a  15  hour  day.  It  remained  hot  and  they  were  put 
back  in  the  nest  for  eight  hours  each  day,  at  91-95°?  (33-35 °C).  The 
cock  repeated  his  useless  performance  for  5  days  and  on  the  sixth  day  he 
did  not  go  near  the  nest  at  all.  He  is  obviously  programmed  solely  to  the  hen. 

The  chicks  were  kept  at  93-95 °F  (34-35  °C)  each  night,  and  as  the 


14 


LES  GIBSON— THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


days  wore  on,  I  wore  out.  By  the  sixth  day,  (time  being  counted  by  the 
oldest  chick),  feedings  were  being  given  at  about  4  an  hour. 

From  day  one  to  day  four  the  chicks  only  excreted  at  between  7  and 
17  hour  intervals,  (the  latter  including  night  time).  This  was  disconcerting 
at  first,  until  it  was  found  to  be  apparently  normal.  The  cock  had  removed 
droppings  from  the  nest  since  the  chicks  were  born  until  he  lost  interest 
on  the  sixth  day. 

The  chicks  were  kept  indoors  when  it  was  obvious  that  the  cock  was 
of  no  help.  They  grew  at  a  tremendous  pace,  but  when  the  younger  was 
five  days  old,  it  did  not  beg  first  thing  in  the  morning  like  the  elder  chick. 
It  was  breathing  noticeably  faster  and  this  was  timed  at  i3o/minute, 
compared  with  the  larger  chick  at  100/min.  An  infection  was  thought 
to  be  the  most  likely  cause  of  distress  (correctly  as  it  turned  out)  and  the 
chick  was  given  cephalexin.  This  oral  cephalosporin  was  given  as  a  few 
specks  of  powder  on  a  tooth  pick,  washed  down  with  nectar.  The  chick 
was  force-fed  all  day  and  at  night  was  given  Septra  (sulpha  and  trime¬ 
thoprim),  an  antibiotic  with  a  12  hour  effect.  The  next  morning,  at  7  a.m., 
it  begged  weakly  and  took  a  feed.  At  9  a.m.  it  threw  up  its  food  and  did 
the  same  again  at  9.30.  This  is  usually  a  terminal  sign  in  all  birds,  young 
and  old.  It  died  at  10  a.m.,  in  its  seventh  day  from  hatching,  6  days  old  in 
24hr.  periods.  I  always  count  day  one  as  the  day  following  hatching. 
The  other  chick  continued  to  beg  and  feed,  but  not  quite  so  vigorously 
as  on  the  previous  day.  In  the  afternoon  it  was  breathing  at  110/min. 
Suddenly  between  9  and  10  p.m.  its  breathing  went  up  to  140/min.  and 
at  10  p.m.  it  coughed  up  its  previous  feed.  It  was  given  a  dose  of  Chlor¬ 
amphenicol,  but  died  at  5  a.m.  the  following  morning  at  8  days.  Its  eyes 
would  have  opened  within  2  days.  Its  wing  feathers  were  the  only  feathers 
present  and  they  had  just  burst  out  of  the  quills  on  the  seventh  day, 
having  grown  from  12.5  to  15mm  on  that  day. 

The  youngest  chick  weighed  3-9g,  and  on  the  same  day  the  elder 
chick  weighed  5.3g,  about  a  third  of  the  adult  weight.  On  the  day  the 
latter  died  it  had  lost  almost  half  a  gram.  Both  chicks  had  a  shrivelled, 
dehydrated  appearance  just  before  death.  An  immediate  postmortem 
on  the  young  chick  revealed  a  septicaemia  caused  by  the  bacteria  Enter  0- 
bacter  cloacae ,  a  common  inhabitant  of  the  mammalian  gut  and  one  that 
may  be  found  in  the  intestine  of  omnivorous  softbiils.  The  chick  was 
examined  within  an  hour  of  death. 

The  larger  chick  had  no  obvious  infection  or  other  identifiable  cause 
of  death.  The  decision  on  whether  or  not  to  give  the  larger  chick  anti¬ 
biotics  was  an  agonising  one,  and  this  was  made  even  worse  by  the  negative 
findings.  It  is  possible  that  the  chloramphenicol  did  wipe  out  infecting 
bacteria,  and  the  chick  could  have  died  from  endotoxins  released  from 
dead  bacteria. 

The  chicks  were  fed  for  the  first  few  days  on  a  pulp  made  from  beef 
or  chicken,  mixed  with  an  equal  volume  of  rice  pudding,  mashed  in  a 


LES  GIBSON — THE  RED-LEGGED  HONEYCREEPER 


15 


blender.  Scrambled  egg  was  mashed  in  later.  The  chicks  had  very  small 
throats  and  the  feed  was  given  from  a  toothpick.  The  toothpick  was  held 
in  place  to  support  the  head  in  an  upright  position,  while  the  chick 
slowly  gulped  the  pulp.  The  hen  supported  the  chicks  in  a  similar  manner. 
The  main  problem  was  food  being  too  tacky.  Later  wasp  grubs  were  used 
as  a  staple  and  they  proved  to  be  ideal.  They  were  first  cut  up,  being 
too  large,  and  the  pulpy  mass  was  gathered  upon  a  toothpick.  The  chicks 
were  able  to  swallow  this  quickly.  At  a  week  old  they  could  still  only 
swallow  small  pieces  of  food  that  would  easily  have  been  taken  by  a  2-3 
day  old  Pekin  Robin.  Small  spiders  under  2mm  were  readily  swallowed. 
Nearly  every  feed  was  washed  down  by  a  drop  of  nectar.  When  the  chicks 
got  sick  they  had  obvious  difficulty  in  swallowing.  Food  was  given  at 
room  temperature  or  somewhat  colder  (having  been  refrigerated)  except 
for  the  first  day  when  it  was  heated.  There  were  no  particular  colours 
in  the  gape,  other  than  a  bright  red  tongue.  The  tongue  was  used  to  push 
backwards  and  pump  the  food,  a  little  at  a  time,  down  the  throat,  and 
they  were  in  constant  danger  of  choking  from  the  large,  infrequent  feeds. 
By  contrast  the  mother  was  feeding  minute  amounts  every  3-4  minutes 
(the  chicks  were  younger,  of  course). 

When  only  1  and  2  days  old,  the  chicks  begged  easily  to  many  stimuli. 
The  main  one  was  a  bang  on  the  nest.  They  also  responded  to  a  light  being 
flashed  on  them  (if  in  the  dark),  and  to  a  variety  of  chirps  and  whistles. 
They  responded  steadily  to  a  little  whistle  that  I  had  not  heard  the  parents 
make  and  it  was  then  that  I  suspected  that  one  or  other  parent  could 
whistle,  at  least  quietly.  As  the  chicks  reached  4  days  they  usually  responded 
only  the  first  time  to  banging  the  nest,  and  two  toothpicks  were  held 
ready  to  catch  them  as  they  were  apparently  incapable  of  holding  up  for 
long.  However,  as  they  got  older  it  appeared  that  they  were  unwilling  to 
hold  up  in  the  absence  of  a  parent  bird.  The  older  chick  could  actually 
be  seen  listening  intently  for  a  verbal  sign.  A  little  experimentation  showed 
that  a  high-pitched  kissing  noise  brought  them  up  most  times.  The  chicks 
could  literally  be  seen  to  grow  each  day,  and  in  a  week  the  birth  weight 
had  quadrupled. 

This  species  reversed  my  usual  finding  that  soft-bills  are  easy  to  nest, 
but  difficult  to  rear.  The  Cyanerpes  need  more  specialised  conditions 
than  most  to  induce  nesting,  but  I  am  sure  that  the  mother  would  have 
raised  the  chicks  easily  as  she  was  not  depending  solely  on  live  food. 

The  experience  with  the  senile  hen  and  the  chicks  shows  a  species  that 
is  more  tenacious  of  life  than  almost  any  bird  I  have  dealt  with. 

Getting  the  chicks  to  a  week  old  and  losing  them  added  further  despair 
on  top  of  the  loss  of  the  hen,  and  this  has  (so  far)  been  the  ultimate  frustra¬ 
tion  in  a  frustrating  hobby. 

I  am  unlikely  to  be  able  to  replace  the  hen,  as  the  supply  is  non-existent 
here,  and  as  far  as  I  know  I  have  the  only  (captive!)  Red-legged  Honey- 
creeper  in  the  country.  It’s  just  as  well  the  bird  doesn’t  know  this. 


1 6 


BREEDING  THE  RED-HEADED  LAUGHING  THRUSH  AT 
PADSTOW  BIRD  GARDENS 
By  David  Coles  (Curator) 


The  Red-headed  or  Chestnut-crowned  Laughing  Thrush  Garrulax 
erythrocephalus  is  a  medium  sized  babbler  ranging  in  distribution  from 
the  western  Himalayas  through  S.W.  China  to  S.E.  Asia.  Coloration  is 
variable,  but  briefly  it  is  a  mainly  greyish  bird  with  chestnut  crown  and 
golden  olive  wings  and  tail.  Sexes  alike.  For  a  more  detailed  description 
with  plate  see  King,  Dickinson  and  Woodcock  (1975). 

Two  birds  obtained  in  January  1970  were  housed  in  a  planted  aviary 
for  over  six  years  during  which  time  nests  were  built  and  eggs  laid. 
Nothing  came  of  their  efforts,  so  in  September  197 6,  the  two,  along  with  a 
third,  were  introduced  into  a  large  planted  flight  measuring  13  x  9  x  4m 
high.  A  large  apple  tree  dominated  a  third  of  the  cage  with  bamboo, 
Forsythia,  red  currant  and  ivy  providing  low  cover.  Despite  having  to 
share  the  flight  with  some  ten  other  birds,  they  settled  quickly  into  their 
new  environment,  spending  much  time  busying  themselves  turning  over 
leaves  and  stones  in  search  of  insects  and  soon  gained  confidence  enough 
to  snap  up  any  unearthed  livefood  as  the  ground  was  turned. 

Half-hearted  attempts  were  made  during  the  following  January  and 
February  by  individuals  at  nest  construction,  but  as  none  had  apparently 
paired,  structures  rarely  developed  beyond  the  preliminary  few  strands 
of  grass.  Nest  building  started  in  earnest  on  9th  April  when  all  three 
assisted  in  forming  a  base  seven  feet  up  in  a  clump  of  bamboo,  part  of 
which  was  tied  around  a  steel  support  and  apple  branch  giving  it  additional 
strength.  Progress  was  slow  due  to  inclement  weather  but  a  bulky  nest 
of  dried  grass  was  ready  for  lining  by  the  16th.  Apart  from  the  base,  the 
remainder  had  been  built  by  a  pair  consisting  of  an  original  male  and  new 
female.  The  female  alone  lined  the  cup  with  lambs’  wool  and  leaf  skele¬ 
tons.  She  roosted  on  the  nest  on  the  19th  and  a  pale  blue  egg  was  present 
next  day.  However,  no  interest  was  shown  in  it,  and  it  was  removed 
two  days  later  and  placed  in  an  incubator.  It  measured  30.5  x  20mm  and 
although  fertile,  proved  dead  in  shell. 

A  second  nest  was  started  a  week  later,  this  time  in  ivy  and  built  only 
by  the  pair  who  were  now  spending  much  more  time  together  while  the 
odd  bird  remained  alone,  neither  attempting  to  assist  or  interfere.  Interest 
soon  waned  and  the  half-completed  nest  abandoned,  only  to  have  them 
start  repairing  their  original  nest  almost  immediately,  making  the  cup 
much  more  shallow.  The  first  egg  was  laid  on  9th  May  followed  by  a 
second  next  day.  Incubation  proceeded  normally  with  both  sexes  sharing 
the  duties  and  after  14  days,  one  hatched.  Brooding  was  continuous  by 
the  female  but  the  male  was  not  seen  to  take  food  up  to  her;  consequently 
late  evening  she  came  off  and  amid  excited  chatterings  by  all  three,  the 
pair  mated  beneath  the  nest.  Half  an  hour  lapsed  and  with  no  sign  of 


DAVID  COLES— THE  RED-HEADED  LAUGHING  THRUSH  1 7 

her  returning,  the  then  cold  chick  and  remaining  egg  were  removed  to 
an  incubator.  The  second  egg  hatched  overnight  but  both  chicks  survived 
for  only  two  days.  Several  more  attempts  were  made  during  the  remainder 
of  the  summer  but  none  progressed  further  than  eggs. 

During  winter,  the  odd  bird  died  leaving  last  year’s  pair  together. 
Although  both  birds  had  been  seen  carrying  dried  grass  throughout  the 
winter  months  it  was  not  until  10th  March  that  an  almost  complete  nest 
was  noticed  in  some  thick  ivy  which,  due  to  the  unpredictable  weather, 
took  another  three  days  to  complete.  It  was  positioned  next  to  the  wire 
and  was  clearly  visible  from  outside.  The  first  egg  was  laid  on  ist  April 
followed  by  two  others  at  daily  intervals  (previous  clutches  had  consisted  of 
only  two  eggs.)  Sitting  commenced  with  the  first  egg  and  after  a  period  of 
15  days,  one  hatched,  followed  by  the  other  two  on  subsequent  days.  No 
shell  was  found  but  the  male  was  seen  on  edge  of  nest  with  a  piece  in 
his  beak;  whether  this  was  eaten  or  removed  was  not  determined. 

Both  parents  took  turns  to  brood  and  feed  the  chicks  with  the  female 
doing  the  bulk  of  the  brooding.  Livefood  in  the  form  of  crickets,  maggots 
and  mealworms  was  offered  and  flies  and  earthworms  were  found  within 
the  flight  by  the  parents,  each  being  meticulously  killed  before  taken 
up  to  the  brooding  bird  who  in  turn  fed  the  chicks.  Only  one  chick  was 
present  on  the  20th.  It  continued  to  grow  rapidly  and  was  first  left  un¬ 
attended  on  1  st  May  when  both  parents  spent  much  time  chasing  flies 
attracted  to  the  flowering  red  currants. 

Finally  left  the  nest  around  10  a.m.  on  the  7th  after  being  perched 
for  an  hour  or  so  on  the  edge,  which  meant  the  fledging  time  was  between 
19  and  21  days,  depending  on  the  day  hatched.  The  weather  preceding 
was  overcast  and  rainy,  so  I  suspect  fledging  was  delayed  as  it  is  with  other 
softbills  reared  at  the  gardens  in  such  weather  and  would  estimate  that  16 
or  17  days  would  be  nearer  the  correct  time,  but  as  we  only  reared  one,  it 
remains  to  be  seen  what  the  fledging  period  is  when  fine  conditions  prevail. 

On  leaving  the  nest,  the  chick  was  about  two-thirds  the  size  of  adults 
with  uniform  grey  brown  plumage  and  very  short  tail.  Spending  most  of 
the  first  few  days  on  or  near  the  ground,  it  soon  began  to  hop  confidently 
and  was  following  its  parents  around  within  a  week.  First  started  to  pick 
up  at  five  weeks  old,  progressively  accepting  less  until  independent  a 
week  later. 

REFERENCE 

King,  B.  F.,  Dickinson,  E.  C.,  and  Woodcock,  M.  W.  1975,  A  Field  Guide  to  the 
Birds  of  South  East  Asia.  Collins. 


i8 


THE  BAHAMAN  PARROT 
Amazona  leucocephala  bahamensis 
By  Patricia  and  Clarke  Carraway  (Seffner,  Florida) 
Introduction  by  Ramon  Noegel 

Patricia  and  Clarke  Carraway  are  members  of  our  staff  here  at  Life 
Fellowship  (New  Age  Ranch)  in  Florida.  They  have  long  shared  an  interest 
and  concern  for  the  plight  of  endangered  wild  life,  and  in  the  past  seven 
years  they  have  spent  much  time  in  the  Cayman  Islands  and  Jamaica 
studying  the  habits  of  the  native  Amazon  parrots  to  aid  in  the  captive 
breeding  programme  of  the  New  Age  Ranch.  Such  expeditions  were 
solely  sponsored  by  the  New  Age  Assembly  Church  which  is  actively 
engaged  in  conservation  of  endangered  species.  When  I  approached  them 
with  the  possibility  of  going  to  the  Bahamas  to  research  bahamensis ,  their 
enthusiasm  was  overwhelming.  Coupled  with  youth,  education  and  a  drive 
to  succeed,  they  have  greatly  added  to  our  knowledge  of  these  rare  parrots, 
for  they  brought  back  much  information  not  heretofore  assembled.  At 
present  we  are  endeavouring  to  captive-breed  six  of  the  Caribbean  Island 
Amazons  (Amazona  leucocephala  leucocephala ,  A.l.  caymanensis ,  A.l. 
hesterna ,  A.  agilis ,  A.  collaria  and  A.  ventralis).  Our  successes  with  the  very 
rare  Cayman  and  Cuban  Amazons  have  made  this  costly  but  noble  effort 
well  worthwhile.  Only  those  who  have  spent  considerable  time  in  the 
Islands  can  appreciate  the  urgency  of  our  message  regarding  the  increased 
effort  for  captive  breeding.  On  islands,  some  of  which  are  so  small  one  can 
walk  from  end  to  end  in  half  a  day,  it  is  only  a  matter  of  time  before 
increased  human  development  wipes  out  the  natural  habitat  of  these 
beautiful  parrots.  While  smaller  birds  may  adjust  to  living  in  close  proxi¬ 
mity  to  man,  the  parrot  cannot  and  will  not.  Some  well  meaning  conser¬ 
vationists  still  share  the  dream  of  a  safe  natural  environment  for  the 
Island  Amazon  parrots,  but  without  years  of  education  (which  may 
well  prove  too  late)  there  is  little  hope  for  such  dreams  becoming  realities. 
On  these  small  land  masses  the  people  must  resort  to  clearing  the  parrots’ 
habitat  for  their  homes  and  plantations.  As  tourism  develops  along  the 
coastline,  the  local  inhabitants  are  forced  inland  for  cheaper  land  to  build 
on.  It  is  foolish  to  think  that  people  so  acquainted  with  extreme  poverty 
and  who  have  had  little  or  no  instruction  in  conservation  are  going  to  put 
the  parrots  ahead  of  their  own  necessity  to  exist.  Therefore,  captive  breed¬ 
ing  still  remains  the  only  solution  to  the  immediate  problem.  In  the  future, 
where  the  islands  are  large  enough,  we  may  see  areas  set  aside  for  natural 
refuges  for  the  native  fauna.  If  such  a  time  should  hopefully  come,  the 
New  Age  Ranch  will  be  only  too  happy  to  supply  breeding  stock  to  these 


P.  &  C.  CARRAWAY-—THE  BAHAMAN  PARROT 


19 


depleted  areas.  At  present  we  are  the  only  ones  ever  to  have  captive-bred 
the  Grand  Cayman  Island  Amazon  and  the  only  ones  to  be  currently 
breeding  the  Cuban  Parrot  in  the  U.S.,  the  only  other  present  captive 
breeding  of  the  species  being  in  the  Moscow  Zoo. 

Our  first  encounter  with  the  Bahaman  Parrot  was  in  Chicago  on  a  cold, 
snowy,  windy  day  in  November  of  1975.  There,  in  Fields  Museum  of 
Natural  History,  in  the  upper  archives  away  from  public  displays,  were 
three  trays  of  Bahaman  Parrots  among  hundreds  of  trays  containing 
specimens  of  other  birds.  What  once  were  parrots  is  closer  to  the  truth, 
for  though  still  in  excellent  condition,  these  were  but  skins  of  specimens 
collected  by  the  Field  Expedition  at  the  turn  of  the  century.  We  would  like 
to  thank  the  dedicated  people  of  Fields  Museum  for  their  help  and  interest 
in  our  search  for  information  on  this  parrot. 

The  next  real  chance  to  see  our  Bahaman  friend  came  in  July  of  1977. 
At  the  end  of  the  breeding  season  at  the  New  Age  Ranch,  a  private, 
non-profit  zoological  organization  dedicated  to  the  breeding  of  rare  and 
endangered  birds,  our  friend  and  director  of  the  Ranch,  Ramon  Noegel, 
suggested  that  my  wife  and  I  go  to  Abaco,  Bahamas.  There  we  would 
observe  and  photograph  the  reportedly  largest,  most  beautiful  of  Amazona 
leucocephala,  the  Bahaman  parrot.  Ramon  decided  to  remain  at  the  ranch 
to  keep  things  running  smoothly  and  ensure  its  continued  success.  He 
would  have  his  hands  full,  for  many  parrots  had  already  hatched:  he  had 
taken  them  from  the  nests  and  begun  feeding  a  special  formula  while 
hand-raising  them.  Others  were  due  to  hatch  and  would  be  occupying  his 
attention  also. 

Once  on  Abaco,  we  began  inquiring  for  local  knowledge  of  the  existence 
and  habits  of  the  parrot.  We  were  given  many  enthusiastic  confirmations 
of  the  existence  of  them  on  the  island,  but  few  people  seemed  to  know 
much  more.  We  soon  found  out  that  a  law  had  been  passed  ten  years  ago 
by  the  Bahaman  government  to  protect  the  parrots.  It  is  now  unlawful  to 
kill,  harm  or  capture  them  for  any  reason  with  a  punishment  of  a  $1,000 
fine  for  violation  of  the  law.  From  the  response  of  the  people  we  met  on 
Abaco,  it  became  clear  that  this  action  was  approved  of  and  adhered  to  by 
most  Bahamans. 

In  the  Cayman  Islands,  where  Amazona  leucocephala  caymanensis  and 
A.l.  hesterna  are  found,  such  an  attitude  of  concern  for  the  preservation  or 
protection  does  not  appear  to  prevail.  Rather,  the  parrots  of  Grand  Cayman 
and  Cayman  Brae  are,  for  the  most  part,  thought  to  be  a  nuisance  and  pest, 
and  are  treated  likewise.  Both  of  these  islands  are  considerably  smaller 
than  Abaco,  and  the  parrots  on  these  smaller  islands  are  in  much  closer 
proximity  to  people,  towns  and  plantations.  With  this  in  mind,  the 
Bahaman  parrot  is  in  a  better  position  to  survive  in  the  native  state  than 
either  caymanensis  or  hesterna,  at  least  for  the  time  being. 

We  encountered  only  four  captive  Bahaman  parrots  on  Abaco,  all  of 
which  were  taken  from  the  nest  as  babies  11  and  12  years  ago.  We  were 


20 


P.  &  C.  CARRAWAY— THE  BAHAMAN  PARROT 


allowed  to  photograph  and  handle  these  four,  which  seemed  to  us  like  the 
fulfillment  of  a  dream,  for  now  we  had  come  into  personal  contact  with  all 
of  the  Amazona  leucocephala  subspecies.  Months  of  field  work  in  each  of 
the  Cayman  islands  and  now  the  Bahamas,  coupled  with  years  spent  in 
study,  breeding  and  raising  of  the  nominate  races,  caymanensis  and 
hesterna ,  all  made  it  more  keenly  appreciated  in  finally  meeting  bahamensis. 
At  first  sight,  it  might  be  mistaken  for  the  true  Cuban,  with  the  same 
striking  colours  and  patterns.  However,  upon  closer  examination  this 
view  soon  changes,  for  the  Bahaman,  though  equally  as  proportioned  as 
the  Cuban  and  hesterna ,  is  distinctly  larger  than  any  of  the  others.  Inci¬ 
dentally  an  excellent  coloured  plate  by  H.  Goodchild  of  the  Bahaman 
Parrot  was  published  in  the  June  1904  number  of  the  Magazine. 

Although  each  of  the  subspecies  has  the  same  basic  colour  patterns, 
including  blue  flight  feathers  and  red  in  the  tail  feathers,  each  of  them  is 
distinctly  different  from  the  others.  Through  observing  the  Bahaman 
parrot,  in  cages  and  in  the  wild,  we  found  that  what  sets  this  subspecies 
apart  as  the  most  beautiful  of  leucocephala  is  the  amount  and  intensity  of 
the  red  and  white  patches,  the  amount  of  black  edging  on  the  green 
feathers  and  the  size  of  the  bird  compared  to  the  others.  Not  only  can 
similarities  be  found  in  the  appearance  of  the  subspecies  of  leucocephala5 
but  also  in  the  behavioural  patterns  among  these  birds.  On  an  island 
measuring  approximately  160  miles  long  by  30  miles  wide  at  the  widest 
point,  all  of  the  parrots  on  Abaco  congregate  in  an  area  of  about  15  square 
miles  located  at  the  south-eastern  end  of  the  island.  And  here  stands  one 
similarity  in  the  behaviour  of  Amazona  leucocephala  on  all  of  the  islands 
mentioned.  On  all  of  these  islands,  the  parrots  live  in  certain  areas  and 
though  they  will  fly  near  homes  or  settlements  in  order  to  feed,  they  do  not 
roost  or  nest  in  close  proximity  to  human  dwellings :  rather,  they  prefer 
the  remote  places  for  the  breeding. 

The  Bahaman  parrot  of  Abaco  has  a  great  advantage  over  his  cousins, 
caymanensis  and  hesterna ,  in  that  it  is  in  a  much  larger  and  less  restricted 
feeding  and  breeding  area.  On  Grand  Cayman  and  Cayman  Brae,  the 
advancement  of  civilisation  has  taken  more  and  more  of  the  natural  terrain, 
absorbing  what  was  once  used  by  the  parrot.  This  may  not  seem  as  a  threat, 
for  most  people  are  not  aware  of  the  peril  placed  on  these  parrots,  but  with 
the  increase  in  tourism,  land  sales  and  island  development,  the  effect  on  the 
plant  and  animal  population  is  devastating.  This  is  especially  true  with  the 
parrots,  for  as  they  get  pushed  further  and  further  away  from  areas  being 
developed,  the  suitable  breeding  areas  are  soon  diminished  to  the  point  of 
non-existence  on  such  small  islands.  Today,  it  appears  that  caymanensis , 
hesterna  and  possibly  bahamanensis  have  passed  their  zenith  in  existence, 
and  are  now  aimed  in  a  downward  spiral  toward  extinction. 

Of  the  natural  lands  that  do  remain,  only  a  part  seem  suitable  for  the 
parrot.  Why  this  is  so  is  not  completely  understood;  however,  as  mentioned 
before,  the  parrots  inhabit  relatively  small  areas  of  the  entire  land  available. 


P.  &  C.  CARRAWAY — THE  BAHAMAN  PARROT 


21 


On  Abaco,  much  of  the  natural  pine-forest  was  removed  for  timber  in  the 
late  1960s,  which  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  factors  influencing  the 
present  location  of  the  birds  in  the  south-eastern  section  of  the  island. 
Another  factor  seems  to  be  the  abundance  of  food  and  amount  of  under¬ 
growth  serving  as  protection.  Some  of  the  foods  which  we  observed  the 
Bahaman  parrot  eating  were  sea  grapes,  wild  guava,  poisonwood  berries 
(a  type  of  sumac)  and  gumbo-limbo  berries.  However,  what  they  seemed 
to  prefer  most  was  the  pine.  This  they  would  nibble  on  in  whatever  form 
available,  from  the  young  pine  cone  and  tender  shoots  of  new  branches 
to  the  very  bark  of  the  trees.  We  observed  many  trees  that  had  been  well 
worked  over  by  these  continual  nibblers.  Pines  do  not  grow  on  Cayman  Brae 
or  Grand  Cayman  and  consequently  the  native  parrots  do  not  of  course 
feed  on  it  there,  but  at  the  Ranch  we  have  fed  it  to  all  of  leucocephala , 
finding  them  all  fond  of  it. 

Generally,  all  leucocephala  have  access  to  the  same  foods  and  it  all  grows 
on  the  same  type  of  land.  Rock  is  more  like  it,  very  hard  rock.  Amazingly, 
this  “ironshore”  supports  an  abundance  of  life  forms.  Plants,  shrubs  and 
trees  crowd  the  rocky  surface  of  these  islands  forming  great  areas  of  under¬ 
growth  which  the  natives  call  “carpetland”  or  “velvetland”.  The  land  is 
pitted  with  thousands  of  holes  ranging  in  size  from  a  thimble  to  a  house, 
and  in  depth  from  a  couple  of  inches  to  50  or  more  feet.  This  is  the  land 
that  is  the  haven  for  the  parrots,  for  it  provides  them  with  all  the  food  and 
shelter  they  need. 

The  predominant  colour  in  all  of  the  leucocephala  is  green,  but  this  green 
varies  in  shade  and  outline  among  the  subspecies.  In  the  Brae  parrot 
( hesterna ),  the  smallest  of  the  four,  the  green  appears  to  be  more  brilliant, 
but  less  iridescent  than  that  of  the  Grand  Cayman  (caymanensis)  parrot 
and  lighter  than  either  the  Cuban  or  Bahaman  parrot.  The  outline,  or  edge 
of  each  green  body  feather  is  black  on  all  leucocephala ,  yet  on  the  Bahaman, 
this  is  more  pronounced  than  on  the  Cuban,  followed  by  hesterna  and  last, 
caymanensis.  The  pink-red  colouring  of  the  throat  area  is  common  to  all, 
but  this  also  varies.  The  Bahaman  and  Cuban  have  the  largest  splashes 
of  this  colour  ranging  from  pink  to  bright  red.  Hesterna  does  not  have  as 
much  quantity,  but  the  shade  can  be  just  as  bright:  the  Grand  Cayman 
parrot  usually  has  a  light  pink  colour  on  the  throat  and  less  of  it  than  on 
the  others. 

The  beautiful  green  and  striking  red  are  brought  into  sharp  focus  by  the 
snow  white  cap.  This  white  can  cover  an  area  starting  behind  the  nasal 
holes,  to  the  full  crown  on  top,  down  the  sides  of  the  face  encircling  the 
eyes,  and  finally  completing  the  white  under  the  eyes  on  the  cheek  area. 
This  beautiful  showing  of  red  and  white  has  been  found  in  abundance  on 
mature  Cuban  and  Bahaman  parrots  where  the  top  of  the  head  is  entirely 
white  and  the  throat  and  breast  are  completely  red,  forming  a  solid 
breastplate  with  contrasting  green  elsewhere  edged  in  black.  Hesterna  has  a 
distinct  white  crown  which,  when  fully  developed,  is  not  nearly  the  size 


22 


P.  &  C.  CARRAWAY — THE  BAHAMAN  PARROT 


of  the  white  area  on  the  Bahaman  or  Cuban.  The  Grand  Cayman  Parrot’s 
crown  is  smaller  and  drab,  the  white  turning  to  a  yellowish  cream  colour 
with  bits  of  pink  in  some  cases. 

In  all  of  these  parrots,  the  red  and  white  coloured  areas  increase  in  size 
as  the  bird  grows  older.  This,  too,  seems  to  vary  in  the  species,  for  among 
all  of  the  parrots  we  observed  in  the  field,  as  well  as  those  involved  in  the 
breeding  programme  at  the  Ranch,  no  two  are  quite  alike.  There  does  seem, 
however,  to  be  an  overlap  in  the  amount  and  tone  of  red  and  white  that 
can  be  found  in  these  birds.  Part  of  this  can  be  attributed  to  age,  as  in  the 
comparison  of  an  immature  and  a  sexually  mature  parrot:  the  mature 
parrot  will  usually  have  more  and  brighter  colour,  both  red  and  white. 
Other  factors  that  may  also  influence  the  colour,  such  as  health,  diet, 
season,  moult,  sex,  activity  and  temperament,  need  to  be  considered  and 
researched  further  if  conclusive  understanding  is  to  be  gained. 

Another  notable  pattern  is  the  wine  coloured  patch  of  feathers  found  on 
the  stomach  and  extending  down  to  the  legs  in  some  specimens.  The 
intensity  and  size  of  this  pattern  varies  considerably,  but  is  common  to  all 
leucocephala.  The  Bahaman  parrots  which  we  observed  on  Abaco  had  very 
little  of  this  colouring  and  we  found  that  it  was  usually  limited  to  the  legs. 
Reportedly,  however,  the  southern  Bahaman  parrot  of  Inagua  has  this 
purplish  tint  in  grand  fashion  starting  at  the  lower  breast  and  extending 
down  to  the  legs :  hesterna  seems  to  carry  this  trait  the  most,  for  in  most 
cases,  leucocephala  hesterna  have  large  and  vivid  patches  of  this  colour.  It 
appears  that  this  colour  trait  is  recessive  in  the  northern  Bahaman  parrot, 
for  what  reasons  we  are  not  sure. 

The  parrots  of  Abaco  have  been  found  to  nest  in  rock  holes  as  well  as  in 
the  holes  of  trees.  We  were  shown  several  nest  sites  in  the  rocks  that  were 
used  by  parrots  in  which  some  of  the  now  captive  birds  on  the  island  were 
found.  Another  nest  from  which  young  were  taken  years  ago  proved  to  be 
the  top  of  an  old  dead  palm  tree.  The  palm  was  approximately  four  and  a 
half  feet  tall  and  eight  inches  in  diameter.  It  was  unusual,  for  there  was 
no  covering  on  the  top  of  the  hole  and  no  side  entrance  into  the  nest  and 
the  parent  simply  sat  in  the  shallow  hole  in  the  top  of  the  stump  about  ten 
inches  deep.  Our  guide  informed  us  that  two  broods  of  three  and  two 
chicks  respectively  were  taken  from  this  palm  nest  only  to  be  released  later 
by  the  authorities.  It  seems  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  Bahaman  parrot 
makes  use  of  a  variety  of  available  nesting  sites,  whereas  on  Cayman  Brae 
and  Grand  Cayman,  the  nests  were  found  only  in  trees.  The  trees  included 
cedar,  gumbo-limbo,  mahogany  and  ironwood,  and  the  holes  were  found 
to  be  quite  deep.  The  absence  of  such  large  trees  on  Abaco  could  account 
for  the  adaption  to  other  forms  of  nest  site. 

We  spent  days  and  evenings  into  the  night  observing  the  Bahaman 
parrot,  for  we  knew  that  through  observing  them  in  the  native  habitat  we 
would  gain  a  better  understanding  of  their  needs  in  captivity.  The  parrot’s 
apparent  enjoyment  of  flying  interested  us  greatly,  for  we  had  found  that  the 


W.  CRAWFORD — THE  ROSEATE  SPOONBILL 


23 


caymanensis  rarely  flew  long  distances,  but  seemed  to  prefer  to  flit  from 
tree  to  tree  in  the  wild  or  walk  in  the  aviaries  rather  than  fly.  Hesterna ,  too, 
rarely  flies  long  distances,  possibly  due  to  the  limited  habitat.  On  Abaco, 
however,  we  saw  through  binoculars  flocks  of  20  to  30  parrots  fly  until 
completely  out  of  sight.  Not  only  did  they  fly  long  distances,  but  they 
played  in  the  air,  squawking  and  diving  at  each  other.  These  parrots  were 
definitely  more  adept  with  the  use  of  their  wings  than  their  Cayman  island 
cousins  and,  if  in  captivity,  would  need  a  large  aviary  for  exercise. 

Much  has  been  gained  through  our  encounter  with  the  Bahaman  parrot, 
some  of  which  we  have  tried  to  share  in  this  article.  We  realise  that  this  is 
but  a  part  of  what  has  been  done  in  researching  Amazona  leucocephala  and 
that  much  more  is  needed  if  these  beautiful  Amazons  are  to  remain  a  part 
of  their  native  homelands.  But  research  is  only  a  part  of  this  work,  as  all 
of  us  at  the  New  Age  Ranch  so  well  realise.  As  of  this  writing  (February, 
1978)  the  Ranch  has  successfully  bred  and  raised  18  leucocephala ,  including 
the  first  captive  breeding  of  A.L  caymanensis  in  the  world.  We  feel  that 
research  such  as  we  have  done  on  Abaco  and  in  the  Cayman  Islands  has 
enhanced  our  understanding  and  appreciation  of  all  Amazon  leucocephala — 
and  more.  We  have  been  given  the  desire  to  continue  breeding  this  rare 
and  endangered  species  in  hopes  that  the  future  will  hold  a  better  chance 
for  its  survival  and  that  generations  to  come  will  have  the  same  privilege 
of  seeing  these  parrots  alive. 

*  *  * 


HAND-REARING  OF  THE  ROSEATE  SPOONBILL 
By  Walter  Crawford  (Head  Keeper,  St.  Louis  Zoological  Park,  U.S.A.) 

During  the  past  seven  years,  the  St.  Louis  Zoological  Park  has  main¬ 
tained  a  small  group  of  six  Roseate  Spoonbills  Ajaia  ajaja  and  for  the 
most  part  they  are  housed  in  the  Zoo’s  1904  World’s  Fair  Flight  Cage, 
which  measures  15.24  metres  high,  25.60  metres  wide  and  60.96  metres 
long.  In  winter,  however,  the  birds  are  moved  to  inside  quarters,  which 
measure  2.74  metres  high,  4.57  metres  wide  and  11.58  metres  long.  A 
large  pool,  natural  perching  materials,  and  both  natural  and  artificial 
light  are  available  indoors.  The  spoonbills  share  this  area  with  egrets, 
herons,  storks,  screamers,  ibises,  terns  and  pelicans. 

Prior  to  this  time  the  spoonbills  had  not  shown  any  inclination  to  nest 
when  housed  outdoors,  so  a  total  of  five  nesting  platforms  constructed  of 
hardware  cloth  were  installed  in  their  inside  quarters.  Two  measured 
.17  by  .45  metres,  and  three  were  .07  by  .25  metres.  The  two  larger 
platforms  were  mounted  on  the  limbs  of  dead  trees,  which  in  turn  were 
attached  to  support  beams.  The  three  smaller  nests  were  placed  on  a 


24 


W.  CRAWFORD— THE  ROSEATE  SPOONBILL 


large  heating  duct  that  extended  the  length  of  the  cage.  The  nests  mounted 
on  the  limbs  were  utilized  by  the  spoonbills  where  they  constructed  their 
own  nests  with  no  help  from  attendants. 

The  birds  were  transferred  to  their  inside  quarters  during  the  first  part 
of  November,  1977.  By  December  they  had  formed  pairs  and  had  almost 
completed  constructing  their  nests.  During  this  period  considerable 
aggression  was  observed  between  the  spoonbill  pairs.  Once  pairs  had 
chosen  nest  sites,  aggression  and  interaction  declined.  Intense  interaction 
was  also  noted  between  the  egrets  and  spoonbills. 

The  two  nesting  pairs  laid  a  total  of  eleven  eggs.  Previous  years  had 
shown  that  many  eggs  were  broken  or  cracked  during  interaction  of 
various  pairs ;  because  of  this  the  eggs  were  removed  as  soon  as  they  were 
discovered  in  the  nest  and  placed  in  a  Humidaire  Model  14  Incubator. 
During  incubation  the  wet  bulb  was  maintained  at  30°C  and  the  dry 
bulb  at  38°C.  The  eggs  were  turned  manually  three  times  a  day.  Of  the 
nine  that  were  fertile,  only  one  hatched.  The  chick  appeared  healthy  and 
was  covered  by  a  thick  white  down.  After  the  chick  had  thoroughly  dried, 
it  was  moved  to  a  brooder  unit  where  the  temperature  v/as  maintained 
at  35  °C.  The  first  feeding  took  place  at  36  hours  after  hatch.  At  this  time 
the  chick  was  very  active  and  extremely  vocal.  Three  days  after  hatching 
the  temperature  was  dropped  to  32°C,  and  at  ten  days  after  hatching  the 
temperature  was  lowered  to  29|°C.  This  latter  temperature  was  main¬ 
tained  until  the  chick  reached  three  weeks  of  age.  At  twenty-one  days  of 
age  the  chick  seemed  able  to  regulate  and  maintain  its  own  body  tempera¬ 
ture  so  it  was  kept  at  room  temperature  (22-27°C)  for  the  duration  of  its 
stay  in  the  unit.  On  the  thirty-fifth  day  the  chick  was  moved  to  larger 
quarters,  an  open  top  holding  cage  that  contained  an  artificially  constructed 
nest  of  twigs  placed  in  a  large  metal  pan.  This  provided  the  chick  an 
opportunity  to  grasp  the  sticks  in  order  to  build  its  leg  muscles  as  well 
as  promote  the  maintenance  of  healthy  feet  and  toes. 

Table  1  gives  a  breakdown  of  the  diet  used.  The  most  practical  way 
of  feeding  the  chick  proved  to  be  the  tube  feeding  method.  A  1  cc  tuber¬ 
culin  syringe  was  used  and  to  this  was  attached  a  Cholangiocath  tube 
that  had  been  cut  to  the  approximate  length  of  the  bird’s  neck.  This 
pliable  plastic  tubing  proved  to  be  easy  to  work  with  and  clean.  The  end 
was  then  rounded  off  by  passing  it  over  a  flame.  The  tube  was  inserted 
carefully  down  the  throat  past  the  trachea  and  the  gruel  was  slowly 
injected.  Care  had  to  be  taken  so  that  food  was  not  given  too  quickly  or 
in  too  large  a  quantity  in  order  to  prevent  aspiration.  Table  2  illustrates 
the  quantity  of  food  and  the  feeding  interval  for  the  first  eight  weeks. 

At  eight  weeks  of  age,  the  gruel  diet  was  supplemented  with  whole 
fish  (smelt).  At  each  of  the  three  daily  feedings  of  60  cc  of  gruel,  one 
whole  smelt  was  forcefed  to  the  chick.  At  ten  weeks  of  age  the  gruel 
feeding  was  cut  to  one  60  cc  feeding  a  day  in  the  morning  and  two 
feedings  of  three  to  five  whole  smelt.  At  twelve  weeks  of  age  all  gruel 


W.  CRAWFORD— THE  ROSEATE  SPOONBILL 


25 


forcefeeding  was  stopped.,  but  it  was  offered  in  a  pan  free  choice.  The 
bird  was  then  fed  whole,  as  well  as  chopped  smelt  by  hand  in  any  amount 
it  would  consume.  By  fourteen  weeks  of  age  the  bird  could  be  induced 
to  feed  by  the  attendant  just  placing  his  hand  in  the  dish. 

When  the  bird  reached  four  months  of  age,  it  was  placed  in  an  outside 
cage  with  an  adult  spoonbill  so  that  it  would  learn  natural  feeding  habits. 
The  birds  were  fed  in  a  pool  in  the  cage,  and  soon  the  young  bird  was 
feeding  as  actively  as  the  older  bird. 

It  has  since  been  moved  into  the  large  flight  cage  with  all  the  other 
species  and  has  acclimatised  very  well.  It  has  completely  lost  its  depen¬ 
dence  upon  man  for  food  and  is  an  active  member  of  the  flock. 


TABLE  1 


INGREDIENT 

AMOUNT 

Theralin 

4  cup 

ABDEC 

3  drops 

Smelt  (whole) 

8  fish 

Diet  Ai 

1  cup 

Entire  diet  is  then  placed  in  a  blender  and  put  on  high  speed  until 
thoroughly  mixed  and  the  fish  have  been  ground  completely. 

When  this  diet  is  fed,  the  first  two  weeks. 

2  parts  diet  are  mixed  with 

1  part  saliva. 

Diet  At 

Purina  Gamebird  Layena 

70% 

Difluorinated  phosphate 

5% 

Dried  shrimp 

14% 

Ground  raw  carrot 

10% 

Soybean  oil  (unsaturated) 

1% 

1  gallon  of  carrot  juice  is  added  to  20  lb  of  the  diet  by  dry  weight. 

TABLE  2 

AGE 

QUANTITY  FED 

INTERVAL 

0-36  hours 

None 

_____ 

ij  days-9  days 

1  cc 

Every  2  hours 

9  days-i6  days 

2  cc 

Every  3  hours 

16  days-21  days 

3  cc 

Every  3  hours 

21  days-28  days 

5  cc 

Every  3  hours 

28  days~40  days 

20  CC 

4  times  daily 

40  days-56  days 

60  CC 

3  times  daily 

26 


METHODS  USED  BY  THE  TROCHILIDAE  (HUMMINGBIRDS) 
WHEN  CAPTURING  INSECTS 
By  A.  J.  Mobbs  (Walsall,  West  Midlands) 

From  the  moment  when  observations  first  began  on  the  Trochilidae  up 
to  the  present  day,  the  belief  has  persisted  that  hummingbirds  are  able 
to  extract  insects  from  flowers  by  groping  around  with  their  tongue 
until  an  insect  adheres  to  it  or  becomes  entangled  in  the  fimbriated  tip. 
Certain  authors  have  gone  as  far  as  to  give  hummingbirds  chameleon-like 
powers,  believing  these  birds  capable  of  taking  insects  by  darting  out 
the  tongue. 

Gould  (1861),  when  discussing  the  many  types  of  beaks  found  in  the 
Trochilidae  wrote  that  the  “short-billed  Lesbiae  (sic)  cling  to  the  upper 
portion  of  those  (Brugmansiae)  flowers,  pierce  their  bases,  and  with  the 
delicate  feelers  at  the  extremities  of  the  tongue,  readily  secure  the  insects 
which  there  abound.”  Wagner  (1946)  admitted  to  being  unable  to  deter¬ 
mine  how  hummingbirds  actually  took  insects  from  tubular  flowers,  but 
stated  “Probably  the  tongue,  thrust  into  the  flower,  gropes  about  until 
an  insect  adheres  to  it.”  Skutch  (1951)  believed  that  the  Little  Hermit 
(Phaethornis  longuemareus)  took  insects  from  “the  corolla  of  a  great  many 
flowers.”  However,  in  one  of  his  more  recent  writings  (Skutch  1974), 
he  agrees  that  such  behaviour  is  impossible.  Weymouth,  Lasiewski  and 
Berger  (1964)  in  a  highly  technical  paper  on  the  tongue  apparatus  in 
hummingbirds,  state  that  “Insects  are  entangled  in  the  fimbriated  tip 
of  the  tongue  when  the  hummingbird  is  probing  into  flowers,  or  picking 
up  insects  from  some  surface  .  .  .” 

When  describing  the  capturing  of  airborne  insects  by  a  Deville’s 
Hummingbird  (Amazilia  beryllina  devillei ),  Wagner  (loc  cit )  believed  that 
the  bird  plucked  insects  from  the  air  by  “darting  out  the  tongue  for  a 
fraction  of  a  second  so  that  the  insect  was  caught  upon  it.”  In  a  recently 
published  work  Lack  (1976)  erroneously  describes  how  he  saw  a  perched 
Jamaican  Mango  (Anthracothorax  mango )  twice  take  insects  from  vegeta¬ 
tion  by  extending  the  tongue. 

Scheithauer  (1967)  describes  how  he  placed  a  fruit  fly  on  the  tongue  of 
certain  hummingbirds  to  see  if  the  tongue  was  in  fact  sticky  enough  to 
be  able  to  hold  the  insect.  Although  he  pressed  the  fly  down  slightly, 
it  fell  off  as  soon  as  the  bird’s  beak  was  tilted. 

Although  it  is  impossible  for  any  of  the  Trochilidae  to  capture  success¬ 
fully  insects  on  the  tongue,  it  is  possible  for  an  insect  to  inadvertently 
become  adhered  to  it  (usually  when  the  insect  has  been  taken  insufficiently 
far  enough  into  the  gape  for  it  to  be  swallowed).  Should  this  happen,  the 
bird  will  shake  its  head  and  move  the  tongue  in  and  out  of  the  beak  until 
the  offending  insect  has  been  dislodged.  Should  the  insect  prove  difficult 
to  remove,  the  bird  will  often  become  most  distressed  and  continually 
scratch  the  beak  in  an  attempt  to  remove  the  insect.  Even  when  the  insect 


A.  J.  MOBBS— HUMMINGEIRDS 


27 


has  finally  been  dislodged,  the  bird  may,  due  to  stress,  carry  out  displace¬ 
ment  scratching  for  a  moment  or  so  afterwards. 

As  will  be  seen  from  the  appendix,  the  shape  of  the  beak  does  not 
determine  methods  used  when  capturing  insect  prey.  To  give  but  one 
example:  the  beak  of  a  female  Purple-throated  Carib  (Eulampis  jugularis)  is 
similar  in  shape  to  that  of  certain  Phaethornis  sp.,  yet  never  does  the 
carib  glean  insects  as  do  the  latter.  The  extreme  curvature  of  beak  in  the 
Sicklebills  ( Eutoxeres ),  would  appear  to  be  a  poor  tool  with  which  to 
capture  airborne  insects,  yet  birds  from  this  genus  have  been  seen  to 
take  prey  in  such  a  manner.  However  these  birds  also  glean  insects  and 
do  appear  to  use  this  method  more  regularly  than  the  hawking  method. 
Olson,  Powell  and  Eisenmann  (1968)  thought  it  remarkable  that  a  female 
White-tipped  Sicklebill  (E.  aquila ),  captured  on  9  July  1966  should 
have  a  crop  filled  with  small  wingless  ants;  but  in  my  estimation,  such 
prey  would  be  far  easier  for  such  a  bird  to  capture  than  would  winged 
insects. 

Species  from  the  genera  Ramphomicron ,  Metallura  and  Chalcostigma  will 
use  Method  5  (see  later  for  description),  but  it  is  rare  for  the  first  named 
to  do  so.  In  confinement,  hummingbirds  can  usually  obtain  sufficient 
livefood  without  having  to  revert  to  methods  which  would  perhaps  be 
rarely  used  in  the  wild.  Vuilleumier  (1969)  gives  an  account  of  a  female 
Olivaceous  Thornhill  (1 Chalcostigma  olwaceum)>  walking  on  densely  matted 
grass  cushions  of  a  meadow,  picking  up  insects  as  she  went.  The  italics 
are  Vuilleumier’s  not  mine;  I  do  not  consider  it  an  unusual  feat  for  a 
hummingbird  to  walk  on  the  ground,  having  witnessed  such  behaviour 
in  a  number  of  species. 

In  captive  birds,  only  one  genus  appears  to  use  method  5  almost  ex¬ 
clusively.  However,  from  observations  made  on  wild  birds,  it  is  obvious 
the  helmetcrests  ( Oxypogon  sp.)  use  this  method  regularly  to  obtain  insects. 

Although  all  hummingbirds  include  insects  in  their  diet,  certain  species 
(such  as  those  living  at  high  altitudes)  are  without  doubt  more  insecti¬ 
vorous  than  others.  All  the  species  I  have  studied  have  increased  their 
intake  of  insects  prior  to  and  during  the  annual  moult.  In  fact  it  is  possible 
to  anticipate  the  moult  by  the  number  of  insects  taken.  Certain  species 
when  deprived  of  insects  for  any  length  of  time,  may  be  seen  to  hawk 
imaginary  prey.  Amazilia  sp.  in  particular  may  be  observed  hawking 
particles  of  dust  which  have  been  illuminated  by  shafts  of  sunlight.  Highly 
insectivorous  species  which  are  deprived  of  insects  during  the  period  of  the 
moult,  often  develop  stress  marks  in  their  plumage;  this  being  most 
noticeable  in  the  primaries  and  tail  feathers.  Such  species  may  also  develop 
areas  of  white  in  their  plumage  (see  Mobbs  1973). 

The  methods  used  by  certain  members  of  the  Trochilidae  are  described 
as  under.  The  list  is  not  complete  due  to  the  observations  having  been 
made  on  captive  birds  only;  many  of  those  made  in  the  field  often  being 
suppositional  and  therefore  unreliable. 


28 


A.  J.  MOBBS— -HUMMINGBIRDS 


Method  1— Hawking 

This  consists  of  the  hummingbird  chasing  after  airborne  prey  with 
beak  agape.  Certain  species  will  feed  on  swarms  of  flying  insects  by  cap¬ 
turing  individual  insects  one  after  another  until  the  swarm  is  dispersed, 
or  until  the  bird  becomes  satiated.  Other  species  hawk  their  prey  in  the 
manner  of  many  flycatchers,  i.e.  make  sorties  from  a  prominent  perch, 
taking  an  insect  and  then  returning  to  the  perch.  A  further  method  entails 
the  hummingbird  hovering  above  stationary  winged  insects  in  an  attempt 
to  startle  them  into  becoming  airborne,  when  the  bird  will  then  snap  them 
up. 

I  have  found  the  hawking  methods  described  to  be  interchangeable 
amongst  the  species  concerned,  no  species  using  solely  one  method.  As  an 
instrument  for  taking  insects  whilst  on  the  wing,  the  hummingbird’s 
long,  thin  beak  appears  greatly  inferior  to  the  broad,  flat  beak  of  a  fly¬ 
catcher  or  swallow  or  the  capacious  mouth  of  a  swift  or  goatsucker. 
Moreover,  it  lacks  the  rictal  bristles  around  the  mouth  which  help  to 
deflect  flying  insects  into  it.  However,  the  hummingbird  compensates  for 
the  narrowness  of  beak  by  its  superb  control  of  flight.  When  a  hummer 
captures  an  insect  in  flight,  its  forward  movement  forces  the  prey  so  far 
to  the  rear  of  the  gape  that  it  is  readily  swallowed.  Should  for  some 
reason  the  insect  not  be  taken  far  enough  into  the  gaping  beak,  it  will  be 
discarded. 

Method  2  —  Gleaning 

One  is  able  to  study  this  method  far  more  easily  in  captive  hummingbirds 
than  in  the  field.  However,  it  has  been  mentioned  in  numerous  ornitho¬ 
logical  papers,  but  in  none  of  these  can  I  find  a  complete  description. 
Insects  are  gleaned  from  a  surface  (usually  leaves  or  bark) ;  the  humming¬ 
bird  taking  its  prey  in  the  tip  of  the  beak,  tossing  the  insect  into  the  air 
and  flying  at  it  with  beak  agape  so  as  to  enable  the  insect  to  be  taken  into 
the  rear  of  the  gape. 

Certain  species  will  take  an  insect  from  a  surface,  toss  it  into  the  air 
and  then  with  beak  agape,  fly  backwards  tilting  the  head  so  as  to  enable 
the  prey  to  fall  into  the  rear  of  the  gape. 

As  will  be  seen  from  the  appendix,  certain  species  have  been  seen  to 
use  methods  i  and  2,  whereas  others  appear  to  use  one  method  only. 
Why  this  should  be  I  am  unable  to  determine ;  one  thing  is  certain  however, 
the  size  and/or  shape  of  the  beak  is  not  a  deciding  factor.  Species  which 
inhabit  the  more  open  areas  are  more  likely  to  be  successful  with  method  i, 
even  so  many  of  these  species  certainly  use  method  2  also. 

The  following  two  methods  are  a  form  of  gleaning,  but  are  I  feel 
sufficiently  specialised  to  warrant  being  placed  under  a  separate  heading. 

Method  3— Special'  Gleaning  (a) 

This  method  is  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  determine  used  only  by  the  Blue- 
chinned  Sapphire  ( Chlorestes  notatus).  The  bird,  whilst  hovering,  will 


A.  J.  MOBBS— HUMMINGBIRDS 


29 


inspect  a  surface  for  insects  and  upon  locating  one,  will  open  the  beak 
approximately  6mm,  then  approach  the  insect  until  the  beak  is  almost 
touching  the  surface  on  which  the  latter  is  resting.  The  bird  then  taps 
the  surface  (usually  twice)  with  the  beak  thus  causing  the  insect  to  fly 
directly  into  the  beak,  when  it  is  immediately  swallowed.  Although 
this  method  proves  highly  successful,  insects  can  be  seen  to  escape  on 
occasions  by  flying  to  one  side  of  the  open  beak. 

The  force  used  by  the  sapphire  when  tapping  the  surface  with  its  beak  is 
considerable  and  should  the  surface  be  solid  (e.g.  wood,  fibreglass,  etc), 
the  noise  made  is  audible  from  a  distance  of  some  12m  or  more. 

Method  4 — ‘Special'  Gleaning  ( b ) 

A  method  of  gleaning  used  by  the  Violet-headed  Hummingbird  (Klais 
guimeti),  consists  of  the  bird  taking  an  insect  from  a  surface  but  instead 
of  tossing  the  prey  into  the  air,  manipulating  the  mandibles  so  as  to  force 
the  insect  far  enough  into  the  gape  to  enable  it  to  be  swallowed.  The 
Violet-headed  also  uses  method  2  (see  appendix). 

Method  5— Running!  Walking  Procedure 

As  already  mentioned,  this  method  is  most  certainly  used  by  Oxypogon 
sp.,  and  possibly  by  other  species  found  at  high  altitudes.  However,  due  to 
such  species  being  very  difficult  (or  impossible)  to  maintain  in  captivity, 
I  can  include  only  one  genus  under  this  heading.  The  method  (which  for 
want  of  a  better  phrase  I  call  ‘running/ walking’  procedure)  entails  the 
hummingbird  hunting  insect  prey  either  on  or  close  to  the  ground  by 
actually  running  or  walking,  snapping  up  insects  as  it  goes.  To  enable  the 
prey  to  be  taken  far  enough  into  the  gape,  the  bird  will  upon  capturing  an 
insect,  toss  it  into  the  air  and  with  gaping  beak,  tilt  the  head  backwards. 


Method  1.  Hawking.  Doryfera3  Campylopterus 3  Eupetomena  2?3  Florisuga3  Melano- 
trochilus,  Colibri 3  Anthracothorax3  Eulampis3  Sericotes3  Chrysolampis  2,  Thalurania, 
Polytmus3  Taphrospilus,  Amazilia  2,  Chalybura,  Urosticte,  Polyplancta3  Heliodoxa3 
Urochroa 3  Aglaeactis3  Pterophanes3  Coeligena3  Ensifera3  Boissoneaua3  Heliangelus3 
Eriocnemis3  Haplohaedia,  Schistes3  Heliothryx,  Calliphlox3  Calypte  2,  Acestrura. 

Method  2.  Gleaning.  Glaucis3  Phaethomis3  Eutoxeres  1,  Orthorhyncus 3  Lophornis , 
Popelairia,  Disco  sura,  Chlorostilbon  I,  Damophila  1,  Hylocharis,  Chrysuronia , 
Adelomyia,  Lafresnaya,  Ocreatus,  Lesbia  1,  Ramphomicron  1,  5,  Metallura  5,  i, 
Chalcostigma  5,  I,  Aglaiocercus3  Heliactin. 

Method  3.  'Special5  Gleaning  (a).  Chlorestes. 

Method  4.  ‘Special’  Gleaning  (b).  Klais  2. 

Method  5.  Running/ Walking  Procedure.  Phlogophilus  2,  1. 

Genera  are  listed  under  the  main  method  used.  Numbers  after  a  genus  indicate 
further  methods  used  in  order  of  preference. 


30 


A.  J.  MOBBS — HUMMINGBIRDS 


REFERENCES 

Gould,  J.  1861.  Introduction  to  the  Trochilidae  or  family  of  Humming-birds. 

Printed  (for  the  author)  by  Taylor  &  Francis,  London. 

Lack,  D.  1976.  Island  Biology,  Blackwell,  Oxford. 

Mobbs,  A.  J.  1973.  Notes  on  the  Tourmaline  Sunangel  Hummingbird.  Avicult. 
Mag.  79:  79-83- 

Olson,  S.  L.  et  al.  1968.  Distributional  records  from  Cerro  Campana,  Panama, 
with  notes  on  a  nesting  of  the  Quail-dove,  Geotrygon  lawrencii.  Condor 
70:  179-180. 

Scheithauer,  W.  1967.  Hummingbirds.  Barker,  London. 

Skutch,  A.  F.  1951.  Life  History  of  Longuemare’s  Hermit  Hummingbird.  Ibis 
93:  180-195. 

1974.  The  life  of  the  hummingbird.  Octopus  Books,  London. 

Vuilleumier,  W.  1 967.  Notes  on  some  Andean  birds.  Ibis  111:  601. 

Wagner,  H.  O.  1946.  Food  and  feeding  habits  of  Mexican  hummingbirds.  Wilson 
Bull.  58:  69-93. 

Weymouth,  R.  D.  et  al.  1964.  The  tongue  apparatus  in  hummingbirds.  Acta  anat. 
58:  252-270. 


UNUSUAL  FEEDING  HABIT  OF  A  LESSER  SULPHUR- 
CRESTED  COCKATOO 
By  Paolo  Bertagnolio 

In  “Further  notes  on  tool-using  by  birds  and  related  behaviour”, 
by  Jeffery  Boswall  (A.M.,  3, 1978),  is  quoted  a  comment  by  Derek  Good¬ 
win  on  an  unusual  drinking  habit  of  a  captive  cockatoo.  Amongst  other 
things  Derek  Goodwin  says:  .  .  . 

I  think  I  am  right  in  saying  that  parrots  do  not  pick  up  objects  in  their 
feet.  They  pick  up  an  object  in  the  bill,  then  move  the  foot  to  the  bill 
and  grasp  the  object  while  the  bill  manipulates  (or  billipulates)  it”. 

I  am  acquainted  with  at  least  one  exception  to  the  rule,  concerning  one 
of  my  Lesser  Sulphur-crested  Cockatoos,  a  semi-tame  male  (of  the  sub¬ 
species  parvula  or  perhaps  occidentalis )  housed  in  an  outside  flight  to¬ 
gether  with  a  rather  wild  female.  This  bird  usually  grasps  a  handful  of 
sunflower  seeds  with  his  right  foot,  which  he  then  raises  to  the  bill, 
picking  one  of  the  seeds  and  dropping  the  others.  While  the  first  seed  is 
being  shelled  and  eaten  a  new  handful  is  taken  and  so  on. 

Rather  suprisingly,  this  unusual  technique  is  invariably  used  when  the 
bird  is  hungry  (as  for  example  immediately  after  the  food  dishes  have 
been  refilled),  while  at  other  times  he  can  be  seen  to  pick  up  seeds  in  the 
traditional  way. 

Another  curious  habit  of  one  of  my  parrots  that  is  worth  mentioning, 
regards  a  Grey  Parrot.  This  bird,  for  a  period  was  housed  in  a  disused 
barn  containing  a  number  of  vertical  hay  racks  made  of  T  iron  bars  2m 
high,  on  top  of  which  some  perches  had  been  fastened.  When  I  entered 
the  barn  the  bird,  a  tame  female,  used  to  come  down  holding  with  both 
feet  one  of  the  vertical  bars  and  letting  herself  slide  along  it.  She  was 
able  to  descend  quite  quickly  and  to  stop  at  different  levels,  simply  re¬ 
leasing  or  increasing  her  grasp  on  the  bar.  When  the  bird  was  attracted  by 
a  favourite  titbit  it  was  amusing  to  see  it  slip  down  at  full  speed  and  to 
abruptly  stop  only  two  inches  from  the  cement  floor.  I  have  always  been 
surprised  not  to  see  smoke  arising  from  the  feet  of  this  living  lift  from  the 
considerable  friction. 


32 


THE  COLLECTION  OF  MR.  &  MRS.  J.  SPENKELINK, 
SOESTERBERG,  HOLLAND. 

On  the  continent  of  Europe  interest  in  parrot  breeding  has  increased 
remarkably  during  the  past  decade  or  two.  In  Holland,  Belgium  and 
Germany  particularly,  there  are  hundreds  of  breeders  producing  annually 
large  numbers  of  lovebirds  and  Australian  parrakeets.  Even  rare  species 
such  as  Cloncurry,  Hooded  and  Brown’s  Parrakeets  are  regularly  bred 
and  find  ready  buyers  at  very  high  prices.  However,  less  interest  is  shown 
in  the  South  American  parrots  and  in  lories  and  lorikeets. 

Our  members,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  J.  Spenkelink,  are  typical  of  Dutch 
aviculturists  in  that  they  keep  Tasmanian  Rosellas,  Platycercus  cale- 
donicus ,  and  olive  Peach-faced  Lovebirds,  Agapornis  roseicollis ,  of  which 
they  bred  23  and  16  respectively  in  1978.  However,  they  also  maintain  a 
collection  of  conures,  ringnecks  and  hanging  parrots  with  which  they 
had  remarkable  breeding  success. 

Results  with  the  Pyrrhura  conures  were  especially  notable.  Few  avi¬ 
culturists  keep  these  most  attractive  birds,  the  Red-bellied  being  an 
exception.  In  1978  they  reared  four  species,  a  total  of  seven  forms  and 
43  young  which  must  establish  a  record  for  this  genus  in  one  season. 
These  included  cruentata ,  the  Blue-throated  Conure,  the  largest  of  the 
genus  and  one  of  the  most  beautiful  with  its  tan-coloured  ear  coverts. 
This  success  was  a  repeat  of  1977  when  five  were  reared.  This  species 
has  only  rarely  been  bred  in  captivity;  it  is  currently  being  bred  in  Britain 
by  a  member  of  the  Society  in  Yorkshire,  Harry  Sisson. 

The  Painted  Conure,  P.  picta ,  has  yet  to  be  bred  in  Britain;  the  Spenke- 
links  bred  two  races  in  1978 — four  of  the  nominate  and  six  of  amazonum. 
Two  races  of  the  Black-tailed  Conure,  P.  melanura ,  were  reared,  resulting 
in  the  considerable  total  of  eight  berlepschi  and  1 1  chapmani.  P.  melanura 
was  imported  into  Britain  and  Europe  often  during  the  1960’s;  is  any¬ 
one  in  Britain  still  breeding  it?  Finally,  nine  Red-bellied  Conures,  P. 
frontalis ,  of  two  races,  kriegi  and  chiripepe ,  left  the  nest. 

Five  species  of  Aratinga  conures  were  reared,  one  of  which  has  yet  to 
be  bred  in  Britain  and  possibly  has  not  previously  been  reared  in  Europe — 
Weddell’s,  A.  weddellu  Two  young  were  reared.  Although  Petz’s  Conure, 
A.  canicularis ,  is  often  imported,  it  is  rarely  bred,  thus  the  breeding  of 
three  young  is  of  interest. 

Most  notable  among  the  conure  breedings,  for  it  may  be  a  4 ‘first”  in 
Europe,  is  that  of  two  Red- throated  Conures,  A.  holochlora  rubritorquis. 
This  is  a  striking  bird  with  its  broad  band  of  red  across  the  upper  breast; 
it  is  rare  in  captivity.  Finally,  four  Golden-fronted  Conures,  A.  auricapilla 
auricapilla ,  were  reared.  The  latter  was  almost  unknown  on  the  avicultural 
scene  before  the  mid- 1970’s  but  has  now  been  bred  in  a  number  of 
collections  in  Europe  and  the  USA  but  probably  not  in  Britain. 

Exceptional  results  were  obtained  with  hanging  parrots.  Three  pairs 


PROF.  DR.  HEINZ-GEORG  KLOS— BERLIN  ZOO 


33 


each  of  Blue-crowned,  Loriculus  galgulus ,  and  Vernal,  L.  vernalis ,  are 
kept  in  a  colony  with  two  pairs  of  the  Philippine,  L.  philippensis.  This 
resulted  in  two  Vernal,  four  Blue-crowned  and  eight  Philippine  being 
reared.  The  two  pairs  of  the  latter  were  double-brooded,  rearing  three 
and  two,  and  two  and  one.  Fourteen  must  easily  be  a  record  number  of 
hanging  parrots  reared  in  one  collection  in  one  season. 

The  Psittacula  parrakeets  also  did  well;  to  complete  a  most  impressive 
list  for  1978,  six  Moustached  Parrakeets  (four  P.  alexandri  fasciata  and 
two  P.a.  cola )  and  four  Blossom-headed  Parrakeets,  P.  cyanocephala  rosea , 
were  reared. 

J.R.H.  and  R.L. 


*  * 


♦ 


NEWS  FROM  THE  BERLIN  ZOO 

(  October-DecemberigjS) 

By  Professor  Dr.  Heinz-Georg  Klos  (Scientific  Director) 

Birds  hatched: 

6  Black  Swans  Cygnus  atratus , 

4  Painted  Bush  Quail  Perdicula  erythrorhyncha , 

17  Grey-breasted  Parrakeets  Myiopsitta  monachus , 

1  Iris  Lorikeet  Trichoglossus  iris , 

1  White  x  Salmon-crested  Cockatoo  Cacatua  alba  x  Cacatua  moluccensis. 

1  Thick-billed  Parrot  Rhynchopsitta  pachyrhyncha , 

2  Levaillant’s  Barbets  Trachyphonus  vaillantii. 

New  arrivals : 

3  Wandering  Tree  Ducks  Dendrocygna  arcuata , 

i,  1  Dusky  Canada  Geese  Branta  canadensis  occidentalism 
i,  1  Lesser  Canada  Geese  Branta  canadensis  minor , 

3,  3  African  Yellowbill  Anas  u.  undulata , 

i,  1  Spur- winged  Geese  Plectropterus  g.  gambensis , 

3,  North  American  Ruddy  Ducks  Oxyura  j.  jamaicensis, 

1,  o  Razor-billed  Curassow  Mitu  mini, , 

1,  0  Cock  of  the  Rock,  Rupicola  peruviana 


34 


BREEDING  RESULTS  DURING  1978  AT  JERSEY 
ZOOLOGICAL  PARK 
By  David  Jeggo  (Deputy  Curator  of  Birds) 

Breeding  results  in  the  bird  collection  during  1978  at  the  Jersey  Zoo¬ 
logical  Park  were  in  the  main  most  encouraging.  Undoubtedly  the  most 
significant  were  from  the  two  species  only  arrived  from  Mauritius  the 
year  before. 

The  Pink  Pigeon  raised  four  and  Meller’s  Duck  laid  several  clutches 
from  which  12  ducklings  were  reared,  with  a  most  fortunate  sex  ratio  of 
pairs. 

The  Bare-faced  Ibis  fledged  eight  young  (one  hand-reared).  During  the 
previous  winter  their  nesting  cliff  had  undergone  modification,  levelling 
the  granite  work  and  broadening  and  concaving  the  ledge,  which  was 
then  divided  by  vertical  partitions  to  provide  some  twenty  individual  sites. 
These  improved  facilities  may  be  reflected  in  the  improved  results. 

Among  the  waterfowl  four  Nene  were  raised  for  the  first  time  here. 
Cereopsis  Geese  produced  seven  goslings,  less  than  usual.  One  pair  of 
Coscoroba  Swans  did  particularly  well  raising  six  cygnets  themselves  and 
we  handreared  one  from  the  second  pair.  In  addition  four  Ross’s  Geese 
and  the  usual  Laysan  Teal,  Hawaiian  Duck,  Mandarin  and  Carolina  were 
produced. 

The  White  Eared  Pheasants  were  outstanding,  having  their  best  year 
so  far  successfully,  rearing  38  chicks.  The  Brown  Eared  Pheasants  as 
usual  hatched  a  few  chicks  which  were  raised.  After  the  introduction  of 
two  new  cock  Edwards’  Pheasants  all  four  pairs  were  fertile  this  year  but 
unfortunately  the  number  of  birds  available  to  the  W.P.A.  programme 
for  this  species  was  reduced  as  several  developed  leg  perosis.  However, 
twelve  fine  specimens  were  despatched  in  August. 

One  pair  of  Keas  reared  a  nice  young  female.  The  Amazon  parrots  laid 
a  most  disappointing  glut  of  infertile  eggs  due  mainly  to  a  lack  of  males. 
All  four  Guilding’s  Parrots  have  now  laid.  So  we  look  for  males  before 
any  progress  can  be  made  on  this  front. 

Two  Salle’s  or  Hispaniolan  Parrots  bred  here  in  1973  laid  for  the  first 
time,  both  in  the  same  box  seven  eggs  in  all.  The  only  pair  of  Salle’s  Parrots 
to  lay  were  again  infertile.  As  they  have  done  for  the  past  seven  years  two 
pairs  of  Thick-billed  Parrots  hatched  young.  It  seems  we  are  beset  with 
having  to  hand-rear  their  young  and  are  busy  with  three  from  one  nest, 
but  unfortunately  lost  the  two  from  the  other. 

Turacos  had  their  best  year  of  late.  Three  pairs  of  Pink-crested  hatched 
young  and  two  of  these  succeeded  in  rearing  a  total  of  three.  Grey  Turaco 
raised  a  brood  of  two  but  failed  with  their  next;  it  is  five  years  since  we 
have  bred  this  species.  The  White-crested  Turaco  nested  late  in  the  season 
and  laid  in  September  with  the  two  eggs  being  fertile. 

Our  only  pair  of  Gold  Coast  Turaco  built  a  nest  but  went  no  further. 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT— NEWS  FROM  SOUTH  AFRICA 


35 


A  frustrating  season  was  encountered  with  the  Woodford’s  Owls  and 
owing  to  some  strange  behaviour  from  the  females  several  early  chicks 
were  lost,  however  the  year  is  not  completely  blank  with  one  successfully 
raised.  One  pair  of  Snowy  Owls  had  five  young. 

The  number  of  Rothschild’s  Mynahs  reared  to  maturity  is  again  quite 
fair,  the  latest  figure  being  25  young  this  year,  but  the  end  result  slightly 
disappointing.  We  have  increased  our  breeding  pairs  from  3  to  5  but  the 
percentage  of  chicks  they  raised  was  far  lower  than  in  1977. 


NEWS  FROM  SOUTH  AFRICA 
By  F.  C.  Barnicoat  (Johannesburg,  South  Africa) 

The  South  African  National  Cage  Bird  Association  presents  an  annual 
Championship  Show  on  the  second  weekend  in  July,  which  is  hosted  by 
a  club  in  a  different  region  every  year.  In  1978  it  was  the  turn  of  the 
Western  Province  Cage  Bird  Society  and  the  venue  was  the  Civic  Centre 
at  Sea  Point,  a  suburb  of  Capetown.  The  Western  Cape  is  inclined  to  be 
somewhat  isolated,  aviculturally  speaking,  from  the  rest  of  the  country, 
and  the  total  entry  of  i,6oo  birds  is  approximately  half  of  what  may  be 
expected  on  a  National  Show  staged  in  the  Witwatersrand  area  where  the 
population  is  very  much  greater.  The  various  breeds  of  domesticated 
Canary  made  up  the  lion’s  share  of  the  show.  However,  some  interesting 
wild  birds  did  appear  in  their  section  (230). 

Foreign  wild  birds  are  not  too  easily  come  by  in  the  Western  Cape 
because  of  the  distance  from  the  major  importers,  which  are  to  be  located 
within  easy  reach  of  the  only  international  airport-— Jan  Smuts,  near 
Johannesburg.  Runner  up  to  Best  Foreign  Bird  went  to  one  of  the  very 
few  softbills  staged,  a  very  fine  Pileated  Jay,  whose  class  also  contained 
the  young  Pileated  Jays  bred  by  G.  O.  Brown  to  be  described  later.  The 
supreme  award  was  given  to  a  particularly  fine  specimen  of  a  Black-crested 
Finch,  and  another  strong  contender  in  the  American  section  was  a 
magnificent  and  steady  Rainbow  Bunting.  All  the  American  buntings 
were  represented,  and  there  was  one  of  the  Sporophila  finches,  which 
are  seldom  seen  in  this  country. 


36 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT — NEWS  FROM  SOUTH  AFRICA 


Capetonian  fanciers  seem  to  have  compensated  for  their  lack  of  rare 
foreign  species  by  becoming  the  leading  specialist  breeders  of  Zebra 
Finches  in  South  Africa,  and  this  section  was  quite  impressive  with  good 
examples  of  all  the  mutations.  The  bird  at  the  top,  however,  was  a  fine 
normal  cock.  Red,  Black  and  Yellow-headed  as  well  as  White-breasted 
Gouldians  were  of  high  quality,  and  I  was  fortunate  to  take  Best  Australian 
with  a  Red-headed  cock  I  had  transported  nearly  a  thousand  miles  from 
Johannesburg.  The  Diamond  Sparrow,  Blue-faced  Parrot-finch  and  all 
four  grassfinches  were  to  be  seen. 

The  Asiatic  section  was  dominated  by  Bengalese  and  Java  Sparrows, 
though  Red  and  Green  Avadavats,  all  the  nuns.  Pin-tailed  Nonpareils 
and  Pekin  Robins  made  a  bit  of  variety.  The  award  for  best  Asiatic  bird 
was  made  to  a  variegated  Java  Sparrow,  a  species  that  always  seems  to 
fare  surprisingly  well  on  the  show  bench  in  South  Africa,  presumably 
because  our  judges  seldom  fail  to  be  impressed  by  the  immaculate, 
smooth  plumage  normally  sported  by  these  birds. 

As  usual,  the  most  disappointing  foreign  section  was  that  for  European 
birds.  For  some  reason  they  do  not  seem  to  be  imported  as  frequently  as 
the  birds  from  other  continents  and  seldom  do  really  well,  either  because 
of  the  heat  or  because  of  the  difficult  adjustment  to  the  seasons  of  another 
hemisphere.  The  five  specimens  of  European  seedeaters  were  headed  by 
a  Greenfinch.  Best  dove  on  show  was  a  Gold-billed  Peruvian  Ground 
Dove,  but  this  section,  too,  was  very  small. 

In  this  country  a  section  for  African  birds  is  kept  very  distinct  from 
that  for  South  African  birds,  because  the  former  may  be  kept,  sold  and 
transported  without  a  permit.  On  this  show  the  African  Section  was  one 
of  the  smallest  seen  on  a  National  Championship  and  the  winning  bird 
was  a  Scaly-fronted  Weaver. 

In  the  South  African  section  soft-billed  birds  were  conspicuous  by 
their  absence.  Usually  there  is  an  attractive  range  of  sun  birds  to  be  seen, 
but  this  year  there  were  none.  A  few  white-eyes,  bulbuls  and  glossy 
starlings  were  all  this  section  had  to  offer.  There  was,  however,  a  most 
interesting  albino  specimen  of  a  white-eye,  found  when  very  young  on 
an  apple  farm  in  Elgin.  Rejected  by  its  parents,  presumably  because  of 
its  abnormal  colouring,  it  owed  its  life  to  the  keen  fancier  who  happened 
to  find  it.  The  normal  grey  tint  had  become  purest  white,  but  the  yellow 
colour  was  unaffected  and  showed  up  as  a  pure  and  bright  canary  yellow. 
The  bird  was  most  attractive  and  caused  quite  a  sensation,  but  was 
unfortunately  not  in  the  top  condition  required  to  win  a  major  award. 
The  usual  South  African  waxbills— Common,  Orange-breasted,  Blue, 
Red-billed  and  Jameson’s  Firefinches,  Swee,  Melba  and  Violet-eared 
were  quite  well  represented,  though  most  species  are  found  in  the  Trans¬ 
vaal  rather  than  the  Cape. 

As  was  to  be  expected  the  strongest  section  on  this  show  were  the 
serins,  many  of  which  have  their  stronghold  in  the  Cape.  Black-throated, 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT— NEWS  FROM  SOUTH  AFRICA 


37 


Yellow-eyed,  Black-headed,  Forest  and  Cape  Canaries  and  Yellow,  Bully 
(Sulphury),  Streaky-headed  and  White-throated  Seedeaters  as  well  as  the 
delightful  little  Cape  or  Totta  Siskin  were  out  in  force.  A  particular  high 
light  were  3  outstanding  King  Blackheads,  including  a  hen  bird.  This  is 
the  rare  sub-species  of  the  Black-headed  Canary  with  the  attractive  white 
markings  on  the  head,  and  is  a  much  sought-after  avicultural  prize  in 
South  Africa.  The  buntings  too — Cape,  Larklike,  Rock  and  Golden¬ 
breasted — were  very  attractive.  Appropriately  enough  the  medal  for  best 
South  African  wild  bird  was  won  by  a  fine  and  steady  Cape  Canary. 
The  fact  that  the  National  Show  has  to  be  held  during  mid-winter  to 
suit  the  canary  fancy  unfortunately  precludes  the  eclipse  plumage  birds 
like  the  whydahs,  and  many  of  the  weavers  from  making  their  appearance, 
which  is  such  an  attractive  feature  of  our  summer  shows. 

For  many  years  the  South  African  National  Cage  Bird  Association  has 
awarded  a  medal  to  fanciers  who  breed  a  bird  for  the  first  time  in  this 
country.  These  schemes  ran  into  financial  difficulties  as  well  as  the  old 
problem  of  establishing  where  certain  claimed  first  breedings  were  really 
such.  The  Board  decided  therefore  to  issue  certificates  for  all  approved 
breeding  claims,  but  only  one  medal  for  the  “Most  meritorious  breeding 
of  the  year”,  to  be  selected  at  the  Conference  by  the  delegates  representing 
the  different  bird  clubs  throughout  the  country  from  all  the  claims 
received  during  the  past  year. 

For  1978  four  breedings  were  put  on  the  final  short-list  to  be  voted  on 
at  the  Conference:  the  Pileated  Jay,  Cyanocorax  chrysops  from  South 
America;  the  Thick-billed  Parrot  Rhyncho  psitta  pachyrhyncha,  a  delightful 
dark  green  parrot  with  deep  velvety  red  forehead,  wing  edges  and  thighs, 
which  is  a  native  of  Mexico  and  is  now  so  rare  as  to  be  possibly  an  endan¬ 
gered  species:  the  Red-faced  Crimson-wing  Cryptospiza  reichenoviiy  an 
attractive  estrildid  in  olive-green  and  dark  red  from  East  and  Central 
Africa:  and  the  Australian  King  Parrot  Alisterus  scapular  is ,  which  is,  of 
course,  well  known  outside  South  Africa.  The  medal  was  voted  to  the 
Pileated  Jay,  the  difficulties  involved  in  breeding  this  bird  being  con¬ 
sidered  somewhat  more  taxing  on  the  keeper  than  was  the  case  with  the 
other  breedings.  In  addition,  the  successful  breeder  G.  O.  Brown  of 
Port  Elizabeth,  had  taken  the  trouble  of  bringing  the  obviously  young 
Pileated  Jay  to  the  show,  where  it  provided  a  centre  of  attraction. 

As  it  will  possibly  be  of  interest  to  many  members,  I  now  include  G.  O. 
Brown’s  own  account  of  his  breeding  success,  which  he  wrote  for  a  Club 
news  letter. 

Breeding  the  Pileated  Jay 

“About  two  years  ago  I  obtained  two  of  these  Jays.  They  come  from 
Brazil,  South  America,  and  love  to  eat  mice  and  insects  etc.  They  are 
bigger  than  the  Starling  family  and  have  a  deep  purple  blue  colour  with 
white  on  the  breast  and  stomach,  the  beginning  of  the  white  on  the  breast 


38 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT — NEWS  FROM  SOUTH  AFRICA 


being  a  distinctive  line  about  half  way  down.  These  Jays  have  a  crest  of 
bristle  like  feathers  that  remain  in  a  fixed  position. 

“Later  I  obtained  another  four,  and  therefore  have  six.  These  were 
divided  up  into  two  cages  of  three  each.  Sometime  in  1976  it  was  observed 
that  these  birds  were  feeding  each  other.  It  was  decided  to  move  the  one 
lot  into  a  big  aviary  about  10  m  x  4  m  x  4  m  with  no  other  birds,  as  they 
will  kill  off  any  birds  in  their  aviary.  Soon  after  being  moved  into  their 
new  aviary  they  started  carrying  sticks  around. 

“From  the  underpart  of  the  asbestos  roof  that  is  three  metres  in  width 
I  suspended  some  branches,  keeping  them  clear  of  the  sides  and  thus 
ensuring  that  no  rats  could  get  to  the  branches.  At  this  stage  I  made  a 
mistake  by  putting  the  other  three  in  an  adjoining  aviary  of  similar 
dimensions.  By  now  the  hen  in  the  first  aviary  had  built  a  nest,  deep  cup 
shaped,  and  was  in  condition  for  breeding.  The  close  proximity  of  more 
Pileated  Jays  seemed  to  excite  her  mate  as  well  as  the  new  cock  next  door. 
The  males  would  hop  around  and  make  a  burring  sound,  and  push  the 
white  feathers  on  their  chests  out  erect  and  hold  them  there  for  a  moment. 
The  hen  layed  three  mottled  brown  eggs,  but  these  disappeared  after  a 
few  days. 

“The  birds  then  went  into  a  moult,  and  this  was  the  end  of  the  story 
for  that  season.  At  this  stage  I  removed  the  Jays  next  door  and  this  had 
a  calming  effect  on  the  birds  I  had  first  put  out  in  the  aviary. 

“Somewhere  in  Cage  and  Aviary  Birds  I  had  read  some  information 
on  Jays  which  included  the  statement  that  unless  they  had  a  big  aviary 
where  they  could  hide  their  food  they  would  die  of  frustration.  I  hoped 
I  could  take  the  frustration  involved  in  breeding  them  myself!  I  was 
determined  to  breed  the  Jays  in  1977,  80  I  Put  split  rings  on  the  first  three 
Jays  so  as  to  be  able  to  identify  them,  and  decided  to  remove  the  wire 
dividing  the  two  aviaries,  which  would  provide  them  with  the  much 
larger  area  of  20  m  x  4  m  x  4  m.  I  let  out  into  this  aviary  three  of  the  Jays, 
which  I  was  certain  were  one  male  and  two  females.  I  also  decided  to  feed 
at  one  end  of  the  aviary,  well  away  from  the  breeding  area.  I  let  the  floor 
of  the  aviary  grow  wild.  Taller  weeds  grew  up  through  the  grass  floor 
covering,  reaching  a  height  of  over  a  metre. 

“Nothing  happened  until  January  1978,  when  they  rebuilt  the  same 
nest  as  used  previously.  Four  eggs  were  seen,  only  to  disappear  a  few  days 
later.  At  this  stage,  I  gave  up  and  took  little  interest  apart  from  feeding. 

“Then  some  weeks  later  I  looked  into  the  nest  by  standing  on  a  box 
and  to  my  surprise  there  were  chicks.  I  can  only  think  that  the  second 
hen  must  have  layed  in  the  nest  just  after  the  disappearance  of  the  four 
eggs.  At  no  stage  did  I  notice  any  bird  sitting  on  the  nest. 

“The  male  always  gives  a  warning  call  when  a  person  gets  anywhere 
near  their  cage.  Could  it  be  that  the  sitting  hen  immediately  left  the 
nest  at  the  alarm  call  of  the  cock  and  was  thus  never  caught  incubating? 
It  was  also  mid  summer  and  very  hot,  so  perhaps  the  eggs  could  have 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT— NEWS  FROM  SOUTH  AFRICA 


39 


been  incubated  only  at  night. 

“One  chick  was  reared  and  stayed  in  the  nest  for  about  30  days  and 
sat  on  branches  above  the  nest  for  five  days  before  flying.  Six  weeks  after 
leaving  the  nest  the  young  Pileated  Jay  was  eating.  Its  plumage  was  darker 
than  the  adult's  and  it  had  a  very  dark  eye.  While  the  chick  was  learning 
to  fly,  all  three  adults  were  very  protective”. 

Breeding  the  Red-Faced  Crimson  Wing 

This  breeding  was  achieved  by  John  Hanson  of  Randburg  just  north 
of  Johannesburg.  He  specialises  in  the  rarer  African  seedeaters,  notably 
the  twinspots,  with  which  he  has  had  considerable  success  in  aviaries 
of  quite  modest  dimensions.  As  he  now  has  youngsters  from  the  pair  he 
bred  last  year,  which  contested  the  S.A.N.C.B.A.  Medal,  thus  reaching 
the  second  generation  with  this  species,  I  have  thought  that  a  few  remarks 
about  his  experiences  will  not  come  amiss. 

The  Red-faced  Crimson-wing  very  seldom  comes  on  the  market  in 
South  Africa  and  only  in  extremely  small  numbers.  As  one  might  expect, 
it  is  a  species  better  known  to  Rhodesian  aviculturists  than  in  South 
Africa.  It  is  a  bigger  and  more  heavily  built  bird  than  the  waxbills  and 
is  basically  an  olive  green  bird  with  very  dark,  though  rich  red  wings  and, 
in  the  case  of  the  male,  with  broad  red  eye  stripes.  They  make  a  very 
attractive  pair. 

John  Hanson  achieved  his  first  breeding  of  them  last  summer  in  an 
aviary  5  m  long,  1.3  m  wide  and  2  m  high,  shared  with  two  other  pairs 
of  waxbills.  About  1  m  of  the  length  is  taken  up  by  shelter,  which,  how¬ 
ever,  is  fully  open  in  the  front. 

In  addition  to  the  usual  seeds,  live  food  is  given  regularly  in  the  form 
of  either  mealworms  or  white  ants  (termites)  fed  every  other  day,  the 
two  being  alternated.  When  babies  are  known  to  be  present  an  effort  is 
made  to  feed  some  form  of  live  food  every  day,  however.  The  inflores¬ 
cences  of  grass,  when  in  season,  are  more  greedily  taken  than  any  other 
food,  and  were  supplied  daily  and  formed  a  major  part  of  the  rearing 
food.  In  fact  Hanson  considers  greenfood  a  more  important  aspect  than 
live  food  and  as  much  and  as  varied  supplies  of  grasses  and  weeds  as 
possible  are  provided. 

The  first  nest  was  built  in  a  bundle  of  gorse-like  bush  fixed  up  in  the 
shelter.  Like  all  subsequent  nests  it  was  built  of  dried  grass  and  was  a 
bulky  affair.  It  was  not,  however,  a  stable  enough  structure  and  its  bottom 
collapsed,  plummeting  three  babies  to  the  ground,  which  were  not  dis¬ 
covered  until  the  following  morning,  when  they  were  dead. 

The  second  nest  was  given  support  in  the  form  of  a  piece  of  wire  netting 
discreetly  inserted  under  the  bulky  structure.  The  Crimson-wings  showed 
no  objection  to  this  interference  and  went  right  ahead  with  the  construction 
of  their  nest.  Like  the  nest  built  by  the  young  pair  this  season,  the  nest 
was  about  a  foot  in  length  and  about  two  thirds  that  in  diameter.  Despite 


40 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT — NEWS  FROM  SOUTH  AFRICA 


the  bulk  of  grass  the  actual  nest  chamber  was  small,  neat  and  round  and 
situated  very  much  towards  the  front  of  the  structure.  In  every  nest  there 
was  a  sort  of  escape  hatch  towards  the  back  or  side.  In  this  second  nest 
two  young  ones  were  successfully  reared,  a  third  having  died  in  the  nest 
when  fully  feathered. 

The  youngsters  were  predominantly  a  dull  grey-green  when  they  left 
the  nest  with  a  little  dull  red  on  the  rump,  and  in  due  course  they  coloured 
into  a  fine  pair.  They  are  kept  in  a  different,  but  similar  aviary  to  that  of 
their  parents,  and  this  summer  they  were  the  first  to  nest.  At  the  time 
of  writing  they  are  busy  rearing  four  babies,  while  their  parents  have 
built  a  nest  again,  this  time  in  a  privet  bush  in  the  open  flight  of  their 
aviary,  and  are  incubating. 


4i 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 

It  has  been  decreed  by  proclamation  in  the  Philippine  Islands  that  the 
Monkey-eating  Eagle  is  henceforth  to  be  known  there  as  the  Philippine 
Eagle.  The  authorities  are  not,  however,  able  to  change  the  generic  name 
Pithecophaga  =  monkey  or  ape-eating. 


*  # 


* 


Members  will  have  learned  with  sorrow  of  the  deaths  of  Newton  R. 
Steel  and  Captain  H.  S.  Stokes. 

Newton  Steel  had  been  a  member  since  1956  and  had  served  several 
terms  of  office  as  a  Council  member  where  his  knowledge  and  advice  was 
always  appreciated.  He  was  an  expert  aviculturist  and  a  regular  contributor 
to  the  Avicultural  Magazine. 

Captain  Stokes  was  one  of  the  Society’s  earliest  supporters  having 
become  a  member  in  1922.  He  was  made  an  Honorary  Life  Member  in 
1972. 


Mats  Tell  writes  from  Ljungbyhed,  Sweden:  “During  the  1978  breed¬ 
ing  season  I  managed  to  breed  from  seven  species — the  best  result  ever — 
Four  Virginian  Cardinals,  three  Bluish  Finches,  four  Bicheno’s,  two  Silver¬ 
eared  Mesias,  two  Bourke’s  Parrakeets,  two  Azara’s  and  five  Sun  Conures. 
The  Lesser  Patagonian  Conures  and  the  Eclectus  Parrots  again  failed; 
the  conures  were,  however,  all  females  and  I  have  now  acquired  another 
bird — I  hope  it  is  a  cock !  The  Eclectus  Parrots  laid  early  in  spring  but 
upon  checking  the  logs  there  were  no  signs  of  any  chicks.  I  think  their 
eggs  were  infertile. 

I  lost  my  old  breeding  male  White-throated  Seedeater.  The  Lesser 
Redpolls  were  released  in  May.  For  three  seasons  my  Nonpareil  Buntings 
were  observed  looking  for  a  nesting  site  but  got  no  further. 

In  Sweden  generally  some  good  breedings  were  recorded:  one  Yellow- 
naped,  two  Orange-winged  and  four  Blue-fronted  Amazons,  four 
Timneh  Parrots  and  three  Slender-billed  Conures,  Enicognathus  lepto- 
rhynchus ,  were  all  reared  to  maturity.  An  18  year-old  cock  Spengel’s 
Parrotlet  was  again  fertile  and  some  chicks  were  reared.  Two  Swedish 
“firsts”  among  finches  are  worth  mentioning:  the  wild  Canary  and  the 
Red-fronted  Serin,  Serinus  pusillus ,  were  bred  this  year.  The  main  rearing 
food  for  both  species  consisted  of  dandelion  seed.” 


*  * 


* 


42 


REVIEWS 


The  R.S.P.B.  reports  that  21  Red  Kites  were  reared  in  central  Wales 
during  1978.  An  isolated  population  like  that  must  have  become  very 
inbred  long  ago,  to  no  great  detriment  presumably,  but,  of  course,  only 
the  fittest  survive  and  evidently  inbreeding  is  not  a  serious  factor  among 
the  really  healthy. 

M.H. 


* 


* 


REVIEWS 


LOVEBIRDS  AND  RELATED  PARROTS 
By  George  A.  Smith,  1979 

Published  by  Paul  Elek  Ltd.,  54-58,  Caledonian  Rd.,  London, 

Ni  9RB. 

The  author  is  well-known  in  both  avicultural  and  ornithological  circles 
for  his  studies  on  parrots.  In  this  book  he  treats  those  which  he  puts  in 
the  subfamily  Psittaculinae,  in  which  he  includes  the  genera  Psittacula3 
Tanygnathus ,  Edectus ,  Psittinus ,  Bolbopsittacus ,  Geoffroyus ,  Prioniturus , 
Alisterus ,  Prosopeia ,  Aprosmictus ,  Polytelis ,  Loriculus  and  Agapornis. 
Thus  besides  many  generally  lesser-known  forms,  the  book  deals  with 
such  well-known  avicultural  favourites  as  the  lovebirds,  the  Rose-ringed 
Parakeet  and  its  many  fairly  close  relatives,  the  King  Parakeet,  the  Crimson- 
wing  and  the  Barraband. 

A  short  introduction  is  followed  by  a  Chapter  1,  in  which  the  author 
lists  the  forms  that  he  includes  in  his  subfamily  Psittaculinae  and  defines 
the  physical  and  behavioural  characters  that  distinguish  them.  Chapter  2 
on  the  housing  and  feeding  of  parrots.  Here,  on  the  strength  of  his  own 
observations  and  experience,  the  author  questions  or  denounces,  rightly  in 
my  estimation,  some  long-accepted  avicultural  dogmas.  However  al¬ 
though  I  believe  he  is  right  in  saying  that  it  is  of  more  importance  that  an 
enclosure  for  parrots  should  protect  the  inmates  from  cold  and  wet  than 
that  it  should  be  large,  I  cannot  accept  his  implication  that  the  fertility 
of  modern  man  and  the  fact  that  modern  Budgerigars  are  bred  in  cages 
are  valid  arguments  against  the  need  for  exercise.  Indeed  if  I  thought 
that  those  aviculturists  who  now  breed  such  beautiful  creatures  as 
Bourke’s,  Elegants,  Eastern  Rosellas,  Rose-ringed  Parakeets  etc,  would 
ultimately  produce  the  equivalent  of  the  exhibitors  heavy,  macrocephalous 
monstrosities  that  have  now  replaced  forever  (since  no  fresh  “blood”  is  now 
obtainable  from  Australia)  what  formerly  was  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
and  the  most  easily  kept  of  parakeets  — the  Budgerigar — I  would  wish  them 
complete  lack  of  success  instead  of  the  reverse. 


REVIEWS 


43 


Chapter  3  deals  with  breeding  the  sub-family  in  captivity  and  here, 
besides  much  helpful  information,  contains  a  great  deal  of  useful  and 
interesting  information  on  nesting  and  parental  behaviour. 

Chapter  4  deals  with  behaviour  or  rather  some  aspects  of  behaviour 
that  have  not  already  been  dealt  with.  This  is  a  subject  where  one  feels 
there  is  much  truth  in  the  saying  “One  picture  is  worth  a  thousand  words” 
and  it  seems  a  pity  that  this  book,  otherwise  so  lavishly  illustrated,  does  not 
have  a  few  line  sketches  of  some  of  the  postures  and  displays  described. 
Perhaps,  as  is  often  the  case,  it  was  a  matter  of  having  to  keep  the  number 
of  illustrations  within  circumscribed  limits  for  reasons  of  cost  or  space. 

Chapter  5  deals  with  genetics,  colour  mutation  and  colour  definitions. 
The  rest  of  the  book’s  chapters  each  deal  with  a  genus  or  group  of  genera. 
Every  species  within  each  genera  is  described  and  the  known  information 
on  it,  both  in  the  wild  and  in  captivity,  is  given.  The  book  concludes 
with  a  list  of  references  to  important  papers  or  books  dealing  with  one 
or  more  of  the  birds  discussed.  It  is  illustrated  with  30  colour  plates, 
depicting  some  19  species  (some  species  have  two  or  more  plates  to  show 
their  different  colour  varieties)  and  18  line  drawings,  which  include  several 
distribution  maps.  The  author  writes  throughout  in  a  clear,  agreeable 
and  often  witty  manner.  As  in  all  books,  or  at  least  all  that  I  have  ever  seen, 
there  are  one  or  two  apparent  errors  in  type-setting  or  the  like  but  none 
of  any  importance. 

At  £15  the  book  may  appear  expensive  to  those  who,  like  the  reviewer, 
date  from  a  time  when  a  loaf,  of  bread  cost  2d  (old  pennies !)  and  a  bar  of 
chocolate — id,  but,  as  things  now  are,  it  seems  well  worth  the  price.  I 
think  it  will  be  of  great  value  to  anyone  with  some  interest  in  any  or  all  of 
the  parrots  it  deals  with  and  absolutely  indispensable  to  anyone  who  intends 
to  keep  them. 


D.G. 


44 


REVIEWS 


VETERINARY  ASPECTS  OF  CAPTIVE  BIRDS  OF  PREY 
By  J.  E.  Cooper  b.v.sc.,  d.t.v.m,  m.r.c.v.s., 

Published  by  the  Standfast  Press,  Saul,  Gloucestershire.  Price  £10.00. 

Man’s  association  with  captive  birds  of  prey  is  a  particularly  long  one; 
in  fact,  documentary  evidence  suggests  that  hawks  were  used  for  falconry 
over  2,000  years  ago.  During  this  long  association,  many  diseases  became 
recognised  and  described  in  literature.  The  cures  advocated  were  varied 
and  bizarre  and  in  some  instances,  probably  did  more  harm  than  the 
malady  they  were  meant  to  combat.  In  the  first  section  of  this  well  pro¬ 
duced  book,  the  author  very  capably  guides  the  reader  through  the 
colourful,  archaic  terminology  of  falconers.  For  instance;  the  droppings  of 
a  long- winged  hawk  (typical  falcon)  are  called  “mutes”,  whereas  those  of  a 
short-winged  hawk,  such  as  Goshawk,  are  referred  to  as  “slices”.  Also 
some  of  the  ancient  terms  used  by  falconers  to  describe  the  problems 
that  afflicted  their  birds  are  translated  into  modern  parlance  and  thus  the 
reader  learns  that  “Fellanders”  is  now  known  as  capillariasis,  “Snurt”  is 
rhinitis  and  so  on. 

The  main  body  of  the  book  deals  in  detail  with  physical  diseases, 
infectious  diseases,  metazoan  and  protozoan  parasites,  foot  conditions, 
nervous  disorders,  nutritional  disorders  and  poisons.  The  author  draws 
heavily  on  his  considerable  veterinary  experience  with  hawks  to  describe 
symptoms,  possible  causes  and,  where  known,  the  treatment  most  ap¬ 
propriate  for  the  disorder.  In  addition,  the  findings  of  many  other  research 
workers  are  outlined  so  as  to  provide  a  comprehensive  and  up  to  date 
survey.  The  source  of  this  information  is  quoted  in  an  extensive  bibli¬ 
ography. 

Although  the  book  is  concerned  specifically  with  birds  of  prey  and 
certainly  some  of  the  problems  such  as  bumblefoot  are  much  more 
frequently  encountered  in  birds  of  prey  maintained  under  falconry  con¬ 
ditions  than  in  other  groups  of  birds  kept  in  aviaries,  many  of  the  disorders 
described  apply  generally  to  birds  maintained  under  controlled  conditions. 
For  this  reason  I  would,  without  reservation,  recommend  this  book  to 
anyone  involved  in  the  care  of  birds.  The  illustrations,  which  clearly 
show  the  external  symptoms,  pathological  specimens  and  radiographs 
associated  with  various  problems  are  most  interesting  and  the  section 
that  lists  numerous  drugs  and  agents  together  with  dosage,  means  of 
medication  and  other  comments  is  of  particular  value. 

Finally,  although  members  of  the  veterinary  profession  will  undoubtedly 
find  this  book  a  very  worthwhile  acquisition,  a  professional  training  is 
not  necessary  to  understand  the  text,  because  the  author  carefully  ex¬ 
plains  the  medical  terms  and  other  specialised  terminology  in  layman’s 
terms. 


B.C.S. 


45 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE 

As  members  will  know,  John  Yealland  has  retired  from  editing  the 
Avicultural  Magazine.  The  Society  owes  a  great  debt  to  him  for,  under 
his  skilful  editorship  in  the  last  five  years,  the  Magazine  is  generally 
acknowledged  to  have  reached  the  highest  standard  in  its  84-year  history. 

As  Curator  of  Birds  at  London  Zoo.  John  Yealland  was  known  and 
respected  the  world  over  as  a  great  aviculturist  and  when  he  retired  from 
that  post  and  undertook  the  editorship  of  the  Avicultural  Magazine,  he 
brought  with  him  an  immense  store  of  practical  knowledge  of  keeping 
and  breeding  birds,  as  well  as  a  considerable  literary  flair  and  the  ability 
to  distinguish  instantly  fact  from  fantasy.  His  wit  and  wisdom  have  been 
enjoyed  by  many  and  we  are  indeed  fortunate  that  he  has  promised  to 
keep  a  watchful  eye  over  future  issues. 

It  is  with  the  greatest  trepidation,  if  not  alarm,  that  I  attempt  to  follow 
in  his  footsteps.  Whilst  I  have  always  had  a  deep  interest  in  the  keeping 
of  animals  in  captivity  generally,  and  have  spent  most  of  my  adult  life 
“in  the  business”,  first  at  London  Zoo  and  then  at  Sladmore  Gardens, 
I  could  not  profess  to  be  an  aviculturist  at  all.  In  fact,  the  only  bird  I 
have  ever  kept  was  a  flightless  African  Grey  Parrot  whose  few  words  of 
conversation,  after  thirty  years  in  a  newsagent’s  shop,  would  be  quite 
unprintable  in  the  Avicultural  Magazine. 

I  agreed  to  undertake  the  editorship  only  on  condition  that  the  Council 
would  act  as  an  editorial  committee,  with  experts  in  the  various  groups 
of  birds  advising  on  their  particular  subject.  I  know  that  I  can  count  on 
their  support  but  in  the  end  the  Magazine  can  only  be  as  good  as  the 
material  contributed,  and  it  is  really  up  to  all  the  members  to  maintain 
the  present  high  standard.  So  I  would  urge  any  member  who  has  made 
an  interesting  study  or  observation  of  captive  birds  to  spare  time  to  write 
it  down.  Don’t  be  discouraged  if  it  is  not  long  enough  for  an  article — a 
short,  half-page  note  is  just  as  valuable,  or  why  not  write  a  letter  for 
inclusion  in  the  correspondence  column  ? 

Only  a  very  few  members  are  able  to  attend  the  social  meetings  and, 
for  the  great  majority,  publishing  the  Avicultural  Magazine  is  the  Society’s 
chief  function.  In  addition  to  the  membership,  the  Avicultural  Magazine 
has  a  large  readership  in  the  many  university  and  museum  libraries  which 
subscribe  to  it  and  it  occupies  a  niche  which  is  not  filled  by  any  other 
journal.  It  has  a  reputation  throughout  the  world  for  informative  articles 
on  every  aspect  of  aviculture,  written  in  an  interesting  and  readable  style, 
and  bridging  the  gap  between  the  very  technical  journals  and  the  more 
general  cagebird  magazines.  I  do  appeal  for  all  your  help  in  maintaining 
this  tradition. 


Mary  Harvey 


46 


CORRESPONDENCE 

Request  for  Information  on  Captive  Grayson’s  Doves 

The  Socorro  or  Grayson’s  Dove  Zenaida  graysoni  is  a  highly  distinctive 
insular  form  of  the  common  Mourning  Dove  Z.  macroura  of  North 
America.,  either  a  full  species  or  an  exceptionally  well-marked  subspecies. 
It  has  been  successfully  hybridized  with  the  Mourning  Dove  in  captivity. 

In  a  wild  state,  Grayson’s  Dove  is  known  only  from  Isla  Socorro,  the 
largest  of  the  Islas  Revillagigedos,  located  in  the  Pacific  about  200  miles 
south  west  of  the  tip  of  the  peninsula  of  Baja  California,  Mexico.  It  is  an 
attractive  bird,  substantially  larger,  longer-legged,  longer-billed  and 
longer-tailed  than  the  Mourning  Dove,  and  much  darker  in  colour, 
being  an  almost  uniform  deep  orange-cinnamon  below,  including  the 
under  tail-coverts  (which  are  white  in  the  Mourning  Dove). 

During  an  expedition  to  Isla  Socorro  in  April  1978,  no  Grayson’s 
Doves  were  seen  at  all,  in  areas  where  they  had  been  described  as  com¬ 
mon  as  recently  as  20  years  ago.  It  is  thus  possible  that  Grayson’s  Dove 
is  extinct  in  the  wild  state.  I  would  like  to  request  information  from  any 
reader  of  avicultural  magazine  who  may  own  living  Grayson’s  Doves, 
or  have  pertinent  information  about  where  such  birds  are  currently  being 
kept.  Any  such  stock  should  be  conserved  carefully,  bred  if  possible, 
and  in  no  instance  permitted  to  hybridize  with  other  doves.  I  am  also 
seeking  information  about  the  source  of  any  such  captive  Grayson’s 
Doves  in  order  to  learn  how  recently  they  were  still  being  imported  either 
directly  from  Socorro  or  from  a  dealer  or  breeder  in  Mexico  or  elsewhere. 
If  any  reader  has  such  information,  please  communicate  with  me  at  your 
earliest  convenience. 

Carnegie  Museum  of  Natural  History 
Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania  152 13 
U.S.A. 

Dr.  Kenneth  C.  Parkes 


FIRST  BREEDING  AWARDS 

May  I  be  allowed  to  reply  to  C.  J.  O.  Harrison’s  letter  “reappraisal  of 
awards  for  first  breedings”  Vol  84  no.  3  ? 

I  cannot  agree  that  the  Society  should  consider  abandoning  the  issuing 
of  medals  and  would  like  to  make  the  following  points : — 

1.)  Whilst  I  do  not  agree  with  the  taking  of  rare  birds,  there  are  a  great 
many  birds  which  are  rare  in  captivity  but  not  in  the  wild.  Many  such 
birds  can  be  kept  and  possibly  bred  by  the  specialist  aviculturist.  The 
strong  international  pressures  referred  to  by  Dr.  Harrison  seek  not  only  to 


CORRESPONDENCE 


47 


prohibit  the  trade  in  ‘rare’  birds*  but  in  all  wild  birds.  They  would  do 
better  to  direct  their  efforts  to  ensuring  that  all  livestock  dealers*  trappers 
and  airlines  were  better  equipped  to  deal  with  their  charges  than  the 
majority  are  at  present. 

2. )  The  unusual  or  rare  bird  has  always  been  very  much  more  expensive 
than  the  common  species  and  the  quarantine  regulations  now  in  force 
have  merely  increased  the  price  unreasonably  while  the  majority  of  soft 
bills  are  in  poorer  conditions  after  the  quarantine  period  than  if  they  had 
been  taken  straight  from  the  shipping  box  and  sold. 

3. )  I  would  suggest  that  more  birds  are  destroyed  by  man’s  encroach¬ 
ment  upon/interference  with  the  environment  than  are  destroyed  by  the 
bird  trade*  (although  I  deplore  any  losses).  May  I  point  out  that  control 
methods  used  in  various  countries  destroy  not  only  common  species 
but  also  rare  ones. 

4. )  Our  overseas  members  are  in  the  Society  because  it  offers  the  best 
avicultural  literature  in  the  world  at  a  price  which  for  them  is  relatively 
cheap.  Why  is  Dr.  Harrison  so  concerned  with  democracy  in  a  society  which 
does  not  hold  an  A.G.M. 

5. )  Any  reputable  aviculturist  would/does  let  other  members  of  the 
Society  see  any  unusual  breedings  in  order  that  they  are  not  classed  as 
dubious  records*  or  is  Dr.  Harrison  suggesting  that  today’s  members  are 
any  less  reputable  than  the  members  of  a  few  years  ago  ? 

6. )  If  Dr.  Harrison’s  statement  that  the  majority  of  members  are  de¬ 
barred  from  obtaining  rare  birds  because  of  scarcity/price  is  carried  to  its 
logical  conclusion  in  that  the  number  of  birds  available  will  decrease*  then 
I  fail  to  see  how  the  issuing  of  medals  can  be  an  unnecessary  burden  on  the 
Society’s  finances. 

I  would  add  that  breeding  rare  birds  (or  any  livestock)  is  a  great  leveller 
and  is  as  likely  to  be  achieved  in  a  small  garden  shed  with  privacy  as  in  a 
large  aviary  with  many  inhabitants. 

Personally  I  would  like  the  issuing  of  medals  to  be  worldwide*  even 
if  it  means  raising  subscriptions.  Furthermore,  whilst  I  agree  that  the  is¬ 
suing  of  medals  for  first  breeding  is  an  attractive  “carrot”  for  the  written 
article*  I  would  like  to  know  what  Dr.  Harrison  proposes  we  replace  this 
“carrot”  with  if  we  are  to  continue  to  receive  first  breeding  articles. 

I  do  not  believe  that  undue  emphasis  is  placed  on  the  first  breeding,  as 
written  reports  help  further  breedings  of  that  species.  Moreover,  I  would 
like  to  see  some  form  of  recognition  for  repeated  substantiated  breedings. 

In  conclusion  I  would  like  to  add  that  all  people  who  keep  livestock 
condone  the  international  traffic  to  some  extent  whether  we  like  it  or  not. 

46,  The  Oval, 

Park  Lane  Estate* 

Wednesbury,  Staffs. 


B.  E.  Reed 


48 


CORRESPONDENCE 


Errata  in  the  Avicultural  Society’s  1977  Breeding  Register 

After  having  contacted  Mr.  K.  J.  Lawrence,  collator  of  the  softbill 
section  of  the  Register,  and  Mr.  A.  D.  Brooker  and  Skegness  Natureland, 
after  having  seen  the  tanager-hybrid  bred  by  Mr.  H.  Murray,  I  can  con¬ 
firm  and  correct  the  following  errors  in  the  Society’s  1977  Breeding 
Register. 


p.  34. 

*  Maroon  Tanager  Piranga  flava 
should  be 

Silver-beaked  (or  Maroon)  Tanager  Ramphocelus  carbo 
A.  D.  Brooker  2. 


P-  39- 

Mrs.  Wilson’s  Tanager  Tangara  larvata  fanny  x  Paradise  Tanager  Tangara 

chilensis 

should  be 

Golden-masked  (or  Mrs.  Wilson’s)  Tanager  Tangara  larvata  x  Paradise 
Tanager  Tangara  chilensis 
Skegness  1. 

Mrs.  Wilson’s  Tanager  Tangara  larvata  fanny  x  Blue-headed  Tanager 
Thraupis  cyanocephala 
should  be 

Golden-masked  (or  Mrs.  Wilson’s)  Tanager  Tangara  larvata  x  Blue¬ 
necked  (or  Blue-headed)  Tanager  Tangara  cyanicollis 
Skegness  2. 


Blue-headed  Tanager  Thraupis  cyanocephala  x  Mrs.  Wilson’s  Tanager 
Tangara  larvata  fanny 
should  be 

Blue-necked  (or  Blue-headed)  Tanager  Tangara  cyanicollis  x  Golden- 
masked  (or  Mrs.  Wilson’s)  Tanager  Tangara  larvata 
P.  Walker  1. 

Yellow-backed  Tanager  Hemithraupis  flavicollis  x  Black  Tanager  Tachy- 
phonus  rufus 
should  be 

Yellow-rumped  Tanager  Ramphocelus  flammigerus  icteronotus  x  Silver- 
beaked  (or  Maroon)  Tanager  Ramphocelus  carbo 
H.  Murray  1. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


49 


English  names  are  those  of  R.  Meyer  de  Schauensee,  A  Guide  to  the 
Birds  of  South  America,  Livingston  Publishing  Co,,  Wynnewood  (Pa.), 
1970. 

English  names  in  brackets  are  those  used  normally  by  English  avicultur- 
ists. 

Scientific  names  are  those  of  J.  L.  Peters,  Checklist  of  Birds  of  the 
World,  vol.  XIII,  Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology,  Cambridge  and 
Massachusetts,  1970. 

Galgenberglaan  9, 

B-9120  Destelbergen, 

Belgium 

Dr  Johan  Ingels 


STANDFAST  PRES! 


VETERINARY  ASPECTS  OF 

CAPTIVE  BIRDS  OF  PREY 


The  modern  comprehensive  book  on  al! 
veterinary  aspects  of  birds  of  prey 


by  J.E.  Cooper  MRCVS 


26  PHOTOGRAPHS— 33  LINE  DRAWINGS -TABLES 
The  essential  reference  book  for  all  concerned  with  Birds  of  Prey 


CHnica!  techniques,  diagnosis,  infectious  diseases, 
parasites,  foot  conditions,  nervous  problems  and  the  use  of  drugs. 

The  renowned  authority  on  Birds  of  Prey— LESLIE  BROWN  says  in  his  forward:  — 

"This  is  a  very  thoroughly  researched  book  indeed.  It  will  be  indispensable  not 'only  to  those 
who  keep  Falcons  or  Birds  of  Prey  in  zoos,  but  to  students  of  the  wild  species  in  the  field." 


Price  £10  net  +  70p  postage  and  packing  (UK  only) 

THE  STANDFAST  PRESS,  SAUL,  GLOUCESTERSHIRE 


The  Avicultural  Society 


FOR  THE  STUDY  OF 
BRITISH  &  FOREIGN  BIRDS 
IN  FREEDOM  &  CAPTIVITY 


OFFICERS  AND  COUNCIL 
as  at  31st  December  1978 

President 

DR.  JEAN  DELACOUR 
Vice-Presidents 

Miss  P.  Barclay-Smith  C.B.E.  J.  O.  D’eath 
W.  Conway  W.  Van  den  bergh 


D.  H.  S.  Risdon 

Hon.  Vice-President 

A.  A.  Prestwich 

Hon.  Editor 
Mary  Harvey 

Hon.  Secretary-Treasurer 

H.  J.  Horswell 

Hon.  Assistant  Secretary 
Mary  Harvey 

Members  of  the  Council 


P.  B.  Brown 
M.  Curzon 
M.  W.  Ellis 


Prof.  J.  R.  Hodges 
K.  C.  R.  Howman 
K.  J.  Lawrence 
Dr.  T.  Lovel 
R.  C.  J.  Sawyer 
W.  Timmis 


Miss  J.  Fenton 
Mrs.  R.  Grantham 
Dr.  C.  J.  O.  Harrison 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


51 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 
PAST  AND  PRESENT 


PRESIDENTS 

1894- 1895  The  Countess  of  Begtive 

1895- 1920  The  Rev.  and  Hon.  F.  G.  Dutton 

(later  Canon,  and  Lord  Sherborne) 
1921-1925  The  Rev.  H.  D.  Astley 
1926-1955  A.  Ezra,  O.B.E. 

1956-1963  D.  Seth-Smith 
1964-1967  Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 
1968-1972  A.  A.  Prestwich 
1972-  Dr.  J.  Delacour 


VICE-PRESIDENTS 


1894- 1895 

1895- 1900 

1896- 1899 
1899-1906 
1906-1937 

1925-1927 

1925-1935 

1925-1942 

1925-1951 

1938-1962 

1948“ 


The  Rev.  and  Hon. 

1949-1963 

Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 

F.  G.  Dutton 

I950-X955 

D.  Seth-Smith 

The  Right  Hon.  the 

1952-1961 

E.  J.  Boosey 

Baroness  Berkeley 

1958-1970 

Allen  Silver 

Sir  H.  S.  Boynton,  Bt. 

1962-1978 

G.  S.  Mottershead 

A.  F.  Wiener 

1963-1974 

Sir  Crawford 

Her  Grace  the  Duchess 

McCullagh,  Bt. 

of  Bedford 

1964-1967 

A.  A.  Prestwich 

Her  Grace  the  Duchess 

1967-1973 

J.  J.  Yealland 

of  Wellington 

1970“ 

Miss  P.  Barclay- 

The  Lady  Dunleath 

Smith,  C.B.E. 

H.  R.  Fillmer 

1973“ 

D.  H.  S.  Risdon 

Dr.  E.  Hopkinson, 

1973- 

J.  D’Eath 

C.M.G..  D.S,0. 

1974“ 

W.  Conway 

J.  Spedan  Lewis 

Dr.  J.  Delacour 

1978- 

W.  Van  den  bergh 

1894-1896 

1896-1899 

1899-1901 

1901-1903 


HON. 

Dr.  C.  S.  Simpson 
H.  R.  Fillmer 
J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
R.  Phillipps 
R.  Phillipps 
Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 
T.  H.  Newman 
Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 
R.  I.  Pocock 
\Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 


SECRETARIES 

1914-1916^  A  G  butler 

Miss  R.  Alderson 
19x6-1919^  Dr  a  g  Butler 

t^,^/Dr,  L.  Lovell-Keays 
i9i9-I920|Dr  a  q  Butler 

1921- 1922  J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

1922- 1948  Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 
1949-1970  A.  A.  Prestwich 
1971-  H.  J.  Horswell 


HON.  ASSISTANT  SECRETARIES 
1950-1970  Miss  Kay  Bonner 
1971-  Mrs  Mary  Harvey 


1894-1897 

1897-1899 

1899-1901 

1901-1906 

1906-1913 

1913-1917 


HON.  TREASURERS 


H.  R.  Fillmer 
O.  E.  Cresswell 
J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
W.  H.  St.  Quintin 
J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
B.  C.  Thomasett 


19x7-1919 

1920- 

1921- 1922 
1923-1948 
1949-1970 
1971- 


A.  Ezra 

Dr.  L.  Lovell-Keays 
J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 
A.  A.  Prestwich 
H.  J.  Horswell 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


HON.  EDITORS 


\  JTi.  XV. 

1896-1899  H.  R.  Fillmer 
1899-1901  O.  E.  Cresswell 
1901-1907  D.  Seth-Smith 


1924  The  Marquess  of 
Tavistock  (later  His 
Grace  the  Duke  of 

Bedford) 

1925  The  Marquess  of 

Tavistock 
D.  Seth-Smith 


1926-1934  D.  Seth-Smith 
1935  The  Hon.  Anthony 


Chaplin  (later  the 
Right  Hon. 
Viscount  Chaplin) 
Miss  E.  F.  Chawner 


1910-1912  J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
1912-1917  The  Rev.  H.  D.  Astley 
1917-1920  Dr.  Graham  Renshaw 


1936-1938  Miss  E.  F.  Chawner 
1939-1973  Miss  Phyllis 


_ ____  i  R.  I.  Pocock 

1920-1923  j  D  Sbth_Smixh 


1920-1923 


Barclay- Smith, 
C.B.E. 


1974-1978  J.  J.  Yealland 
1979-  Mary  Harvey 


MEDALLISTS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


THE  PRESIDENT’S  MEDAL 


Miss  Phyllis  Barclay-Smith,  C.B.E.,  14th  March,  i960 
Arthur  Alfred  Prestwich,  14th  March,  i960. 

Dr.  Jean  Delacour,  13th  March,  1967. 

Walter  Van  den  bergh,  21st  February,  1973. 

THE  KNOBEL  AWARD 
Sten  Bergman,  D.S.C.,  14th  March,  i960. 

Curt  af  Enehjelm,  14th  March,  i960. 

THE  EVELYN  DENNIS  MEMORIAL  AWARD 

Mrs.  K.  M.  Scamell,  13th  November,  1967. 


53 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 

RULES 

Revised  by  the  Council  I’jth  October ,  1978 

1  The  name  of  the  Society  shall  be  The  Avicultural  Society  and  it  shall 
have  for  its  object  the  study  of  British  and  foreign  birds  in  freedom 
and  in  captivity. 

Domesticated  birds  shall  be  outside  the  scope  of  the  Society. 

2  The  Avicultural  Society  shall  consist  of  Ordinary  Members,  Honorary 
Life  Members  and  Honorary  Fellows.  The  last  shall  be  restricted  in 
number  to  ten,  and  be  elected  by  the  Council. 

3  Any  person  interested  in  aviculture  is  eligible  to  apply  for  membership 
in  the  Society  provided  that  every  applicant  shall  be  admissible  only 
as  an  individual  seeking  membership  in  his  or  her  own  right  and  that 
no  firm,  company,  corporation  or  other  body  or  organisation,  nor  any 
person  as  an  accredited  representative  of  any  such  body  or  organisation 
shall  be  eligible  for  admission ;  and  that  every  applicant  for  admission 
as  a  member  of  the  Society  must  himself  duly  complete  and  sign  the 
application  for  admission  form. 

4  The  year  of  the  Society,  with  that  of  each  volume  of  the  Society’s 
journal,  which  shall  be  known  as  the  avicultural  magazine,  shall 
commence  with  the  1st  of  January  and  end  on  the  31st  of  December 
following. 

5  Every  Ordinary  Member  shall  pay  an  annual  subscription  of  £5.00  or 
such  sum  as  the  Council  shall  from  time  to  time  approve,  to  be  due 
and  payable  in  advance  on  1st  January  in  each  year;  and,  on  payment 
of  the  subscription,  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  copies  of  all  the  numbers 
of  the  Society’s  Magazines  for  the  current  year.  Every  new  Ordinary 
Member  shall  pay  an  annual  subscription  of  £5.00  on  joining  and 
subsequently  on  1st  January  of  each  year. 

New  Members  joining  after  1st  October  in  any  year  shall  have  the 
option,  after  joining,  of  paying  their  first  annual  subscription  for  that 
year,  or  of  having  their  membership  deemed  to  commence  on  1st 
January  of  the  following  year.  In  the  latter  case  new  Members  must 
inform  the  Secretary  accordingly. 

6  Any  member  whose  annual  subscription  is  one  year  in  arrears  shall, 
ipso  facto ,  cease  to  belong  to  the  Society,  but  shall  be  eligible  for  re¬ 
admission  to  the  membership,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Council,  on  his 
paying  the  arrears. 


54 


RULES  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


7  Members  intending  to  resign  their  membership  at  the  end  of  the  cur¬ 
rent  year  of  the  Society  are  expected  to  give  notice  to  the  Secretary 
before  ist  December  so  that  their  names  shall  not  be  included  in  the 
List  of  Members,  which  shall  be  published  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Council. 

8  If,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Council,  any  Member  shall  have  acted  in  a 
manner  injurious  to  the  interests  or  good  name  of  the  Society,  the 
Honorary  Secretary  shall  be  directed  to  send  a  registered  letter  to 
that  Member  stating  the  nature  of  the  offence  together  with  the  name 
of  the  informant,  or  the  source  of  information,  and  asking  for  an 
explanation.  After  allowing  reasonable  time  (not  less  than  a  clear 
fortnight  after  the  despatch  of  the  Secretary’s  letter)  for  a  reply,  or 
for  appearing  in  person  before  the  Council  if  the  Member  so  requests, 
the  Council,  providing  not  less  than  seven  are  agreed,  shall  have  power 
to  remove  such  Member’s  name  from  the  List  of  Members. 

The  name  of  an  Honorary  Fellow  may  be  removed  from  the  List 
of  Members  by  the  Council  if  it  is  considered  that  the  qualification 
for  such  Fellowship  has  been  lost. 

9  The  government  of  the  Society,  and  the  direction  of  its  concerns, 
shall  be  entrusted  to  a  governing  body,  known  as  the  Council,  which 
shall  consist  of  the  following,  to  be  elected  from  among  the  Members 
of  the  Society: — 

The  President,  who  shall  hold  office  for  five  years  and  shall,  at 
the  end  of  that  period,  be  eligible  for  immediate  re-election. 

One  or  more  Vice-Presidents,  but  not  exceeding  eight  in  number, 
each  of  whom  shall  hold  office  for  five  years  and  be  eligible  for 
immediate  re-election  on  expiry  of  this  period.  Retiring  Presidents 
shall  be  created  Honorary  Vice-Presidents,  but  shall  not  have  a 
vote  at  Council  Meetings. 

The  Editor  of  the  avicultural  magazine,  who  shall  hold  office  for 
five  years,  and  be  eligible  for  immediate  re-election  on  expiry  of 
this  period. 

The  Honorary  Secretary-Treasurer,  who  shall  hold  office  for  five 
years,  and  be  eligible  for  immediate  re-election  on  expiry  of  this 
period. 

The  Assistant  Secretary,  who  shall  hold  office  for  five  years,  and 
be  eligible  for  immediate  re-election  on  expiry  of  this  period. 

Up  to  fifteen  other  members,  each  of  whom  shall  serve  for  five 
years  and  shall,  at  the  end  of  that  period,  be  eligible  for  immediate 
re-election. 

Nominations  to  serve  on  the  Council  other  than  nominations  by  the 
Council  itself  shall  be  in  writing  and  in  the  form  approved  by  the 
Council  from  time  to  time,  such  form  providing  for  a  proposer  and 


RULES  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


55 


seconder  and  the  signature  of  the  nominee  expressing  his  willingness 
to  serve  if  appointed,  and  to  be  delivered  to  the  Honorary  Secretary 
not  later  than  ist  October  in  any  year  for  vacancies  in  the  year  following. 

All  appointments  to  the  Council  and  elections  of  Officers  of  the 
Society,  shall  be  made  by  and  at  the  absolute  discretion  of  the  Council. 

An  Officer  of  the  Society  may  hold  an  appointment  together  with 
that  of  President  or  Vice-President  at  the  same  time. 

10  The  Council  shall  elect  a  member  of  the  Council  to  be  Chairman  of 
their  meetings,  to  serve  for  one  year. 

11  The  Council  shall  have  power  to  terminate  the  period  of  office  of 
the  Editor  or  of  the  Honorary  Secretary-Treasurer  or  the  Assistant 
Secretary  at  any  time  by  giving  twelve  months’  notice,  or  by  giving 
shorter  notice  if  they  deem  an  earlier  change  to  be  imperative,  and 
any  of  these  Officers  is  expected  to  give  the  Council  twelve  months’ 
notice  of  an  intention  to  resign  before  the  expiration  of  the  period 
for  which  such  Officer  was  elected. 

12  In  the  event  of  a  vacancy  occurring  in  the  office  of  Editor  of  the 
Magazine  or  in  that  of  the  Honorary  Secretary-Treasurer  or  in  that 
of  the  Assistant  Secretary,  the  Council  shall  have  power  to  appoint 
an  acting  Editor  or  Acting  Secretary-Treasurer  or  Acting  Assistant 
Secretary  as  the  case  may  be,  to  serve  until  a  new  election  can  be  made. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  five  years  in  every  case  it  shall  be 
competent  for  the  Council  to  nominate  the  same  Officer  or  another 
Member  for  a  further  term  of  five  years,  unless  a  second  candidate 
be  proposed  by  not  less  than  twenty-five  Members  of  at  least  two 
years’  standing.  Such  proposal,  duly  signed  and  containing  the  written 
consent  of  the  nominee  to  serve,  if  elected,  in  the  capacity  for  which 
he  is  proposed,  must  reach  the  Honorary  Secretary-Treasurer  on  or 
before  ist  September. 

13  If  any  Member  of  the  Council  does  not  attend  a  meeting  for  two  years 
in  succession,  the  Council  shall  have  power  to  elect  another  Member 
in  his  place. 

14  The  Editor  shall  have  an  absolute  discretion  as  to  what  matter  shall  be 
published  in  the  Magazine  (subject  to  the  control  of  the  Council). 

15  The  Honorary  Secretary-Treasurer  and  the  Editor  shall  respectively 
refer  all  matters  of  doubt  or  difficulty  to  the  Council. 

16  The  Council  may  appoint  committees  for  particular  purposes.  Mem¬ 
bership  of  such  sub-committees  shall  be  restricted  to  Members  of 


56 


RULES  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


the  Society,  but  not  necessarily  to  members  of  the  Council.  The 
Council  shall  designate  the  Chairman  and  the  Secretary  of  each  sub¬ 
committee. 

The  President,  or  a  Vice-President  in  his  absence,  may  attend  any 
meeting  of  a  sub-committee,  but  shall  not  have  a  vote  unless  he  has 
been  appointed  a  member  of  that  sub-committee. 

17  The  Council  (but  not  a  committee  of  the  Council)  shall  have  power 
to  alter  and  add  to  the  Rules,  from  time  to  time,  in  any  manner  they 
may  think  fit. 

18  Should  a  Member  wish  any  matter  to  be  brought  before  the  Council 
direct,  such  matter  should  be  sent  to  the  Honorary  Secretary-Treasurer 
with  a  letter  requesting  that  it  be  brought  before  the  Council  at  the 
next  meeting. 

19  Not  less  than  four  Members  of  the  Council  shall  form  a  quorum  at  any 
meeting,  and  no  business  shall  be  transacted  unless  such  a  quorum  is 
present. 

A  decision  of  a  majority  of  the  Council  shall  be  final  and  conclusive 
in  all  matters. 

20  The  Council  shall  have  power  to  expel  any  Member  from  the  Society 
at  any  time  without  assigning  any  reason. 


DEFINITIONS 

Members  shall  be  those  persons  (from  any  country)  interested  in 
aviculture,  elected  in  the  manner  prescribed. 

Honorary  Life  Members  shall  be  those  Ordinary  Members  who  have 
had  an  unbroken  membership  for  fifty  years  (after  which  they  shall  not 
be  required  to  pay  any  further  annual  subscriptions) ;  or  those  Ordinary 
Members  who  have  rendered  signal  service  to  the  Society. 

Honorary  Fellows  shall  be  aviculturists  elected  on  grounds  of  high 
distinction  in  the  subject  or  in  services  contributing  to  its  advancement. 

Whenever  the  context  or  meaning  requires  it,  words  implying  the 
singular  shall  imply  the  plural,  and  male-female  and  vice  versa . 


57 


THE  SOCIETY’S  AWARDS 
RULES 

the  society’s  medal  (Instituted  ist  November  1896) 

The  Medal  may  be  awarded  at  the  discretion  of  the  Council  to  any 
Member  who  shall  succeed  in  breeding,  in  the  United  Kingdom,  any 
species  of  bird  which  shall  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Council,  be  known 
to  have  been  previously  bred  under  controlled  conditions  in  Great  Britain 
whether  naturally  reared  by  the  parents,  reared  by  a  foster  parent  or  hand- 
reared.  Any  Member  wishing  to  obtain  the  Medal  must  send  a  detailed 
account  for  publication  in  the  Magazine  within  about  eight  weeks  from 
the  date  of  hatching  of  the  young,  and  furnish  such  evidence  of  the  facts 
as  the  Council  may  require.  The  Medal  will  be  awarded  only  in  cases 
where  the  young  shall  live  to  be  old  enough  to  fend  for  themselves.  The 
question  of  awarding  a  Medal  for  the  breeding  of  subspecies  of  species 
that  have  already  been  bred  shall  be  at  the  discretion  of  the  Council.  No 
Medal  can  be  given  for  the  breeding  of  hybrids. 

The  account  of  the  breeding  must  be  reasonably  full  so  as  to  afford 
instruction  to  our  Members,  and  must  appear  in  the  avxcultural  maga¬ 
zine  before  it  is  published  or  notified  elsewhere.  It  should  describe  the 
plumage  of  the  young,  and  be  of  value  as  a  permanent  record  of  the  nesting 
and  general  habits  of  the  species.  These  points  will  have  great  weight 
when  the  question  of  awarding  the  Medal  is  under  consideration. 

In  every  case  the  decision  of  the  Council  shall  be  final. 

THE  PRESIDENT’S  MEDAL 

The  President’s  Medal  was  instituted  in  1955  to  enable  the  Council  to 
confer  conspicuous  honour  on  those  Members  whom  it  might  from  time 
to  time  consider  deserving  of  special  honour  at  the  hands  of  the  Society. 

THE  KNOBEL  AWARD 

The  Knobel  Award  was  instituted  in  i960.  It  will  be  awarded  from 
time  to  time,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Council,  to  Members  of  the  Society 
resident  overseas,  for  breeding  successes  meriting  special  recognition. 

THE  EVELYN  DENNIS  MEMORIAL  AWARD 

The  Evelyn  Dennis  Memorial  Award  was  instituted  in  1962.  It  will  be 
awarded  from  time  to  time,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Council,  to  Members 
of  the  Society  for  an  outstanding  contribution  to  aviculture. 


58 


AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY’S  AWARDS 


CERTIFICATE  OF  MERIT 


The  Certificate  of  Merit  was  instituted  in  i960.  It  will  be  awarded 
from  time  to  time,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Council,  for  a  meritorious 
breeding  success  by  a  British  or  foreign  Member;  for  example,  success 
with  a  rarely  bred  species  or  a  sustained,  multiple  generation  breeding. 
Certificates  of  Merit  will  only  be  awarded  if  a  full  account  of  the  breeding 
is  submitted  for  inclusion  in  the  Magazine.  This  award  may  also  be  made 
to  zoological  societies,  bird  trusts  or  bird  gardens. 


BIRDS 


New,  Second-hand ,  Old  and  Rare 


CATALOGUE  ON  REQUEST 


WHELDON  &  WESLEY  LTD. 


CODICOTE,  HITCHIN,  HERTS,  SG4  8TE 

Stevenage  (0438)  820370 


cRx>mcWfexbills 
toSSfeterfowl 


•  •• 


Ponderosa 
Bird  Aviaries 

Branch  Lane,  The  Reddings,  Cheltenham 
Telephone:  Churchdown  71 3229 


Specialist  Supplier  of  Foreign  and  Exotic  Birds 
Ministry  Approved  Quarantine  Premises 
English  Bred  Quality  Birds  Always  Wanted 
Wide  Range  of  Specialist  Bird  Books 
All  Types  of  Breeding  Boxes,  Cages,  etc. 
Varied  Selection  of  Bird  Seeds  and  Foods 


Mealworms  supplied  by  Return  of  Post 


Open  9  a.m.  to  1  p.m.  and  2  p.m.  to  6  p.m. 
Six  Days  a  Week — Closed  on  Mondays. 

1st  OCT— 31st  MARCH 
TUES-FRI.  9a.m.  - 1  p.m.  2p.m.  -6p.m. 
SAT  &  SUN  10  a.m.  -  1  p.m.  2  p.m.  -  5  p.m. 


Under  the  Personal  Supervision  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  J.  R.  Wood  P.T.A.  Dip. 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE 

The  Magazine  is  published  quarterly,  and  sent  free  to  all  members  of  the 
Avicultural  Society.  Members  joining  at  any  time  during  the  year  are  entitled 
to  the  back  numbers  of  the  current  year  on  the  payment  of  subscription. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire  SL5  8LT, 
England. 


The  Avicultural  Magazine  is  distributed  by  the  Avicultural  Society  and  members 
should  address  all  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the  Hon.  Secretary  and 
Treasurer,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is  £6.00  (U.S.A.,  $15)  per  year,  payable 
in  advance,  and  the  price  for  individual  numbers  is  £1  ($2.50)  per  copy.  Non-members 
should  also  send  their  subscriptions  and  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the 
Hon.  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 


NEW  MEMBERS 

Mr.  Douglas  Ashmore,  91  Moss  Street,  Victoria,  BC,  V8V  4M2,  Canada. 

Mrs.  Patricia  C.  Barbera,  596  Riviera  Circle,  Larkspur,  California  94939,  USA. 

Mr.  T.  De  Graaff,  13,  Webbeona  Pde,  Wendouree,  Victoria  3355  Australia. 

Ms.  Jane  Paula  Eckersley,  Nalder  Road,  Wagin,  6315,  W.  Australia. 

Mr.  Michael  Falconer,  15  i  Bardon  Road,  Berrinba,  Queensland  4114,  Australia. 

Mr.  Arthur  Freud,  Glamore  Court,  Smithtown,  New  York  11787,  USA. 

Mr.  Karl  Gloria,  Hinderpad  15,  D  432  Hattingen,  W.  Germany. 

Mr.  Peter  Hall,  Dept,  of  Physiology,  St.  George’s  University,  St.  George, 
Grenada,  West  Indies. 

Mr.  Gwilym  James,  4  Coniger  Crescent,  Usk,  Gwent,  NP5  iRX. 

Mr.  D.  W.  F.  Jones,  Eccleston  Paddocks,  Eccleston,  Chester,  CH4  9HP. 

Mr.  Donald  M.  Kinach,  2929  Ray  Weiland  Drive,  Apt  117,  Baker,  Louisiana 
70714,  U.S.A. 

Mrs.  Barbara  Kohler,  4553  Williams  Road,  Tallahassee,  Florida  32301,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  K.  Moss,  Patterson  Road,  Clyde,  Victoria  3978,  Australia. 

Dr.  Thomas  Duncan  Nichols,  106  nMt.  Boracho,  San  Antonio,  Texas  78213, 
U.S.A. 

Miss  Ruth  Overlander,  5465  Erpel,  Burgunderstr  38,  W.  Germany. 

Mr.  R.  G.  Richardson,  Valhaven,  Mill  Field  Road,  Hounslow,  Middlesex 
TW4  5PN. 

Mr.  Ulrich  Schurer,  56  Wuppertal  1,  Zoologischer  Garten,  Hubertusallee  30, 
W.  Germany. 

Mr.  R.  E.  Seibels,  Riverbanks  Park  Commission,  500  Wildlife  Parkway,  Columbia, 
South  Carolina  29210,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  Poul  Erik  Sperling,  Volsted  bygade  25,  Volsted,  9530  Stevring,  Denmark. 

Mr.  Russell  Stienecker,  VQ-i  Box  5322,  FPO  San  Francisco,  California  96601, 
U.S.A. 

Mr.  Charles  Van  Riper,  Cooperative  National  Park  Resources  Studies  Unit,  PO 
Box  54,  Hawaii  Volcanoes  National  Park,  Hawaii  96718,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  Earl  B.  Wells,  3411  Sherman  Street,  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana  46808,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  M.  W.  Wettergren,  Birger  Jarlsgatan  111A,  113  56  Stockholm,  Sweden. 

Mr.  William  C.  Wilson,  Norshore  Pets,  6206  South  Route  23,  PO  Box  271 
Marengo,  Illinois  60152,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  Michael  Stanley  Wrenn,  114  Clapgate  Lane,  Bartley  Green,  Birmingham 
B32  3DH. 


CHANGE  OF  ADDRESS 


Ms.  P.  O.  Avery,  to  c/o  Five  Points  Home  &  Garden,  1150  NE  26  Street,  Fort 
Lauderdale,  Florida  33305,  U.S.A. 

Mrs.  S.  Belford,  to  Highcroft  Cottage,  14  Totteridge  Common,  London  N20. 

Dr.  B.  C.  R.  Bertram,  to  58  Victoria  Park,  Cambridge  CB4  3EL. 

Mr.  N.  Bond,  to  Linden,  Swife  Lane,  Broad  Oak,  Nr.  Heathfield,  West  Sussex 
TN21  8  UR. 

Ms.  M.  R.  Bourell,  to  2622  Irving,  San  Francisco,  California  94122,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  D.  Drumm,  to  2307  N.  Bradley  Road,  Charlotte,  Michigan  48813,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  M.  Ellis,  to  Insight,  Regency  Arcade,  Molesworth  Street,  Wadebridge, 
Cornwall  PL27  7DA. 

Mr.  H.  Folger,  to  Wiesentfelserstr  5,  8000  Miinchen  60,  W.  Germany. 

Mr.  I.  A.  S.  Harris,  to  46  Portal  Avenue,  Rudloe,  Corshand,  Wiltshire. 

Mr.  R.  Killingback,  to  45  Cheyne  Close,  Ware,  Hertfordshire. 

Mr.  G.  T.  Leadbitter,  to  43  Leyburn  Close,  Urpeth  Grange  Estate,  Ouston, 
Chester-le- Street,  Co.  Durham,  DH2  iTD. 

Dr.  J-M.  Lernould,  to  Parc  Zoologique  et  Botanique,  51  Rue  du  Jardin  Zoologique, 
68100  Mulhouse,  France. 

Mr.  B.  C.  Lindhardt,  to  Bredgade  40.1,  DK  7250,  Hejnsvig,  Denmark. 

Mr.  R.  M.  Martin,  to  Insight,  Regency  Arcade,  Molesworth  Street,  Wadebridge, 
Cornwall  PL27  7DA. 

Mr.  I.  Nilsson,  to  Sodra  Varalov  2212,  S-262  00  Angelholm,  Sweden. 

Mrs.  A.  J.  Ouse,  to  Van  Saun  Park  Zoo,  Forest  Avenue,  Paramus,  New  Jersey 
07652,  U.S.A. 

Dr.  M.  B.  Patel,  to  Post:  ATT,  Via  Navsari,  Balsar,  Gujarat,  India. 

Ms.  M.  C.  Richards,  to  16225,  Community  Court,  Sepulreda,  California  91343, 
U.S.A. 

Mr.  J.  M.  Savidge,  to  Beera,  Bridge  Reeve,  Chulmleigh,  N.  Devon  EX18  7BA. 

Mrs.  F.  W.  Winn,  to  6  San  Rafael  Avenue,  Belvedere,  California  94920,  U.S.A. 


DONATIONS 


Mr.  E.  S.  Andersen 
Mrs.  E.  M.  Balchin 
Mr.  R.  Basso 
Mr.  P.  Betts 
Mr.  W.  R.  Bonsal 
Ms.  M.  Bracke 
Mr.  T.  Brosset 
Mr.  W.  G.  Buchanan 
Dr.  R.  Burkard 
Mr.  R.  K.  Causton 
Mr.  D.  G.  Coles 
Mr.  S.  Corwin 
Mr.  L.  Dean 
Mr.  P.  Dickinson 
Mr.  H.  Folger 
Mr.  M.  Godley 
Mr.  D.  Homberger 
Mr.  H.  Kapyla 
Ms.  M.  King 
Mr.  C.  Knowlton 
Mr.  S.  Lacey 
Mr.  I.  Lazzeroni 
Mr.  L.  W.  Lenz 
Mr.  O.  D.  Long 


Mr.  A.  Mabille 
Mr.  W.  Macy 
Mr.  H.  Montgomery 
Captain  W.  Mountain 
Mr.  Y.  Nakata 
Mr.  R.  E.  Oxley 
Mr.  W.  Peratino 
Mr.  H.  Raethel 
Mr.  B.  Riley 
Miss  M.  Scholes 
Mr.  D.  P.  Shearing 
Mr.  G.  A.  Smith 
Mr.  J.  Swift 
Mr.  M.  Tell 
Mr.  W.  Todd 
Mr.  A.  Tyler 
Mr.  M.  Van  Elmbt 
Mr.  H.  Wareman 
Mr.  D.  Wass 
Mr.  L.  Willett 
Mr.  K.  Williams 
Mr.  W.  Wiseman 
Mr.  J.  Ye  all  and 


Printed  by  Clunbury  Cottrell  Press,  Berkhamsted,  Herts.  N475 


j r<?g‘.20s'4& 

/j  9# 
viBjrcls 


AVICULTURAL 

MAGAZINE 


1979 


CONTENTS 


Breeding  the  Red-billed  Hornbill  Tockus  erythrorhynchus  at  the  Cotswold  Wildlife 
Park  (with  plates)  by  J.  SIMMONS .  59 

Breeding  the  Lilac -breasted  Roller  Coracias  caudata  at  the  Cotswold  Wildlife  Park 
(with  plates)  by  J.  SIMMONS .  61 

Breeding  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus  (with  plate)  by  L.  GIBSON .  63 

Breeding  Notes  on  the  Acorn  Woodpecker  Melanerpes  formicivorus  by  W.  Todd  ....  68 

A  Hybrid  Hummingbird  Bred  Colibri  coruscans  x  C.  thalassimus  (with  plates)  by 
R.J.  ELGAR .  71 

The  Ivory-billed  Woodpecker  Campephilus  principalis  by  J.  V.  DENNIS .  75 

The  Isle  of  Pines  Amazon  Amazona  leucocephala  palmarum  by  RAMON  NOEGEL  .  85 

Breeding  Results  and  Photoperiod  by  J.  TROLLOPE .  89 

Citron -crested  Cockatoos  in  Sumba  by  S.  B.  KENDALL .  93 

Notes  from  a  Kenyan  Collection  by  Malcolm  Ellis .  95 

Stanley  Cranes  at  Haughton  Hall,  Cheshire,  by  G.  C.  DEAN .  96 

Report  on  the  Bird  Collection  at  Paignton  Zoological  and  Botanical  Gardens  in 
1978  .  97 

News  from  the  Berlin  Zoo  by  HEINZ-GEORG  KLOS .  98 

Report  on  the  Social  Meeting,  15  May,  1979,  by  ROSEMARY  LOW .  99 

Reviews .  101 

News  and  Views .  104 

Correspondence .  .  105 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 

Founded  1894 

Membership  Subscription  is  £5.00  (U.S.A.,  $13.00)  per  annum,  due  on  1st  January 
each  year,  and  payable  in  advance.  Subscriptions,  Changes  of  Address,  Names  of  Candidates 
for  Membership,  etc.,  should  be  sent  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 

Hon.  Secretary  and  Treasurer:  Harry  J.  Horswell,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill 
Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


■■ 


Male  Red-billed  Hornbill  feeding  chicks. 


Avicultural— Magazine 

THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Vol.  85.  —  No.  2  —  All  rights  reserved  APRIL  -  JUNE  1979 


BREEDING  THE  RED-BILLED  HORNBILL  Tockus  erythrorhynchus 
AT  THE  COTSWOLD  WILD  LIFE  PARK 

By  j.  SIMMONS  (Senior  Head  Keeper) 

The  Red-billed  Hornbill  is  a  small  Hornbill  (17  to  18  inches)  commonly 
found  through  East  and  Central  Africa  and  into  South  Africa.  The  upper 
parts  are  brownish-black  with  a  white  line  down  the  back.  The  underparts 
are  entirely  white,  the  wing-coverts  are  covered  in  quite  large  white  spots  and 
the  bill  is  red,  sometimes  black  at  the  base  of  the  mandible.  The  male  differs 
from  the  female  in  having  a  longer  beak,  in  some  pairs  this  is  really  obvious  at 
a  casual  glance,  whilst  in  others  it  needs  careful  scrutiny. 

On  24th  February  1976,  a  shipment  of  birds  arrived  from  Kenya,  which 
included  four  Red-billed  Hornbills,  all  in  good  condition.  On  arrival  these 
birds  were  housed  in  a  large  indoor  cage  at  the  back  of  the  animal  kitchen.  A 
single  male  Red-billed  Hornbill  which  had  been  in  the  collection  since  1974 
was  housed  with  the  new  arrivals  to  help  them  adjust  to  their  new  surroundings 
and  diet.  The  birds  were  fed  on  chopped  day-old  chicks,  chopped  lean  raw 
meat,  chopped  boiled  egg,  a  very  small  amount  of  finely  diced  fruit  and 
brown  bread,  mealworms,  well-cleaned  maggots  and  our  own  insectivorous 
mix.  All  the  food  was  sprinkled  with  a  multi-vitamin  powder. 

On  2nd  April,  all  the  Hornbills  were  put  outside  into  a  new  aviary, 
10m  X  3m  X  3m  high,  with  a  heated  shelter.  After  a  week  one  of  the  new 
males  was  looking  “off-colour”.  It  was  taken  into  the  bird  hospital  for 
treatment  but  did  not  respond  and  died  on  18th  April;  a  post-mortem 
revealed  nothing  of  any  significance. 

The  original  male  Hornbill  paired  up  with  one  of  the  new  females  and 
bullied  the  other  two  Hornbills  which  had  to  be  removed  to  another  aviary. 
Mud  in  a  metal  dish  was  provided  for  the  pair  of  birds  and  a  nest-box  of 
approximately  7  inches  square  by  2  feet  deep  was  positioned  on  the  back  wall 
of  the  aviary,  about  5  feet  from  the  floor,  amidst  a  rambling  rose.  On  5th  May 
the  pair  of  birds  were  carrying  around  mud  in  their  beaks  and  trying  to  mud 


60 


J.  SIMMONS  -  BREEDING  THE  RED-BILLED  HORNBILL 


up  the  nest  hole.  The  mud  kept  falling  off  the  box  and  so  a  natural  ring  of 
bark  was  fixed  around  the  nest  hole.  This  proved  very  satisfactory  and  the 
Hornbills  started  again  on  15th  May  to  mud  up  the  new  entrance. 

On  28th  May  the  birds  were  observed  mating  and  had  completely  mudded 
up  the  nest  entrance  by  5th  June.  By  16th  June  nothing  more  had  happened 
so  the  mud  from  the  hole  was  removed.  This  acted  as  a  stimulant  and  the 
birds  again  started  to  mud  up  the  hole. 

On  22nd  July,  the  female  was  sealed  inside  the  nest-box  and  the  male  was 
feeding  her  through  a  small  slit  in  the  mud.  The  male  spent  the  next  two  days 
passing  dry  grass  into  the  female.  Before  anything  was  passed  to  the  female 
the  male  would  call  to  her.  All  went  well,  the  male  diligently  feeding  his  mate 
and  on  27th  August,  chicks  could  definitely  be  heard.  As  soon  as  the  chicks 
were  heard,  extra  live  food  and  locusts  were  added  to  the  diet.  Calcium  and 
multivitamin  were  applied  liberally  to  the  live  food  during  the  rearing 
period.  The  incubation  period  must  be  approximately  30  —  34  days. 

All  went  well  and  on  19th  September  a  chick’s  beak  was  seen  at  the  hole;  it 
was  quite  yellow  compared  to  the  deep  red  of  the  male’s  beak.  On  20th 
September  the  male  was  feeding  direct  to  the  chicks,  previously  all  food  had 
been  passed  to  the  female.  On  21st  September  two  chicks’  beaks  could  be 
seen. 

On  24th  September  at  12  noon  the  female  broke  her  way  out  of  the  box,  she 
looked  rather  ‘grubby’.  By  26th  September  the  chicks  had  sealed  themselves 
back  into  the  nest  box.  Both  parents  now  fed  the  chicks  through  the  very 
small  slit  in  the  mud. 

At  10.  30  a.  m.  on  8th  October,  the  first  chick  broke  its  way  out  of  the 
nest,  after  about  two  hours  of  hammering  at  the  mud.  It  was  slightly  bigger 
than  the  female  with  a  short  orange-yellow  beak  and  indentical  plumage. 
Three  chicks’  beaks  could  be  seen  at  the  nest-hole  and  they  had  mudded  up 
the  hole  by  4  p.  m.  the  same  day. 

On  14th  October  another  chick  emerged  from  the  box  and  within  two 
hours  the  remaining  chicks  had  mudded  up  the  hole  again. 

On  16th  October  a  third  chick  emerged  from  the  box  and  on  19th  the 
fourth  and  last  chick  emerged  from  the  box.  All  the  chicks  were  perfectly 
formed. 

The  nest  box  was  removed  and  examined  the  next  day  and  it  was  interesting 
to  find  that  there  was  about  12  inches  of  dried  grass  and  small  sticks  which 
the  Hornbills  had  added  to  the  4  inches  of  wood  pulp  which  had  been  placed 
in  the  box  prior  to  it  being  placed  in  the  aviary. 

Since  1976  we  have  raised  to  maturity  from  this  pair  of  Hornbills,  and  the 
other  pair  which  were  removed  to  another  aviary,  a  total  of  23  birds. 


Family  of  Hornbills,  1.  to  r.  —  female,  first  chick,  male. 


Lilac 


-breasted  Roller  Chick,  after  leaving  box. 


J,  Simmons 


Laterallus  cencopyrrhus  chick  at  1 1  days  old. 


L.  Gibson 


61 


BREEDING  THE  LILAC-BREASTED  ROLLER 

Coracias  caudata 

AT  THE  COTSWOLD  WILDLIFE  PARK 
By  J.  SIMMONS  (Senior  Head  Keeper) 

The  Lilac-breasted  Roller  is  a  truly  handsome  bird  and  must  rank  as  the 
most  elegant  of  all  the  Coraciidae.  It  is  found  in  parts  of  East,  Central  and 
South  Africa  and  is  typically  seen  perched  on  telegraph  poles  and  dead 
stumps.  Along  with  the  other  members  of  the  Roller  family  it  feeds  on  large 
insects  such  as  locusts,  butterflies,  beetles,  etc.  It  also  takes  small  lizards  and 
the  like. 

The  Lilac-breasted  Roller  measures  approximately  16  inches  which  includes 
its  long  thin  tail  streamers.  As  its  name  suggests,  the  throat  and  breast  are  a 
very  rich  lilac,  the  rest  of  its  underparts  are  a  greenish-blue.  The  forehead  is 
bright  blue  fading  to  browny  green  on  the  head  and  back  of  the  bird.  There  is 
some  white  around  the  eye,  dividing  the  blue  forehead  from  the  lilac  throat. 
The  rump  and  wing-coverts  are  very  bright  ultramarine  blue  and  the  long 
tail  streamers  are  blue,  tipped  with  black. 

Four  Rollers  were  part  of  a  consignment  of  birds  imported  in  February 
1976  from  Betty  Roberts  of  Kenya  and  they  were  all  in  very  good  condition. 
On  arrival  the  birds  were  placed  in  a  large  indoor  cage  in  the  back  of  the  bird 
kitchen.  They  were  fed  on  chopped  day-old  chicks,  chopped  lean  meat, 
chopped  hard-boiled  egg,  maggots  (well-cleaned),  mealworms,  locusts  and 
pink  baby  mice  all  sprinkled  with  a  multi-vitamin  powder  and  our  own 
insectivorous  mix. 

On  1st  April  1976,  the  four  Rollers  were  placed  in  an  outside  heated  shelter 
and  kept  locked  in  until  15th  April,  when  they  were  released  into  the 
adjoining  flight.  They  showed  no  signs  of  breeding  that  year  and  were 
brought  inside  for  the  winter  on  the  15th  December.  On  4th  April  1977, 
while  still  in  their  winter  quarters,  one  of  the  Rollers  was  found  dead;  a  post 
mortem  revealed  nothing  of  any  significance.  The  remaining  three  were  put 
back  in  an  outside  flight  on  9th  April. 

All  went  well  with  the  remaining  three  Rollers  until  18th  October,  when 
one  of  the  birds  was  found  dead.  A  post  mortem  again  revealed  nothing.  The 
remaining  two  were  then  taken  inside  again  for  the  winter. 

It  was  suspected  that  the  remaining  two  birds  were  a  pair  as  one  was 
slightly  larger  and  had  a  bolder-looking  head.  This  proved  to  be  the  case  and 
more  or  less  as  soon  as  the  birds  were  put  back  outside  for  the  summer  on  the 
1st  April  1978,  the  bolder  looking  bird  (the  male)  started  taking  an  interest  in 
one  of  the  nest-boxes  in  the  corner  of  the  aviary.  The  aviary  measures 
approximately  20  feet  by  12  feet  high  with  an  adjoining  shelter.  The 
other  inhabitants  of  the  aviary  were  a  single  Bronze-Wing  Pigeon  and  a  trio 
of  Bamboo  Partridge. 


62 


J.  SIMMONS  -  BREEDING  LILAC-BREASTED  ROLLER 


Unfortunately,  due  to  various  circumstances  a  trio  of  Green  Wood  Hoopoes, 
a  pair  and  their  previous  year’s  youngster,  had  to  be  moved  into  the  aviary. 
No  aggression  was  shown  between  the  Rollers  and  Hoopoes,  but  the  Hoopoes 
took  over  the  nestbox  and  the  male  Roller  switched  his  attention  to 
another  nestbox  placed  about  10  feet  from  the  ground  on  the  side  of  the 
aviary  amidst  a  large  Buddleia  shrub.  The  male  kept  flying  to  this  box 
which  was  a  “coffin  type”  box  measuring  8  inches  square  by  2  feet  high  and 
calling  to  the  female  in  a  series  of  harsh  chattering  notes. 

On  7th  April  the  female  Roller  spent  most  of  the  day  in  the  box,  as  she  did 
for  the  next  two  days.  Between  9th  and  21st  there  was  always  one  of  the 
Rollers  in  the  box  and  it  was  assumed  that  they  must  be  incubating  eggs.  On 
29th  April  the  birds  were  acting  as  if  they  had  chicks,  extra  live  food  was 
supplied  to  the  already  mentioned  diet.  All  the  food  was  dusted  with  calcium 
and  Abidec  drops  added  as  well  as  the  multi-vitamin  powder.  Over  the  next 
few  days  activity  seemed  to  die  down  and  on  8th  May  an  inspection  of  the 
box  revealed  nothing,  no  sign  of  eggs  or  chicks. 

The  Rollers  carried  on  going  in  and  out  of  the  box  during  the  rest  of  May 
and  on  28th  June  quite  distinct  chick-like  noises  could  be  heard  from  the 
box.  The  food  was  as  before  with  the  addition  of  cockroaches.  As  the  days 
went  by  the  noise  from  the  box  increased.  Both  parents  carried  food,  mostly 
live  food,  into  the  box. 

On  21st  July  the  box  was  inspected  and  one  really  healthy  looking  chick 
was  observed.  It  was  nearly  as  large  as  the  parents,  fully  feathered  with  the 
same  markings  but  much  duller  colours,  with  a  very  short  tail  and  no  tail 
streamers. 

On  23rd  July  the  chick  left  the  nest  box.  It  spent  most  of  the  next  day  on 
the  aviary  floor  beneath  the  box  but  by  the  next  day  was  perching  alongside 
its  parents,  who  both  continually  fed  it.  On  1st  July  the  male  Roller  suddenly 
became  more  protective  towards  the  youngster  and  spent  the  next  two  weeks 
attacking  any  of  the  keepers  who  ventured  into  the  aviary. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  during  the  nesting  and  rearing  periods  the 
Rollers  showed  no  aggression  towards  the  Green  Wood  Hoopoes,  even  all¬ 
owing  them  to  perch  on  top  of  the  nest  box  which  contained  the  young  bird. 

At  the  time  of  writing,  16th  February,  1979,  the  young  Roller  is  fine  and 
locked  with  its  parents  in  the  heated  shelter  attached  to  the  aviary.  It  is 
suspected  to  be  a  male  by  its  general  build. 

As  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  this  is  the  first  breeding  in  this  country. 


As  recorded  above,  the  Lilac-breasted  Roller  Coracias  caudata  has  been 
bred  at  the  Cotswold  Wildlife  Park  and  this  is  believed  to  be  the  first 
success  in  this  country.  Anyone  knowing  of  a  previous  breeding  in  Great 
Britain  or  Northern  Ireland  is  asked  to  inform  the  Hon.  Secretary. 


63 


BREEDING  LATERALLUS LEU COPY RRHUS 


By  L.  GIBSON,  (Burnaby,  B.C.) 

This  bird  is  known  variously  as  the  White-breasted  Rail,  Red-and-white 
Rail  and  Brazilian  Rail  (or  crake).  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  dissimilar 
words  “Rail”  and  “Crake”  both  have  their  origin  in  onomatopoeic  attempts 
at  describing  the  noise  made  by  the  bird.  Almost  certainly  the  original  bird 
described  was  the  European  Corncrake  Crex  crex.  The  scientific  name  is  a 
fair  rendering  of  that  bird’s  call. 

The  Red-and-white  Rail  is  a  typical  Rallus,  with  the  black  and  white  bars 
on  the  sides.  This  pattern  is  so  common  world-wide,  and  it  is  beyond  me 
why  such  similar  birds  are  split  into  several  genera.  This  one  is,  however,  one 
of  the  more  colourful  rails,  being  basically  a  bright  ginger  to  chestnut  red, 
with  a  white  breast.  The  bill  is  yellow  and  green,  and  the  iris  of  the  eye  is  a 
beautiful  billiard-ball  red.  Even  the  legs  are  a  colourful  reddish-pink,  much 
like  the  Redlegged  Honeycreeper  C.  cyaneaus  in  colour. 

Almost  no  information  is  available  on  the  bird  in  the  wild,  other  than  that 
it  comes  from  Brazil  and  neighbouring  countries.  It  must  be  fairly  common 
as  it  has  been  the  only  rail  to  show  up  the  bird  trade,  and  consequently 
some  have  appeared  in  private  collections.  Normally  this  group  of  birds  is 
seen  only  in  zoos,  and  only  occasionally  at  that. 

Leucopyrrhus  is  probably  unusual  in  the  group  in  that  it  spends  much,  if 
not  all,  of  its  spare  time  in  bushes,  trees  or  other  high  spots  in  the  aviary. 
Dense  foliage  is  preferred.  On  the  ground,  the  bird  likes  to  be  within 
sprinting  distance  of  cover,  and  will  work  its  way  up  if  possible.  However,  if 
not  disturbed  it  will  walk  about,  bathe  and  feed  in  full  view  and  indeed  will 
come  running  for  a  mealworm. 

They  are  very  quiet  birds  and  communicate  with  a  single  low  whistle.  A 
few  extra  calls  are  added  when  chicks  are  around.  They  are  peaceful  and  do 
not  molest  small  birds  even  when  they  (the  Rails)  are  breeding.  However, 
their  bush-walking  habits  could  disturb  other  nesting  birds.  They  have  one 
drawback  in  that  they  find  nests  irresistible  and  like  to  see  how  many  of  their 
group  can  pile  into  one  nest.  I  have  seen  four  squeeze  into  a  canary  basket. 
The  long  legs  and  large  feet  make  them  look  much  larger  than  they  actually 
are.  An  adult  bird  weighs  around  only  40g  (about  an  ounce  and  a  half). 

The  feathers  are  very  soft,  even  on  the  wings  and  tail,  and  they  are 
apparently  quite  waterproof.  Even  after  total  immersion  in  water,  the  rails 
never  become  bedraggled  and  flightless  like  my  other  (passerine)  birds. 
Bathing  is  amusing  to  watch.  They  like  deepish  water  and  wade  in  to  the 
depth  of  their  long  legs.  Then  they  do  several  rapid  knee-bends,  immersing 
themselves  entirely.  They  finally  retire  to  some  high  foliage  where  a  long 
time  is  spent  preening.  Mutual  preening  is  rarely  indulged  in.  Baths  are 
often  taken  several  times  a  day,  and  commonly  in  the  late  evening.  It  was 


64 


L.  GIBSON  —  BREEDING  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus 


never  ascertained  if  the  birds  could  actually  swim,  as  a  large  enough  volume 
of  water  was  not  supplied.  As  every  experienced  aviculturist  knows,  water 
can  be  dangerous  in  an  aviary,  especially  to  chicks. 

The  small,  rounded  wings  are  rarely  used  for  normal  flight  —  at  least  not 
in  the  confines  of  a  small  aviary.  They  are  used  to  give  the  bird  a  flying  start 
when  running  up  a  bush,  and  for  balance  when  walking  along  a  narrow 
branch.  The  bird  usually  flies  the  last  little  bit  to  the  ground  after  walking 
down  through  the  foliage  to  a  clear  space.  Even  this  short  flight  is  taken  only 
after  much  hesitation  and  then  only  after  the  bird  has  checked  several  times 
that  there  are  no  suitable  pathways  to  walk  down. 

Sexing 

Three  birds  were  almost  identical  in  colouring,  but  one  was  noticeably  la¬ 
rger  than  the  other  two.  The  4th  had  the  same  feather  pattern,  with  the  typ¬ 
ical  bars  on  the  flank,  but  its  colouring  was  different.  Where  the  others  were 
red,  this  bird  was  a  light  greyish  brown.  It  had  black  eyes  and  blackish  brown 
legs.  At  first  it  was  thought  to  be  an  immature  bird  and  later  thought  to  be  a 
hen.  It  was  finally  concluded  that  it  was  a  closely  related  (and  as  yet 
unidentified)  species.  Of  the  red  birds,  the  largest  one  had  a  lighter  ginger-red 
head  and  neck.  The  two  smaller  birds  were  identical  to  each  other,  being  a 
darker  chestnut  colour. 

This  difference  in  colour  could  only  be  seen  when  the  birds  were  together 
at  close  quarters,  and  in  good  light. 

The  only  record  on  these  birds  that  I  have  read  was  a  breeding  account  by 
C.  Everitt  of  the  Boehm  Aviaries,  Trenton,  New  Jersey.  Although  these 
birds  were  banded,  Everitt  could  see  no  difference  between  them  in  the  large 
aviary,  and  he  did  not  record  a  difference  in  size. 

I  am  fairly  sure  that  the  large  bird  was  a  hen,  and  the  two  smaller  ones 
males.  The  odd  one  remains  a  mystery,  but  I  think  it  would  be  a  hen.  Sexing 
was  complicated  by  the  fact  that  all  4  birds  shared  every  activity,  from 
incubating  to  feeding  and  brooding  the  chick.  The  largest  birds’  legs  were  ' ' 
(7mm  longer)  that  the  2^"  (65mm)  of  the  two  small  birds.  It  was  made  even 
taller  by  the  obviously  larger  head  on  a  stouter  neck  and  at  43. 2g.,  it  was  the 
heaviest.  The  two  smaller  birds  weighed  37.5  and  40g.,  with  the  odd  one 
weighing  in  at  42g.  So  size  and  weight  would  be  a  good  means  of  sexing  them. 
Housing 

Nesting  took  place  in  a  densely  planted  conservatory  which  was  described 
in  the  ‘Avicultural  Magazine’  article  on  Pekin  Robins  (No.  1  Vol  84  1978). 
Nesting 

These  birds  roost  in  a  nest  all  the  year  round.  They  will  utilise  any  suitable 
nest,  or  use  an  open-topped  box  or  basket.  As  a  last  resort,  they  will  build  a 
nest  of  their  own.  The  roosting  nest  is  less  elaborate  than  the  breeding  nest. 
My  birds  used  an  open  cardboard  box  61/2"  X  61/2"  X  5"  deep  (16.5  X  16.5 
X  13cm).  Some  dry  grass  had  been  put  in  the  box,  and  for  roosting  the  birds 
twisted  this  into  a  nest  and  added  a  few  leaves.  The  nest  is  semi-domed,  like  a 
normal  nest  tilted  at  45°. 


L.  GIBSON  —  BREEDING  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus 


65 


When  breeding  is  imminent  a  more  substantial  nest  is  made.  This  consisted 
of  adding  a  thick  lining  of  leaves  to  the  roosting  nest.  Large  or  long  leaves 
(bamboo)  were  used  and  were  pasted  on  when  wet  to  give  a  smooth  interior. 
Leaves  were  piled  into  the  water  dish  for  several  days  until  they  were  soft  and 
workable.  Leaves  in  the  water  dish  are  a  good  indication  that  breeding  is 
underway,  providing  of  course  that  there  is  no  other  source  of  wet  leaves.  As 
the  conservatory  was  fully  enclosed,  fallen  leaves  were  rather  dry.  Failure  to 
provide  a  source  of  wet  leaves  may  result  in  an  atypical  nest  being  built,  or 
may  even  hold  up  breeding.  Only  once  was  a  nest  built  without  the  use  of 
artificial  support.  It  was  made  by  the  large  red  (hen)  without  any  help  from 
the  others.  This  nest  consisted  of  a  large  pile  of  soft  wet  leaves  with  a  thick 
base.  The  heap  was  7"  (18cm)  deep  and  6  —  9"  (15  — 23cm)  across.  It  was 
placed  almost  7 '  (2m)  up  in  a  dense  Honeysuckle  Lonicera.  The  bird  carried 
up  the  large  wet  leaves  one  at  a  time,  and  had  some  difficulty  getting  them 
through  the  tangle  of  growth. 

Because  of  the  nesting  activities  of  other  birds  in  the  aviary,  the  Rails  were 
all  moved  out  before  this  natural  nest  could  be  used.  Although  their  new 
accommodation  was  a  large,  well-planted,  outdoor  aviary,  which  was  shared 
by  some  Mousebirds  (Colius),  the  Rails  unfortunately  ceased  all  breeding 
activity  —  probably  because  of  the  move. 

Eggs 

Two  eggs  were  laid.  The  egg  is  white,  rather  sharply  tapered  and  huge.  It 
weighs  about  8.5g,  which  is  20%  of  the  weight  of  the  adult  bird,  (or  even 
more  if  the  largest  bird  was  not  the  hen).  In  the  Kiwi  class,  this  is  comparable 
to  a  breakfast  egg  of  half-a-pound  or  more.  The  egg  was  llA"  X  almost  1" 
(32  X  25mm),  and  the  shell  was  thick.  The  incubation  period  was  not  noted, 
as  the  exact  day  of  laying  was  missed. 

A  chick  hatched  on  April  29th  (1977),  so  breeding  had  commenced  early  in 
the  season.  The  other  egg  had  not  hatched  two  days  later,  so  it  was  chipped 
open.  A  well-developed  dead  chick  was  found  inside. 

Young 

The  chick  was  fascinating  to  watch.  It  was  jet  black  all  over,  save  for  a 
white  tip  on  the  upper  mandible.  It  had  black  furry  down  and  barely 
discernible  wings.  The  feet  were  huge,  and  the  whole  effect  looked  like  a 
stuffed  toy.  Within  two  hours  of  hatching  it  had  left  the  nest,  (this  was  not 
observed)  and  was  seen  following  an  adult  rather  unsteadily.  By  the  next  day 
it  was  quite  steady  and  a  lot  faster.  It  followed  whatever  adult  happened  to  be 
passing.  This  did  not  seem  to  matter,  as  all  four  adults  fussed  over  it.  When 
approached  by  a  human,  it  did  not  ‘freeze’  as  noted  by  Everitt,  but  simply 
went  on  its  way.  At  this  early  stage,  at  least  one  (cock)  bird  would  divebomb 
an  intruder’s  head,  and  all  the  birds  would  set  up  an  agitated  clucking. 

At  the  age  of  two  days  it  was  running  over  the  whole  length  of  the  aviary, 
and  was  seen  to  drink  by  itself.  The  chick  was  unable  to  get  back  to  the  nest  at 
night  (as  reported  in  the  Boehm  Aviaries),  and  it  was  brooded  on  the  ground 
by  all  of  the  adults.  At  night  it  jumped  on  the  back  of  an  adult  (usually  a  small 


66 


L.  GIBSON  —  BREEDING  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus 


red),  and  was  covered  completely  by  the  wings.  The  adult  bird  simply 
crouched  on  the  ground  at  whatever  spot  it  happened  to  be  in  when  darkness 
fell.  The  chick  slept  in  this  fashion  for  at  least  the  first  week. 

The  chick  was  fed  by  all  of  the  adults,  and  was  also  preened  by  them.  The 
hen  was  particularly  active  in  preening  and  was  seen  to  lift  the  little  one  off 
the  ground  by  its  down  feathers.  Especially  in  the  first  few  days,  the  chick 
was  fed  by  the  brooding  bird,  which  was  in  turn  given  food  by  one  of  the 
others.  During  the  day  the  chick  was  usually  underneath  the  brooding  bird, 
and  occasionally  on  its  back.  At  night  it  always  slept  on  the  adult’s  back, 
while  it  was  still  small  enough  to  do  so. 

An  approaching  bird  would  run  up  with  food  and  offer  it  to  the  brooder. 
The  exchange  was  accompanied  by  a  few  little  clucks.  The  brooder  in  turn 
clucked  to  the  chick,  which  would  pop  its  head  out  from  underneath  the 
adult’s  feathers.  The  chick  was  then  offered  the  food,  which  it  had  to  take 
from  the  adult’s  beak.  It  was  never  fed  down  the  throat,  nor  did  it  gape.  The 
inside  of  the  mouth  (and  the  tongue)  was  dark  grey. 

It  was  not  ascertained  at  what  age  the  chick  was  completely  self-supporting, 
but  at  two  to  three  weeks  the  adults  became  less  concerned  about  it.  If  the 
aviary  was  entered,  the  parents  left  the  chick  to  escape  by  itself,  which  it  did 
at  high  speed.  It  remained  at  ground  level  all  this  time,  and  was  never  heard 
to  cheep. 

At  three  weeks  of  age  the  ivory  tip  had  almost  disappeared  from  the  beak. 
An  ivory  patch  had  developed  at  the  base  of  the  top  mandible  and  was 
beginning  to  take  on  the  yellow-green  of  the  adult,  and  a  few  white  streaks 
were  appearing  on  the  breast.  At  this  age  it  was  moved  to  an  outside  aviary, 
and  by  the  second  night  it  had  found  its  way  into  the  original  nest,  which  had 
been  put  in  a  bush  at  a  height  of  2ft  (60cm).  It  then  roosted  there  with  one  or 
other  of  the  adults.  The  other  three  remained,  as  usual,  in  the  highest  foliage 
in  the  aviary.  At  30  days  old,  the  chick  could  be  seen  in  the  topmost  branches, 
and  from  then  on  all  five  birds  roosted  in  a  box  at  a  height  of  6 (2m).  The 
chick  was  by  now  the  tamest  bird  of  the  five,  and  so  it  remained. 

At  this  stage  it  was  moulting  its  baby  wing  feathers.  The  replacement  of 
the  black  down  was  very  gradual,  beginning  on  the  breast.  Then  the  head 
and  neck  became  reddish,  the  colour  change  spreading  gradually  towards  the 
tail.  However,  many  dark  feathers  remained  all  over,  so  that  when  the  bird 
was  fully  grown,  it  had  a  very  dark  overall  appearance. 

By  six  weeks  of  age,  the  chick  was  as  large  as  the  biggest  adult  (hen)  when 
the  chick  was  weighed  at  14  weeks,  it  was  found  to  be  the  heaviest  bird  at  46g. 
and  was  thus  presumed  to  be  a  hen.  It  had  weighed  7.8g.  at  birth,  and  the 
only  other  time  it  was  weighed  was  at  1 1  days,  when  it  was  18. 5g.  By  now  the 
eye  was  a  dull  red  and  the  legs  were  reddish-brown  (the  eyes  and  legs  being 
black  previously). 

All  the  Rails  were  then  disposed  of  to  the  local  zoo.  Because  of  the  large  size 
of  the  aviary  they  were  put  in,  it  has  not  (so  far)  been  determined  when  the 
chick  acquired  the  tull  adult  colouring.  All  the  birds  remain  well  there  at  the 


L.  GIBSON  —  BREEDING  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus 


67 


time  of  writing  (some  4  months  later)  and  the  chick  still  had  some  dark 
feathers  at  the  age  of  8  months. 

Feeding 

The  chick  was  rasied  on  the  adults'  diet  without  the  use  of  live  food.  For 
the  first  three  or  four  weeks  it  was  fed  almost  exclusively  on  scrambled  egg 
and  soft  bread  and  margarine.  Mealworms  were  only  given  twice,  and  the 
adult  who  found  them  first  immediately  took  them  to  the  chick.  The 
mealworms  were  offered  straight  to  the  chick  without  them  being  killed  or 
pre-softened.  The  chick  gobbled  them  up  without  any  pre-manipulation. 

The  Rails  are  about  the  only  birds  I  have  who  eat  dry  dog  kibble  (chow) 
powder  voluntarily  (i.e.  when  other  food  is  still  available).  It  was  unlikely 
that  the  powder  was  fed  to  the  chick,  because  of  transportation  problems,  but 
later  the  chick  ate  this  alongside  the  adults.  The  chick  was  first  seen  eating  by 
itself  at  13  days,  but  it  was  almost  certainly  doing  so  many  days  before. 

The  adult  birds  also  ate  some  rice  pudding  and  drank  milk  nectar,  which 
had  been  put  in  for  the  Cyanerpes  and  Zosterops ,  which  shared  the  aviary. 
The  rails  never  molested  these  little  birds. 

The  Laterallus  love  garden  worms  and  any  kind  of  insect,  but  these  birds 
did  so  well  on  the  manufactured  diet  that  live  food  was  rarely  offered.  They 
were  never  seen  to  eat  green  food  and  it  was  never  offered  in  the  feeding  dish. 
However  it  was  difficult  to  check  if  they  were  eating  it  or  not  in  the  densely 
planted  aviary.  Millet  seed  was  consumed  regularly  whenever  it  was  given. 
This  was  offered  mainly  in  winter  just  in  case  they  had  been  eating  naturally 
available  greens  in  summer.  Fruit  was  ignored.  No  doubt  they  would  eat 
poultry  meal. 

Health 

When  first  acquired,  all  the  birds  were  thin,  and  heavily  infested  with  a 
small  strongyloid  nematode.  These  roundworms  were  easily  removed  by 
giving  each  bird  an  unmeasured  pinch  of  Thiabendazole,  washed  down  with 
water,  on  two  successive  days.  The  Rails  remained  healthy  and  moulted  well 
on  the  somewhat  restricted  diet  outlined  above. 

They  were  wintered  outside  in  the  conservatory,  with  temperatures  touching 
freezing  at  times.  Now  they  are  enjoying  a  deserved  life  of  luxury  in  the  more 
comfortable  surroundings  of  a  tropical  aviary  at  Stanley  Park  Zoo,  in 
Vancouver.  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  are  only  next  door  to  their  old  friends  the 
Mousebirds,  —  more  of  which  anon. 


68 


BREEDING  NOTES  ON  THE  ACORN  WOODPECKER 

Melanerpes  formicivorus 

AT  THE  HOUSTON  ZOOLOGICAL  GARDENS 
By  WILLIAM  Todd  (Senior  Keeper,  Tropical  Bird  House) 

Although  breeding  of  the  Acorn  Woodpecker  has  been  recorded  at  least 
once  previously  (Callegari,  1966),  we  feel  it  important  to  present  what  has 
occurred  with  this  species  at  the  Houston  Zoological  Gardens. 

We  received  our  original  pair  as  a  donation  in  May  1972  from  a  private 
aviculturist  who  had  imported  them  from  Mexico.  Although  we  have  been 
unable  to  examine  study  skins  or  fina  adequate  descriptions  of  the  8  subspecies 
recorded  by  Peters  (1948),  it  is  the  nominate  form  he  lists  as  occurring 
throughout  Mexico,  and  I  would  suppose  our  specimens  to  be  representative 
of  this  race. 

The  Acorn  or  Ant-eating  Woodpecker  (in  older  literature  the  bird  will  be 
listed  under  the  generic  name  of  Balanosphyra,  which,  in  1951,  was  reduced 
to  subgenus  of  Melanerpes  by  the  American  Ornithologists’  Union)  is  generally 
coterminous  with  the  Western  oak  forests  of  North  America,  ranging  from 
Oregon,  south  through  California,  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  western  Texas, 
into  Mexico  and  Central  America  to  Panama. 

Outstanding,  colourful  birds,  they  exhibit  subtle,  yet  definite  sexual 
differentiation.  On  both  cock  and  hen,  the  beak  is  black,  as  is  the  feathering 
immediately  surrounding  the  beak;  the  lores,  chin  and  throat  are  a  yellowed 
white;  the  eye-line,  occiput,  nape  and  back,  upper  breast,  wings  and  tail  are 
black;  the  belly  and  rump,  white;  the  sides  and  lower  breast,  white  streaked 
with  black;  the  feet  grey,  the  forehead  and  crown  of  the  cock  are  scarlet  and 
his  irides  a  golden  yellow.  Across  the  forehead  of  the  hen,  and  continuous 
with  the  eye-line  is  a  black  band,  separating  the  yellowed  white  of  the  lores 
from  the  scarlet  crown;  her  irides  are  a  less  conspicuous  brown. 

Throughout  much  of  their  range,  and  as  long  as  the  season  permits,  the 
birds  subsist  on  acorns,  yet  a  large  variety  of  foods  has  been  recorded, 
including  cultivated  almonds,  sap  extracted  from  trees,  insects  captured  on 
the  wing,  and  even  lizards  and  bird  eggs.  Although  jhey  chisel  holes  for 
obtaining  sap  and  storing  acorns  or  nuts,  these  woodpeckers  appear  to  have 
abandoned  the  more  traditional  habit  of  drilling  for  larvae  of  wood-boring 
insects  (MacRoberts,  1972).  As  might  be  expected,  they  nest  in  holes  excavated 
in  trees,  but  they  are  unusual  in  that  a  pair  may  be  aided  in  nesting  duties  by 
unpaired  adults  (Skutch,  1943).  When  not  nesting,  they  often  travel  in  small 
flocks  and  may  all  sleep  together  in  the  same  hole. 

Our  pair  of  birds  was  housed  in  a  large  glass-fronted  exhibit  of  mixed 
species  when  the  present  curator,  Robert  J.  Berry,  assumed  this  position  in 
1972.  In  August  of  that  year  he  had  them  isolated  in  a  smaller  glass-fronted, 
sky-lighted  exhibit  measuring  approximately  8  X  12  X  12  feet,  due  to  their 
continual  soiling  of  the  walls  in  the  larger  exhibit  by  defecation  in  flight.  A 


W.  TODD  -  BREEDING  THE  ACORN  WOODPECKER 


69 


standard  nest  box  I2n  X  I2n  X20n  with  a  4"  diameter  hole  was  hung  high 
on  the  wall  of  the  exhibit  facing  the  glass.  To  the  satisfaction  of  the  staff  the 
birds  began  nesting  in  the  spring  of  1974,  but  the  first  clutch  of  4  eggs 
reported  on  May  15  did  not  hatch,  nor  did  the  2  eggs  found  on  June  24,  and  it 
was  not  until  August  29  that  they  were  successful  in  hatching  3  young. 
Unfortunately,  the  chicks  were  found  dead  on  the  cage  floor  on  September  6. 
On  December  31,  2  additional  young  were  hatched  after  an  incubation  of 
about  15  days.  On  3  January,  1975,  1  of  these  chicks  was  found  dead  on  the 
cage  floor,  and  on  the  curator's  advice,  the  second  chick  was  removed  from 
the  nest  to  be  hand-reared.  Food  consisted  of  Purina  Cat  Chow  softened  in 
water,  and  Zu-Preem  Bird  of  Prey  Diet.  Rearing  progressed  well  until  the 
chick  suddenly  became  gravely  ill,  refusing  further  food.  Near  death,  it  was 
given  an  injection  of  Gentocyn  and  made  a  dynamic  recovery  to  be  raised  to 
maturity. 

On  March  18,  2  more  chicks  were  hatched  and  successfully  reared  by  the 
parents,  fledging  about  a  month  later  on  April  16.  The  juvenal  plumage  of 
the  birds  resembled  in  pattern  that  of  an  adult  male,  but  duller  with  black 
feathers  interspersed  in  the  scarlet  of  the  crown.  The  black  forehead  band 
distinguishing  the  hen  appears  with  the  post- juvenal  moult.  Fear  that  the 
exhibit  cage  would  prove  too  small  for  more  than  the  pair  of  birds  prompted 
the  removal  of  the  young,  which,  given  a  more  spacious  situation  might  have 
assisted  with  future  broods  as  reported  of  wild  birds,  on  May  21  when 
another  chick  was  reported  to  have  hatched.  Two  weeks  later,  however,  the 
nestling,  still  with  unopened  eyes  but  sprouting  feathers,  was  found  dead  on 
the  gravel  floor,  apparently  thrown  from  the  nest. 

Throughout  the  breeding  history  of  our  pair  of  birds,  there  have  been 
numerous  instances  of  eggs,  both  fertile  and  clear,  broken  or  consumed  by 
the  parents,  as  well  as  chicks  of  various  ages  thrown  from  the  nestbox.  One 
may  only  speculate  about  the  motivation  of  such  destructive  behaviour. 
Perhaps  the  infrequent  but  inevitable  human  interference;  the  birds  are  by 
no  means  tame  and  protest  the  least  intrustion  vociferously.  And  although 
we  have  done  our  best  to  minimize  the  disturbance  of  maintenance  during 
nesting  periods,  the  stream  of  faces  at  the  exhibit  window  no  doubt  contributes 
to  their  insecurity. 

The  most  recent  successful  hatching  was  around  mid-September  1975, 
the  chick  not  actually  being  discovered  until  the  29th  of  the  month  already 
sprouting  feathers.  The  single  chick  fledged  successfully  and  was  well  cared 
for  by  its  parents,  but  in  December  it  was  noticed  that  the  maxilla  was  being 
deformed  by  a  buildup  of  food  material  on  the  palate.  Following  capture  and 
removal  of  the  debris  and  necrotic  tissue,  the  bird  was  returned  to  the 
company  of  its  parents.  The  trouble  was  determined  to  have  been  caused  by 
the  addition  of  Flamenoil  to  the  soaked  Dog  Chow  (see  below)  giving  it  a 
gummy  consistency.  This  knowledge  came  too  late,  however;  although  use  of 
the  supplement  was  discontinued,  the  trouble  persisted,  and  in  January  of 
1976,  the  bird  was  removed  to  the  zoo  clinic  where  it  died  of  sinusitis  on  the 
13th. 


70 


W.  TODD  -  BREEDING  THE  ACORN  WOODPECKER 


Since  the  last  successful  fledging,  several  more  clutches  of  eggs  have  been 
laid,  but  unfortunately  all  have  been  destroyed  by  the  adults  prior  to  hatching. 
Planned  relocation  of  the  pair  to  a  more  suitable  facility  may  induce  further 
reproduction. 

The  adult  woodpeckers  are  provided  with  a  varied  diet  of  Purina  Dog 
Chow  soaked  in  water,  small  amounts  of  Zu-Preem  Bird  of  Prey  Diet, 
sunflower  seeds,  unshelled  peanuts,  small  amounts  of  mixed  fruit  (diced 
apple,  papaya,  raisins),  chopped  endive,  commercial  mynah  bird  pellets 
and  a  few  mealworms.  In  addition,  part  of  an  ear  of  corn  and  half  an  apple, 
diced  in  the  peel,  are  affixed  to  the  tree,  and  acorns  are  provided  in  season. 
The  diet  is  supplemented  by  a  sprinkling  of  Paltone  animal  vitamins  and 
oyster  flour  on  food  items  every  other  day.  It  was  originally  found  necessary 
to  stuff  the  crevices  of  the  exhibit  branches  with  peanuts  and  bits  of  meat 
until  the  birds  became  accustomed  to  eating  from  a  tray  placed  on  the  cage 
floor. 

When  feeding  young,  the  birds  are  provided  with  additional  live  food: 
decapitated  crickets  (the  undigestible  chitinous  heads  may  obstruct  the  ali¬ 
mentary  tract)  are  supplied  several  times  a  day  as  well  as  occasional  newborn 
mice. 

The  parents  feed  at  intervals  of  about  10  minutes,  snatching  a  morsel  and 
flying  to  a  favoured  perch  crevice  where  they  hammer  it  into  an  edible  state 
before  proceeding  to  the  nestbox. 

When  not  breeding,  the  parents  spend  a  great  deal  of  time  “storing  food”, 
in  particular  peanuts  and  mynah  bird  pellets,  either  in  holes  they  themselves 
have  drilled,  or  in  convenient  ducts  from  which  such  items  may  never  be 
recovered. 

Serious  aggression  between  the  adult  birds  has  never  been  noted  although 
threats  and  attacks  have  occasionally  been  directed  at  their  reflections  in  the 
exhibit  glass. 


REFERENCES 

CALLEGARI,  E.  1966.  Breeding  of  the  Acorn  Woodpecker.  Avicultural  Magazine,  72:78. 

MACROBERTS,  H.  1970.  Notes  on  the  Food  Habits  and  Food  Defense  of  the  Acorn 
Woodpecker.  Condor,  72:  196—204 

PETERS,  J.  L.  1948.  Checklist  of  Birds  of  the  World.  Vol.  VI.  Cambridge,  Massachusetts: 
Harvard  University  Press. 

SKUTCH,  A.  F.  1943.  Family  Life  of  Central  American  Woodpeckers.  Scientific  Monthly, 
56:358-364. 

WETMORE,  A.  et  al.  1951.  Twenty-sixth  Supplement  to  the  American  Ornithologists 
Union  Checklist  of  North  American  Birds.  Auk,  68:  367—369. 

PRODUCTS  MENTIONED  IN  THE  TEXT 

PALTONE  POWDER:  manufactured  by  Pitman-Moore  Inc.,  Washington  Crossing,  New 
Jersey  08560. 

PURINA  Dog  Chow:  manufactured  by  Ralston-Purina  Company,  General  Offices, 
Checkerboard  Square,  St.  Louis,  Missouri  63188. 

Zu/Preem  Bird-Of-Prey  Diet:  manufactured  by  Riviana  Foods  Inc.,  Hills  Division, 
Topeka,  Kansas  66601. 

Flamenoil  Dietary  Colour  SUPPLEMENT:  manufactured  by  Nutritional  Research 
Associates,  South  Whitley,  Indiana  46787.  46787. 


71 


A  HYBRID  HUMMINGBIRD  REARED 

Colibri  coruscans  x  Colibri  thalassinus 
By  R.  J.  Elgar  (Manchester) 

By  late  spring  1978,  my  male  Brown  Violetear  Colibri  delphinae  and 
female  Green  Violetear  C.  thalassinus  had  both  moulted  and  I  was  hoping 
for  a  repeat  of  the  breeding  I  had  in  1977  (Elgar,  1977).  Unfortunately, 
early  in  June  the  male  Brown  Violetear  died,  while  at  the  time,  the  female 
Green  Violetear  was  active,  attaching  spider’s  web  to  several  plant  stems  in 
the  flight. 

At  this  time  I  had  been  unable  to  acquire  a  male  Green  Violetear  and  the 
female  seemed  unwilling  to  accept  display  and  mating  from  male 
hummingbirds  of  a  different  genus  to  herself.  After  a  lot  of  thought,  I 
introduced  a  male  Sparkling  Violetear  C.  coruscans.  This  species  is  notoriously 
aggressive  and  will  vigorously  defend  its  singing  perch  and  feeding  tube.  I 
have  three  males  of  this  species,  so  I  introduced  the  smaller  and  less 
aggressive  of  them  and  it  settled  down  without  causing  trouble  to  the  rest  of 
the  hummingbirds. 


DISTRIBUTION  AND  DESCRIPTION  OF  SPARKLING  VIOLETEAR 
Distribution:  Forest,  scrub  and  pasture  land.  Subtropical  to  temperate 
zones  of  Venezuela,  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Peru,  Bolivia  and  north-western 
Argentina. 

My  bird  was  imported  from  Ecuador  in  March  1976  and  is  probably  C.  c. 
coruscans. 

Description:  It  is  a  large  hummingbird,  at  least  5  —  5 All  the  upper 
plumage  is  shining  green.  The  lower  parts  are  shining  green,  with  the  chin, 
upper  throat  and  patch  on  centre  of  breast,  violet  blue.  Patch  below  eye 
prolonged  over  ear-coverts  and  meeting  on  nape  violet.  Central  tail  feathers 
greenish  blue,  the  rest  brilliant  dark  blue,  with  a  deep  purplish  blue 
subterminal  band. 


DISTRIBUTION  AND  DESCRIPTION  OF  GREEN  VIOLETEAR 
The  bird  I  own  is  probably  C.  t.  cyanatus ,  which  prefers  forest  and  scrub 
in  subtropical  zones  in  the  mountains  of  Venezuela,  Colombia,  Ecuador 
and  Peru. 

Description:  A  medium  sized  hummingbird,  just  under  4in.  Body  plumage 
shining  green,  glittering  green  on  throat  and  breast.  Patch  below  eye 
prolonged  over  ear-coverts,  violet  blue.  Tail  green  with  subterminal  blue 
black  band. 


72 


R.  J.  ELGAR  -  HYBRID  HUMMING  BIRD  REARED 


DISPLAY  OF  THE  SPARKLING  VIOLETEAR 
Apart  from  the  White-vented  Violetear  C.  serrirostris,  I  have,  over  the  years, 
observed  numbers  of  the  rest  of  the  genus  and  have  found  great  similarity 
in  their  displays.  The  male  Sparkling  Violetear’s  display  can  be  divided  into 
three  phases:  — 

1.  Male  perched  on  one  of  the  three  display  perches  in  the  flight,  which 
he  uses  regularly,  utters  short  burst  of  song,  interrupted  by  his  advert¬ 
ising  call.  While  making  calls,  he  will  vibrate  his  wings  vigorously  at  a 
45°  angle,  at  the  same  time  leaning  slightly  backwards  to  show  violet 
patch  on  breast;  and  with  ear-patches  extended. 

2.  After  phase  one,  he  flies  straight  up  with  a  slow  floating  wing  beat, 
swaying  from  side  to  side,  to  a  height  of  about  fifteen  inches  above  his 
perch,  which  he  then  slowly  descends  to.  He  will  repeat  this  several 
times,  usually  singing,  until  a  female  is  attracted  to  the  vicinity  of  his 
perch. 

3.  The  male  will  then  fly  to  the  female  and  hover  in  front  of  her  with  his 
bill  pressed  into  the  female’s  lower  breast  or  vent  area,  swinging  the 
rest  of  his  body  from  side  to  side:  his  ear-patches  extended,  and  singing 
continuously.  This  lasts  only  a  few  seconds;  he  will  then  quickly  fly 
round  the  back  of  her  and,  with  bill  pressed  to  her  nape,  mate. 

NESTING  ACTIVITY  1977-  1978 

In  1977  the  female  nested  on  four  occasions,  twice  in  nests  constructed 
by  herself  and  on  both  occasions  the  eggs  laid  were  infertile.  She  nested 
twice  in  nests  constructed  by  myself  —  hatching  three  chicks  —  but  reared 
only  one  to  independence. 

In  1978,  her  first  nest  was  made  by  myself,  using  the  method  I  have 
previously  described  (1977).  On  this  occasion  though,  she  attached  dark 
brown  moss  to  the  sides  of  the  nest,  covering  the  light  grey  sphagnum  moss 
I  had  used.  The  nest  was  placed  on  a  horizontal  stem  of  a  Arrow-headed 
Vine  Syngonium  vellozianum ,  some  twenty-four  inches  from  the  floor.  This 
plant  grows  from  the  floor  and  clings  against  some  of  my  flight  cages.  The 
female  had  chosen  this  site,  by  starting  to  build  there,  before  I  provided  my 
man-made  nest. 


EGG  LAYING  AND  INCUBATION 

The  first  egg  was  laid  22.6.78,  and  the  second  25.6.78.  Incubation 
commenced  on  the  25th.  As  I  had  not  witnessed  any  display  or  mating 
between  her  and  the  male  Sparkling  Violetear,  I  presumed  that  the  eggs 
would  be  infertile,  but  rather  than  remove  immediately,  I  thought  I  would 
let  the  female  incubate  them  for  a  week  or  two.  The  following  week-end  I 
was  cleaning  the  flight  cages  as  usual.  When  I  started  the  cage  where  the 
nest  was  only  inches  away  from  my  face  the  female  left  the  nest  to  feed,  and 
I  looked  at  the  eggs.  To  my  surprise  they  were  both  fertile.  I  carefully  left 


Newly  hatched 


Ten  days  old 


Twenty  days  old 


Twenty-six  days  old 


R.  J.  ELGAR  -  HYBRID  HUMMING  BIRD  REARED 


73 


the  bird  room  and  allowed  the  female  to  return  to  the  nest. 

Until  the  second  egg  was  laid,  she  only  incubated  at  night.  The  first  egg 
hatched  at  8.30  pm  on  8.8.78,  some  sixteen  days  after  being  laid,  and 
thirteen  days  after  incubation  started  in  earnest. 

The  second  egg  hatched  at  7.00  am  on  10.7.78,  fifteen  days  after  being 
laid.  With  the  thirty-four  hour  gap  between  the  chicks  hatching,  there  was 
from  the  beginning  a  noticeable  difference  in  their  size. 


From  my  notebook: 

“July  13th.  First  chick  has  pin  feathers  showing,  second  chick  very 
small  but  healthy. 

July  17th.  First  chick's  eyes  open,  pin  feathers  starting  to  open, 
second  chick  very  weak,  no  noticeable  development  for  several  days. 

July  18th.  Morning,  second  chick  dead  in  nest  underneath  the  first 
chick. 

July  19th.  Remaining  chick’s  feathers  showing  well,  female  sleeps  on 
her  usual  perch,  does  not  brood  chick,  now  1 1  days  old. 

July  21st.  Female  calling  to  chick  before  alighting  on  nest  to  feed  it. 

July  24th.  Chick  fully  feathered  primaries  and  tail  almost  fully  grown. 

July  26th.  Chick  on  rim  of  nest  most  of  the  day  exercising  wings,  it 
sleeps  in  the  nest  at  night. 

July  28th.  Female  is  very  aggressive  towards  other  hummingbirds  in 
the  area  of  the  nest  and  the  two  feeders  that  she  uses.  The  chick  is  now 
answering  her  call  prior  to  feeding.  I  think  this  call  is  to  build  up  a  bond 
between  parent  for  when  the  chick  flies. 

July  30th.  Morning,  chick  is  very  active  in  nest,  exercising  wings  and 
preening.  In  the  afternoon  it  is  on  rim  of  nest  snapping  at  fruit  flies. 

July  31st.  In  eagerness  to  be  fed  by  female,  chick  ventures  from  nest  to 
stem  of  plant  about  four  inches  from  nest,  but  scrambles  back  to  nest  after 
being  fed. 

August  1st.  Morning,  chick  perched  with  female  twenty-four  inches 
from  nest,  chick  flies  at  24  days  old.” 


YOUNG  HUMMINGBIRD’S  PROGRESS  AFTER  LEAVING  NEST 
It  was  not  until  August  10th,  that  I  witnessed  the  young  hummingbird 
taking  nectar.  For  the  first  three  days  the  female  fed  the  chick  every  twenty 
to  thirty  minutes,  but  by  the  fourth  day,  began  to  tire  of  this  and  only  fed 
the  chick  occasionally,  usually  after  persistent  begging.  Throughout  this 
period,  the  young  hummingbird  spent  most  of  its  active  periods  hawking 
fruit  flies  and  probing  and  examining  everything  in  the  flight,  including  the 
other  hummingbirds. 


74 


R.  J.  ELGAR  -  HYBRID  HUMMING  BIRD  REARED 


DESCRIPTION  OF  YOUNG  HYBRID 

The  young  hybrid  is  almost  indentical  to  a  Green  Violetear  but  larger 
and  with  chin,  upper  throat  and  centre  of  breast  a  glittering  turquoise. 


REFERENCE 

ELGAR,  R.  J.  1977.  The  breeding  of  a  hybrid  hummingbird,  Brown  Violetear  X  Sparkling 
Violetear.  Avicult.  Mag.  83:  130  -  134 
(see  also,  CORRECTION,  p.  237) 


75 


THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER  Campephilus  principalis 
By  JOHN  V.  DENNIS  (Princess  Anne,  Maryland,  USA) 

What  was  my  reaction  when  I  first  saw  the  ivory-bill?  This  is  a  question 
that  people  not  infrequently  ask  me  and  sometimes  with  a  look  of  scepticism 
on  their  faces.  Everyone  would  like  to  see  a  living  Ivory-billed  Woodpecker 
but  few  people  believe  that  the  bird  still  exists.  Thus  the  very  mention  of 
“ivory-bill”  evokes  the  same  kind  of  bemused  doubt  that  greets  a  believer  in 
the  Loch  Ness  monster  or  abominable  snow  man.  This  does  not  surprise  me 
since,  when  searching  for  the  bird,  I  have  often  felt  that  I  was  looking  for  an 
unseen  presence.  Yet  this  is  a  bird  that  I  have  seen  severeal  times,  and  to  share 
my  experience  with  the  ivory-bill  and  tell  something  of  its  past,  present,  and 
uncertain  future,  I  have  brought  together  the  following  pages. 

Audubon  called  the  bird  the  “Van  Dyke”  because  of  its  elegant  attire.  The 
Indians,  recognizing  its  other-worldly  character,  put  a  high  value  upon  the 
bill  and  feathers.  These  trophies  were  regarded  much  as  wampum  and  used 
as  an  article  in  trade.  Mark  Catesby,  writing  in  1731,  stated  that  the  Canadian 
Indians  make  “coronets  of  ’em  (the  bills)  for  their  princes  and  great  warriors, 
by  fixing  them  round  a  wreath,  with  their  points  outward.  ”  He  went  on  to  say 
that  the  northern  Indians  purchased  the  bills  from  southern  tribes  for 
anywhere  from  two  to  three  buckskins  a  bill.  A  hundred  years  later  the  trade 
was  still  underway.  Audubon  spoke  of  entire  belts  of  Indian  chiefs  ornamented 
with  the  feathers  and  bills  of  the  ivory-bill. 

As  the  years  went  by,  the  ivory-bill  slowly  gave  way  before  the  American 
Indian,  white  settler,  lumberman  and,  not  least  in  importance,  the  museum 
collector.  Unlike  the  Pileated  Woodpecker,  Dryocopus  pileatus  which 
superficially  resembles  it,  the  ivory-bill  showed  no  tendency  to  adapt  to 
man.  Wherever  wilderness  disappeared,  the  ivory-bill  also  disappeared. 
Once  widespread  and  found  from  the  Ohio  River  and  south-eastern  North 
Carolina  to  Florida  and  eastern  Texas,  the  ivory-bill  has  steadily  retreated. 
The  same  process  has  repeated  itself  in  Cuba  where  the  insular  race  has 
retired  to  the  remotest  mountains  of  Oriente  Province. 

By  wilderness,  I  do  not  necessarily  mean  pristine  wilderness  with  big 
trees.  I  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  ivory-bill  is  able  to  adapt  to  cut¬ 
over  timber.  But  the  stumbling  block  is  that  it  seems  to  require  an  ingredient 
that  is  ever  harder  to  find  these  days  —  solitude.  Wilderness  filled  with 
hunters,  fishermen  and  vactioners  is  incompatible  with  its  needs. 

Regarding  size  and  general  appearance,  overall  measurements  considerably 
exceed  most  of  those  found  in  the  crow-sized,  dark-plumaged  Pileated 
Woodpecker.  The  ivory-bill  is  a  striking  contrast  in  black  and  white.  This  is 
evident  both  when  the  bird  is  at  rest  and  when  flying.  The  Pileated  also 
shows  white  in  its  wings  when  it  is  in  flight,  but  the  white  is  in  different 
places.  A  good  look  at  the  wing  pattern  of  any  North  American  woodpecker 
as  it  flies  is  a  valuable  clue  to  its  identity.  Another  helpful  clue  is  that  the 


76 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


ivory-billed  and  pileated  are  the  only  crested  woodpeckers  in  North  America. 
Also  useful  if  the  all-white  bill  of  the  ivory-bill.  However  few  of  those 
reporting  an  ivory-bill  mention  the  bill.  This  is  because  the  bird  is  usually 
flying  away  from  the  observer  and  hence  the  bill  is  not  visible. 

A  few  other  identifying  features  are  worth  mentioning.  The  flight  of  the 
ivory-bill  is  straight  and  duck-like  while  that  of  the  pileated  is  undulating 
like  most  woodpeckers.  The  ivory-bill  has  a  strange  call  note  that  has  been 
likened  to  the  sound  of  a  clarinet  or  tin  trumpet,  and  also  a  conversational 
chatter.  Finally  the  ivory-bill  does  not  drum  in  characteristic  wood-pecker 
fashion;  its  way  of  expressing  itself  is  to  make  a  double  rap  upon  hollow 
sounding  objects. 

So  long  as  much  of  eastern  North  America  was  clothed  by  unbroken 
forest,  the  ivory-bill  was  secure  so  far  as  food  was  concerned  and  safe  from  all 
enemies  except  man.  If  dead  trees  and  the  beetle  larvae  they  supplied  (its 
main  source  of  food)  became  scarce,  the  ivory-bill  moved  to  another  part  of 
the  forest.  This  was  its  habit.  Essentially  nomadic  and  moving  from  one  area 
of  recently  dead  trees  to  another,  it  was  not  restricted  by  territorial  boundaries. 
Even  when  nesting,  according  to  Dr  James  T  Tanner,  noted  authority  on  the 
ivory-bill,  it  roamed  a  territory  of  about  6  square  miles. 

Even  before  the  forests  were  felled,  the  ivory-bill  could  not  be  regarded  as 
common.  Early  ornithologists  were  always  thrilled  by  any  experience  they 
might  have  with  this  strange,  almost  legendary  bird.  Alexander  Wilson,  on 
slightly  wounding  an  ivory-bill  near  Wilmington,  North  Carolina,  took  the 
bird  to  his  hotel  room.  During  his  absence  the  bird  created  considerable 
havoc  to  the  walls  and  furniture.  Wilson  was  touched  by  this  bird’s  piteous 
calls. 

By  the  early  1800’s  the  ivory-bill  seems  to  have  retired  to  the  deepest  and 
most  remote  swamps  it  could  find.  Whether  the  large  timber  of  southern 
swamps  was  always  its  home  is  not  known.  Very  often  its  nesting  site  was  a 
hole  in  a  cypress  tree.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  sometimes  observed 
roaming  pine  forests  in  search  of  food.  The  Cuban  race  of  the  ivory-bill 
seems  to  be  primarily  a  bird  of  the  pine  forest.  Perhaps  persecution  by  man 
drove  the  North  American  ivory-bill  to  the  heavily  timbered  swamps  that 
blanket  whole  river  valleys  in  parts  of  the  south. 

More  than  anything  else  the  ivory-bill’s  call  note  was  its  undoing.  As  I 
know  from  personal  experience,  the  ivory-bill  is  extremely  hard  to  locate 
through  vision  alone.  Its  contrasting  black  and  white  plumage  blends  too 
well  into  the  lights  and  shadows  of  the  forest  where  it  makes  its  home.  In  the 
words  of  Audubon,  its  eerie,  oft  repeated  call  note  is  the  circumstance  that 
leads  to  its  destruction.  The  call  is  so  unmistakable  and  unlike  other  sounds 
of  the  forest  that  anyone  with  a  trained  ear  can  quickly  recognize  the 
presence  of  an  ivory-bill.  Tanner  stated  that  all  the  ivory-bills  he  had  ever 
seen  were  first  located  by  hearing  the  distinctive  call  note. 

So  few  ivory-bills  were  reported  after  1920  that  many  began  to  assume  that 
the  bird  was  already  extinct  or  was  about  to  follow  the  Passenger  Pigeon  and 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


77 


Carolina  Parakeet  into  oblivion.  But  with  the  discovery  of  the  ivory-bill  in 
the  80,000  acre  Singer  Tract  in  Louisiana  in  1932  and  reliable  reports,  at 
about  the  same  time,  of  the  ivory-bill  in  the  Santee  Swamp  in  South 
Carolina,  there  was  a  mild  surge  of  optimism.  Tanner,  writing  in  1941, 
estimated  that  some  24  ivory-bills  were  left  and  these  scattered  in  about  five 
areas  in  Louisiana,  Florida,  and  possibly  South  Carolina.  He  admitted  that 
looking  for  an  ivory-bill  in  the  immense  wooded  swamps  of  the  South  was 
like  looking  for  “an  animated  needle  in  a  haystack”.  I  agree  with  this 
statement  and  am  inclined  to  believe  that  Tanner  was  much  too  cautious  in 
estimating  ivory-bill  numbers.  The  great  difficulty  in  finding  the  bird, 
coupled  with  uncertainty  regarding  sightings  made  by  others,  makes  count¬ 
ing  ivory-bills  a  near  hopeless  task.  Moreover  failure  to  find  the  bird  in  a 
given  area  is  no  proof  that  it  is  not  there.  This  was  a  conclusion  reached  by 
Arthur  A  Allen  and  Peter  Paul  Kellogg  in  relating  their  experiences  with 
the  ivory-bill  in  Florida  and  Louisiana. 

In  1934  the  number  of  ivory-bills  in  the  Singer  Tract  stood  at  a  high  of  18 
birds,  but  in  1939  the  number  had  fallen  to  8.  This  decline  had  taken  place 
without  logging  and  without  any  known  persecution  by  man.  Roger  Tory 
Peterson,  visiting  the  Singer  Tract  in  May  of  1942,  was  elated  to  have  caught 
glimpses  of  two  birds.  A  final  sighting  of  a  Singer  Tract  ivory-bill  seems  to 
have  been  made  in  1948.  This  was  after  the  Tract  had  been  heavily  logged. 

Much  less  is  known  of  the  occurrence  of  the  ivory-bill  in  the  Santee 
Swamp  of  South  Carolina.  It  was  presumed  that  any  birds  along  the  lower 
Santee  vanished  with  the  lumbering  and  hydro-electric  development  that 
took  place  in  this  area  in  the  late  1930’s  and  early  1940’s.  Yet  reports  of  ivory- 
bill  sightings  continued  to  come  in  from  the  Santee  and  adjacent  swamps 
until  about  1971. 

There  is  a  large  element  of  uncertainty  involved  in  judging  reported 
sightings  of  the  ivory-bill.  Many  people  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  any 
large  woodpecker  with  some  white  on  it  is  an  ivory-bill.  Only  a  good  look, 
with  special  attention  to  the  wing  pattern,  can  confirm  the  fact  that  the  bird  is 
an  ivory-bill  and  not  a  pileated.  When  in  flight,  the  pileated  shows  a 
considerable  amount  of  white,  especially  on  the  under-surface  of  the  wings. 
There  is  also  confusion  with  the  much  smaller  Red-headed  Woodpecker 
Melanerpes  erythrocephalus.  Careless  reports  involving  other  species  of 
woodpeckers  have  done  much  to  discredit  the  genuine  report  that  now  and 
then  comes  to  light.  This  situation  has  led  some  ornithologists  to  throw  up 
their  hands  and  call  all  “ivory-bill  sightings”  cases  of  mistaken  identity.  As  a 
result  there  has  never  been  any  real  programme  instituted  to  save  the  ivory- 
bill.  The  overly  sceptical  have  seen  to  this 

In  the  meantime,  the  insular  race  of  the  ivory-bill  in  Cuba  has,  if  anything, 
fared  more  poorly  than  the  bird  in  North  America.  Even  before  1900,  it 
appeared  to  be  on  the  verge  of  extinction.  In  April  of  1948,  in  company  with 
Davis  Crompton  of  Worcester,  Massachusetts,  I  visited  Oriente  Province  at 
the  eastern  end  of  Cuba  in  order  to  investigate  rumours  of  the  bird’s 


78 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


occurrence  in  remote  mountain  districts.  We  had  luck  beyond  all  expectations. 
After  searching  fruitlessly  for  several  days  in  big  timber  along  stream  valleys, 
we  shifted  our  attention  to  burned-over,  cut-over  pine  forests.  No  sooner 
had  we  entered  a  pine  studded  ravine  several  miles  south  of  the  small 
lumbering  town  of  Moa  than  we  saw  fresh  diggings  in  dead  trees.  Later  we 
located  an  active  nest  site  in  a  dead  pine  tree.  The  male  and  female  of  the  pair 
were  taking  turns  on  eggs.  A  third  bird,  possibly  an  offspring  from  a  previous 
nesting,  lingered  in  the  immediate  vicinity.  We  returned  from  Cuba  with 
photographs  of  the  birds  as  well  as  a  skull  of  an  ivory-bill  found  at  the  base  of 
the  nest  tree.  The  skull  was  deposited  with  the  Museum  of  Comparative 
Zoology  at  Harvard  while  an  account  of  our  expedition  appeared  in  the 
October  1948  issue  of  The  Auk. 

With  the  coming  of  the  Fidel  Castro  regime  a  curtain  fell  on  the  future  of 
Cuba’s  few  remaining  ivory-bills.  Luckily  within  the  past  few  years  Warren 
B  King  of  The  International  Council  for  Bird  Preservation  has  established 
correspondence  with  two  Cuban  ornithologists  who  have  tried  to  follow  the 
fortunes  of  this  bird.  I  am  indebted  to  Dr  King  for  sharing  with  me  his  most 
recent  correspondence  from  Cuba.  Writingin  June  1974, Orlando  H  Garrido 
stated  that  he  was  afraid  that  no  more  than  6  or  8  pairs  still  existed.  He  based 
his  estimate  largely  upon  the  hope  that  an  undiscovered  population  existed 
in  the  mountains  south  of  Moa.  But  he  felt  that  the  bird  was  near  extinction 
and  that  the  problem  lay  more  with  intensive  lumbering  than  persecution  by 
man.  Luis  S  Varona,  writing  in  July  1974,  stated  that  the  ivory-bill  is  fully 
protected  by  wardens  at  two  reserves  and  that  the  timber  in  these  reserves  is 
also  protected.  He  mentioned  an  ivory-bill  sighting  in  May  of  1972  and 
another,  at  a  different  location,  in  November  of  1973.  Two  reserves  have 
been  established  for  the  protection  of  the  ivory-bill  by  the  Cuban  Academy 
of  Scienses.  These  are  Cupeyal  and  Jaguani  in  Oriente  Province. 

On  returning  from  Cuba,  I  came  to  know  Herbert  L  Stoddard,  a  well- 
known  ornithologist,  who  was  as  familiar  as  anyone  with  the  Ivory-billed 
Woodpecker  in  Florida  and  Georgia.  During  four  Florida  boyhood  years, 
between  1896  and  1900,  he  had  seen  somewhere  between  12  and  15  ivory- 
bills.  Stoddard  did  not  agree  with  a  view  held  by  James  Tanner  that  the 
ivory-bill  required  virgin  timber.  He  noted,  for  example,  that  a  taxidermist 
shot  a  pair  of  ivory-bills  in  1924  in  a  tract  of  timber  in  Florida  that  had  been 
heavily  cut  over  in  1904.  Stoddard  blamed  the  decline  of  the  ivory-bill  almost 
entirely  upon  “the  man  with  a  gun.”  Although  he  was  very  close-mouthed,  it 
was  well  known  in  ornithological  circles  that  Stoddard  knew  a  great  deal 
about  the  recent  whereabouts  of  the  ivory-bill.  I  did  learn  this  much  from 
him.  He  and  a  fellow  passenger  in  a  small  plane  circling  over  the  Altamaha 
River  in  Georgia  during  a  thunderstorm  clearly  saw  an  ivory-bill  in  flight  at  a 
distance  of  no  more  than  150  feet.  The  sighting  was  over  the  lower  Altamaha 
but  no  date  was  given.  Probably  it  was  in  1958  that  Stoddard  observed  a  pair 
of  ivory-bills  in  beetle-killed  spruce  pine  near  Thomasville,  Georgia.  In 
Stoddard’s  autobiography  MEMOIRS  OF  A  NATURALIST  published  in  1969, 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


79 


he  states:  “I  have  observed  three  ivory-bills  in  the  Southeast  in  the  last  fifteen 
years,  and  while  these  sightings  are  several  years  old,  I  feel  quite  confident 
that  the  ivory-bill  still  has  a  chance  to  survive.” 

In  early  March  of  1950,  while  a  graduate  student  in  ornithology  at  the 
University  of  Florida,  I  joined  another  ardent  ivory-bill  searcher,  Whitney 
Eastman,  on  an  expedition  to  the  Chipola  River  in  northwestern  Florida. 
Local  woodsmen  had  reported  the  ivory-bill  in  swamps  along  the  river.  After 
a  day  or  two  with  Eastman  and  his  party,  I  began  to  have  misgivings  about 
the  venture  and  thought  it  best  to  return  to  my  studies  at  the  University.  To 
my  great  surprise,  a  few  days  later  newspaper  accounts  across  the  country 
told  of  the  rediscovery  of  the  ivory-bill  by  Eastman  and  his  party.  A  male 
ivory-bill  was  said  to  have  been  seen  on  March  3rd  and  a  female  the  following 
day.  In  spite  of  a  strong  wish  to  believe  this  report,  I  found  myself  in  the  same 
camp  as  the  sceptics.  Nevertheless  I  made  a  return  trip  to  the  region  and 
again  saw  nothing.  Finally,  in  April  of  1951,  my  luck  along  the  Chipola  took 
a  turn  for  the  better.  The  same  guide  that  had  been  with  Eastman  assured  me 
that  he  would  show  me  an  ivory-bill.  “No  siree,  this  ain’t  one  of  them  good 
gods,”  he  said.  “This  here’s  an  ivory-bill  for  sure.” 

When  country  people  used  to  seeing  the  smaller  woodpeckers  saw  the 
much  larger,  more  spectacular  bird  that  was  the  Pileated  Woodpecker,  they 
were  apt  to  exclaim  “Good  God!”  Hence  this  common  name  that  was  in  use 
in  many  parts  of  the  South.  The  still  more  spectacular  ivory-bill  was  sometimes 
called  the  lord  god. 

My  scepticism  about  the  Chipola  stemmed  partly  from  exaggerated  accounts 
given  by  the  guide.  Whenever  a  large  woodpecker  showed  itself  in  the 
distance,  it  was  always  an  ivory-bill.  He  even  made  the  claim  that  ivory-bills 
had  once  nested  in  a  large  magnolia  tree  by  his  cabin.  I  was  encountering 
what  might  be  called  “backwoods  embellishment.”  Regardless  of  what  it 
was,  the  backwoodsman  always  felt  compelled  to  elaborate  beyond  what 
might  be  called  the  facts  of  the  matter.  He  did  not  realize  that  the  mere 
existence  of  an  ivory-bill  was  more  exciting  and  more  valuable  than  any  story 
he  could  possibly  concoct.  I  was  to  meet  this  same  kind  of  embellishment  on 
even  a  larger  scale  in  the  Big  Thicket  of  Texas. 

As  it  turned  out,  this  time  my  guide  used  good  judgement.  I  was  left  in  a 
rowboat,  partially  concealed  by  cypress  trees,  and  within  sight  of  a  large  dead 
tree  where  an  ivory-bill  had  reportedly  been  seen  going  to  roost  toward  dusk. 
As  the  minutes  slowly  ticked  by,  I  began  to  feel  a  mounting  excitement. 
There  was  something  to  be  said  for  the  confident  manner  of  my  guide.  It  was 
nearly  dark  when  I  was  startled  by  the  sound  so  well  described  as  the  tooting 
of  a  child’s  tin  trumpet.  A  few  blasts  came  from  the  darkness  beyond  the 
roost  tree  and  then  silence.  I  watched  and  listened  for  a  while  longer,  and 
then  my  guide  appeared  and  took  me  back  to  camp.  This,  to  my  knowledge, 
was  the  last  time  the  Chipola  offered  any  evidence  of  the  ivory-bill. 

During  the  fall  of  1966,  after  a  long  absence  from  the  search,  O  was  again  in 
pursuit  of  the  ivory-bill  and  this  time  in  cut-over  pine  woods  that  reminded 


80 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


me  of  the  habitat  I  had  seen  in  Cuba.  On  August  28  of  that  year,  two  eager 
bird  watchers  from  Chicago,  Bedford  P  Brown,  Jr.  and  Jeffrey  R  Sanders, 
were  driving  east  from  Pensacola,  Florida  when  they  decided  to  leave  the 
coastal  highway  on  the  chance  that  they  might  sight  a  wild  turkey.  After 
entering  the  wild,  desolate  fringes  of  Eglin  Air  Force  Base,  near  Pensacola, 
they  came  to  a  clear  flowing  stream  where  pine  trees  merged  with  creek 
bottom  hardwoods.  On  a  sudden  impulse,  they  got  out  of  their  car  and  stood 
watching  and  listening  at  a  narrow  bridge.  Suddenly  the  loud  toots  that  I  was 
now  familiar  with  came  from  out  of  the  heavy  growth  that  lined  the  stream. 
In  writing  to  me  about  this  experience,  Brown  described  what  an  eerie, 
suspense  filled  few  minutes  they  had  until  they  caught  sight  of  two  large 
woodpeckers  scaling  bark  from  trunks  of  beetle-infested  pine  trees.  He  went 
on  to  say:  “Our  entire  experience  with  the  birds  totalled  only  about  16 
minutes.  We  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  in  our  minds  that  the  birds  were 
correctly  identified  as  ivory-billed  woodpeckers.  In  fact,  I  would  go  so  far  as 
to  say  that  the  unique  call  note  of  the  ivory-bill  would  make  the  identification 
of  the  bird  a  simple  matter  for  me.” 

I  did  not  have  the  same  luck.  During  the  two  weeks  that  I  explored  the  area 
where  the  Brown  and  Sanders  sighting  had  been  made,  I  stumbled  upon  a 
secret  weapon’s  testing  site  and  had  other  close  encounters  with  the  military. 
My  conclusion,  as  I  reported  to  the  World  Wildlife  Fund,  under  whose 
auspices  I  was  conducting  my  search,  was  that  the  two  men  in  question  had 
had  the  extremely  good  fortune  to  chance  upon  a  pair  of  ivory-bills  foraging 
in  recently  beetle-killed  pine  trees. 

I  should  not  conclude  my  Florida  accounts  without  saying  something 
about  a  bizarre  occurrence  involving  what  may  have  been  ivory-bills  at  an 
undisclosed  location  in  Polk  County  north-west  of  Lake  Okeechobee.  I  say 
bizarre  because  the  evidence  gathered  by  the  two  searchers,  H  Norton  Age.y 
and  George  M  Heinzmann,  was  so  contradictory.  Beginning  in  1965,  these 
men,  learning  of  a  possible  ivory-bill  in  a  wooded  tract  on  a  large  ranch, 
began  making  frequent  trips  to  the  area.  At  first  it  was  a  game  of  hide-and- 
seek  with  an  unseen  presence.  Later  they  caught  tantalizing  glimpses  of  one 
or  two  large  woodpeckers  that  seemed  to  fit  the  description  of  an  ivory-bill. 
When  a  storm  toppled  a  tree  containing  a  large  roost  or  nest  hole,  the  men 
retrieved  two  small  fluffy  blackish  feathers  and  a  white  feather  from  the  hole. 
The  feathers  were  sent  to  the  Smithsonian  Institution  where  the  white 
feather  was  identified  by  Dr  Alexander  Wetmore  as  that  of  an  ivory-bill. 
This  should  have  clinched  the  matter.  But  then  came  disappointment.  The 
searchers  submitted  tapes  of  calls  they  thought  were  those  of  the  ivory-bill. 
The  Cornell  Laboratory  of  Ornithology  reported  back  that  the  calls  were 
those  of  the  Pileated  Woodpecker.  The  findings  of  this  strange  case  were 
therefore  inconclusive. 

In  December  of  1966, 1  turned  my  attention  to  the  Big  Thicket  of  Texas. 
This  heavily  wooded  area,  with  its  swamps  and  upland  forests  of  hardwoods 
end  pine,  had  long  had  a  tradition  of  ivory-bill  presence.  But  not  since  1904 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


81 


had  there  been  a  confirmed  record.  Where  should  I  begin  looking  in  an  area 
that  contained  approximately  500,000  acres? 

But  I  did  have  one  clue.  The  previous  April,  Mrs  Olga  Hooks  Lloyd,  well 
known  among  Beaumont,  Texas  bird  watchers,  had  reported  to  friends  that 
she  had  seen  an  ivory-bill  in  the  Neches  River  swamp  near  the  Steinhagen 
Reservoir.  Her  description  of  the  bird  was  so  convincing  that  I  decided  to 
concentrate  my  search  in  this  area.  It  was  a  region  of  dark  winding  bayous, 
trees  laden  with  Spanish  moss,  and  many  trees  dead  and  dying  as  a  result  of 
flooding.  Toward  dusk,  on  the  second  day  of  my  search,  I  was  rewarded  once 
again  with  a  nasal  trumpet-like  call  that  I  decided  could  only  be  produced  by 
an  Ivory-billed  Woodpecker.  Because  of  rain  and  impassable  roads,  I  was 
forced  to  postpone  my  search  for  a  few  days. 

On  December  10th,  I  had  taken  the  same  route  twice  along  the  edge  of  a 
winding  bayou  without  seeing  or  hearing  anything  encouraging.  Then  it 
happened!  The  magnificent  bird  I  had  been  searching  for  suddenly  rose  in 
front  of  me.  Sweeping  majestically  from  where  it  apparently  had  been 
feeding  on  the  ground,  it  soon  settled  upon  the  trunk  of  an  enormous  cypress 
tree.  Before  I  could  view  it  again  with  my  binoculars,  it  had  circled  around  to 
the  far  side  of  the  trunk  and  within  seconds  had  taken  flight  to  the  dense 
woodland  on  the  far  side  of  the  bayou.  I  was  exuberant;  yet  at  the  same  time 
disappointed  over  not  having  seen  more  of  the  bird.  The  black,  chill  waters 
of  the  bayou  were  far  from  inviting.  But  after  failing  to  find  a  way  across,  I 
finally  waded  in  and  barely  made  the  opposite  bank  without  having  to  swim. 
Donning  my  clothes,  I  set  out  in  the  direction  the  bird  had  taken.  Soon  I  was 
lucky  enough  |o  see  the  ivory-bill  perched  on  a  stump  and  with  wings 
outspread  as  though  protesting  the  nearby  presence  of  other  birds.  Numerous 
small  birds  and  also  a  pair  of  Pileated  Woodpeckers  were  in  the  immediate 
vicinity.  I  had  come  upon  one  of  those  mixed  flocks  you  find  in  the  winter 
woods.  Although  the  light  was  poor,  I  got  the  general  impression  that  the 
crest  of  the  bird  was  black,  thus  making  it  a  female.  The  male  ivory-bill  has  a 
red  crest. 

Further  search  in  Texas  by  myself  and  others  has  contained  many 
disappointments,  glimpses  of  possible  ivory-bills,  unverified  call  notes,  and 
finally  the  recording  of  the  ivory-bill  calls  on  tape.  This  recording,  which  I 
made  on  February  25,  1968,  when  searching  for  the  ivory-bill  under  the 
auspices  of  the  National  Geographic  Society,  has  since  been  reported  upon 
favourably  by  Dr  John  William  Hardy  of  the  Florida  State  Museum.  The 
only  reservation  that  Hardy  first  made  after  subjecting  the  tape  to  repeated 
careful  analyses  was  that  there  was  a  suggestion  of  Blue  Jay  Cyanocitta 
cristata  mimicry  in  the  notes.  He  felt  he  could  not  rule  out  the  possibility  of  a 
Blue  Jay  having  given  a  remarkably  accurate  rendition  of  the  ivory-bill  tin 
trumpet  call.  But  Hardy,  after  making  spectographic  and  principal  frequency 
analyses  of  Blue  Jay  calls,  has  written  me  since  that  the  Blue  Jay  calls  bear  no 
resemblance  to  those  of  the  ivory-bill.  The  notes  I  recorded  that  February 
day,  without  seeing  the  bird  that  made  them,  have  therefore  been  established 


82 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


as  those  of  the  Ivory-billed  Woodpecker.  A  tape  had  not  been  made  of  the 
ivory-bill’s  voice  since  Allen  and  Kellogg  of  Cornell  obtained  the  only 
recording  ever  made  in  February  of  1935.  This  was  in  the  Singer  Tract. 

Knowledge  of  ivory-bill  presence  in  the  Big  Thicket  did  much  to  spur 
efforts  toward  the  creation  of  a  Big  Thicket  National  Preserve.  In  October  of 
1974  a  bill  was  passed  by  Congress  and  signed  by  the  President  creating  a 
Preserve  of  84,550  acres.  This  acreage  was  not  in  one  solid  tract  but  in  a 
number  of  smaller  tracts,  thereby  embodying  the  “string  of  pearls”  concept. 
This  concept  called  for  the  preservation  of  isolated  tracts  of  prime  importance 
throughout  the  Big  Thicket. 

What  about  the  Big  Thicket  today?  Has  the  saving  of  some  wilderness  and 
continued  logging  and  exploitation  elsewhere  affected  the  ivory-bill?  Since 
there  are  almost  no  figures  to  go  upon,  about  all  I  can  do  is  hazard  a  guess.  I 
am  reasonably  confident  that  the  ivory-bill  still  holds  on  in  parts  of  the  Big 
Thicket.  Among  a  number  of  sightings  in  recent  years  that  have  come  to  my 
attention,  there  is  one  by  William  Mounsey  that  deserves  attention.  In  May, 
1976,  with  a  team  from  the  University  of  the  Wilderness  in  Colorado, 
Mounsey  set  out  to  explore  remaining  ivory-bill  habitat  in  the  Big  Thicket. 
After  visiting  more  southerly  sections,  the  party  reached  the  Steinhagen 
Reservoir  near  where  I  made  my  sighting  in  December  of  1966.  Mounsey 
with  two  other  members  of  the  party  claim  they  saw  a  male  ivory-bill  in  flight 
on  May  21.  A  second  bird,  or  perhaps  the  same  bird,  was  seen  some  7  to  9 
miles  away  by  a  member  of  the  party  on  May  22. 

If  these  reports  are  trustworthy,  and  I  believe  they  are,  the  ivory-bill  is 
probably  still  holding  on  in  the  Big  Thicket.  This  would  be  encouraging 
news,  for  nowhere  in  presumed  ivory-bill  habitat  has  change  come  so 
drastically  and  so  quickly  as  in  the  Big  Thicket.  The  whole  character  of  this 
once  great  wilderness  is  changing  and  no  one  knows  what  effect  this  may 
have  upon  the  several  endangered  species  of  the  area. 

Turning  to  Louisiana,  where  ivory-bill  history  was  made  during  the  days 
of  the  Singer  Tract,  I  can  find  much  the  same  story  that  I  found  in  the  Big 
Thicket.  The  tradition  of  former  ivory-bill  presence  is  strong  while  every  so 
often  a  hopeful  report  comes  to  light.  Probably  the  river  swamps  of  southern 
Louisiana  and  nearby  Mississippi  are  as  likely  places  as  any  to  look  for  the 
Ivory-billed  Woodpecker  at  the  present  time. 

One  of  the  most  extraordinaty  ivory-bill  stories  every  to  my  way  of  thinking, 
came  out  of  a  Louisiana  swamp  a  few  years  ago.  A  business  man  was  in  the 
habit  of  training  his  hunting  dogs  in  the  Atchafalaya  Swamp  which  lies  about 
20  miles  west  of  Baton  Rouge,  the  city  where  he  lived.  He  knew  something 
about  birds  and  more  than  once  spotted  a  large  woodpecker  flying  away  in 
the  distance  that  reminded  him  of  pictures  he  had  seen  of  the  ivory-bill.  He 
took  the  matter  to  someone  he  already  knew  who  was  an  authority  on  birds. 
This  was  Dr  George  Lowery,  foremost  Louisiana  ornithologist  and  a  pioneer 
in  finding  and  learning  about  the  ivory-bill  in  the  Singer  Tract.  As  Lowery 
knew  fron  long  experience  reports  of  this  kind  were  all  too  often  based  upon 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


83 


mistaken  identification.  Therefore  he  treated  the  man’s  reports  with  the 
scepticism  he  thought  they  deserved. 

Lowery’s  acquaintance  did  not  give  up.  He  began  taking  a  camera  along 
with  him  into  the  swamp.  Then  came  the  day  he  had  been  waiting  for.  The 
date  was  22  May  1971.  This  time  the  birds  — a  pair  of  them  — were  closer 
than  ever  before.  Trying  to  create  as  little  disturbance  as  possible,  he 
returned  to  his  car  in  order  to  cage  his  dogs  and  thn  he  began  stalking  one  of 
the  birds  with  his  small  camera.  By  this  time  the  female  ivory-bill  had 
disappeared,  but  the  male,  occupied  at  a  hole  about  40  feet  up  on  a  tree  trunk, 
gave  him  his  opportunity.  He  had  time  to  click  off  a  single  shot  with  his 
camera,  and  then  another  one  after  the  bird  moved  to  a  second  tree.  Overjoyed, 
he  returned  to  Baton  Rouge  with  the  proof  that  would  convince  his  friend. 

This  time  Lowery  was  impressed.  He  returned  to  the  spot  with  the  man 
but  failed  on  this  trip  and  succeeding  ones  in  finding  an  ivory-bill.  Nevertheless 
he  put  enough  confidence  in  the  man’s  sincerity  and  the  photographs  (poor 
though  they  were)  to  give  this  sighting  discrete  publicity.  A  brief  account  of 
the  event,  that  appeared  in  the  October  1971  issue  of  AMERICAN  BIRDS, 
contained  neither  the  photographs,  the  name  of  the  man,  nor  even  the  name 
of  the  swamp.  Apparently  Lowery  was  afraid  that  the  photographs,  because 
of  their  poor  quality,  would  not  be  accepted  as  valid  evidence.  Indeed  this 
proved  to  be  the  case.  The  photographs  were  passed  around  to  a  number  of 
fellow  ornithologists.  The  comment  was  highly  unfavourable  ranging  from 
scepticism  to  charges  of  outright  fraud  so  far  as  the  dog  trainer  was  con¬ 
cerned. 

But  no  one  should  write  off  the  Atchalafaya  swamp,  a  heavily  forested 
bottomland,  lying  parallel  to  the  Mississippi  River  and  measuring  about  30 
miles  in  width  and  100  miles  in  length. 

Although  heavily  cut-over  and  bearing  little  resemblance  to  Tanner’s 
description  of  ideal  ivory-bill  habitat,  it  almost  certainly  supports,  or  has 
supported,  a  number  of  Ivory-billed  Woodpeckers.  Dr  Lowery  told  me 
personally  that  one  of  his  students  in  November  1967  had  identified  an 
ivory-bill  in  the  Atchafalaya  Swamp.  Then  came  the  much  disputed 
photographs,  which,  if  anything,  seemed  to  create  more  scepticism  than 
ever.  But  almost  overlooked  in  connection  with  this  controversy  is  a  brief 
note  that  appeared  in  a  1975  issue  of  AMERICAN  BIRDS.  Only  these  facts 
were  stated:  on  11  November  1974  an  observer,  Robert  Bean,  sighted  an 
ivory-bill  in  flight  when  driving  along  a  main  highway  some  20  miles  west  of 
Baton  Rouge.  Bean,  the  note  went  on  to  say,  had  identified  the  bird  on  the 
basis  of  its  characteristic  wing  pattern. 

Mr.  Bean,  who  is  director  of  the  Louisville  Zoo,  kindly  responded  to 
questions  I  asked  him  about  his  sighting.  Driving  eastward  in  a  lorry  over  a 
long  bridge  across  the  Atchalafaya  swamp,  he  suddenly  saw  directly  in  front 
of  him  an  ivory-bill  flying  at  car-top  level.  The  bird,  no  more  than  15  feet 
away,  was  flying  across  the  highway.  During  the  five  seconds  or  so  that  the 
bird  was  in  view,  he  saw  it  barely  clear  the  guard  rail  and  then  alight  in  a  tree 


84 


J.  V.  DENNIS  -  THE  IVORY-BILLED  WOODPECKER 


at  the  edge  of  the  swamp.  He  couldn’t  stop  because  of  the  traffic  and  the 
added  hazard  of  having  a  cargo  of  zoo  animals  in  his  lorry.  Sure  of  his 
identification,  he  told  his  extraordinary  story  to  Burt  Monroe,  a  well-known 
ornithologist  living  in  Kentucky.  Hence  the  bare  details  that  reached 
AMERICAN  BIRDS.  The  record  takes  on  added  significance  when  it  is 
realized  that  the  sighting  was  made  in  the  same  general  part  of  the  swamp 
that  had  witnessed  the  photographic  attempts  by  Lowery’s  friend. 

What  of  the  future  of  this  rarest  of  the  rarae  aves}  Has  the  bird  a  chance 
when  wilderness  is  ever  in  shorter  supply  and  few  will  even  admit  that  the 
bird  exists?  While  I  have  no  great  reason  for  optimism,  I  am  encouraged  by 
the  many  efforts  now  underway  to  preserve  southern  swamps.  As  more  such 
lands  come  under  protection,  the  ivory-bill  may  yet  find  the  food,  shelter, 
and  solitude  it  needs.  Let  us  hope  that  it  is  not  too  late. 


85 


THE  ISLE  OF  PINES  AMAZON 

Amazona  leucocephala  palmarum 

By  Ramon  NOEGEL.  (Seffner,  Florida). 

Here  at  the  New  Age  Ranch  we  are  often  asked  what  is  the  difference 
between  the  nominate  race  A.l.  leucocephala  and  the  Isle  of  Pines  Amazon. 
Since  we  have  only  the  existing  captive  collection  of  the  various  representa¬ 
tives  of  this  group,  with  the  exclusion  of  bahamensis ,  we  will  try  to  give  a  good 
comparison.  I  have  personally  had  specimens  of  both  the  Cuban  and  the  Isle 
of  Pines  subspecies  in  my  possession  since  1946.  The  Cuban  Amazon  was  the 
first  large  parrot  I  ever  owned  and  has  remained  my  favourite  ever  since.  In 
1946  they  were  the  cheapest  Amazon  on  the  market  and  we  had  two  lovely 
examples.  Many  of  our  Cuban  neighbours  had  these  parrots  and  I  suppose 
there  were  as  many  as  sixty  here  in  Tampa  at  that  time.  It  was  not  uncommon 
to  see  them  in  their  cages  on  front  porches  or  on  balconies  of  apartments  in 
the  downtown  Latin  quarter. 

Palmarum ,  has  a  deeper  scarlet  red  on  the  throat  and  cheeks  whereas  the 
nominate  race  has  more  of  a  pink  cast  in  this  area  of  colour.  This  holds  true 
for  the  Bahamas’  representatives  of  leucocephala  also.  Therefore  we  might 
say  the  farther  east  in  range,  the  more  pink  the  colour  of  the  throat  and 
cheeks,  whereas  the  further  west  and  south,  the  deeper  the  red.  The  vinaceous 
is  richer  and  more  pronounced,  often  verging  on  a  purple  appearance.  This 
colour  is  more  accented  with  black  edging  on  each  feather  than  in  the  Cuban 
Amazon.  In  the  Isle  of  Pines  Amazon  both  sexes  are  equally  the  same  in  the 
deep  scarlet  throat  colouring.  In  the  Cuban  the  throat  and  cheeks  of  the  male 
during  breeding  season  are  a  deeper  hue  than  is  evident  in  the  female.  Due  to 
the  heavy  black  edging  on  the  green  feathers,  palmarum  appears  a  darker 
green.  It  is  a  slightly  larger  parrot  than  its  Cuban  neighbour.  The  eye  ring  is 
larger  and  the  white  on  the  crown  is  more  extensive.  In  most  specimens  there 
is  a  pink  feather  in  the  black  ear  coverts  or  just  above  or  behind  them  in  the 
green  feathers.  There  is  of  course  much  individualism  due  to  age  and 
genetics.  However,  in  both  the  Cuban  and  Isle  of  Pines  Amazons  there  is  less 
variability  than  may  be  witnessed  in  both  the  Cayman  Islands  Amazons 
caymanensis  and  hesterna. 

Before  the  depletion  of  the  species  on  Cuba,  well  over  a  thousand  species 
were  annually  shipped  to  England,  Europe  and  the  United  States.  By  the 
I940’s  the  parrot  hunters  began  turning  their  attention  to  the  Isle  of  Pines  for 
a  better  source  of  supply.  The  island  at  that  time  was  mainly  used  for 
agriculture  and  there  still  existed  vast  forested  areas  where  the  parrot’s 
habitat  remained  secure.  Their  nests  were  usually  in  the  bowl  of  a  dead 
Royal  Palm  where  a  woodpecker  had  previously  nested.  The  parrots  would 
simply  enlarge  the  existing  accommodation  by  digging  and  chewing  out  the 
soft  fibre  of  these  decaying  palms. 


86 


R.  NOEGEL  -  ISLE  OF  PINES  AMAZON 


It  has  been  my  good  fortune  to  know  personally  two  of  the  old  time  parrot 
hunters  from  the  Isle  of  Pines.  Both  fled  the  Isle  when  the  Communists  took 
over  the  government  of  Cuba.  It  has  been  from  these  two  men  that  we  have 
been  able  to  obtain  much  valuable  information  regarding  this  Amazon.  Our 
breeding  pair  of  palmarum  were  brought  to  this  country  by  one  of  these 
hunters.  They  were  among  the  few  personal  treasures  he  was  permitted  to 
leave  with,  and  he  was  allowed  to  bring  them  into  the  U.S.A.  as  his  pets.  We 
obtained  them  from  him  only  after  much  persuasion.  At  that  time  they  had 
been  in  his  possession  nearly  twenty  years. 

He  related  that  it  was  not  uncommon  for  him  to  have  as  many  as  one 
hundred  of  these  baby  Amazons  which  he  hand  fed  on  cooked  corn  meal  and 
banana.  This  substance  was  fed  to  the  young  in  an  almost  liquid  form  and 
they  thrived  on  it.  Its  nutritional  value  may  be  questioned  but  one  cannot 
deny  there  are  quite  a  few  of  these  Amazons  in  existence  which  are  past  thirty 
years  of  age  and  still  going  strong.  All  of  our  original  Cubans  and  Isle  of  Pines 
Amazons  are  well  over  twenty  years  of  age.  Most  were  brought  to  this 
country  before  Castro  came  into  power.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  same 
diet  for  young  Amazons  raised  in  Cuba  before  their  decline  made  the 
continued  taking  of  parrot  young  unprofitable.  My  friends  explained  to  me 
that  both  the  procedure  of  taking  young  Amazons  from  their  nests  and  the 
type  of  food  used  are  age  old  traditions  that  originated  in  Cuba  and  were 
handed  down  from  father  to  son  in  typical  Latin  fashion. 

Generally  speaking  the  parrot  hunters  were  farmers  who  sold  young 
Amazons  to  supplement  their  meagre  income.  Areas  were  staked  off  so  that 
each  hunter  was  allowed  a  fair  share  of  the  breeding  places  frequented  by 
these  birds.  It  was  of  course  illegal  to  take  parrots  from  a  fellow  hunter’s  area 
but  many  a  shrewd  rogue  would  rob  eggs  from  his  neighbours’  nests  and 
place  them  in  nests  within  his  boundary  thus  causing  parent  birds  to  raise  six 
young  instead  of  the  usual  four  found  in  the  average  clutch.  I  was  further 
informed  that  individuals  showing  the  most  colour  potential  were  of  greater 
value  when  sold  in  Cuba.  This,  therefore,  doubtless  caused  a  tremendous 
drain  on  the  more  colourful  birds  and  would  in  time  influence  a  trend  to  less 
colourful  specimens  in  the  future  generations. 

This  is  the  prime  reason,  no  doubt,  for  the  two  specimens  having  been 
kept  by  one  of  these  hunters  and  which  we  now  have.  They  are  both 
endowed  with  extreme  colouring  in  the  red  factor.  The  hen  has  red  all  the 
way  down  her  throat  and  on  to  her  breast  and  thence  a  splash  continuing 
down  her  left  side  on  the  abdomen  which  cuts  clearly  through  the  vinaceous. 
The  cock,  likewise,  is  well  marked  with  red,  having  his  entire  mantle  from 
wing  to  wing  in  this  colour.  I  was  told  such  colouring  was  not  uncommon 
when  my  hunter  friend  was  a  child  sixty  years  ago.  There  were  many  Cuban 
Amazons  kept  here  in  Tampa  when  I  was  growing  up  but  I  never  saw  any  so 
brilliantly  coloured  as  these  and  rather  suspect  that  the  average  Isle  of  Pines 
Amazon  was  more  brilliantly  coloured  a  hundred  years  ago. 

During  my  four  month  stay  on  Cayman  Brae  I  learned  from  the  senior  Mr 


R.  NOEGEL  -  ISLE  OF  PINES  AMAZON 


87 


Lazzari,  then  eighty-four  years  of  age,  that  his  father  came  from  Cuba  and 
was  accustomed  to  taking  young  parrots  from  their  nests  on  Cayman  Brae. 
He  would  then  row  out  to  passing  ships  and  barter  the  parrots  for  flour,  sugar 
and  cloth,  all  scarce  items  on  this  small  out-of-the-way  island.  This  seems  to 
be  the  only  incident  of  parrot  hunting  for  commercial  purposes  on  Cayman 
Brae.  Undoubtedly  Mr  Lazzari  had  learned  the  value  of  the  parrot  trade 
before  emigrating  from  Cuba  to  Cayman  Brae  in  the  nineteenth  century. 
There  is  reliable  information  that  leads  us  to  believe  that  this  beautiful 
Amazon  has  been  traded  in  for  well  over  two  hundred  years.  Certainly  it  was 
one  of  the  better  known  New  World  parrots  in  England  and  Europe  in  the 
eighteenth  century. 

While  neither  the  Cuban  nor  the  Isle  of  Pine  Amazons  are  entering  the 
U.  S.  ,  due  to  the  political  situation  as  well  as  to  being  on  the  endangered 
species  list,  they  are  still  flowing  regularly  into  Europe,  especially  into 
communist  countries.  We  recently  had  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  in  Switzerland 
who  purchased  a  pair  in  Austria  while  on  a  business  trip.  There  are  a  number 
of  these  parrots  now  being  listed  in  the  census  section  of  the  International 
Zoo  yearbook.  For  the  most  part  these  are  in  communist  zoos.  The  Moscow 
Zoo  reports  a  breeding  success,  but  designates  it  to  be  with  the  sub-species 
from  Cuba,  not  palmarum.  Therefore,  we  may  well  be  the  first  to  have  bred 
this  subspecies  in  captivity. 

To  date,  we  have  bred  eight  specimens,  two  in  1975,  three  in  1977,  and 
three  in  1978.  All  are  as  extremely  coloured  as  the  parent  birds.  This  is 
especially  so  with  the  1977  hatch  which  have  the  vinaceous  well  up  to  the 
breast  area  and  the  red  already  extending  well  down  on  to  the  breast.  When 
they  reach  maturity  they  will  no  doubt  be  more  striking  in  appearance  than 
the  parents.  I  recall  purchasing  a  young  Cuban  from  the  last  clutch  raised  by 
Velma  McDaniels.  While  already  a  very  beautiful  specimen  when  it  arrived, 
it  blossomed,  so  to  speak,  overnight  when  it  reached  four  years  of  age.  The 
white  and  pink  on  the  head  and  throat  increased  noticeably  during  the  fourth 
year. 

Both  the  Cuban  and  the  Isle  of  Pines  Parrots  are  very  active  and  constantly 
curious  when  anyone  is  in  their  area.  Ever  ready  to  encourage  a  handout, 
they  fly  back  and  forth  or  sway  to  and  fro  on  the  perch  to  attract  attention. 
Unlike  the  Cayman  Island  Amazons  they  are  not  prone  to  obesity,  being  far 
too  active  for  that.  The  Grand  Cayman  Island  subspecies  is  a  slow  mover  and 
would  rather  just  perch  than  move  about,  being  only  stirred  when  food  is 
placed  in  its  aviary.  We  noticed  this  trait  during  our  many  visits  to  the 
Cayman  Islands  and  especially  during  the  four  months  I  lived  there  in  1976. 

Like  its  Cuban  neighbour,  the  Isle  of  Pines  Amazon  lays  four  to  five  eggs 
in  a  clutch.  Caymanensis  has  two  to  four  eggs  per  clutch  while  hesterna  from 
Cayman  Brae  produces  the  smallest  clutches  consisting  of  only  one  to  three 
eggs.  This  last  reference  is  from  observation  of  three  nests  in  the  field  and 
from  our  two  laying  hens  here  on  the  Ranch.  From  information  gained  from 
two  of  our  members  whom  we  sent  to  the  Bahamas,  bahamensis  averages  four 


88 


R.  NOEGEL  -  ISLE  OF  PINES  AMAZON 


eggs  to  a  clutch.  Incubation  period  is  twenty-eight  days.  The  young  are  well 
feathered  when  seven  weeks  old  and  starting  to  sample  soft  foods  about  this 
time.  They  are  usually  completely  feeding  on  their  own  by  ten  weeks  of  age. 

Today  the  Isle  of  Pines  has  become  a  kind  of  incubator  for  Cuba’s  post¬ 
revolutionary  generation,  boasting  over  twenty  boarding  schools  which  are 
spread  over  the  island.  Some  twenty  thousand  students  attend  these  schools 
and  work  in  the  citrus  groves  following  school  hours.  There  are  also  four 
schools  for  African  students  and  one  for  Ethopian  children.  In  keeping  with 
the  island’s  conversion  from  an  agricultural  community  to  a  training  centre, 
the  local  authorities  want  to  change  its  name  to  the  “Isle  of  Youth.” 

We  can  well  imagine  what  this  sudden  modernization  will  do  \.o  palmar  urn’s 
habitat.  While  there  are  still  vast  wilderness  areas  in  Cuba,  we  cannot  hope 
for  such  on  the  Isle  of  Pines.  Captive  breeding  will  eventually  be  the  only 
solution  for  the  continued  propagation  of  many  of  the  Caribbean  Islands 
parrots.  Under- developed  countries  cannot  be  expected  to  concern  themselves 
with  the  welfare  of  parrots  when  they  are  more  pressed  with  the  problem  of 
feeding  their  peopl.  Conservation  of  wildlife  in  distant  regions  sounds  all 
well  and  good  as  we  sit  in  our  cosy  homes  being  well  fed,  but  it  is  an  almost 
impossible  probability,  especially  on  small  islands  where  land  is  at  a  premium. 
We  simply  must  come  to  understand  and  recognize  the  fact  that  many 
species  of  wild  life  simply  cannot  survive  in  their  native  habitat.  If  we  wait 
for  under-developed  countries  to  acquire  a  concern  for  their  natural  wildlife, 
we  will  see  many  unique  species  disappear. 

It  has  been  our  intention  from  that  start  of  our  breeding  project  (1966)  of 
rare  and  endangered  Caribbean  Amazons  to  place  the  young  with  qualified, 
experienced  aviculturalists  and  zoos.  Beginning  last  year  (1977)  we  have  to 
date  distributed  five  pairs  of  the  leucocephala  group  to  different  zoos  and 
individuals  here  in  Florida.  All  these  were  offspring  from  our  breeding  pairs 
of  palmarum,  caymanensis  and  leucocephala.  If  we  can,  in  time,  distribute 
enough  of  these  unusual  and  beautiful  Amazons  for  future  captive  breeding 
colonies,  we  may  well  have  been  the  instrument  of  saving  them  from  total 
extinction.  To  my  knowledge,  we  are  the  only  ones  to  have  ever  bred 
caymanensis  and  palmarum  in  captivity  and  the  only  ones  currently  breeding 
the  nominate  race  in  the  U.S.  We  have  the  only  captive  group  of  hesterna 
outside  their  native  island  and  at  the  time  of  writing  this  article  one  of  our 
three  pairs  is  incubating  two  fertile  eggs,  so  we  hope  for  success  with  this 
smallest  representative  and  the  most  threatened  of  the  leucocephala  group. 


89 


BREEDING  RESULTS  AND  PHOTOPERIOD 
By  JEFFREY  Trollope,  (Hounslow,  Middlesex) 

Introduction 

Of  the  many  external  factors  controlling  reproduction  in  birds,  light  has 
long  been  considered  a  primary  factor.  Much  of  the  experimental  work  and 
field  studies  have  concerned  temperate  zone  birds.  Many  of  these  investigations 
were  stimulated  by  Rowan’s  (1925)  original  discoveries  and  later  work. 
However,  as  noted  by  Marshall  (1959)  Rowan’s  work  so  dramatically  empha¬ 
sized  the  importance  of  light,  that  people  lost  sight  of  other  factors  which  are 
also  extremely  important.  These  include  temperature,  food  availability  and 
rainfall,  not  perhaps  rainfall  per  se ,  but  the  environmental  changes  that  occur 
because  of  rain. 

Hall  (1970)  in  a  study  of  Ploceine  weavers,  while  acknowledging  that  in 
many  tropical  species,  the  start  of  breeding  and  onset  of  rainfall  are 
synchronized,  found  that  later  stages  of  reproduction  were  due  to  social 
factors.  The  early  experimental  work  on  the  effects  of  light  on  reproduction, 
resulted  in  the  use  of  extended  artificial  lighting  for  commercial  poultry  egg 
production.  Later  the  domesticated  Japanese  Quail,  Coturnix  c.japonica ,  was 
used  in  the  laboratory  and  egg  production  was  enhanced  by  the  same 
methods. 

For  the  aviculturist  in  the  U.K.  it  has  been  standard  practice  to  keep 
foreign  birds  in  heated  or  ‘frost  proof’  quarters  with  or  without  artificial  light 
during  the  winter.  The  birds  are  released  into  outside  aviaries  for  breeding, 
usually  from  the  period  May/ June  until  about  September.  Some  aviculturists 
have  used  artificial  light  and  heat  to  breed  birds  during  the  winter,  breeders 
of  the  Gouldian  Finch  among  them.  It  has  long  been  noted  that  some  foreign 
birds,  especially  the  Gouldian  and  other  Australian  finches,  attempt  to  breed 
in  the  winter  months,  reproduction  still  being  synchronized  with  their  feral 
breeding  period.  This  was  more  marKed  with  the  Gouldian  Finch  when  these 
birds  were  still  imported  from  Australia;  Boosey  (1962)  mentions  this  problem 
with  Gouldians.  In  this  paper  14  years  data  are  given  on  breeding  results  from 
birds  kept  in  outside  planted  aviaries  from  April  to  November,  without 
artificial  heat  or  lighting.  The  data  and  number  of  species  are  limited  because 
of  my  former  practice  of  using  the  period  of  May/June  until  September  for 
breeding.  To  date,  if  severe  weather  occurs  before  November,  the  birds  are 
removed  to  heated  quarters  with  artificial  light. 

Comments  on  Housing  and  Diet 

The  aviaries  have  soil  floors  and  are  planted  with  privet  bushes,  clumps  of 
gorse  are  hung  up  at  various  heights  to  provide  nesting  sites  and  cover  and  a 
wide  variety  of  nesting  receptacles  is  provided.  The  only  other  primary 
factor  over  which  the  author  has  control  is  food  supply.  Although  all  the 


90 


TABLE  OF  BREEDING  DATA  FOR  APRIL  TO  NOVEMBER 


Species 

Total 

No.  of  No.  of  Months  April  to  November 

of 

Breed- 

Pairs 

Capt- 

Pairs 

Impor- 

A  pril 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

ing 

Pairs 

ive  bredlmpor- 
Bred  ted 

Blue-headed  Waxbill 

Uraeginthus  a.  cyanocephah 

■2  3 

I 

2 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

El 

I 

Cordon-bleu 

Uraeginthus  bengalus 

1 

1 

El 

HR 

St.  Helena  Waxbill 

Estrilda  astrild 

1 

1 

EIHR 

EIHR 

E 

E 

Orange -cheeked  Waxbill 

Estrilda  melpoda 

1 

1 

El 

HR 

Avadavat 

A  mandava  amandava 

3 

1 

2 

E 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

I 

Golden-breasted  Waxbill 

A  mandava  subflava 

1 

1 

El 

El 

HR 

Crimson-winged  Waxbill 

Pytilia  phoenicoplera 

4 

2 

2 

El 

EIH 

EIHR 

EIH 

R 

Pearl-headed  Silverbill 

Lonchura  caniceps 

1 

1 

E 

El 

EIHR 

Cut-throat  Finch 

Ahiadiiia  fascial  a 

1 

El 

HR 

Green  Singing  Finch 

Serinus  mozambicus 

5 

2 

3 

El 

E 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EHR 

Bush  Petronia 

Petronia  dentata 

3 

1 

2 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

E 

Cinnamon-breasted  Rock 

Bunting  Emberiza  tahapisi 

2 

2 

El 

El 

El 

E 

Red-crested  Finch 

Coryphospingus  cucullatus 

2 

2 

EIH 

EIHR 

HR 

Red  Cardinal 

Cardinalis  cardinalis 

1 

1 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIH 

E 

Masked  Hawfinch 

Coccothraustes  personatus 

1 

1 

El 

Chinese  Painted  Quail 

Coturnix  chinennsis 

3 

1 

2 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

HR 

El 

Harlequin  Quail 

Coturnix  delegorguei 

4 

3 

1 

E 

El 

IH 

EIHR 

EIHR 

ER 

Gold-billed  Dove 

Coluhtbina  cruziana 

5 

2 

3 

El 

EIH 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIH 

Plain-breasted  Ground  Dove 

Columbitia  minuta 

2 

1 

1 

El 

HR 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIHR 

R 

Talpacoti  Ground  Dove 

Columbina  talpacoti 

2 

1 

1 

El 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIHR 

El 

Black-billed  Wood  Dove 

Turtur  abyssinicus 

1 

1 

El 

El 

El 

El 

El 

El 

HR 

Cape  Dove 

Oena  capensis 

3 

1 

2 

El 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIHR 

EIH 

EIHR 

EIHR 

Bustard  Quail 

Turnix  suscitator 

3 

1 

2 

E 

EIHR 

EIH 

EIHR 

EIHR 

KEY:  E  =  Eggs  Laid  I  =  Incubated  H  =  Hatched  R  =  Chicks  reared. 


J.  TROLLOPE  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  AND  PHOTOPERIOD 


91 


species,  in  avicultural  terms,  can  be  classed  as  ‘seed  eaters‘,  in  my  experience 
few  of  them  will  successfully  breed,  or  even  maintain  top  condition  in  the 
long  term,  without  live  food  or  high  protein  supplement.  The  doves  may  be 
considered  exceptions  in  this  respect,  but  these  have  occasionally  been  seen 
to  eat  insects,  maggots  and  other  invertebrates.  Another  variable  is  the 
decline  in  the  number  of  ‘natural’  insects  available  in  the  aviaries,  as  the 
weather  becomes  colder. 


Results 

The  data  are  presented  in  a  crude  form,  as  a  statement  of  which  birds  bred  in 
the  period  April  to  November,  and  which  species  bred  successfully  in  a 
period  of  declining  daylight,  from  the  summer  solstice  onwards.  The  species 
which  attempted  to  breed  but  were  unsuccessful  are  also  recorded. 

Rearing  means  that  the  parent  birds  reared  the  young  to  independence. 

As  can  be  seen  from  the  table,  twelve  of  the  fifteen  small  passerine  species 
bred  successfully  from  June  onwards,  and  six  species  reared  young  as  late  as 
the  Oct/Nov  period.  Of  the  two  Quail  species,  both  reared  young  after  June, 
and  one  reared  young  in  Sept/Oct.  In  the  Columbidae ,  all  five  species  were 
the  most  consistent  breeders  after  June,  even  as  late  as  the  Oct/Nov  period. 
The  single  species  of  Hemipode  (Bustard  Quail),  reared  young  in  Aug/Sept 
period: 


Discussion 

The  exclusion  of  data  from  birds  outside  of  the  April  —  November  group, 
has  resulted  in  limited  data  in  some  species  and  a  chance  bias  towards  the 
Ethiopian  faunal  region.  Of  the  Ethiopian  small  passerines,  the  most  notable 
late  breeders  are  the  Pytilias  and  Green  Singing  Finches,  the  records  of  both 
include  data  from  captive  bred  pairs.  The  Cut-throat  and  Cordon-bleus, 
although  breeding  late  were  represented  by  single  pairs.  The  only  small 
passerine  from  the  Oriental  region,  the  Red  Avadavat,  was  a  late  breeder. 

Of  the  two  quail  species,  the  Oriental  Chinese  Painted  Quail  bred 
successfully  no  later  than  August,  but  the  Ethiopian  Harlequin  reared  young 
as  late  as  October;  however  the  Harlequin  data  were  obtained  from  more  pairs 
including  captive  bred  birds.  The  five  species  of  doves,  three  Neotropical 
and  two  Ethiopian,  all  reared  young  as  late  as  Oct/Nov.  This  is  probably  due 
to  the  production  of  crop-milk,  giving  the  doves  independence  from  live 
food  for  rearing  young.  It  has  long  been  accepted  that  the  Cape  Dove,  O. 
capensisy  is  not  the  easiest  dove  to  breed,  aviculturists  find  them  susceptible 
to  cold  and  uncertain  breeders.  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  success  of  this 
species  in  rearing  young  so  late  in  the  year. 

If  one  tries  to  correlate  late  breeding  in  captivity  with  a  given  species,  such 
as  the  Green  Singing  Finch,  to  periods  of  feral  breeding  in  the  country  of 
origin,  various  problems  are  evident.  The  distribution  of  S.  mozambicus 


92 


J.  TROLLOPE  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  AND  PHOTOPERIOD 


covers  a  vast  geographical  region,  months  of  breeding  in  different  areas  show 
considerable  variation.  Mackworth  —  Praed  &  Grant  (1960)  record  nearly 
every  month  of  the  year  for  the  breeding  of  three  subspecies  of  S.  mozambicus 
in  Eastern  and  North-Eastern  Africa.  Roberts  (1961)  records  the  period 
November  to  March,  for  Southern  Africa.  Therefore  without  a  sure  knowledge 
of  the  subspecies  involved  and  area  of  origin,  it  is  only  an  assumption  from 
such  limited  data  as  mine,  that  these  Serins  are  retaining  their  feral  breeding 
period  in  captivity,  at  least  for  imported  and  second  generation  stock. 
Another  factor  is  that  so  many  tropical  and  sub-tropical  species  are  apparently 
opportunistic  breeders  with  rainfall  initiating  the  start  of  the  reproductive 
cycle.  However,  it  is  apparent  that  in  an  average  season  in  Southern  England 
established  foreign  ‘seedeaters’  can  successfully  rear  young  in  a  period  of 
declining  photoperiod  and  temperature.  The  reason  for  this  I  would  suggest, 
is  the  hopefully  ‘optimal’  and  constant  food  supply  available. 

Summary 

1)  Limited  data  are  presented  from  14  years’  breeding  records  of  foreign 
‘seed-eating’  birds,  kept  without  artificial  light  and  heat  in  outside  aviaries 
from  April  to  November  in  Southern  England. 

2)  From  a  total  of  fifteen  passerine  species,  twelve  bred  successfully  from 
June  onwards  and  six  of  these  reared  young  as  late  as  October/November. 

3)  T wo  quail  species  both  bred  successfully  after  June,  one  reared  young  in 
September/October. 

4)  Five  species  of  doves  reared  young  as  late  as  October/November.  The 
production  of  crop-milk  giving  the  doves  independence  from  live  food  for 
rearing  young,  is  suggested  as  the  reason  for  late  successful  breeding  in 
Columbidae. 

5)  A  single  Hemipode  species,  reared  young  from  June  onwards  until 
September. 

6)  The  constant  food  supply  available  in  captivity  is  suggested  as  the 
reason  per  se  for  successful  breeding  in  a  period  of  declining  photoperiod  and 
temperature. 


REFERENCES 

BOOSEY,  E.  T.  (1962).  Foreign  Bird-Keeping,  Second  Ed;  Iliffe  books,  London. 

HALL,  J .  R.  (1970).  Synchrony  and  social  stimulation  in  colonies  of  the  Black-headed  Weaver 
Ploceus  cucullatus  and  Vieillots’  Black  Weaver  Melanopteryx  nigerrimus.  IBIS,  112, 
1,93-  104. 

Mackworth-Praed,  C.  W.  and  Grant,  C.  H.  B.  (1960).  African  Handbook  of  Birds, 
series  1  Vol.  2  second  ed;  Longmans  Green  &  Co  Ltd,  London. 

MARSHALL,  A.  J.  (1959).  Internal  and  Environmental  control  of  breeding.  IBIS,  101, 
3-4,  456-478. 

ROBERTS,  A.  (1961).  Birds  of  South  Africa,  revised  ed;  The  trustees  of  the  South  African 
Bird  book  fund,  Cape  Town. 

ROWAN,  W.  (1925).  Relation  of  light  to  Bird  migration  and  developmental  changes; 
Nature,  115,  494—  495. 


93 


CITRON-CRESTED  COCKATOOS  IN  SUMBA 
By  S.  B.  KENDALL  (Chertsey,  Surrey) 

As  some  members  of  the  Society  may  be  aware  I  have  kept  and  bred  the 
Citron-crested  Cockatoo  Cacatua  sulphurea  citrinocristata  (Fraser)  continuously 
for  about  twenty  years.  It  is,  to  my  mind,  by  far  the  most  attractive  subspecies 
of  C.  sulphurea,  which  occurs  throughout  Australasia,  the  crest  being  quite 
differently  coloured  from  any  other  I  have  seen.  According  to  the  literature  it 
is  confined  to  Sumba,  one  of  the  most  southerly  of  the  “Eastern  Islands”  of 
Indonesia  and  I  think  this  is  correct. 

For  a  year  during  1977—1978  I  worked  in  Indonesia,  mostly  in  Sulawesi 
(Celebes)  and  in  February  of  1978  was  able  to  visit  Sumba.  Although  the  trip 
occupied  ten  days,  opportunities  for  bird  watching  were  extremely  limited, 
an  unusually  large  amount  of  time  being  taken  up  with  travel  or  waiting  for 
transport.  There  are  in  fact  regular  flights  from  Denpasar  in  Bali  but 
weather  conditions  can  disrupt  travel  and  within  the  island  itself  travel  can 
be  difficult  (I  spent  about  14  hours  covering  60  kilometres  on  one  occasion, 
this  including  leaving  my  lorry  in  the  middle  of  a  river).  Nevertheless  the  few 
hours  available  for  bird  watching  resulted  in  some  memorable  views  of  the 
Citron-crested  cockatoo. 

On  arrival  at  Waingapu  in  the  Island  I  made  enquiries  about  cockatoos  and 
was  told  that  they  could  indeed  be  seen  on  the  outskirts  of  the  town  and  were 
locally  hated  because  of  their  depredations  on  the  maize  crops.  I  was  told  also 
that  these  birds  had  sulphur  crests  exactly  the  same  as  those  found  on  the 
other  islands.  This  proved  to  be  incorrect  but  caused  me  some  concern 
particularly  because  an  otherwise  remarkably  informative  article  of  the  last 
century  which  I  have  among  my  books  (Doherty,  W.  1891)  said  the  same. 

Leaving  Waingapu  in  the  east  of  the  island  I  travelled  south-east  to  a  place 
near  the  coast  called  Melalo,  where  I  spent  two  nights.  As  night  approached 
it  was  apparent  that  the  small  patch  of  original  (?)  forest  on  the  edge  of  which 
I  was  staying  was  a  roost  for  cockatoos  (I  was  unable  to  see  the  colour  of  the 
crest  in  flight)  and  also  for  another  large  parrot  which  at  the  time  I  was 
unable  to  identify,  but  which  later  proved  to  be  an  Eclectus,  presumably  the 
Sumba  subspecies. 

I  arranged  to  spend  about  three  hours  from  daybreak,  until  I  had  to  work, 
in  the  forest  with  a  local  man  who,  it  was  insisted,  was  to  protect  me  from  the 
python^.  He  proved  a  pleasant  character  who  kept  quiet  if  only  because  my 
Indonesian  is  very  poor  and  my  knowledge  of  local  languages,  needless  to 
say,  is  non-existent.  The  forest  was  moderately  dense  with  numerous  very 
tall  (30  metres?)  trees  in  the  tops  of  which  were  Citron-crests  beautifully 
displayed  in  the  early  morning  sunshine  and  Eclectus  parrots  in  pairs.  The 
hens  appeared  through  my  binoculars  to  be  plain  red;  the  cocks  green  with  a 
little  blue  in  the  wing  and  one  or  two  so  dark  as  to  be  reasonably  described  as 
black.  I  considered  the  possibility  that  these  were  rain-drenched  ordinary 


94 


S.  B.  KENDALL  -  CITRON-CRESTED  COCKATOOS 


cockatoos  but  doubt  it. 

During  the  night  I  had  been  aware  of  what  seemed  to  be  an  unreasonable 
amount  of  cockatoo  shouting  from  the  roost  and  the  reason  became  plain 
when  we  came  upon  two  locals  who  had  been  engaged  in  catching  the  birds. 
The  technique  was  to  place  a  stick  with  a  series  of  nylon  nooses  in  the  tops  of 
the  roosting  trees  in  the  evening  and  to  recover  the  birds  in  the  morning  after 
a  night  presumably  suspended  upsidedown.  The  nooses  were  definitely 
nylon  not  wire  and  I  do  not  know  whay  the  captives  did  not  bite  their  way  to 
freedom. 

Three  out  of  four  recent  captures  were  mature  hens  which  might  well  have 
been  breeding,  for  the  birdcatchers  said  that  they  were  going  up  one  of  the 
tall  trees  in  the  late  afternoon  to  get  a  young  Eclectus  parrot,  about  which 
they  knew,  from  a  nest  hole.  I  arranged  to  accompany  them  but  only  to  the 
base  of  the  tree!  However,  in  the  early  afternoon  the  skies  opened  and  rain 
descended  in  quantities  that  ensured  that  for  the  period  few  living  things  left 
shelter  and  at  first  light  next  morning  I  had  to  return  to  Waingapu. 

Obviously  from  such  a  brief  acquaintance  with  the  Citron-crested  Cockatoo 
I  learnt  very  little  but  Sumba  is  not  a  place  to  which  many  people  are  likely  to 
travel  and  a  few  comments  from  one  who  has  been  there  may  be  of  interest. 
My  experiences  were  confined  to  aerial  views  (small  aircraft,  low  altitude)  of 
the  north  coast  approaching  Sumba  from  Bali  in  the  west  and  flying  overland 
from  Waingapu  in  the  east  to  Waikelo  in  the  west  which  took  me  over  the 
centre  of  the  island,  and  to  ground  travel  which  was  confined  to  the  eastern 
part  of  the  island. 

It  is  just  possible  that  the  cockatoo  occurs  on  some  tiny  islands  like  Sabu 
but  I  doubt  it  and  I  feel  that  the  future  of  this  very  beautiful  bird  is  very 
insecure.  It  is  clearly  being  exploited  by  the  bird-catchers.  Tall  forest  trees, 
which  it  surely  needs  for  nesting,  are  confined  as  far  as  I  could  see  to  hill  tops 
and  ravines,  most  of  the  island  being  covered  with  stony  pasture.  According 
to  what  I  was  told,  deforestation  started  a  very  long  time  ago.  Sandal-wood 
trees,  if  they  ever  occurred  in  large  quantities  are  now  said  to  be  virtually 
extinct.  Serious  erosion,  in  my  observation,  was  occurring  down  the  ravines 
and  the  shallow  estuarine  waters  were  mud-stained  far  out  to  sea. 

This  is  a  situation  about  which  we  can  all  feel  sad.  Unfortunately  nobody 
with  much  personal  experience  of  such  places  finds  it  easy  to  propose  a 
remedy. 


REFERENCES 

DOHERTY,  W.  1891.  The  Butterflies  of  Sumba  and  Sumbawa  with  some  account  of  the 
Island  of  Sumba. 

Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal  xl  No.  2.  891.  Calcutta. 


95 


NOTES  FROM  A  KENYAN  COLLECTION 
By  MALCOLM  Ellis  (Wadebridge,  Cornwall) 

Some  while  after  my  account  of  the  breeding  of  the  Red-headed  Blue-bill 
Spermophaga  ruficapilla  in  Mr  Syd  Downey’s  aviaries  at  Langata,  Kenya 
(A.M.  vol.  83,  pp.  124—125),  he  wrote  to  inform  me  that  the  bird  bred,  a 
male,  had  died.  Much  to  Mr  Downey’s  regret,  he  failed  to  separate  the 
young  male  from  its  parents,  as  soon  as  it  was  old  enough  to  look  after  itself. 
He  returned  from  a  short  safari,  to  find  the  young  male,  dead:  it  appeared  to 
have  been  killed  —  presumably  by  its  father.  Shortly  afterwards,  the  adult 
male  was  among  several  birds  which  died,  Mr  Downey  thought,  as  a  result  of 
being  poisoned,  either  from  the  chlorination  of  the  water  supply  or  possibly 
as  a  consequence  of  cattle  dip  getting  into  the  supply,  which  originates  from  a 
stream  used  by  the  local  Masai.  This  view  was  reinforced  by  the  fact,  that  at 
the  same  time,  a  neighbour’s  goldfish  died. 

Because  of  the  Kenya  Government  ban  on  all  hunting  and  trapping,  etc., 
there  was  considerable  difficulty  obtaining  another  male,  as  a  mate  for  the 
female  Red-headed  Blue-bill.  It  was  not  until  July  1978,  that  one  was 
obtained.  On  September  17th,  the  pair  were  observed  to  be  nesting  —  the 
male  and  female  taking  turns  on  the  nest.  This  continued  for  approximately 
3  weeks,  after  which  both  birds  were  observed  off  the  nest.  On  October  27th, 
two  young,  which  were  both  able  to  fly,  were  seen  for  the  first  time.  Later,  Mr 
Downey,  was  surprised  and  delighted  to  find,  that  there  was  in  fact,  three 
young  blue-bills.  He  states,  that  it  would  appear  that  approximately  6  weeks 
elapse,  from  the  time  of  nesting,  to  the  time  when  the  young  leave  the  nest. 

As  on  past  occasions,  the  pair  of  Red-headed  Blue-bills  were  provided 
with  a  large  armful  (about  2  cubic  feet  (0.056  cubic  metres))  of  dry  grass. 
This  was  placed  about  4  feet  (1.219  metres)  from  the  ground,  supported  by 
branches,  in  a  dark  corner.  Mr  Downey,  feels  sure  that  this,  combined  with 
segregation  (providing  the  pair  with  an  aviary  to  themselves),  will  be  successful, 
if  anyone  else  cares  to  give  it  a  try. 

Another  notable  success  was  the  breeding  of  a  Ross’s  Turaco  Musophaga 
rossae.  At  the  time  of  Mr  Downey’s  first  letter,  the  young  turaco  was  almost 
indistinguishable  from  its  parents  and  readily  joined  in  the  family  ‘duets’.  A 
further  letter  informed  me  that  the  pair  of  Ross’s  Turacos  had  nested  again 
and  hatched  two  chicks,  but  for  some  reason  neither  survived.  They  appeared 
to  have  been  sat  on  too  heavily  and,  Mr  Downey,  wondered,  if  the  nest  which 
he  arranged  for  them,  was  too  cup-shaped.  He  added,  he  knows,  that  in  the 
wild,  the  nest  is  a  bare,  flat  platform. 

According  to  Mr  Downey,  his  Tambourine  Doves  Turtur  tympanistria, 
never  stop  nesting:  so  much  so,  that  he  has  been  forced  to  consider  releasing 
some.  His  Tambourine  Doves,  in  common  with  the  Red-headed  Blue-bills, 
like  a  dark  area  in  which  to  nest.  Other  species  which  have  recently  bred, 


96 


G.  C.  DEAN  -  STANLEY  CRANES  AT  HAUGHTON  HALL 


include,  the  Chestnut  Weaver  Ploceus  rubiginosus,  Speke’s  Weaver  P.  spekei} 
Lemon  Dove  Aplopelia  larva ta  and  Crowned  Lapwing  or  Plover  Vanellus 
coronatus.  The  last,  as  it  always  does  in  the  wild,  nested  right  out  in  the  open. 
The  nest  was  merely  a  shallow  depression  in  the  soil.  Two  eggs  were  laid  and 
both  birds  took  turns  to  sit  for  the  incubation  period  of  28  days.  The  young 
grew  at  a  remarkable  rate  and  were  soon  indistinguishable  from  their  parents. 
The  plovers  are  fed  minced  meat,  hard-boiled  egg  and  mealworms,  and,  of 
course,  catch  other  insects  for  themselves. 

Mr  Downey,  has  obtained  and  tamed  two  Speckled  Mousebirds  Colius 
striatus.  He  writes,  that  if  they  are  taken  from  the  nest  when  very  young,  they 
are  easily  tamed  and  make  delightful  pets,  which  want  to  be  with  you  all  the 
time;  he  adds,  that  children  love  them. 


★ 


STANLEY  CRANES  AT  HAUGHTON  HALL,  CHESHIRE 
By  Geoffrey  C.  Dean 

I  am  very  pleased  to  report  that  1978  was  another  year  of  success  with  the 
breeding  of  Stanley  Cranes  at  Haughton  and  five  were  bred. 

Our  pair  laid  the  first  egg  on  5th  June  and  did  not  lay  a  second,  so  I  decided 
to  put  this  under  a  broody  bantam  on  8th  June  but  the  egg  turned  out  to  be 
infertile.  The  next  eggs  were  produced  on  24th  and  27th  June,  and  were  put 
under  broody  bantams  on  27th  June.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  1977  the 
first  egg  was  laid  on  10th  May  but  in  1978  on  5th  June.  I  can  only  presume 
that  this  was  due  to  the  late  spring.  The  fact  that  we  did  not  allow  the  cranes 
to  sit  on  the  eggs  did  not  seem  to  put  them  off  laying. 

Again  this  year  we  removed  the  newly-hatched  cranes  and  put  them  along 
with  a  day-old  chicken  under  artificial  heat  (250w.  infra-red  light)  as  we 
believe  that  the  chicken  teaches  the  crane  to  eat. 


97 


REPORT  ON  THE  BIRD  COLLECTION  AT 
PAIGNTON  ZOOLOGICAL  &  BOTANICAL  GARDENS  IN  1978 

More  birds  than  any  other  group  of  animals  were  purchased  this  year  and 
successful  hatchings  numbered  122. 

During  the  winter  months,  three  Jackass  Penguins  Spheniscus  demersus 
were  hatched  and  our  small  colony  now  comprises  7  males,  8  females  and  3 
unsexed  young.  Three  species  not  previously  bred  in  the  collection  were  a 
Barn  Owl  Tyto  alba ,  from  parents  bought  only  2  months  earlier,  a  Common 
Coucal  Centropus  sinensis  and  a  Sarus  Crane  Grus  antigone.  The  latter  was 
hatched,  incredibly,  under  a  small  ‘broody’  bantam  and  appeared  to  thrive 
until  at  the  age  of  2  months  it  became  apparent  that  the  bones  of  the  legs  were 
failing  to  develop  satisfactorily.  Sadly,  the  condition  was  considered  incurable 
and  the  bird  was  humanely  destroyed. 

13  Monk  Parakeets  Myiopsitta  monachus  were  successfully  hatched  and 
reared  and  we  now  have  24  of  these  birds,  some  of  which  we  hope  to  release 
in  the  grounds  during  1979.  Other  notable  hatchings  include  13  Crested 
Quail  Doves  Geotrygon  versicolor  and  6  Blue-eared  Glossy  Starlings  Lampro- 
tornis  chalybaeus ,  the  parents  of  which  have  been  rearing  clutches  twice 
annually  for  the  past  five  years. 

62  Blue  Peafowl  Pavo  cristatus  are  presently  roaming  the  Zoo  and 
surrounding  woodlands,  but  it  is  worth  recording  that  losses  to  predators 
during  1978  average  out  at  2  birds  per  month.  In  addition,  18  other  birds 
were  also  taken  by  foxes.  These  comprised  10  waterfowl,  6  Turkeys  Meleagris 
gallopavo ,  1  Helmet  Guineafowl  Numida  meleagris  and  a  Crowned  Crane 
Balearica  p.pavonina  which  had  lived  here  for  over  19  years.  A  feature  of  the 
collection  several  years  ago  was  the  large  number  of  Red  Junglefowl  Gallus 
g.gallus  roaming  the  grounds  in  company  with  the  Peafowl.  These  too  all  fell 
victims  to  the  fox,  but  next  year,  as  a  result  of  over  20  successful  hatchings 
from  captive  stock,  further  birds  will  be  released. 

33  Waterfowl  were  acquired  during  1978  including  3  Blue-winged  Geese 
Cyanochen  cyanoptera,  4  Laysan  Tea \  Anas  platyrhynchos  laysanensis.  3  Ruddy 
Sheld  Duck  Tadorna  ferruginea  and  a  Canvasback  Duck  Aythya  valisineria  for 
pairing.  ‘Paddock’  birds  purchased  were  2  Demoiselle  Crane  Anthropoides 
virgo,  2  White  Stork  Ciconia  ciconia  and  at  long  last  a  hen  Kori  Bustard 
Ardeotis  kori  for  our  widowed  cock.  As  well  as  the  Barn  Owls  mentioned 
earlier,  two  other  species  bought  were  a  pair  of  Little  Owls  A  thene  noctua  and 
a  male  Spotted  Little  Owl  Athene  brama  for  pairing  with  our  only  female  at 
the  Tropical  House. 

Parrot  arrivals  included  a  pair  of  the  beautiful  Sun  Parakeet  Aratinga 
solstitialis ,  7  Rainbow  Lory  Trichoglossus  haematodus  for  a  newly  constructed 
aviary  on  the  Back  Drive,  a  hen  Eclectus  Parrot  Eclectus  roratus  for  pairing, 
and  two  of  the  rarely  seen  Slender-billed  Parakeet  Enicognathus  leptorhynchus 
of  South  America.  Also  acquired  during  the  year  and  worthy  of  speical 


98 


PROF.  DR.  H-G.  KLOS  -  NEWS  FROM  BERLIN  ZOO 


mention  are  2  Black-crowned  Night-Heron  Nycticorax  nycticorax,  2  Green 
Magpie  Cissa  chinensis,  2  Rothschild’s  Starling  Leucopsar  rothschildi ,  2  Blue- 
throated  Barbet  Megalaima  asiatica,  2  Black-headed  Oriole  Oriolus  xanthornus, 
2  Toco  Toucan  Ramphastos  toco  and  a  Cuvier’s  Toucan  Ramphastos  cuvieri 
for  pairing. 


NEWS  FROM  THE  BERLIN  ZOO 

(January  to  March  1979) 

By  PROFFESOR  Dr.  HEINZ-GEORG  KLOS,  (Scientific  Director) 

New  arrivals: 

2  Darters  Anhinga  rufa,  1,0  Common  Koklas  Pucrasia  macrolopha,  1,1  Luzon 
Bleeding-Hearts  Gallicolumba  luzonica,  1,1  Bartlett’s  Bleeding-Hearts 
Gallicolumba  crinigera ,  1,1  African  Green  Pigeons  Treron  calva,  1,1  Yellow- 
bellied  Green  Pigeons  Treron  waalia,  1,1  Mourning  Doves  Zenaida  macroura, 
1,0  Golden-collared  Macaw  Ara  auricollis,  5  Long-eared  Owls  Asio  otus,  1,1 
African  Grey  Hornbills  Tockus  nasutus,  0,1  Superb  Wren- Warbler  Malurus 
cyaneus,  5  Brown-headed  Cowbirds  Molothrus  ater,  1,1  White-bellied 
Amethyst-Starlings  Cinnyricinclus  leucogaster ,  5  Alpine  Choughs  Pyrrhocorax 
graculus. 

Birds  hatched: 

2  Gouldian  Finches  Chloebia  gouldiae. 


99 


REPORT  ON  THE  SOCIAL  MEETING  -  15th  MAY,  1979 

Breeding  Kestrels  was  the  subject  of  an  illustrated  talk  by  James 
Kirkwood  at  the  recent  joint  meeting  of  the  Avicultural  Society  and  the 
Hawk  Trust  held  at  Burlington  House,  Piccadilly.  Mr.  Kirkwood  said  that 
breeding  birds  of  prey  is  a  young  branch  of  aviculture.  He  was  breeding 
Kestrels  not  for  release  (only  two  or  three  British  species  benefit  from  a 
breeding  and  release  scheme)  but  to  monitor  their  food  intake. 

Regarding  our  native  birds  of  prey,  he  said  that  there  was  a  need  for 
accurate  surveys  of  populations  and  ecological  requirements,  provision  of 
nesting  sites  and,  in  winter,  of  food;  wardening  to  reduce  disturbance 
(especially  for  Kites,  Peregrines  and  Golden  Eagles)  and  a  need  to  educate 
the  public. 

Preparatory  to  breeding  from  his  Kestrels,  he  cuts  their  talons  in  February 
and  examines  them  to  make  certain  they  are  in  good  health.  To  prevent 
aggression  male  and  female  are  placed  in  the  breeding  aviary  at  the  same 
time. 

The  aviary  is  of  the  “skylight  and  seclusion”  kind;  the  sides  are  covered 
and  there  is  no  direct  sunlight.  The  floor  covering  is  partly  of  gravel  and 
sand,  and  gravel  aids  the  birds’  digestion.  There  are  few  perches  and  these 
are  placed  where  they  are  needed  most.  The  floor  covering  is  of  grass  and 
low  shrubs  and  therefore  requires  little  maintenance. 

There  are  peep  holes  so  that  the  birds  can  be  watched  unobserved. 

A  food  platform  is  not  provided  because  the  Kestrels  would  immediately 
remove  food  placed  on  such  a  platform;  instead,  the  food  is  thrown  in  the 
grass.  For  this  species  a  low  perch  is  required  for  successful  copulation, 
during  which  the  male  extends  his  wings  upwards.  Eggs  are  laid  on  a  gravel 
and  sand  mixture  in  the  nest-boxes;  the  incubation  period  is  28  days  and 
the  usual  clutch  numbers  four  to  seven. 

Incubation  is  carried  out  by  the  female;  an  interesting  slide  depicted  the 
large  brood  patch  of  an  incubating  bird.  Males  incubate  for  a  few  minutes 
while  the  female  is  feeding. 

A  sequence  of  slides  showed  a  chick  at  various  ages;  at  one  day,  its  eyes 
were  open  and  it  had  a  thin  covering  of  down.  At  two  to  four  days,  chicks 
can  sit  on  their  haunches.  By  1 1  days  they  are  able  to  maintain  their  body 
heat  and  the  primaries  are  appearing.  By  14  days  they  have  a  thick  covering 
of  down  and  are  eating  four  voles  each  per  day.  At  18  days  they  are  able  to 
stand.  Maximum  food  consumption  occurs  at  10  days,  when  they  are 
consuming  60  per  cent  of  their  weight  daily. 

Mr.  Kirkwood  has  found  that  in  cold  weather  Kestrels  require  little  extra 
food,  in  comparison  with  teal  or  geese,  for  example;  thus  they  are  well 
adapted  to  our  climate,  Females  increase  in  weight  during  the  breeding 
season,  especially  in  captivity  when  they  weigh  up  to  300g. 

The  probable  reason  why  the  female  is  larger  is  that  she  is  therefore  able 
to  store  more  body  fat. 


100 


SOCIAL  MEETING  -  15  MAY  1979 


On  the  subject  of  rearing  Kestrels,  Mr.  Kirkwood  said  that  from  the  age 
of  four  days  they  are  fed  on  whole  minced  mice  and  that  they  cast  pellets 
from  the  age  of  five  days.  Prior  to  this  they  are  fed  on  strips  of  meat  with  no 
bone,  given  with  the  aid  of  a  pair  of  tweezers. 

It  is  possible  that  the  ratio  of  females  to  males  hatched  is  as  high  as  2:1. 

James  Kirkwood’s  talk  was  followed  by  an  enlightening  lecture  on  avian 
pathology,  especially  that  applicable  to  Birds  of  Prey,  by  John  Cooper, 
MRCVS,  author  of  Veterinary  Aspects  of  Birds  of  Prey.  Many  interesting 
slides  provided  the  audience  with  a  better  understanding  of  the  subject. 

Rosemary  Low 


101 


REVIEWS 

HIGHLAND  WILDLIFE  by  RICHARD  PERRY. 

Published  by  Groom  Helm,  London.  1979.  202  pages,  16  black  and  white 
photos.  Price  £6.95. 

This  is  an  account  of  wildlife  on  upper  Speyside  in  the  highlands  of 
Scotland,  and  comes  from  observations  made  during  the  seventeen  years  or 
so  that  the  author  lived  there.  It  is  described  as  an  extensively  revised, 
augmented  and  up-dated  edition  of  IN  THE  HIGH  GRAMPIANS,  which 
has  long  been  unavailable.  It  includes  new  chapters  on  deer,  dragonflies, 
birds  of  prey,  the  Dipper  and  some  of  what  it  calls  the  summer-resident 
waders.  From  the  Preface,  it  would  seem  that  material  for  these  chapters  has 
come  from  writing  by  the  author,  which  has  appeared  in  several  popular 
publications. 

More  than  half  of  the  book’s  twenty-eight  chapters  are  mainly  about  birds. 
These  include  the  Crossbill,  Ring  Ouzel,  many  of  the  birds  which  live  along 
and  on  the  River  Spey  and  on  the  Cairngorms,  where  among  the  breeding 
species  are  the  Golden  Plover,  Dotterel  and  Snow  Bunting.  Inevitably,  there 
are  throughout,  references  to  the  Red  Grouse,  Black  Grouse,  Ptarmigan  and 
Capercaillie.  Speyside’s  most  famous  breeding  bird,  the  Osprey,  is  not 
included,  presumably  because  the  period  of  observation  was  before  ite 
returned  and  began  to  regularly  breed  there  during  the  early  to  mid- 
Nineteen-fifties. 

Richard  Perry  presents  a  highly  readable  account  that  successfully  combines 
beautifully  descriptive  writing  with  a  considerable  amount  of  information, 
which  frequently  includes  the  localities,  dates  and  other  details  of  his 
observations.  My  only  misgivings  concern  the  description  (on  p.58,  not  p.48 
as  listed  in  the  Index)  of  the  Great  Grey  Shrike  as  “a  monstrous  black  and 
white  striped  ‘chaffinch’  with  ivory-coloured  underparts”  and  when  writing 
of  the  aggressive  posturing  of  cock  Ptarmigan,  the  reference  (p.173)  to  their 
“long  tails”. 

Birds  are  the  subject  of  ten  of  the  sixteen  photos.  The  photos  are  rather 
disappointing,  not  just  because  they  are  only  in  black  and  white,  but  because 
most  are  little  more  than  portraits  and  show  hardly  anything  of  the  species’ 
highland  habitats. 

These  relatively  minor  criticisms  barely  distract,  however,  and  I  am  sure 
that  this  book  will  be  enjoyed  by  those  with  an  interest  in  wildlife  and  the 
countryside,  especially  those  planning  a  holiday  on  Speyside,  who  will  glean 
much  useful  information  not  just  about  the  wildlife,  but  also  the  area’s 
extremely  changeable  weather.  Some  potential  readers  will  doubtless  be 
deterred  by  the  price  of  this  fairly  slim  volume,  which  does  seem  excessive 


102 


REVIEWS 


considering  that  most,  if  not  all  of  the  material  has  been  published  before  and 
the  somewhat  meagre  illustrations. 

M.E. 


FIRST  AID  AND  CARE  OF  WILD  BIRDS 

Edited  by  J.  E.  Cooper  and  J.  T.  Eley.  Published  by  David  and  Charles, 
1979.  288  p.p.  Photos  and  drawings.  Price  £9.50. 

All  who  are  remotely  concerned  with  the  care  of  wild  birds  have  been 
waiting  a  long  time  for  a  book  such  as  this  and  it  must  surely  become  a 
standard  reference. 

Anyone  who  has  worked  in  a  bird  gardens,  or  a  zoo,  as  I  have,  will  have 
experienced  the  endless  calls  for  help  from  finders  of  injured,  sick  or 
orphaned  birds  and  whilst  many  of  these  casualties  are  doomed,  others  die 
because  of  well-intentioned  but  uninformed  treatment.  Even  the  veterinary 
surgeons  on  the  whole  lack  sufficient  knowledge  to  deal  confidently  with 
most  of  the  cases  brought  to  them.  It  is  hard  to  imagine  any  situation  that  will 
not  be  covered  by  this  excellent  book  Members  of  the  public  who  suddenly 
find  themselves  responsible  for  a  wild  bird  in  distress  may  be  helped  in  some 
way  by  consulting  this  book  in  their  local  library,  provided  that  they  have  an 
elementary  grasp  of  technical  terms,  but  one  visualises  that  its  main  function 
will  be  to  advise  the  staff  at  animal  clinics  and  rescue  shelters,  and  in 
veterinary  surgeries,  as  well  as  members  of  natural  history  societies  and 
indeed  anyone  concerned  with  the  preservation  of  wildlife. 

The  editors  have  assembled  twenty  chapters  from  authors  who  are  experts 
on  themes  as  diverse  as  the  legal  aspects  of  sheltering  wild  birds,  the 
treatment  of  wounds  and  injuries,  pesticide  poisoning  and  oil  pollution, 
capturing,  holding  and  housing  injured  wild  birds,  diets,  anaesthesia  and 
euthanasia,  as  well  as  chapters  on  the  care  of  individual  groups  of  birds  such 
as  waterbirds  and  birds  of  prey.  There  are  some  very  useful  appendices 
listing  recommended  equipment  and  medicines,  drugs  and  dosages,  as  well 
as  an  extensive  bibliography  with  many  references  for  suggested  further 
reading.  There  is  also  an  appendix  giving  timely  warnings  and  advice  on  the 
health  hazards  to  human  volunteers  involved  in  the  care  of  birds. 

In  all,  this  book  is  a  very  valuable  summary  of  the  current  literature  and 
fills  a  large  gap. 


M.H.H. 


REVIEWS 


103 


RAISING  DOVES  AND  PIGEONS  by  Naether,  Carl  A. 

Published  by  David  McKay  Co.  Inc.  New  York.  $10.95. 

Subtitled  “An  Introduction  to  Their  Behaviour  and  Breeding”  this  book 
deals  with  the  keeping  of  both  domestic  and  wild  species.  Part  1,  entitled 
“The  Facts  of  Aviary  Life”,  contains  chapters  on  “The  Pleasure  of  Their 
Company”,  in  which  the  author  enthuses  over  the  delights  of  pigeon¬ 
keeping  and  gives  much  information  on  the  housing  and  treatment  of  both 
domestic  and  wild  species;  “Character  and  Behaviour  of  Pigeons  and 
Doves”,  in  which  the  behaviour  of  pigeons  both  as  a  class  and  as  individuals 
known  to  the  author  is  described;  “The  Life  Cycle  of  Pigeons  and  Doves”,  a 
description  of  some  aspects  of  pigeon  behaviour,  especially  those  relating  to 
the  breeding  cycle;  and  “The  Fun  of  Flying:  Racing  Homers,  Rollers, 
Tipplers”,  in  which  the  author  describes  and  enthuses  over  the  competitive 
use  of  these  domestic  pigeon  breeds. 

Part  2,  “A  Gallery  of  Favourites”  has  a  chapter  each  on  the  Ringneck 
Dove  (Barbary  Dove),  Diamond  Dove,  Bleeding-heart  Pigeons  (mostly  on 
the  Luzon  and  Bartlett’s  Bleeding-hearts),  Mountain  Witch  Dove  (Crested 
Quail  Dove),  Band-tailed  Pigeon,  Splendid  Pigeon,  Galapagos  Dove,  Plumed 
Dove,  Crowned  Pigeon  and  Pink  Pigeon.  These  chapters  contain  a  good 
deal  of  information,  usually  based  on  practical  experience  of  the  author 
(where  he  has  bred  the  species  in  question)  or  of  other  successful  breeders. 

The  author’s  style  may  jar  on  some,  as  I  must  confess  it  does  on  me,  but 
in  view  of  his  status  as  Professor  Emeritius  of  English  at  the  University  of 
Southern  California  it  is  clearly  impeccable  American  English.  What  does 
shine  happily  out  is  his  zeal  and  affection  for  his  favourites.  His  own 
personal  experiences  and  recommendations  seem  to  me  the  most  valuable 
parts  of  the  book,  although  I  do  not  find  myself  in  agreement  with  all  his 
interpretations  of  behaviour.  Some  of  the  other  information  in  the  book  is 
doubtful  (e.g.  that  wild  pigeons  often  rain  bathe  until  “for  some  time  they 
cannot  fly”,  p.35).  The  words  “variety”  and  “breed”  are  frequently  misused 
when  “species”  is  meant  and  the  colour  varieties  of  the  Barbary  Dove  are 
wrongly  termed  subspecies.  It  is,  however,  interesting  to  know  that  so 
many  new  colour  varieties  of  this  old  favourite  (or  perhaps,  alas,  now  in 
Britain  no  longer  a  favourite)  have  been  produced  in  the  USA.  It  would  be 
nice  to  have  more  detailed  descriptions  of  them  (one  is  briefly  described  as 
having  “lavender  neck  and  breast,  and  orange  wings”)  and  their  history. 

The  book  is  profusely  illustrated  (unless  I  have  miscounted)  84  black  and 
white  photographs.  Many  of  these  are  of  domestic  pigeons  (over  60  individual 
Racing  Homers  being  shown  in  a  total  of  14  pictures),  their  lofts  or  their 
not  very  photogenic  keepers,  and  some  are  of  wild  species  whose  plumage 
state  and  evident  fear  suggest  very  recent  handling.  There  are,  however, 
many  good  and  interesting  photos  of  wild  species,  for  example  a  Blue 
Crowned  Pigeon  in  defensive  threat  display,  a  sun-bathing  Galapagos  Dove 


104 


NEWS  &  VIEWS 


and  photos  of  the  rare  and  endangered  Pink  Pigeon,  which  it  is  hoped  to 
save  for  posterity  by  captive  breeding. 


D.G. 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 

World  Conference  III  on  Breeding  Endangered  Species  in  Captivity,  sponsored 
by  the  Zoological  Society  of  San  Diego  and  the  Fauna  Preservation  Society, 
is  scheduled  for  Nov.  12—  16,  1979,  in  San  Diego. 

Held  in  the  United  States  for  the  first  time,  the  conference  will  highlight 
captive  breeding  strategies  and  progress  for  such  animals  as  Pygmy 
Chimpanzees,  Giant  Pandas,  Sea  Otters,  Radiated  Tortoises  and  Falcons. 
Speakers  from  the  world’s  top  zoos,  wildlife  preserves  and  university-backed 
programmes  are  on  the  agenda. 

Registration  fee  is  $60  per  delegate  and  meetings  will  take  place  at  the 
Town  and  Country  Hotel  in  San  Diego.  Tours  of  the  San  Diego  Zoo  and  the 
San  Diego  Wild  Animal  Park  are  included. 

For  a  tentative  agenda,  registration  forms  or  further  information,  please 
contact  Ms.  Jo  Hammershoy,  Conference  Co-Ordinator,  San  Diego  Zoo, 
P.O.  Box  551,  San  Diego,  CA  92112. 

★  ★  * 

John  Zitta,  an  Australian  member,  is  anxious  to  obtain  coloured  slides  of 
birds  from  other  countries  to  add  to  his  collection.  He  will  buy  them  or 
exchange  for  slides  or  Australian  birds.  He  can  be  contacted  at  16  Tolson 
Court,  Norlane,  3214,  Victoria,  W.  Australia. 


105 


CORRESPONDENCE 

REQUEST  FOR  INFORMATION  CONCERNING  POSSIBLE  METHOD  OF 
SEXING  BLEEDING-HEART  PIGEONS 

Neither  the  Luzon  Gallicolumba  luzonica  or  Bartlett’s  G.  criniger  show 
marked  plumage  dimorphism  and  sexing  is  usually  determined  initially  by 
the  slightly  larger  size  and  bolder  appearance  of  the  males.  Even  so,  it  can 
still  prove  difficult  to  choose  a  true  pair  even  in  a  group,  and  ultimately 
behaviour  is  the  only  criterion  that  can  be  used  with  any  certainty. 

However,  during  the  course  of  1978  our  pair  of  Luzon’s,  which  had  laid 
fertile  eggs  the  previous  year  and  up  to  that  point  had  been  very  nervous, 
became  extremely  tame  and  would  accept  mealworms  from  the  fingers 
through  the  wire  of  their  flight.  It  was  then,  when  a  close  view  of  both  birds 
was  possible,  that  a  difference  in  iris  colours,  similar  to  those  evident  in 
certain  Hornbills  and  Cockatoos,  was  noticed.  Males  showed  blue,  while 
females  purple. 

This  method  was  then  applied  to  the  two  pairs  of  Bartlett’s  in  the  collection. 
The  adult  breeding  pair  showed  the  same  iris  colour  differences  between 
male  and  female  but  a  second  pair,  recently  formed  did  not.  Both  had  blue 
irides  but  behaved  as  a  pair,  even  to  the  stage  of  mating  and  therefore  cast  a 
shadow  of  doubt.  However,  towards  late  summer  the  behaviour  patterns  of 
the  two  reversed  and  it  became  evident  both  were  males.  They  were  then 
split  and  a  female,  sexed  solely  on  iris  colour  was  introduced  to  one  of  the 
males.  Within  two  months  a  youngster  had  been  reared. 

I  feel  confident  that  the  difference  in  iris  colour  is  a  trustworthy  method  of 
splitting  the  sexes  of  both  species  and  would  welcome  any  information  on  the 
matter  from  aviculturalists  who  have  bred  either  species,  or  who  have  birds 
of  a  particular  sex,  either  proven  or  suspected.  Hopefully,  any  forthcoming 
information  and  views  will  be  included  in  a  future  article  on  Gallicolumba. 

Padstow  Bird  Gardens, 

Padstow, 

Cornwall. 

Dave  Coles 


106 


CORRESPONDENCE 


SEXUAL  RATIO  IN  ECLECTUS  PARROTS;  INCIDENCE  OF  TWIN  CHICKS 
IN  PSITTACIFORMES 

During  the  1978  breeding  season  my  pair  of  Grand  Eclectus  Parrots 
Eclectus  roratus  roratus  produced  a  total  of  eight  chicks.  A  method  for 
increasing  chick  production  was  attempted  by  removing  the  chicks  from  the 
nest  at  three  weeks  of  age  for  hand-rearing  in  order  to  let  the  hen  recycle.  I 
am  quite  satisfied  with  the  volume  of  production,  but  the  sexual  ratio  of  the 
chicks  left  something  to  be  desired.  Of  the  8  birds,  7  were  males,  1  female. 

In  correspondence  with  others  who  have  produced  this  species  it  appears 
that  you  will  have  sexual  runs,  meaning  that  for  a  period  all  males  will  be 
produced,  then  a  period  predominating  in  females  will  follow. 

Sexual  ratios  have  been  controlled  in  certain  laboratory  animal  offspring 
by  exposure  to  specific  light  spectra.  ( Popular  Mechanics,  September  1978). 

I  would  be  most  interested  in  hearing  from  anyone  producing  Eclecti  (any 
race),  sexual  ratios  and  the  lights  spectra  in  use. 

In  addition,  the  second  egg  of  a  clutch  produced  in  October  1978  failed  to 
hatch  which  was  unusual.  By  candling  the  egg  it  was  found  to  be  fertile  but 
the  embryo  was  dead.  Upon  opening  the  egg  I  was  surprised  to  find  twin 
chicks,  both  attached  to  a  single  yolk  sac,  approximately  5  days  from 
hatching. 

I  have  seen  documented  cases  of  successful  hatching  and  rearing  of  twin 
Cockatiel  Nymphicus  hollandicus  chicks  but  on  no  occasion  have  I  found  any 
documentation  with  respect  to  large  Psittaciformes. 

I  would  appreciate  hearing  from  anyone  knowing  of  any  documented 
accounts. 

National  Zoological  Park, 

Smithsonian  Institution, 

3000  Connecticut  Avenue, 
c/o  Office  of  Animal  Health, 

Washington  D.C.  20009 
U.S.A. 


William  S.  Peratino 


CORRESPONDENCE 


107 


FIRST  BREEDING  AWARDS:  FURTHER  COMMENTS 

I  have  had  several  private  commendations  on  my  views  on  first  breeding 
awards,  and  Mr.  Reed’s  letter  in  the  Jan-March  1979  number  is  the  first 
criticism  I  have  seen.  I  had  never  thought  of  our  members  outside  Britain 
as  individuals  taking  advantage  of  a  cheap  deal,  but  as  fellow  aviculturists 
following  similar  pleasures  in  different  settings,  and  since  we  are  not  the 
British  Avicultural  Society  they  have  a  right  to  expect  as  much  consideration 
as  anyone  else.  The  age  of  parochialism  is  past,  I  hope.  In  view  of  our 
scattered  membership  I  cannot  really  see  that  democracy  is  served  by 
AGMs  which  only  a  tiny  section  of  our  membership  are  likely  to  be  able  to 
attend. 

I  believe  there  is  a  possibility  of  fraudulent  claims  for  breedings  where 
people  might  have  access  to  young  of  native  species,  and  the  situation 
would  be  worse  if  we  tried  to  operate  our  present  awards  on  a  world  scale.  I 
regard  the  data  of  some  recent  claims  for  breeding  native  species  as 
unsatisfactory,  and  I  do  not  accept  that  the  committee  should  be  expected 
to  act  as  arbiters,  or  to  apparently  certify  breeding  claims. 

As  regards  the  replacement  for  a  “carrot”  which  Mr.  Reed  asks  me  for,  I 
must  reply  that  I  don’t  think  it  is  necessary  since  I  do  not  believe  that  we  are 
dealing  with  donkeys.  In  the  same  issue  as  Mr.  Reed’s  letter,  a  few  pages 
further  on,  there  is  a  rule  which  states  quite  simply  that  the  Society  “shall 
have  for  its  object  the  study  of  British  and  foreign  birds  in  freedom  and 
captivity”.  It  is  the  results  of  such  study  that  aviculturists  have  to  offer  each 
other,  and  the  magazine  is  the  publication  in  which  they  can  do  this.  I  think 
that  those  who  feel  that  they  have  worthwhile  information  to  share  will 
offer  it  in  this  way,  and  if  we  never  have  another  claim  of  the  first  breeding 
of  a  species,  except  as  an  incidental  aside  in  an  article  giving  information  on 
the  keeping  and  breeding  of  birds,  I  do  not  think  we  shall  have  lost  anything 
of  significance. 

Colin  Harrison 

48  Earl’s  Crescent, 

Harrow, 

Middlesex  HA1  1XN 


108 


CORRESPONDENCE 


BOOMING  DISPLAY  OF  THE  YELLOW-KNOBBED  CURASSOW 
Crax  daubentoni 

Delacour  and  Amadon  (Curassows  and  Related  Birds ,  1973:221)  state  that 
male  Yellow-knobbed  Curassows  Crax  daubentoni  do  not  have  a  booming, 
territorial  song  but  rather,  employ  a  “prolonged,  high-pitched,  leisurely 
whistle.”  In  this  regard,  we  mention  a  male  of  this  species,  taken  as  an  adult 
and  held  in  the  Houston  Zoo  since  1971,  that  utters  both  forms  of  song, 
frequently  in  conjunction  and  apparently  in  territorial  display.  Standing  on 
a  branch,  or  occasionally  on  the  ground,  the  specimen  gives  the  descending 
whistle  previously  described;  then,  following  a  short  pause,  it  emits  a  low 
boom  in  the  manner  of  other  species.  The  whistle  is  given  with  the  neck 
stretched  up  and  the  beak  open  wide.  The  bird  then  leans  forward,  bows 
the  head  and,  slightly  retracting  it,  utters  a  two-syllable  boom  with  the 
second  note  barely  audible.  The  calls  are  repeated  four  times  a  minute  and 
a  calling  session  lasts  as  long  as  twenty  minutes  and  may  be  performed 
several  times  a  day.  The  territorial  calling  appears  at  times  to  be  triggered 
by  the  presence  of  humans,  whom  the  birds  regard  as  adversaries,  possibly 
due  to  imprinting  as  a  result  of  having  been  hand-raised  in  Venezuela.  This 
specimen  and  a  female  with  which  it  is  housed  are  believed  to  be  the  only 
examples  presently  in  the  United  States. 

TT  „  ,  .  „  ,  William  Todd  and  Peter  Bauml 

Houston  Zoological  Gardens, 

Box  1562, 

Houston, 

Texas,  77001. 


FACE-CLAWING  IN  PARROTS 

In  the  October  —  December  1978  issue  of  the  Magazine,  Stewart  Levinson 
asked  for  additions  to  his  list  of  Parrots  which  indulge  in  face-clawing.  Of  the 
more  than  100  parrots  in  my  collection,  only  2  indulge  in  this  behaviour 
habitually  and  purposefully.  They  are  a  Slender-billed  Parakeet,  Enicognathus 
leptorhynchus,  and  a  Chilean  Parakeet  or  Conure,  Enicognathus  feruginea. 

I  believe  that  this  behaviour  is  more  likely  to  occur  in  birds  kept  on  their 
own,  i.e.  those  without  a  mate  to  preen  their  heads.  The  Slender-billed 
Parakeet  had  been  kept  alone  for  about  13  years  before  it  was  possible  to  find 
a  mate  for  it  and  the  Chilean  is  a  pet  bird  kept  on  its  own. 


13  St.  Wilfrid’s  Road, 
New  Barnet,  Herts. 
EN4  9SB 


Rosemary  Low 


CORRESPONDENCE 


109 


PARTIAL  MOULT  IN  A  HONEYCREEPER 
Cyanerpes  cyaneus 

The  Cyanerpes  male  referred  to  in  the  Avicultural  Magazine  (Vol.  85, 
No.  1,  p.  6  —  15)  went  into  a  partial  moult  in  September,  after  breeding. 
Only  about  lh  of  its  feathers  were  replaced  by  the  out-of-season  green. 
These  were  mostly  on  the  lower  abdomen  and  were  patchy.  This  was 
thought  to  be  a  bad  sign  —  perhaps  of  senility,  as  it  had  previously  moulted 
completely.  However,  in  the  spring,  it  moulted  all  its  feathers  perfectly,  and 
is  as  radiant  and  active  as  ever. 


SEXING  Garrulax  mitratus  AND  Cyanocorax  yncas 

Having  had  a  pair  of  each  of  these  birds,  I  found  that  although  they  are, 
of  course,  unrelated,  they  could  be  sexed  in  exactly  the  same  way.  Both 
species  have  a  narrow  line  of  white  feathers  on  the  lores,  going  from  eye  to 
eye,  bordering  the  upper  mandible.  In  the  male  of  each,  this  band  is  more 
pronounced,  being  broader  and  whiter  than  in  the  respective  hens.  The 
difference  is  more  readily  appreciated  if  a  pair  is  examined  together.  In 
both  the  Jays,  and  in  the  hen  Chestnut-capped  Laughing  Thrush  (or,  less 
correctly  —  Chestnut-capped  Babbler),  this  observation  was  confirmed 
later  unfortunately  by  post-mortem  examination. 


Burnaby, 

British  Colombia, 
Canada. 


L.  Gibson 


BOOKS  ON  BIRDS 


New ,  Second-handy  Old  and  Rare 


CATALOGUE  ON  REQUEST 

WHELDON  &  WESLEY  LTD. 

CODICOTE,  HiTCHIN,  HERTS,  SG4  8TE 

Stevenage  (0438)  820370 


r 


'N 


cFromcWfexbills 

tocWfeterfowl... 


Ponderosa 
Bird  Aviaries 

Branch  Lane,  The  Reddings,  Cheltenham 
Telephone:  Churchdown  713229 


Specialist  Supplier  of  Foreign  and  Exotic  Birds 
Ministry  Approved  Quarantine  Premises 
English  Bred  Quality  Birds  Always  Wanted 
Wide  Range  of  Specialist  Bird  Books 
All  Types  of  Breeding  Boxes,  Cages,  etc. 
Varied  Selection  of  Bird  Seeds  and  Foods 


Mealworms  supplied  by  Return  of  Post 


Open  9  a.m.  to  1  p.m.  and  2  p.m.  to  6  p.m. 
Six  Days  a  Week — Closed  on  Mondays. 

1st  OCT— 31st  MARCH 
TUES-FRI.  9  a.m.  - 1  p.m.  2  p.m.  -  6  p.m. 
SAT  &  SUN  10  a.m.  -  1  p.m.  2  p.m.  -  5  p.m. 


Under  the  Personal  Supervision  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  J.  R.  Wood  P.T.A.  Dip. 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE 

The  Magazine  is  published  quarterly,  and  sent  free  to  all  members  of  the  Avicultural 
Society.  Members  joining  at  any  time  during  the  year  are  entitled  to  the  back  numbers  of 
the  current  year  on  the  payment  of  subscription. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire  SL5  8LT, 
England. 


THE  AVICULTURAL  Magazine  is  disbtibuted  by  the  Avicultural  Society  and  members 
should  address  all  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the  Hon.  Secretary  and 
Treasurer,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is  £6.00  (U.S.A.,  $15.00)  per  year,  payable  in 
advance,  and  the  price  for  individual  numbers  if  £1  ($2.50)  per  copy.  Non-members  should 
also  send  their  subscriptions  and  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the  Hon. 
Secretary  and  Treasurer. 


NEW  MEMBERS 

Mrs.  D.  D.  Allen,  Long  Acre,  Highfield  Road,  Bubwith,  Selby,  N.  Yorkshire  Y08  7LY. 
Mr.  R.  BRITTON,  Freewing  Design,  4625A  Opal  Street,  Capitola,  California  95010,  USA. 
Mr.  V.  BUCKLER,  PO  Box  2942,  Salisbury,  Rhodesia. 

MR.  B.  A.  CUTLER,  245  Bobier  Street,  SP.2  724-  9475,  Vista,  California  92083,  USA. 

Mr.  G.  C.  Dean,  Haughton  Hall,  Nr.  Taporley,  Cheshire  CW6  9RH. 

Mr.  P.  C.  ENGEN,  527  W  Knepp  Avenue,  Fullerton,  California  92632,  USA. 

Mr.  R.  F.  GERRETT,  11  Baronet  Grove,  London  N17  0LX. 

Mr.  D.  Hamps,  29  Bodnant  Avenue,  Leicester,  Leicestershire. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Harris,  60  Sycamore  Avenue,  Upminster,  Essex. 

Mr.  S.  KANAN,  31  Brittany  Road,  Montville,  New  Jersey  07045,  USA. 

Mr.  P.  Kelly,  4  North  Side,  Chessington  Zoo,  Chessington,  Surrey. 

Mr.  B.  R.  Kyme,  41  Tylton  Lane  East,  Wyberton,  Boston,  Lincolnshire. 

Mr.  P.  W.  LOWE,  Westcountry  Wildlife  Park,  Cricket  St  Thomas,  Chard,  Somerset 
TA20  4DD. 

Mr.  M.  LUBBOCK,  Wildfowl  Trust,  Slimbridge,  Gloucestershire. 

Ms.  J.  K.  McCaffrey,  2  Conde  Lane,  Massapequa  Park,  New  York  11762,  USA. 

Mr.  G.  T.  MlLLIKEN,  1420  S  Ohio  Avenue,  Wellston,  Ohio  45692,  USA. 

Mr.  B.  C.  MOORE,  7790  Arroyo  Vista,  Rancho  Cucamonga,  California  91730,  USA. 

Mr.  R.  G.  NAEGELI,  Franklin  Park  Zoo,  Boston,  Massachussetts  02121,  USA. 

Mr.  G.  Nagel,  20  Greengate  Grove,  Hackham,  South  Australia,  5163. 

Mr.  D.  Pate,  Lincoln  Park  Zoo  Gardens,  2100  N  Cannon  Drive,  Chicago,  Illinois 
60614,  USA. 

Mr.  C.  SlVELLE,  41  Westcliff  Drive,  Dix  Hills,  New  York  11746,  USA. 

Mr.  C.  J.  Staff,  735  Colima,  Toledo,  Ohio  43609,  USA. 

Mr.  K.  T.  Tyler,  48  St  Brides  Avenue,  Edgware,  Middlesex,  HA8  6BS. 

Ms.  R.  WISEMAN,  53  Addison  Avenue,  London  Wll. 

Ms.  P.  N.  WlTMAN,  28305  Mt  Meadow  Road,  Escondido,  California  92026,  USA. 


CHANGE  OF  ADDRESS 


Mr.  P.  T.  Bauml  to  11030  Waxwing,  Houston,  Texas  77035,  USA. 

Mr.  P.  B.  BROWN  to  36  Fitzroy  Place,  Sandy  Bay,  Hobart  7005,  Tasmania,  Australia. 
Mr.  P.  CORY  to  26  Long  Street,  Wotton-under-Edge,  Gloucestershire. 

Mr.  B.  G.  Davis  to  37  Tydeman  Street,  Gorse  Hill,  Swindon,  Wiltshire. 

Mr.  H.  ENGELHARDT  to  9  Four  Winds  Drive  Apt  1012,  Downsview,  Ontario 
M3J  2S8  Canada. 

Mr.  I.  A.  S.  HARRIS  to  No  3  Portal  Avenue,  Corshand,  Wiltshire  SN13  0LQ. 

Mr.  L.  HERVOUET  to  Les  Petits  Touraques,  Chemin  de  la  Bastide  Blanche,  83350 
Ramatuelle,  France. 

Mr.  P.  LAMOURE  to  632  Avenue  de  Provence,  07500  Granges  les  Valence,  France. 

Mr.  L.  J.  PRIOR  to  The  Grange,  St  Andrews  Lane,  Necton,  Swaffham,  Norfolk. 

Mr.  B.  E.  Reed  to  4  St  Andrews  Drive,  Tividale,  Warley,  West  Midlands  B69  1PR. 
Ms.  C.  SCHRENEYL  to  512  W  Belden  —  1G,  Chicago,  Illinois  60614,  USA. 

Mr.  R.  E.  SEIBELS  to  Riverbanks  Park  Commission,  5000  Wildlife  Parkway,  Columbia, 
South  Carolina  29210,  USA. 

Mr.  I.  W.  SEWELL  to  21  Shepherds  Fold,  Wildwood,  Stafford,  Staffordshire. 


DONATIONS 


Mr.  R.  H.  Masure 
Mr.  P.  H.  Maxwell 
Mr.  P.  A.  Neachell 
Mr.  J.  R.  Padgett 
Mr.  D.  H.  S.  Risdon 


Mr.  T.  Berglind 
Mr.  M.  Beswick 
Mr.  R.  Brinkman 
Mr.  K.  Bromley 
Mrs.  P.  C.  Bryce 
Mrs.  W.  Duggan 
Mr.  D.  M.  S.  Head 
Mr.  F.  S.  Hogg 


Mr.  J.  Rowland 
Mr.  B.  C.  Sayers 


Mr.  G.  W.  Klompenhouwer 


Mr.  P.  Lamoure 
Ms.  Y.  McGee 


Mr.  K.  M.  Scamell 
Mr.  W.  Selwyn 
Mr.  R.  Sherman 
Mr.  D.  K.  Sillis 
Mr.  F.  L.  Smith 
Mr.  A.  A.  ].  Stoodley 
Mr.  J.  E.  Taylor 
Mr.  D.  Teasdale 
Mr.  R.  Thomas 
Mr.  S.  Tolley 
mr.  J.  S.  Trollope 
Mr  L.  Van  Praet 
Mr.  A.  J.  Wheeler 
Mr.  R.  Wirth 
Mr.  M.  Wittman 
Mr.  R.  C.  Workman 
Mr.  C.  K.  Wright 


Printed  by  Quintrcll  &  Co.  Limited.,  Wadebridge,  Cornwall. 


■',99 

3;,Js 


A^ICULTURAL 

MAGAZINE 


1979 


CONTENTS 


Breeding  the  Giant  Pitta  at  the  San  Antonio  Zoo  (with  plates)  by  S.  DAVID 
McKELVEY  &  B.  W.  MILLER . 

Breeding  the  Arrow  Babbler  (with  plate)  by  L.  GIBSON . 

Notes  on  the  Hand -Rearing  of  the  Great  Spotted  Woodpecker  (with  plate)  by 
W.  P.  HERRING . 

Breeding  the  Salmon-crested  Cockatoo  (with  plates)  by  W.  S.  PERATINO . 

The  Breeding  and  Behaviour  of  the  Yellow-throated  Sparrow  by  J.  TROLLOPE 

Breeding  the  Brolga  by  C.  LaRUE . 

Breeding  attempt  with  the  Golden-collared  Honeycreeper  by  A.  McEWEN . 

Breeding  the  Blue-naped  Mousebird  (with  plate)  by  L.  GIBSON . 

Breeding  the  Green-cheeked  Conure  by  G.  A.  SMITH . 

Breeding  Congo  Peafowl  at  Copenhagen  Zoo  by  G.  SKIPPER . 

Cock  Red-cheeked  Cordon-Bleu  Hatching  and  Rearing  Young  by  D .  GOODWIN  . 

Hybrid  Teal  by  A.  W.  E.  FLETCHER . 

News  from  San  Antonio  Zoo  1978  by  B.  W.  MILLER . 

Berlin  Zoo  News  by  PROF.  H.-G.  KLOES . 

White -crowned  Pigeons  at  the  Berlin  Zoo  by  PROF.  H.-G.  KLOES . 

News  and  Views . 


109 

112 


121 

125 

135 

139 

141 

146 

157 

160 

162 

164 

165 

167 

168 
169 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE 

The  Magazine  is  published  quarterly,  and  sent  free  to  all  members  of  the  Avicultural 
Society.  Members  joining  at  any  time  during  the  year  are  entitled  to  the  back  numbers  of 
the  current  year  on  the  payment  of  subscription. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire  SL5  8LT, 
England. 


Juvenile  giant  pitta  assuming  adult  plumage 


Avicultural  Magazine 

THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Vol.  85.  —  No.  3  —  All  rights  reserved 


JUL  Y  -  OCTOBER  1979 


BREEDING  THE  GIANT  PITTA  AT  THE  SAN  ANTONIO  ZOO 

Pitta  caerulea 

By  S.  David  McKELVEY,  (Staff  Aviculturist), 
and  B.  W.  MILLER,  (Supervisor) 

For  over  ten  years  a  pair  of  Giant  Pittas  has  been  part  of  the  extensive 
softbili  collection  housed  in  the  Hixon  Tropical  Bird  House.  During  those 
years  no  attempts  at  nesting  were  recorded.  In  the  spring  of  1978  the  first 
nesting  occurred  shortly  after  completion  of  the  “Asian  Jungle”,  a  naturally 
landscaped,  heavily  planted  diorama  exhibit  which  the  pittas  share  with 
twelve  other  species  of  Asian  forest  birds. 

In  the  beginning,  nest  construction  by  the  male  was  rather  sporadic,  with 
the  bird  standing  near  the  nest  site  for  periods  of  fifteen  to  thirty  minutes 
with  nesting  material  held  in  his  bill.  It  appears  that  the  nest-building 
instinct,  though  present,  was  not  fully  functional  after  so  many  years  of 
dormancy. 

The  first  nest  was  constructed  five  feet  up  in  a  dense  clump  of  fishtail 
palms  where  several  leaf  stalks  overlapped.  The  nest  was  covered  cup  open  at 
the  front  with  a  landing  platform  of  rough  twigs  and  leaf  petioles.  One  of  the 
most  interesting  aspects  of  the  nest  was  its  disproportionately  large  size  in 
relation  to  the  birds  building  it.  Bamboo  twigs,  palm  leaves,  grapevine  bark, 
Johnson  grass  stems  and  fern  fronds  were  used  to  build  the  nest.  The  lining 
was  dried  grass  stems,  arum  leaves  and  a  few  Muscovy  Duck  contour 
feathers.  Both  sexes  shared  in  nest  construction. 

This  first  attempt  was  interrupted  by  a  sudden,  acute  respiratory  infection 
in  the  female.  With  prompt  medical  attention  she  was  spared,  but  the  illness 
required  several  weeks  of  treatment.  Nesting  activities  ceased  for  that  year. 
In  the  spring  of  1979  the  male  began  carrying  nesting  material  around  the 
exhibit  again.  The  nest  was  similar  to  that  of  last  year  although  was  four  feet 
up  in  the  front  corner  of  the  exhibit  only  a  few  inches  from  the  glass  front  and 
the  public.  As  previously  noted,  both  sexes  share  in  the  nest  construction. 
The  time  between  beginning  of  nest  construction  and  the  production  of  the 
first  egg  varied  from  ten  to  eighteen  days.  The  first  clutch  of  eggs  (2)  was 
pulled  from  the  nest  and  artificially  incubated.  This  option  was  chosen  due 
to  the  rarity  of  the  species  in  captivity.  (So  far  as  we  can  determine,  this  is  the 
only  pair  in  the  United  States).  The  eggs  were  replaced  by  Coturnix  quail 
eggs  which  were  approximately  the  same  shape  and  size.  Both  sexes  shared 


110  S.  D.  McKELVEY  &  B.  W.  MILLER  -  BREEDING  THE  GIANT  PITTA 


in  the  incubation,  alternately  sitting  “tight”  on  the  nest  until  the  quail  eggs 
were  removed.  The  first  clutch  of  pittas  hatched  May  15  and  unfortunately 
survived  only  two  days. 

Several  days  after  the  dummy  eggs  were  removed  the  birds  began  building 
another  nest  in  the  fishtail  palm  location.  Construction  was  similar  to 
previous  nests,  but  progressed  rapidly  and  appeared  complete  in  five  days 
rather  than  ten  to  fourteen.  On  May  29  the  first  egg  was  seen  and  removed 
from  the  nest  to  be  replaced  by  a  quail  egg  as  before.  Three  days  later  two 
additional  eggs  were  discovered  in  the  nest  and  also  removed  for  artificial 
incubation.  Only  two  eggs  of  this  clutch  of  three  proved  fertile.  The  first  egg 
hatched  in  fifteen  days,  the  other  in  fourteen  days.  At  sixteen  days  of  age 
these  hatchlings  died.  A  respiratory  ailment  was  suspected. 

The  third  attempt  at  nesting  was  in  another  palm  about  10  feet  to  the  right 
of  the  previous  nest.  After  several  days  the  male  gave  up  and  appeared  to  be 
finished  for  the  year.  Several  days  later  nest  construction  began  at  the  site  of  the 
first  nesting.  This  time  construction  was  very  rapid  without  the  long  20  —  30 
minute  pauses  in  searching  for  nest  materials  which  previously  been  part  of 
the  procedure.  Two  eggs  were  laid  in  this  clutch  and  again  they  were  pulled 
and  replaced.  The  pair  alternated  sitting  for  11  —  12  days  until  another  bird 
broke  the  dummy  eggs  while  both  birds  were  feeding.  They  then  abandoned 
the  nest  site,  no  further  nesting  attempts  were  seen  and  moulting  started. 
Both  sexes  shared  in  nest  construction  after  it  was  initiated  by  the  male,  and 
the  time  between  beginning  of  construction  and  the  production  of  the  first 
egg  varied  from  ten  to  eighteen  days. 

The  eggs  are  yellowish  white,  finely  spattered  with  dark  brown  on  the 
larger  end  with  random  flecks  occurring  over  the  entire  egg.  Eggs  measure 
32mm  X  26mm  and  average  10  grams  fresh  weight.  Incubation  was  in  a 
Marsh  Farms  Roll-X  with  turning  grids  removed.  Temperature  was  maintained 
at  99.5°F  dry  and  86°F  wet  bulb.  The  eggs  were  turned  manually  five  times 
each  day,  7:30  a.m.  to  6:00  p.m.  Eggs  were  placed  longitudinally  on  moist 
sand  in  a  plastic  container.  Incubation  period  varied:  14  days  (1  egg),  15  days 
(2  eggs)  and  16  days  for  the  other  three.  Hatching  occurred  about  twelve 
hours  after  pipping.  (The  14-day  egg  was  one  of  those  discovered  after  three 
days  and  could  in  fact  have  been  incubated  by  the  parents  for  a  day  or  two 
prior  to  pulling). 

The  hatchlings  were  purplish-black,  leathery  looking,  almost  naked  creat¬ 
ures  with  fluffy  white  tufts  of  natal  down  on  the  hind  crown  and  dorsal  areas. 
The  soles  of  the  feet  and  rictal  areas  are  yellowish  white,  and  gape  bright  crim¬ 
son.  The  average  hatchling  weight  was  9.5  grams.  The  diet  consisted  of  finely 
diced  whole  three-day-old  mice  and  Wayne  dog  food  pellets  soaked  in 
ABDEC  vitamin  water.  After  six  days,  the  diet  was  augmented  with  freshly 
moulted  mealworm  larvae  and  Vs  grown  crickets.  The  chicks  were  fed  six 
times  per  day  from  7:30  a.m.  to  5:30  p.m.  The  amounts  increased  from  one 
piece  of  each  food  item  to  three  pieces  of  pinky  mouse,  one  piece  dog  food 
and  one  larva  as  they  grew.  Growth  was  rapid  with  an  average  weight  gain 


S.D.McKELVEY&B.  W.  MILLER  -  BREEDING  THE  GIANT  PITTA  111 


Nestling  Giant  Pittas 


of  4.2  grams  per  day  for  the  first  fourteen  days.  At  twenty  days  they  became 
active,  hopping  about  with  the  characteristic  bounding  motion  of  the  adults 
and  drinking  on  their  own.  At  twenty-four  days  the  birds  started  self¬ 
feeding.  It  was  interesting  to  note  that  the  bird  that  was  only  one  day  older 
fed  the  second  chick  until  it  was  also  self-feeding.  At  twenty-eight  days  the 
birds  were  observed  perching  in  the  evening  and  by  thirty  days  were  weaned 
to  our  insectile  diet  supplemented  with  live  mealworms  and  crickets. 
During  the  nestling  period  the  only  vocalization  was  a  subdued  cheeping 
similar  to  that  of  a  begging  American  Robin  nestling. 

Aviculturists  frequently  sell  a  pair  of  birds  who  don’t  nest  within  a  year  or 
two  of  acquisition.  Sometimes  perseverence  pays.  After  ten  years  the  pittas 
responded  nicely  to  environmental  change.  Discouraging  as  it  was  to  lose  the 
first  clutch  of  chicks,  we  were  willing,  and  more  importantly,  the  birds  were 
willing  to  continue.  As  this  draft  is  being  completed  we  are  pleased  to* 
observe  that  the  parents  are  nesting  again,  perhaps  as  a  result  of  our  placing  a 
man-made  nest  similar  to  their  own  in  a  suitable  site.  The  birds  totally 
ignored  it  for  several  days  and  then  proceeded  to  use  it  as  a  platform  on 
which  to  build  a  new  nest.  Construction  was  complete  this  time  in  three 
days. 

We  would  be  pleased  to  receive  information  about  the  location  of  any  Giant 
Pittas  in  captivity  for  possible  acquisition  of  unrelated  stock  to  improve 
chances  for  long  term  propagation  success. 


112 


BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 

Turdoides  jardinei 

By  L.  GIBSON  (British  Columbia) 


Turdoides  are  distributed  across  Africa  and  tropical  Asia.  Typical  babblers, 
they  are  sturdy  short-winged,  long-tailed  birds  with  the  strong  legs  of 
ground-feeders.  All  species  are  of  similar  size,  appearance  and  habits.  Their 
main  characteristics  are  a  gregarious  and  vocal  nature  combined  with  a  lively 
curiosity.  They  are  at  the  same  time  wary  and  fearless.  Drably  attired  in 
greys  and  browns,  the  one  bright  spot  is  the  eye.  The  colour  of  the  iris  is 
yellow  or  reddish  and  in  T.  jardinei  it  is  a  fiery  orange-red,  which  gives  the 
bird  a  rather  fierce  demeanour.  They  make  interesting  aviary  subjects  as 
they  mostly  stay  in  view  and  are  constantly  active.  Turdoides  are  however 
seldom  kept  in  aviaries,  probably  because  of  their  lack  of  colour. 

T.  jardenei  is  the  nominate  race  of  a  group  known  as  Arrow-marked  or 
Arrow  Babblers,  so  called  from  the  small  white  arrowhead  markings  on  the 
breast.  The  birds  are  found  in  Central  East  Africa  (up  to  5,700',  1750m  in 
Zambia).  At  least  five  sub-species  have  been  described,  each  shading  into  the 
other  with  minor  colour  variations.  It  is  questionable  if  some  of  them  deserve 
separate  status.  They  live  in  rather  open  country  where  they  keep  to  clumps 
of  cover  and  fly  in  a  typical  follow-my-leader  fashion  from  one  bush  to  the 
next.  Rather  fluffy  birds,  they  look  heavier  than  their  actual  weight  of  85 
grams. 

Often  described  by  field  observers  as  noisy,  I  find  that  in  this  species  at 
least,  the  calls  are  interesting  rather  than  annoying.  In  the  aviary,  and  also  in 
the  wild,  babblers  like  nothing  better  than  something  new  to  liven  up  their 
day.  Col.  Meinertzhagen,  in  his  book  ‘Birds  of  Arabia’,  noted  that  Arabian 
Babblers  T.  squamiceps  would  gang  up  on  any  creature  (or  object)  that 
happened  along.  They  would  tease  creatures  as  diverse  as  jackals  and 
tortoises,  and  hound  them  out  of  the  territory.  Unnatural  objects,  such  as 
waste  paper  or  cloth,  also  invoked  a  noisy  inspection.  Not  having  a  jackal 
handy  (although  there  are  coyotes  near  here),  I  tested  the  babblers’  reaction 
to  a  white  mouse.  This  caused  great  excitement  and  they  chased  it  around 
the  aviary  for  15  minutes,  jumping  at  it  bravely  and  encouraging  one  another 
with  a  barrage  of  cackles.  As  far  as  could  be  seen  they  did  not  actually  strike 
the  mouse,  and  they  certainly  were  not  about  to  make  a  meal  of  it. 
Plastic  toys,  coloured  cloth,  etc.  elicited  a  similar  response  but  this  only 
lasted  for  a  minute  or  two  as  the  object  did  not  respond  to  teasing. 

In  his  book  ‘Birds  in  my  Indian  Garden’,  Malcolm  MacDonald  writes  of 
Jungle  Babblers  T.  somervillei  periodically  having  free-for-all  mock  battles, 
which  start  for  no  apparent  reason.  The  above  book  gives  useful  and  detailed 
information  on  nesting  and  other  habits  of  a  number  of  birds  of  avicultural 
interest.  If  only  more  specific  information  on  feeding  had  been  given, 
especially  of  chicks,  this  work  would  be  a  standard  reference. 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


113 


Arrow  Babbler  on  leaving  nest  at  14  days  old  (Note  strong  legs) 

Meinertzhagen  described  a  nightly  pre-roosting  dance  by  T.  squamiceps 
where  a  small  group  of  birds  took  turns  at  dancing  or  parading  to  the  admiring 
babbles  of  the  audience. 

My  birds  did  neither  of  the  above  acts,  but  perhaps  to  get  typical  babbler 
behaviour  there  should  be  a  group  of  six  or  seven  birds,  as  is  usually  noted  in 
the  wild.  Turdoides  are  called  the  “Seven  Sisters”  in  India,  and  I  have  heard 
this  applied  to  Garrulax.  MacDonald  quotes  Salim  Ali  (Birds  of  India)  as 
giving  the  Hindi  name  of  Sat  Bhai.  This  means  “Seven  Brothers”.  Seven 
Sisters  (Sat  Bhin)  is  more  likely  correct  as  the  word  for  bird  is  feminine,  and 
MacDonald  uses  “Sisters”  in  his  translation  of  the  name.  I  will  leave  this  to 
the  pundits. 

T.  jardinei  did  have  an  evening  pre-roosting  ceremony,  which  was  likely  a 
proclamation  of  territory.  Every  evening  at  dusk  the  cock  would  fly  to  the  far 
(non-roosting)  end  of  the  aviary,  and  sit  on  an  exposed  branch.  Then  he 
stretched  up  on  his  legs  and  extended  his  head  to  the  full  length  of  his  neck. 
Clapping  his  wings  hard  to  his  sides  he  would  give  a  full  throated  babble. 
This  was  repeated  a  few  times  then  the  others  joined  him.  After  several 
choruses  from  all,  they  retired  for  the  night.  They  sleep  huddled  together  in 
typical  Timaliinae  fashion. 

Diet 

The  adults  were  easily  fed.  The  basic  ‘convenience’  item  was  dry  dog  food 
powder.  Presumably  they  took  to  this  as  they  had  probably  been  getting  an 


114 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


insectile  food  before  arriving  here.  They  voluntarily  ate  this  powder  even 
when  other  food  was  available,  and  so  far  only  3  species  have  done  this  here. 
The  other  mainstay,  of  which  they  were  very  fond,  was  soft  bread,  usually 
spread  with  margarine,  and  sometimes  butter.  Almost  every  aviary  bird  I 
have  kept  liked  soft  bread  (with  or  without  margarine).  Even  the  Chloropsis 
eat  it,  and  it  is  fed  every  day  in  large  quantities  to  everything.  It  formed 
the  bulk  of  the  babblers’  diet.  Some  scrambled  egg  was  eaten  daily 
and  chopped  boiled  chicken  was  given  when  available,  usually  three  or  four 
days  a  week.  Mealworms  were  given  when  they  could  be  spared,  and  any 
kind  of  insect  was  eaten,  but  worms  were  never  taken.  No  fruit,  berries  or 
greens  were  eaten  with  the  exception  of  grapes,  and  the  birds  were  very  fond 
of  these.  This  must  surely  have  been  an  acquired  taste,  and  was  one  which 
the  chick  quickly  picked  up.  Turdoides  have  a  curved,  delicately  pointed 
beak,  suggesting  an  insectivorous  nature.  The  beak  is  not  very  heavy  for  the 
size  of  the  bird,  and  is  used  to  push  debris  sideways  as  they  hunt  for  insects 
on  the  ground.  It  is  not  stabbed  into  the  ground. 

Calls 

The  Arrow  Babbler  has  a  limited  voice  range,  and  there  is  really  only  one 
basic  call.  Variations  are  only  in  the  length  and  volume  of  it.  This  sound  is 
fairly  described  as  a  “caw”.  The  birds  are  in  constant  vocal  contact,  and  the 
usual  close  communication  is  a  quiet  chuckle  consisting  of  a  few  half-caws  or 
clucks.  A  half-call  consisting  of  several  caws  in  succession,  is  used  for  general 
excitement,  alarm,  or  for  something  of  interest.  This  call  is  heard  every  time 
a  dish  of  fresh  food  is  put  in  the  aviary,  or  whenever  the  nest  was  inspected, 
or  if  a  white  mouse  is  passing  through!  A  full-chorus  babble  is  usually  a 
territorial  proclaimer,  as  far  as  can  be  judged  in  an  aviary.  It  was  used  by  the 
cock  when  courting  and  nest-building,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  by  the  hen  at 
these  times,  and  by  all  the  birds  for  a  short  time  each  evening.  There  was  no 
dawn  calling.  With  little  imagination  the  cawing  sounds  like  crazy  laughter 
—  certainly  more  so  than  any  species  of  laughing  thrush  that  I  have  heard.  It  is 
a  bit  like  a  Kookaburra  starting  off,  in  style  if  not  in  actual  notes.  The  chick 
was  able  to  make  an  identical  mini-babble  on  the  day  it  left  the  nest.  The  calls 
made  by  the  adults  and  the  juvenile  were  the  same,  and  were  of  no  help  in 
distinguishing  one  bird  from  another. 

Sexing 

As  behaviour  patterns  are  the  same  for  both  birds  (except  for  the  cock 
feeding  the  hen),  this  only  leaves  plumage  differences  as  a  means  of  sexing. 
With  practice  one  can  sex  an  individual  bird,  but  it  has  to  be  close  or  be 
restricted  in  movement,  for  the  aviary  they  scarcely  keep  still  long 
enough  to  be  identified.  Identification  is  much  easier  in  bright  light,  and  dull 
conditions,  or  even  back-lighting,  makes  for  much  hard  staring.  Often  it  is 
only  the  arrival  of  the  other  bird  which  settles  the  matter. 

The  cock  has  whiter  and  more  extensive  arrows.  These  are  small  downward 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


115 


pointing  arrowheads  on  the  tips  of  the  breast  feathers.  On  the  hen,  these  do 
not  go  as  far  down  the  breast  as  on  the  cock,  and  she  has  scarcely  any  on  the 
neck  other  than  on  the  chin.  The  male  has  lighter  marks  going  around  the 
head  and  neck,  giving  him  a  more  dapper  silver-grey  appearance  than  the 
browner  hen.  Although  this  difference  is  obvious,  it  can  only  be  seen  at 
close  quarters.  The  remainder  of  the  plumage  of  both  birds  is  a  greyish- 
brown.  The  eye  colour  is  the  same  attractive  orange  in  both  adults,  the 
juvenile  having  black  eyes.  The  legs  and  beak  are  the  same  greyish  black  in 
all  the  birds.  The  only  picture  of  T.  jardinei  I  have  seen  (and  indeed  the  only 
mention)  is  in  ‘The  Dictionary  of  Birds  in  Colour’,  by  Bruce  Campbell.  The 
bird  in  the  photograph  is  a  male.  If  the  pictures  in  this  book  do  not  convert 
the  reader  to  softbills,  nothing  will. 

It  is  presumed  that  the  brighter  bird  is  the  male,  although  only  an  internal 
examination  would  finally  establish  the  sex,  remembering  that  this  bird  did 
most  of  the  sitting.  The  browner  bird  was  seen  in  the  nest  at  night  when  the 
eggs  were  laid  (for  both  clutches),  but  was  not  seen  there  again  at  night, 
either  for  incubating  or  for  brooding. 

Health  and  Housing 

The  birds  were  obtained  on  6th  October,  1978.  They  were  in  excellent 
condition  apart  from  having  overgrown  beaks.  One  was  badly  crossed  and  was 
trimmed  back  into  shape.  Their  beaks  have  been  fine  ever  since,  due  to  the 
birds  being  kept  in  an  earth-floored  aviary.  The  birds  each  had  a  single  dwarf 
tapeworm  Hymenolepis  sp,  which  were  easily  removed,’  (see  Modern  Treat¬ 
ment  of  some  Avian  Parasites). Avicultural  Magazine,  Volume  84,  No.  4. 

Being  in  excellent  feather,  they  were  immediately  put  outside  in  a  small 
roofed  aviary  with  a  bob-hole  into  a  heated  room.  They  remained  there  until 
the  spring.  Every  night  during  the  winter,  the  birds  were  chased  inside  if 
they  had  not  already  gone  in. 

In  March  of  1979  the  weather  was  unusually  warm  and  dry.  On  the  third 
of  the  month,  the  babblers  were  put  out  in  a  large  (10m)  planted  aviary  as 
described  for  mousebirds  in  Avicultural  Magazine,  this  issue. 

The  babblers  initially  shared  the  aviary  with  a  pair  of  White-crested 
Laughing  Thrushes  Garrulax  leucolophus.  In  spite  of  a  1 5%  weight  advantage, 
the  Garrulax  gave  way  to  the  Turdoides  at  the  food  dish,  etc.  This  was  the 
only  time  I  have  seen  White-crested  Thrushes  back  off  from  anything!  This 
was  helped  by  the  fact  that  the  babblers  were  in  sole  possession  of  the  aviary 
a  week  before  the  Garrulax  were  added.  When  the  Turdoides  began  to  nest,  the 
Garrulax  were  removed.  Later,  three  Blue-naped  Mousebirds  were  put  into 
the  aviary  at  the  time  when  the  babblers  had  a  4  week  old  chick,  and  there 
was  no  serious  confrontation. 

Nesting 

From  building  to  laying  took  longer  than  any  other  species  which  nested 
here.  MacDonald  also  commented  on  the  leisurely  pace  of  nesting  in  the 


116 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


wild.  The  first  nest  was  started  on  April  19th,  1979,  and  was  more  or  less 
complete  by  the  25th.  The  birds  continued  to  add  a  strand  or  two  until  at 
least  the  29th  of  April,  but  did  not  lay  until  May  6th,  7th  and  8th.  They  then 
started  to  fill  the  nest  box  with  grass,  around  the  nest,  and  by  the  time  a  chick 
left,  the  box  was  completely  filled.  The  first  nest  (the  only  successful  one) 
was  made  in  an  open  cardboard  box  9X7^  X  6"  deep  (23X  19X15cm)  at  a 
height  of  5'  (1.5m)  in  a  laurel  bush  in  the  aviary  shelter.  The  shelter  is 
enclosed  in  clear  acrylic  sheeting.  The  nest  material  was  rather  coarse,  as  was 
the  construction,  and  long  dried  grasses  formed  the  bulk  of  the  structure.  A 
few  twigs  were  incorporated.  Later  the  box  was  filled  with  grass  and  a  few 
small  leaves. 

Eventually  two  more  nests  were  built  in  the  box,  one  being  on  top  of  the 
original.  Yet  another  nest  (the  second)  was  well  constructed  and  well  hidden 
in  a  wisteria  vine,  against  an  old  birch  trunk.  This  was  close  to  the  roof  at 
5' 10"  (1.8m),  and  was  also  in  the  shelter.  The  nests  averaged  3%"  (9.5cm) 
inside  diamater  with  a  depth  of  lft"  (4cm).  The  outside  diameter  was  5^" 
(14cm)  and  the  outside  depth  was  about  2l/2n  (6.5cm),  so  the  walls  and  base 
were  quite  thick. 

The  nest  box  could  conveniently  be  looked  into  from  outside  the  aviary, 
by  standing  on  a  concrete  block.  These  useful  blocks  are  moved  around  for 
this  purpose,  and  also  serve  as  feeding  tables.  Both  birds  built,  but  it  was  not 
noted  if  one  did  more  than  the  other.  The  cock  displayed  and  called  loudly 
throughout  construction. 

Eggs 

The  eggs  were  a  beautiful  shiny  turquoise,  being  more  blue  than  green. 
This  is  probably  the  colour  of  most  Turdoides  eggs,  and  for  the  Arrow  Babbler, 
3  is  apparently  the  average  clutch.  They  were  not  measured  or  photographed 
as  I  do  not  like  to  touch  a  first  clutch.  In  shape  they  were  more  round  than 
elongated.  Meinertzhagen  notes  up  to  9  eggs  in  the  Arabian  Babblers’  nest, 
and  both  he  and  MacDonald  thought  that  the  babblers  shared  nests. Surely 
this  is  the  only  explanation  for  a  nine-egg  clutch.  Although  only  one  pair  of 
birds  is  reported  on  here,  observations  on  them  and  a  chick  point  towards 
this  sort  of  communal  behaviour. 

Three  eggs  were  laid  in  the  first  clutch  and  two  eggs  in  the  second.  The  hen 
was  almost  out  of  breeding  condition  by  the  second  round,  and  a  smaller 
than  normal  clutch  (in  numbers,  not  in  size)  is  usual  under  end  of  season 
conditions.  The  incubation  period  is  13  days.  In  the  first  clutch  two  hatched 
on  the  same  day,  one  early  in  the  morning  and  one  at  5  p.m.,  at  14  and  13  days 
respectively.  The  first  egg  was  scarcely  inpubated  at  all  on  the  day  of  laying 
The  third  egg  hatched  the  following  morning,  at  13  days.  The  birds  were  off 
the  eggs  so  much  that  I  was  surprised  when  all  three  hatched.  For  instance, 
as  soon  as  fresh  food  was  put  in,  both  birds  came  down  to  inspect  it.  No  other 
bird  which  has  nested  here  ever  left  the  nest  just  to  see  what  was  new  in  the 
food  dish,  as  distinct  from  a  trip  for  the  purpose  of  eating. 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


117 


At  least  80%  of  the  daytime  incubation  was  done  by  the  cock,  with  the  hen 
relieving  him  for  5  — 15  minute  spells.  It  was  later  established  that  he  was 
also  on  the  nest  at  night.  In  contrast  to  the  building  period,  both  birds 
became  very  quiet  and  relatively  inconspicuous  as  soon  as  the  eggs  were  laid. 

Chicks 

When  the  eggs  hatched,  not  a  trace  of  shell  was  found.  Although  of  course 
they  may  have  been  lost  in  the  mass  of  flowers,  it  is  usual  that  eggs  (and  dead 
chicks)  are  carried  to  the  furthest  point  from  the  nest  and  dropped  right  at 
the  wire.So  it  is  presumed  that  the  eggshells  were  eaten. 

The  pink  chicks  were  completely  devoid  of  down,  and  had  no  particular 
gape  colours.  Like  all  softbills,  they  were  seen  begging  almost  immediately 
and  were  being  fed  within  an  hour  or  two  of  hatching.  As  with  the  incubating, 
the  cock  did  most  of  the  brooding.  For  the  first  day  he  also  did  most  of  the 
feeding.  The  hen  was  seen  to  take  food  to  the  chicks  for  the  first  time  at  6 
p.m.,  but  both  fed  about  equally  thereafter.  As  well  as  thinking  that  two  hens 
may  share  a  nest,  MacDonald  noted  up  to  five  adults  feeding  one  brood.  The 
casual  attitude  of  the  hen  would  certainly  fit  with  the  above,  and  it  is  possible 
that  such  behaviour  could  be  a  first  step  towards  parasitism. 

For  the  first  day,  the  birds  were  given  mealworm  pupae.  Thereafter  they 
were  given  mealworms  and  pupae,  and  the  chicks  were  fed  solely  on  these. 
No  other  live  food  was  available,  except  what  strayed  into  the  aviary,  and  the 
birds  would  not  eat  earthworms.  The  adults  stopped  eating  the  normal  diet 
and  did  not  touch  it  thereafter  as  long  as  mealworms  were  given. 

On  the  second  day  one  chick  died  and  it  was  dumped  at  the  far  end  of  the 
aviary  where  it  was  easily  found.  It  was  plump  at  3.25  grams,  and  had  a  1" 
(25mm)  mealworm  in  its  stomach,  so  it  was  obviously  getting  fed.  The 
mealworm  had  no  head,  which  meant  that  the  parents  were  at  least  killing 
them.  This  was  interesting  because  either  parent  just  picked  up  a  mealworm, 
gave  it  one  or  two  perfunctory  bangs,  and  then  fed  it  straight  to  a  chick. 
There  was  no  maceration,  or  beak  manipulation  to  soften  it,  or  any  attempt  to 
pick  it  into  smaller  pieces. 

Mealworms  and  pupae  were  fed  ad  lib,  and  at  least  once  a  day,  a  large 
number  were  smeared  with  soft  margarine,  mainly  to  supply  Vitamin  D.  A 
hand-feeding  programme  was  also  commenced  on  the  second  day  of 
hatching. 

Hand  feeding  consists  of  giving  the  chicks  one  to  three  feeds  a  day  of 
scrambled  egg  moistened  with  milk.  Occasionally  other  items  are  added  to 
this,  mainly  chicken  and  sometimes  cheese. 

This  system  is  used  for  all  softbill  chicks.  It  invariably  does  some  good, 
even  if  it  only  to  relieve  the  demand  for  live  food,  and  it  certainly  never  does 
any  harm.  There  has  never  been  a  problem  arising  from  handling  the  chicks 
of  any  species  bred,  and  after  about  two  days  of  this,  parent  birds  become  less 
excited  and  usually  stay  nearby  and  become  annoyed  rather  than  fearful  or 
overly  aggressive. 


118 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


When  the  aviary  was  entered,  the  off-duty  bird  melted  quietly  into  the 
foliage  so  that  the  place  looked  empty.  The  sitting  bird  waited  until  approached 
very  closely  before  flushing,  and  yet  it  voluntarily  came  off  readily.  Irrespective 
of  which  parent  was  sitting,  the  hen  always  made  a  noisy,  close  defence  of  the 
nest  whenever  the  chicks  were  being  examined.  This  made  up  for  her  earlier 
poor  sharing  of  the  labours  and  while  she  did  so  the  cock  usually  flew  back 
and  forth  silently  at  a  distance,  or  else  he  disappeared  into  a  bush.  Occasionally 
he  babbled  from  a  safe  distance.  Both  birds  cleaned  the  nest,  usually  eating 
the  droppings  which  were  in  a  sac  up  to  9  days.  They  cleaned  up  until  the 
nest  was  vacated. 

The  chicks  begged  regularly  until  the  sixth  day,  responding  to  a  bang  on 
the  nest,  or  more  usually,  simply  on  the  nest  box.  By  the  fourth  day  it  was 
obvious  that  something  was  wrong  with  one  chick.  It  had  difficulty  in 
swallowing  and  the  other  one  was  drawing  away  rapidly  in  size.  Strangely  the 
same  thing  happened  a  few  weeks  later  with  one  Shama  chick  in  a  nest  of 
three.  On  the  seventh  day,  the  healthy  chick’s  eyes  opened,  and  the  small 
chick  died.  It  weighed  only  6.4g,  having  dropped  from  8.2g  on  the  previous 
day.  At  this  point  the  healthy  chick  weighed  about  18g.  The  dead  chick  was 
found  at  the  end  of  the  aviary  like  the  first  little  one.  It  had  a  full  stomach,  and 
there  were  three  particles  of  eggshell  present.  Hen  eggshells  are  permanently 
kept  in  all  aviaries.  The  chick  also  had  2  tiny  cornet-shaped  snailshells,  about 
2mm  long,  in  its  stomach.  I  suspect  these  and  the  eggshells  were  there  as  grit, 
although  ‘real’  grit  was  not  found.  There  was  no  obvious  cause  of  death. 

The  remaining  chick  prospered,  but  would  not  beg  when  its  eyes  opened. 
In  response  to  the  parents’  clucks  it  lay  flat  in  the  nest  and  drew  its  head  into 
its  shoulders,  and  tightly  closed  its  eyes.  However  it  was  getting  used  to  me, 
and  as  it  was  always  hungry,  it  compromised  by  adopting  this  position  as 
instructed,  and  then,  with  eyes  still  tight  shut,  it  would  open  its  beak  and 
take  the  food.  For  the  parents  it  came  straight  up.  The  parents  were  also 
getting  used  to  this,  and  the  hen  often  just  sat  on  the  edge  of  the  box  and  gave 
a  few  annoyed  caws  when  I  was  feeding  the  chick.  She  was  fairly  tame  and 
would  occasionally  take  a  proffered  mealworm.  The  cock  never  did,  but  he 
would  come  quite  close  for  mealworms. 

The  chick’s  feathers  burst  out  of  the  quills  on  the  9th  day,  and  yet  at  this 
time  its  tail  was  an  inch  long.  This  is  the  first  chick  I  have  had  whose  tail  grew 
before  the  wings.  However,  the  tail  stayed  at  this  length  for  a  while  and  the 
wings  outgrew  it.  When  14  days  old,  the  chick  left  the  nest.  It  weighed  46g 
which  is  about  53%  of  the  adult  weight.  It  moved  2  metres  to  a  weigela  bush 
where  it  remained  absolutely  still  and  was  hard  to  find.  It  was  weighed  and 
photographed,  and  it  took  the  whole  thing  very  calmly.  The  rather  scruffy, 
nondescript  brownish  chick  had  no  features  of  note  other  than  very  large 
well-developed  legs  and  feet,  and  a  tiny  triangle  of  arrow  markings  under  its 
chin.  It  could  barely  flutter,  but  could  hop  and  climb,  and  the  parents  called 
it  up  to  suitable  dense  foliage.  Both  parents  were  very  attentive,  with  the  hen 
still  being  the  aggressive  defender.  They  constantly  checked  on  the  chick 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


119 


and  called  to  it,  and  if  it  thought  there  was  no-one  around,  it  called  back  in  a 
tiny  voice  with  an  identical  call. 

With  the  chick  out  of  the  nest,  the  parents,  who  had  gone  very  quiet  up  to 
now,  recommenced  their  evening  cackling  ceremony.  They  also  commenced 
‘breeding  preening’  which  consisted  of  one  bird  sitting  bolt  upright,  with  the 
head  and  neck  extended  upwards,  and  the  neck  feathers  sticking  straight  out 
to  be  preened  by  the  other  bird. 

At  16  days,  the  chick  could  fly  a  little,  and  it  was  still  being  hand  fed  once  a 
day  as  the  parents  still  only  fed  mealworms.  On  this  day  one  bird  (I  think  it 
was  the  hen)  was  seen  babbling  with  a  piece  of  grass  in  its  beak.  An  almost 
completed  nest  was  then  found  in  a  wisteria  vine,  but  it  was  not  used. 
Construction  had  not  been  seen  at  all,  and  as  the  cock  was  mostly  brooding, 
the  hen  must  have  been  the  major  builder. 

The  birds  were  going  through  tremendous  numbers  of  mealworms.  These 
had  been  supplied  ad  lib.,  but  by  now,  on  the  17th  day  they  kept  running  out 
and  were  being  replaced  several  times  daily.  On  this  day,  one  adult  was  seen 
to  eat  a  grape  for  the  first  time  since  the  chick  hatched,  possibly  because  of 
the  mealworm  shortage.  Once  when  the  mealworms  were  replenished,  nine 
were  fed  to  the  chick  at  one  time,  about  evenly  by  both  parents.  Nine  of  these 
mealworms  weighed  1.75g  or  3.5%  of  the  weight  of  the  chick.  This  is  like 
someone  gulping  down  a  4  — 5  lb  snack  all  at  once.  At  this  stage  the  parents 
usually  half-opened  their  wings  when  giving  a  mealworm  to  the  chick.  I  have 
only  seen  this  in  one  other  bird;  the  cowbird,  although,  for  obvious  reasons, 
I  don’t  have  much  time  for  wild-bird  watching. 

The  Brown-headed  Cowbird  Molothrus  ater  is  a  parasitic  species.  The 
chick  does  not  throw  out  the  eggs  of  the  host,  as  does  the  cuckoo.  Depending  on 
how  crowded  the  nest  is,  some  of  the  legitimate  chicks  may  survive,  in  spite 
of  being  outgrown  by  the  cowbird.  Soon  after  fledging  young  cowbirds  join 
up  with  adults.  Possibly  the  parents  skulk  around  waiting  for  them.  I 
watched  a  pair  on  my  lawn  feeding  three  juveniles.  The  parents  spread  their 
wings  at  the  instant  of  feeding,  exactly  like  the  babblers.  Does  anyone  have 
any  theories  on  this? 

The  cowbird  is  one  of  about  15  species  of  wild  birds  that  have  nested  in 
my  garden,  (none  of  which  I  have  got  around  to  writing  about).  The  aviaries 
and  the  numerous  trees,  plus  winter  feeding,  help  to  attract  them,  and  over 
30  species  have  visited  here.  The  rarest  and  most  spectacular  visitor  was  a 
Pileated  Woodpecker  Hylatomus  (Dryocopus)  pileatus. 

The  babbler  chick  had  a  very  long  fledgling  period,  as  would  be  expected 
of  such  sociable  birds.  By  20  days  the  chick  could  fly  fairly  well,  but  it  still 
remained  well  hidden.  It  only  began  to  sit  out  in  the  open  at  26  days,  when  it 
was  seen  at  the  food  dish  for  the  first  time,  although  it  was  not  seen  to  eat. 
Only  two  or  three  mealworms  a  day  were  given  by  now,  so  the  chick  must 
have  been  getting  the  normally  supplied  diet.  When  mealworms  were  put 
into  the  feeding  dish,  both  parents  would  come  down  with  much  cackling 
and  eat  a  few.  Then  each  would  take  two  or  sometimes  three  mealworms  at  a 


120 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  ARROW  BABBLER 


time  to  the  chick,  who  swallowed  them  all  in  one  gulp. 

By  the  27th  day  the  chick  was  seen  eating  from  the  feeding  dish,  although 
the  type  of  food  was  not  discerned.  On  this  day  three  adult  Coitus  were  put  in 
the  aviary.  The  babblers  simply  kept  them  out  of  the  nesting  half  of  the 
flight,  otherwise  there  was  no  trouble.  No  actual  fighting  took  place.  Also  on 
the  27th  day,  mealworms  were  discontinued,  but  mealworm  beetles  were 
given.  These  were  fed  to  the  chick  as  soon  as  they  were  put  in.  By  now  the 
chick  was  flying  around  after  the  parents. 

The  following  day,  the  hen  began  gathering  grass.  In  the  evening  she  flew 
to  the  cock  with  a  beakful  of  grass  and  banged  him  forcefully  on  the  wing 
with  it  —  a  clear  invitation  to  get  on  with  nesting.  Both  birds  then  gathered 
grass  on  and  off  for  the  next  17  days  and  built  a  third  nest  on  top  of  the  first 
one  in  the  box.  By  now  the  chick  was  45  days  old  and  was  still  being  fed 
whenever  mealworms  were  given. 

On  this  day  the  Coitus  laid,  so  all  three  babblers  were  removed  to  a  small 
10'  diam.  hexagonal  aviary.  The  nest  box  was  put  in  with  them.  The 
following  day  the  adults  stopped  feeding  the  chick,  which  by  now  weighed 
76  g.  Yet  another  nest  (the  fourth)  was  built  in  the  box  and  when  the  chick 
was  54  days  old,  two  eggs  were  found.  Then  I  broke  my  golden  rule  of  daily 
examination.  When  the  nest  was  examined  nine  days  later  (on  the  23rd  of 
June)  the  nest  was  empty,  and  not  a  trace  of  the  eggs,  or  chicks,  was  found. 
The  exact  date  of  laying  was  not  known,  nor  were  the  eggs  checked  for 
fertility.  A  horrible  possibility  is  that  they  hatched  and  died  because  no  live 
food  was  supplied.  This  is  unlikely,  as  the  hen  was  noticed  missing  within 
two  days,  so  the  hatching  date  would  have  been  close  to  the  estimate.  But  the 
answer  would  have  been  known  had  I  stuck  to  daily  examination  of  all  nests, 
every  single  one  of  which  has  been  examined  each  day  with  this  sole 
exception.  No  problems  have  ever  arisen  from  this  inspection,  in  over  30 
species,  or  45  if  birds  in  my  garden  are  counted,  species,  not  nests. 

The  fully  grown  youngster  had  by  now  very  white  arrows  on  about  a  third 
of  its  breast,  and  so  was  presumed  to  be  a  male.  At  the  time  of  writing,  the 
breast  markings  are  still  extending,  and  from  a  distance  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
the  young  one  from  the  parents.  However  at  five  months,  it  still  has  black 
eyes.  These  birds  are  a  model  family.  All  sit  side  by  side  and  indulge  in 
mutual  preening,  and  call  each  other  to  the  food  dish.  By  contrast,  Shama 
chicks  in  another  aviary  were  killing  each  other  by  eight  weeks  of  age.  The 
nesting  Shamas,  (and  Coitus)  were  the  cause  of  my  neglecting  to  inspect  the 
babbler  eggs  daily.  It  was  a  good  thing  that  the  Shamas  were  inspected  daily, 
for  reasons  you  will  hear  of  in  a  following  issue  of  this  magazine. 


121 


NOTES  ON  THE  HAND-REARING  OF  THE  GREAT  SPOTTED 
WOODPECKER  Dendrocopos  major 

By  W.  P.  HERRING  (Fraddon,  Cornwall) 

Due  to  the  activities  of  wood  cutters  in  our  district,  four  young  Great 
Spotted  Woodpeckers  were  brought  to  me  during  the  evening  of  June  4th. 
They  had  survived  the  impact  of  the  felled  tree  and  were  only  discovered 
when  the  tree  was  being  sawn  into  blocks,  one  cut  totally  exposed  the  nest 
cavity  not  more  than  10  inches  from  where  the  chicks  were. 

The  tree  had  been  felled  at  1  p.m.  but  it  wasn’t  until  6.30  p.m.  that  the 
chicks  came  into  my  possession,  by  which  time  they  were  cold  and  very 
weak.  There  was  a  staggered  size  difference,  with  the  estimated  age  of  the 
youngest  being  not  more  than  three  days  old,  making  the  eldest  approximately 
six  days  old.  The  eldest  was  beginning  to  show  feather  stubs  on  tail  and 
wings. 

They  were  immediately  placed  in  an  old  budgerigar  breeding  box  and  put 
in  the  airing  cupboard  next  to  the  hot  water  cylinder  as  it  was  most  important 
to  get  the  chicks  as  warm  as  possible  quickly.  The  period  it  took  them  to 
warm  up  gave  us  ample  time  to  consider  a  suitable  diet  and  after  a  telephone 
conversation  with  Rex  Harper,  the  following  experimental  formula  was 
used:  3  teaspoons  Farex;  1  teaspoon  glucose;  Vi  yolk  hard  boiled  egg  and  l/2 
small  slice  of  brown  bread  with  crust  removed. 

We  found  that  if  the  bread  was  quickly  dipped  in  water,  enough  moisture 
was  provided  to  bind  all  the  ingredients  together  without  becoming  to  sticky. 
The  food  was  given  to  the  chicks  as  small  pellets  every  two  hours  from  6.30 
a.m.  to  10.30  p.m.  Finely  chopped  raw  beef  was  added  to  two  meals  each  day, 
being  mixed  thoroughly  with  the  basic  diet.  Following  each  feed,  a  solution 
of  honey  dissolved  in  warm  water  was  given  by  means  of  an  eye  dropper. 

Initial  feeds  comprised  of  two  pellets  per  chick  which  increased  to  ten  each 
feed  by  the  twelfth  day.  The  first  four  days  seemed  to  be  the  critical  period  until 
we  found  the  right  quantity  of  meat  to  include  with  the  food.  The  chicks 
remained  weak  for  these  few  days,  especially  the  youngest  which  seemed 
very  sleepy  and  was  unable  to  hold  its  head  up.  During  this  period  they  lived 
in  the  airing  cupboard. 

Their  box  was  kept  as  clean  as  possible.  After  each  feed  they  were  removed 
to  another  box  with  clean  coarse  sawdust,  the  type  produced  by  a  chain  saw. 
This  prevented  clogging  and  also  ensured  the  nest  would  not  become  too 
dusty. 

The  birds  droppings  were  carefully  watched  and,  as  on  one  occasion,  they 
became  runny,  the  quantity  of  meat  was  reduced  for  a  day  or  two.  After  the 
initial  period  of  weakness  and  adjustment  to  their  new  diet  the  fledgling 
rapidly  gained  strength  and  their  eyes  began  to  open. 

By  this  time  they  were  used  to  being  handled  and  loud  cries  were  heard 
whenever  their  box  was  approached.  Feathers  soon  appeared  on  the  wings 


122  W.  P.  HERRING  -  HANDREARING  GREAT  SPOTTED  WOODPECKER 


and  tail  and  a  faint  reddish  tinge  on  the  top  of  their  heads  began  to  show. 

For  some  unknown  reason  the  chicks  never  gaped  for  food  so  the  method 
adopted  for  feeding  remained  the  same,  the  pellets  being  pushed  to  the  back 
of  the  throat  so  they  had  to  be  swallowed.  Until  the  chicks  were  feathered, 
these  could  be  seen  as  little  yellow  balls  through  the  skin  at  the  side  of  their 
necks,  thus  giving  us  an  indication  as  to  the  amount  of  food  to  give  at  each 
meal. 

At  the  end  of  the  first  week  the  climbing  instinct  was  beginning  to  appear. 
They  would  climb  up  the  sides  of  their  box  and  liked  to  hang  on  the  side 
looking  around  while  the  remaining  chicks  were  fed.  It  was  at  this  stage  that 
if  all  four  chicks  were  placed  together  in  cupped  hands  they  would  make 
mewing  noises  and  within  half  a  minute  be  asleep.  When  returned  to  their 
box  they  soon  settled  down  until  their  next  feed.  It  was  found  easier  for  two 
people  to  feed  them  so  I  administered  the  pellets  and  honey  while  my  wife 
held  them. 

I  now  built  a  new  box  such  as  would  be  used  for  breeding  Redrumps.  The 
sloping  side  had  rough  bark  nailed  to  it  so  they  could  climb.  This  also 
prevented  them  from  soiling  their  plumage.  A  deep  layer  of  coarse  sawdust 
was  placed  in  the  bottom. 


Photograph  Jon  Woolridge 


W.  P.  HERRING  -  HANDREARING  GREAT  SPOTTED  WOODPECKER  123 


Slight  attempts  at  preening  were  made  on  the  eighth  day  and  woodpecker 
tapping  was  heard  for  the  first  time  coming  from  within  the  box.  The  chicks 
were  by  now  getting  very  strong  and  obviously  wanting  to  explore  their 
surroundings  and  after  the  tenth  day  spent  a  few  minutes  out  of  the  box  after 
each  meal.  They  liked  to  climb  over  my  wife,  daughter  and  myself  and  jump 
onto  backs  of  chairs.  By  the  twelfth  day  they  were  all  over  the  room,  under 
the  furniture  and  up  the  curtains.  After  this  exercise  they  would  always  come 
back  to  me,  climb  up  and  go  to  sleep  nestling  against  my  neck. 

At  this  stage  it  was  not  necessary  to  be  so  punctual  with  their  feeding 
times.  One  mealworm  each  was  now  given  daily,  the  heads  being  removed  to 
aid  digestion.  An  extra  meat  meal  was  introduced  making  three  a  day.  At 
times  the  chicks  would  take  pellets  from  our  fingers  and  pick  up  the  odd 
mealworm  from  the  table. 

When  we  had  had  the  birds  for  a  fortnight  I  made  a  large  cage  approximately 
4ft  X  3ft  X  2ft  which  the  chicks  were  placed  in  each  morning  out  in  the 
garden  and  brought  inside  each  evening  for  their  usual  exercise,  exploring 
the  house.  The  cage  had  a  large  branch  behind  which  they  could  hide  and 
much  of  their  time  was  spent  stripping  the  bark  off  it  and  peeping  around  the 
sides. 

By  the  sixteenth  day,  adult  calls  were  heard  frequently  especially  when 
they  were  let  free  indoors.  By  now  they  could  fly  the  length  of  the  room  — 
over  16ft.  Their  feeds  were  now  at  roughly  3  to  31/2  hour  intervals  with 
mealworms  being  increased  to  three  each  per  day.  They  were  very  curious, 
tapping  at  everything  and  testing  with  their  tongues.  Despite  obviously 
strong  beaks,  they  were  always  very  gentle  with  my  family  and  myself. 

By  the  eighteenth  day,  they  were  fully  feathered  and  over  7  inches  long. 
The  red  cap  was  more  pronounced  in  two  of  the  chicks  than  in  the  others;  the 
latter  having  just  the  forehead  red  while  the  usual  extent  of  red  was  present 
in  the  others. 

Meals  were  now  cut  to  four  a  day  with  the  birds  readily  taking  pellets  from 
tweezers.  A  shallow  bowl  of  water  was  placed  inside  the  cage  along  with 
mealworms  and  pellets.  By  the  twenty-second  day  they  were  only  fed  on 
demand  from  tweezers.  The  chicks  soon  learned  to  feed  themselves  and  on 
July  1st  were  released  into  a  large  outside  aviary  furnished  with  several  old 
logs,  branches  and  pieces  of  bark  for  them  to  turn  over. 

Holes  were  bored  in  the  branches  and  filled  with  maggots,  mealworms  and 
blowfly  pupae.  A  dish  of  pellets  were  always  available  and  their  honey  and 
water  was  given  through  the  wire.  They  were  very  active  and  enjoyed  their 
new,  larger  more  natural  environment  spending  much  time  hopping  around 
the  branches  and  hanging  upside-down  from  the  wire  on  the  roof.  They 
spent  a  fortnight  in  the  aviary  before  finally  on  the  15th  day  they  were 
released  into  the  wild. 

The  release  area  was  carefully  chosen  and  consisted  of  a  heavily  wooded 
area  owned  by  Mrs  Joyce  Daniel  who  encourages  wildlife  in  the  district. 
They  were  transferred  to  the  location  in  a  large  cage  where  they  spent  two 


124  W.  P.  HERRING  -  HANDREARING  GREAT  SPOTTED  WOODPECKER 


hours  surveying  their  new  surroundings.  They  were  fed  and  when  the  cage 
was  opened  their  was  no  panic,  they  just  flew  to  the  nearest  tree  and  started 
pulling  moss  and  bark  off  the  branches.  They  remained  close  together  for 
several  hours  but  gradually  moved  farther  away,  constantly  calling. 

Mrs  Daniel  was  most  helpful  in  placing  food  in  several  places  which  the 
birds  soon  found  and  fed  from  it  for  a  few  days.  My  family  and  I  paid  a  visit  to 
the  point  of  release  the  following  day  and  all  four  were  observed  obviously 
enjoying  their  freedom,  fit  and  well.  They  seemed  pleased  to  see  us  and  came 
close  to  us,  with  one  actually  coming  to  my  shoulder  giving  me  a  farewell 
peck  before  returning  to  his  natural  habitat. 

Since  that  time  the  birds  have  been  frequently  heard  by  Mrs  Daniel  and  a 
month  after  release,  all  four  were  seen  feeding  at  her  bird-table.  Occasionally 
they  are  stil  heard  and  seen  within  a  few  yards  of  her  house.  We  had  the 
woodpeckers  for  six  weeks  during  which  time  we  spent  many  hours  feeding, 
preparing  food,  building  cages  and  searching  the  countryside  for  dead  wood 
etc.,  but  it  was  an  experience  which  none  of  us  would  have  missed  and  which 
we  shall  remember  for  the  rest  of  our  lives. 


125 


BREEDING  THE  SALMON-CRESTED  COCKATOO 

Cacatua  moluccensis 

By  Williams.  Peratino 
(National  Zoological  Park,  Washington  DC.,  USA) 

Description 

General  plumage  pale  pink,  underside  of  crest  deep  salmon,  undersides  of 
wings  and  tail  washed  with  yellow  and  salmon  pink,  naked  periothalmic 
ring  coloured  white  with  a  tint  of  blue,  bill  black,  iris  dark  brown  to  black  in 
adult  males,  reddish  brown  to  red  in  adult  females,  brown  in  immature 
birds,  overall  length  52  cm. 

In  adult  birds  sexual  dimorphism  is  exhibited  by  the  colour  of  the  iris, 
contradictory  to  Forshaw’s  “Parrots  of  the  World”  1973.  In  more  than  30  cases 
visual  determination  of  sex  was  confirmed  by  laparoscopic  examination.  In 
all  cases  where  the  iris  denoted  immaturity  it  was  also  confirmed  by  laparoscopy. 
This  would  appear  to  indicate  a  correlation  between  colour  of  the  iris  and 
sexual  maturity. 

Distribution 

Moluccas,  Indonesia,  and  surrounding  islands. 

Eggs 

Elliptical,  white. 

Acquisition 

Both  birds  were  originally  kept  as  individual  pets.  The  male  was  known  to 
be  five  years  old  and  the  female  12  years  at  the  time  of  acquisition  in  1974. 

Housing 

The  flight  is  framed  with  1"  angle  iron,  the  mesh  is  2"X4"  welded  fabric. 
Inside  dimensions  are  8'high  X  8'  long  X  4'  wide.  The  flooring  is  tile 
covered  with  newspapers,  changed  and  disinfected  three  times  weekly. 

Nest  Log 

Natural  log  hollowed  out  with  a  chain  saw,  top  and  bottom  of  %"  plywood 
covered  with  sheet  metal.  Viewing  door  is  10"  X  10"  installed  5"  above  the 
nesting  platform  for  easy  inspection,  chick  removal,  etc.,  also  covered  with 
sheet  metal  to  discourage  chewing.  Inside  log  dimensions  4'  long  X  16" 
wide,  entrance  hole  to  nest  is  10"  in  diameter. 

Lighting 

Since  August  8,  1976  a  50/50  blend  of  Gro-lux  (1)  and  Vita-Lites  (2). 
Photo  period  maintained  the  year  round  is  16  hours’  daylight,  eight  hours  off 
with  a  15  watt  incandescent  night  light. 


126  W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON-CRESTED  COCKATOO 


Diet 

Sunflower  seed,  hard  corn,  hemp,  canary  seed,  millet  seed,  peanuts, 
Purina  pigeon  chow  pellets  (breeder  formula)  (3).  This  base  mixture  has 
added  to  it  cold  pressed  wheat  germ  oil  at  the  rate  of  one  tablespoon  per 
pound  of  seed.  Fruit  and  vegetables  rotated  every  other  day.  All  feeds  are 
sprinkled  liberally  with  Vionate  (4)  powder,  a  vitamin,  mineral  supplement. 

Management 

Three  times  yearly  each  bird  gets  a  physical  examination.  This  involves  an 
accurate  weighing,  clipping  nails  and  beak  if  needed,  palpating  extremities 
etc.  for  unusual  masses,  dusting  with  avian  specific  ectoparasite  powder, 
routine  fecal  examination,  radiograph  if  none  previous,  cloacal  swab  for 
culture  and  blood  sample  if  a  laboratory  equipped  to  do  avian  blood  is 
available. 

Note:  My  fellow  aviculturists  would  find  that  if  a  similar  programme  were 
implemented  within  their  collections,  when  problems  did  arise  one  could 
present  the  attending  veterinarian  with  a  very  informative  individual  case 
history  which  would  greatly  enhance  the  possibility  of  a  successful  line  of 
treatment.  All  too  often  veterinarians  are  presented  with  birds  far  past  the 
point  of  treatment,  only  to  be  condemned  for  losing  the  bird  when  poor 
management  practices  were  the  greatest  contributors  to  the  loss.  In  addition, 
the  resulting  data  from  this  type  of  programme,  if  compiled  properly,  could 
prove  invaluable  to  the  aviculturist  of  the  future. 

Introduction 

December  20, 1974.  Both  birds  were  introduced  into  the  flight  at  the  same 
time,  excessive  mutual  preening  followed  a  brief  period  of  mock  threat 
displays.  Both  birds  settled  down  and  no  aggressive  behaviour  was  observed. 
For  the  next  25  months  periods  of  sexual  activity  involving  loud  vocal  and 
physical  displays,  followed  by  frequent  copulation,  seemed  to  cycle  at  four  to 
six  months  intervals.  During  these  periods  both  birds  spent  considerable 
amounts  of  time  excavating  the  nest  cavity  in  addition  to  spending  time 
together  in  the  log. 

Nesting  History 

On  the  evening  of  January  14, 1976,  one  egg  was  observed  in  the  nest  box, 
January  16,  1976,  the  second  egg  was  laid.  Incubation  began  with  the  first 
egg,  each  hatching  in  28  days  respectively.  This  being  their  first  attempt  the 
decision  was  made  to  allow  the  adults  to  raise  the  chicks  if  possible.  The  diet 
at  this  time  did  not  contain  pigeon  pellets  or  Vionate  powder,  the  supplement 
in  use  was  Gevral  protein  (5).  The  lighting  was  totally  incandescent  during 
this  nesting.  The  chicks  were  observed  daily  by  using  a  mirror  and  flashlight. 
(The  viewing  door  had  not  been  installed  prior  to  this  nesting).  During  this 
procedure  the  male  would  leave  the  log  and  threaten  from  a  nearby  perch  but 
the  female  remained  inside  with  the  chicks  visually  obstructing  a  total  view 


W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON-CRESTED  COCKATOO  127 


of  either  chick  at  any  given  time.  The  adults  consumed  enormous  amounts  of 
fresh  corn  on  the  cob  almost  ignoring  their  normal  fare.  The  feeding  sounds 
were  extremely  audible  so  I  also  used  these  as  an  indicator  for  how  things 
were  going.  By  five  weeks  both  chicks  were  partially  feathered  and  appeared 
to  be  past  any  critical  stage.  It  was  during  this  week  that  I  noticed  the 
vocalizations,  lessening  in  volume  but  concluded  it  to  be  a  protective  measure 
in  the  wild  so  as  not  to  attract  attention  to  the  nest. 

On  March  24,  1976,  at  4.00  p.m.,  the  flight  was  fed  and  I  inspected  the 
chicks,  everything  appeared  normal.  We  had  company  that  night,  the  first 
time  since  the  hatching.  By  10.30  p.m.  no  feeding  sounds  had  been  heard  so  I 
decided  to  investigate.  Both  chicks  were  found  dead  under  the  female.  See 
figure  #  1. 

My  first  impression  on  seeing  the  trauma-induced  areas  along  the  tibia, 
femur,  carpus  and  metacarpals  was  that  the  male  had  killed  them.  On  further 
inspection  the  tibia  of  the  left  leg  on  the  eldest  chick  was  found  to  be  broken 
and  rehealed.  The  real  cause  of  death  was  disclosed  after  radiographic 
examination.  See  figure  #  2. 

Both  chicks  were  suffering  from  a  severe  calcium  deficiency  (see  figure  # 
2)  where  the  broken  left  tibia  is  easily  demonstrated.  In  addition  to  these 
obvious  breaks  close  observation  revealed  numerous  hairline  and  overlay 
fractures  along  the  humerus,  radius  and  ulna.  The  external  areas  of  trauma 
were  caused  by  the  chicks  not  being  able  to  balance  in  the  normal  tripod 
position,  thus  falling  forward  and  extending  the  wings  to  cushion  the  fall 
abrading  the  wing  areas  in  the  process. 

April  2,  1976.  Replaced  Gevral  protein  in  feed  with  Vionate  powder,  also 
changed  light  spectrum  in  the  room  from  100%  incandescent  to  a  50/50 
blend  of  Gro-lux  and  Viat-Lites  to  provide  a  source  of  ultra-violet  light  for 
the  production  of  Vitamin  D  to  assimilate  proper  levels  of  calcium. 

On  September  10, 1976  a  soft  shelled  egg  was  found  broken  on  the  floor  of 
the  flight.  A  second  egg  was  not  produced  during  this  cycle. 

Eggs  laid  on  December  25  and  27,  1976.  Incubation  went  normally.  Each 
hatched  in  28  days  respectively.  During  this  nesting  period  the  adults  were 
given  an  oral  D3  supplement  daily  on  walnuts  which  they  both  ate  readily. 
This  addition  to  the  diet  was  given  in  the  hope  it  would  balance  the  Vitamin 
D  requirements  and  allow  the  chicks  to  assimilate  the  proper  levels  of 
calcium.  The  daily  dose  was  extrapolated  from  one  used  for  poultry.  By  the 
second  week  it  was  clear  something  was  wrong.  The  chicks  were  developing 
at  a  much  slower  rate  than  normal.  Both  chicks  died  a  day  apart  before  the 
end  of  the  second  week.  Histopathological  findings  of  moderate  calcification 
in  the  lungs  and  kidneys  suggested  the  possibility  of  oversupplementation 
with  Vitamin  D. 

Eggs  laid  on  May  21  and  23,  1977  were  incubated  normally  full  term  but 
were  infertile. 

Eggs  laid  on  December  1 1  and  13, 1977  were  incubated  normally  full  term 
but  were  infertile. 


128  W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON-CRESTED  COCKATOO 


Fig.  tf  3.  2  days  old.  Wt.  25.9  gms. 


Fig.  tf  4.  14  days  old.  65.7  gms. 


W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON -CRESTED  COCKATOO  129 


Fig.  #  5.  23  days  old.  188.4  gms.  Fig.  #  6.  35  days  old.  412.6  gms. 


Fig.  #  7.  58  days  old.  702.6  gms. 


Fig.  #  8.  115  days  old.  781.2  gms. 


130  W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON-CRESTED  COCKATOO 


Single  egg  laid  on  February  3, 1978  hatched  in  28  days.  I  allowed  the  chick 
to  remain  with  the  adults  for  six  days  and  then  it  was  removed  for  hand 
rearing.  Beginning  weight  35.4  gms.  the  diet  to  be  used  this  time  was 
formulated  by  Ralph  and  Tina  Small  (6).  Brooder  temperature  was  maintained 
at  90°  —  92°F,  the  chick  being  fed  every  two  hours  settled  into  this  feeding 
schedule  nicely  and  over  the  next  nine  days  gained  68.0  gms.  On  March  21, 
1978  slight  respiratory  sounds  were  audible  during  the  morning  feeding. 
This  was  noted  in  the  bird’s  records  but  not  much  thought  was  given  to  it 
since  the  chick  was  eating  very  well,  gaining  weight,  etc.  On  March  22,  1978 
during  the  morning  feeding  there  was  obviously  something  wrong  again. 
The  respiratory  sounds  were  louder  and  the  breathing  was  laboured,  the 
flesh  tone  of  the  chick  over  the  next  few  hours  developed  a  blue  tint 
indicating  the  bird  was  cyanotic. 

The  chick  died  in  a  convulsive  state  at  12.30  p.m.  Histopathological 
findings  again  showed  extensive  calcification  in  the  lungs  and  kidneys, 
indicating  oversupplementation  with  Vitamin  D.  Since  the  diet  in  use  was 
identical  to  the  one  which  Ralph  and  Tina  Small  had  used  to  raise  many 
Umbrella  Cockatoos  Cacatua  alba,  I  was  at  a  loss  as  to  what  happened 
variable  present  was  the  fact  that  the  respiratory  sounds  began  four  days 
after  the  chick’s  glass  brooder  was  moved  from  my  bedroom  to  the  birdroom. 
In  effect  the  chick  went  from  a  normal  lighting  environment  of  semi¬ 
darkness  to  full  spectrum  light  with  ultra-violet  stressed  which  caused  a 
rapid  lay  down  of  calcium  in  soft  tissue,  hence  the  determination  of  over¬ 
supplementation  of  Vitamin  D.  Under  normal  conditions  psittacine  chicks 
are  not  exposed  to  ultra-violet  light  until  they  fledge. 

With  all  this  behind  me  I  sat  down  with  my  records  in  hand  and  began  to 
establish  some  parameters  for  handling  the  next  chick,  if  I  was  fortunate 
enough  to  have  another  chance. 

Protocol: 

1.  Take  for  hand  rearing  on  day  one; 

2.  Keep  in  dark  to  simulate  nesting  environment; 

3.  Feed  chick  every  two  hours  around  the  clock  until  the  time  between 
feedings  naturally  increases; 

4.  Weigh  chick  daily  to  closely  monitor  the  growth  rate; 

5.  Formulate  diet. 

The  first  two  weeks  being  the  most  critical,  using  “Composition  of  Foods, 
Handbook  No.  #  8”  put  out  by  the  USDA  (7),  I  began  to  compile  a  list  of 
foodstuffs  frequently  used  in  hand-feeding  formulae  and  compared  them  to 
the  food  values  of  feeds  known  to  be  available  to  this  species  in  the  wild.  My 
impression  of  the  resulting  data  was  that  hand-feeding  formulae  for  the  most 
part  are  too  high  in  protein  and  are  excessively  supplemented  with  vitamins 
and  minerals.  With  this  particular  species  one  must  remember  that  the 
normal  time  from  hatching  to  fledging  is  at  least  12  weeks.  The  organism 


W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON -CRESTED  COCKATOO  131 


itself  is  meant  to  develop  slowly  and  to  artificially  accelerate  different  stages 
of  this  growth  phase  is  surely  asking  for  trouble.  Below  are  the  Phase  I  and 
Phase  II  formulae  to  be  implemented. 

Phase  I,  Day  1  —  Day  14  (inclusive) 

1  cup  raw  wheat  germ  flakes 

1  cup  raw  shelled  peanuts 

2  cups  Gerber  mixed  cereal 

1  pound  14-grain  seed  and  nut  mix  (8).  Contents:  millet,  buckwheat, 
brown  rice,  pecans,  almonds,  sesame  seeds,  pumpkin  seed,  sunflower 
seed,  barley,  rye,  whole  oats,  triticale,  wheat  and  alfalfa  seed. 

Notice  no  vitamins  or  minerals  added. 

1  4^oz  jar  of  Gerber  strained  creamed  spinach 

All  ingredients  are  ground  until  they  will  pass  a  32"  nd  mesh  screen,  then 
distilled  water  is  added  to  the  desired  consistency. 

Cook  approximately  3  mins. 

Phase  II,  Day  15  and  on 

1  4l/2  oz  jar  strained  oatmeal  with  apple  sauce  and  bananas 
1  4|/20z  jar  strained  creamed  spinach 
1  4^oz  jar  strained  apple  sauce 
l/2  cup  Small’s  dry  diet 

l/2  cup  Phase  I  powder  (discontinue  after  two  weeks  and  replace  with  same 
amount  of  Small’s  diet) 

Add  distilled  water  to  proper  consistency. 

Please  note,  the  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  formulae  specify  spinach.  Its 
inclusion  has  a  two-fold  purpose  —  to  keep  the  peristolisis  of  the  gut  mobile 
and  the  high  content  of  oxalic  acid  in  its  make-up  should  help  to  chemically 
bind  some  of  the  calcium  and  magnesium  present  in  the  food  so  it  may  be 
excreted  as  insoluble  oxalates.  However  the  actual  extent  to  which  oxalic 
acid  can  limit  the  utilization  of  these  elements  has  yet  to  be  established.  The 
thought  behind  the  oxalic  acid  is  that  at  this  point  I  feel  it  is  much  easier  to 
correct  a  deficiency  than  reverse  a  toxicity. 

Eggs  laid  on  April  27  and  29, 1978.  Upon  inspection  of  the  nest  box  on  April 
30,  1978,  the  first  of  the  two  eggs  was  found  broken.  The  male  had  been 
unusually  flighty  during  this  cycle  so  the  decision  was  made  to  take  the 
remaining  egg  for  artificial  incubation.  The  temperature  was  set  at  99%° F 
with  the  humidity  at  86%.  This  temperature  and  humidity  was  to  be  maintained 
throughout  the  28-day  incubation.  After  the  fifth  day  in  the  incubator,  the 
seventh  day  of  actual  incubation,  it  was  determined  that  the  egg  was  fertile 
by  candling  it.  The  development  of  the  embryo  was  monitored  daily  by 
placing  a  high  intensity  penlite  against  the  egg  in  order  to  visualize  the 
internal  changes.  The  egg  was  not  handled  except  to  turn  it  five  times  daily. 
The  embryo  developed  at  a  normal  rate  until  the  17th  day  when  I  noticed  a 
reduction  in  the  vascular  pattern  surrounding  the  embryo.  The  embryo  did 
not  develop  past  this  point.  Subsequent  sterile  cultures  did  not  disclose  any 


132  W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON -CRESTED  COCKATOO 


bacterial  or  fungal  invasion. 

Eggs  laid  on  July  7  and  9,  1978,  28  days  later  one  egg  hatched,  the  other 
proved  infertile.  Removed  chick  on  August  4,  1978.  See  figure  tf  3  for  size 
comparison  to  unhatched  egg  and  quarter.  There  is  dense  yellow  down  in 
this  species,  its  distribution  especially  around  the  crest  area.  In  order  to 
maintain  the  proposed  feeding  schedule  the  chick  was  transported  daily  to 
and  from  work  with  me.  For  the  next  14  days  the  chick  was  maintained  on 
the  Phase  I  formula  with  its  increased  fibre,  reduced  protein,  vitamin  and 
mineral  content.  By  day  14  (see  figure  tf  4)  the  chick’s  weight  had  increased 
to  65.7  gms,  the  daily  weight  gain  was  in  increments  of  1—4  gms  on  the 
Phase  I  formula  as  opposed  to  1  — 12  gms  daily  on  previously  used  formulae. 
Also  indicated  in  figure  tf  4  is  the  technique  I  used  for  feeding.  The  upper 
mandible  is  held  while  the  chick  pumps  to  swallow,  the  formula  is  slowly 
inserted  into  the  trough  of  the  lower  mandible.  To  me  this  is  a  lot  cleaner 
than  other  methods  and  more  natural  for  the  chick  than  using  a  curved 
spoon. 

The  volume  of  feed  increased  from  eight  drops  at  each  feeding  on  day  one 
to  3|/2cc  on  day  14.  At  this  point  I  decided  to  gradually  implement  the  diet 
change.  (See  Phase  II  formula  for  specifics).  As  soon  as  the  Phase  II  formula 
began  the  weight  gains  increased  to  1  — 12  gms  daily,  usually  10—12  gms.  By 
day  23  (see  figure  tf  5)  the  weight  had  increased  to  118.4  gms  and  the  time 
between  feedings  had  stretched  to  three  hours.  The  chick  was  maintained 
strictly  on  coarse  pine  chips  in  various  sized  bowls  to  accommodate  the 
growth  rate  and  prevent  leg  problems  so  often  encountered  by  improper 
substrates,  etc. 

By  day  35  the  chick’s  weight  was  412.6  gms,  see  figure  tf  6.  Figure  3  6 
shows  size  comparison  to  the  egg  and  also  gives  an  idea  of  the  placement  of 
feather  tracts  and  feather  follicle  development.  On  day  58  the  length  of  time 
between  feedings  extended  over  five  hours  frequently,  the  weight  at  this 
point  was  702.6  gms,  see  figure  tf  7. 

By  day  75  the  chick  was  only  being  fed  twice  daily,  morning  and  late 
evening.  During  the  day  it  sampled  soft  foods,  grapes,  fresh  corn,  etc.  At  this 
stage  the  chick  seemed  to  be  gaining  control  of  its  motor  movements,  it  was 
observed  standing  on  one  leg  scratching  the  head  with  the  other,  then 
holding  food  in  one  foot  and  eating. 

On  day  115  (see  figure  tf8)  the  weight  was  781.2  gms,  a  finished  product 
completely  feathered,  flying,  cracking  seed,  etc.,  but  still  accepting  the  late 
evening  feeding. 

During  the  entire  hand  feeding  process  a  chart  was  maintained  indicating 
the  date,  time  fed,  daily  weight,  amount  fed,  brooder  temperature,  nature 
and  volume  of  faecal  material  and  miscellaneous  comments. 

I  cannot  overemphasize  the  importance  of  proper  record  keeping.  It  has 
proved  to  be  an  invaluable  aid  in  accomplishing  the  successful  breeding  of 
this  species  and  its  eventual  documentaion.  I  have  been  able  to  compile  each 
account  as  it  occurred  so  the  reader  can  draw  his  own  conclusions. 


W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON-CRESTED  COCKATOO  133 


By  no  means  am  I  attempting  to  establish  set  standards  by  my  management 
programme.  So  many  articles  appear  to  infer  that  if  their  method  is  used, 
success  will  follow.  This  is  not  always  so.  I  have  seen  producing  pairs  of 
Moluccan  Cockatoos  housed  in  spacious  15'  wide  X  30'  long  X  6'  high 
aviaries  and  on  the  same  token  another  pair  bred  in  a  cage  2'  wide  X  2'  long' 
6'  high  with  a  20  gallon  metal  garbage  can  attached  to  the  outside.  Proven 
hand-feeding  formulae  frequently  work  in  one  place  but  not  another.  Why? 

There  are  so  many  variables  present  that  unless  proper  records  are  kept, 
compiled  and  eventually  published,  breeding  the  larger  psittaciformes  with 
any  rate  of  consistency  will  continue  to  evade  us. 

The  role  of  the  aviculturist  is  changing.  In  years  past  just  maintaining 
certain  species  was  enough.  Now  this  is  unacceptable.  The  whole  purpose 
for  maintaining  a  species  in  captivity  is  to  increase  our  knowledge  of  its 
captive  requirements  and  eventually  produce  self-sustaining  captive  populations. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The  following  people  were  generous  enough  to  take  the  time  and  document  their  diets, 
housing  and  management  programme  for  me  to  evaluate  for  my  own  use. 

Ralph  and  Tina  Small,  8544  Rockefeller  Ave.  Brookfield,  Ill.  60513 
Robert  L.  Berry,  Curator  of  Birds,  Houston  Zoological  Gardens,  Houston,  Tex. 
Robert  Barton,  V.M.D.,  and  his  wife  Joy,  Box  501,  Ashland,  Va.  23005 
Jack  L.  Throp,  Director,  Honolulu  Zoo,  Kapiolani  Park,  Honolulu,  Hawaii  96815 
Peter  Luscomb,  Ornithologist,  Honolulu  Zoo,  Kapiolani  Park,  Honolulu,  Hawaii  96815 
Mr  &  Mrs.  G.  King,  Proprietors,  Animal  &  Bird  Gardens,  North  End,  Mablethorpe, 
Lincolnshire. 

In  addition,  I  wish  to  thank  the  following  people  who  have  allowed  me  to  utilize  their 
expertise  within  their  respective  fields  and  have  given  me  continual  support  as  friends. 

Mitchel  Bush,  DVM,  Head,  Office  of  Animal  Health, National  Zoological  Park,  Smithsonian 
Institution,  Washington,  D.C.  20009 

Richard  J.  Montali,  DVM,  Head,  Office  of  Pathology,  Hospital/Research  Building, 
National  Zoological  Park,  Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington,  D.C.  20009 

Elizabeth  E.  Smith,  B.S.M.T.  (ASCP), National  Zoological  Park,  Smithsonian  Institution, 
Washington,  D.C.  20009 


PRODUCT  REFERENCES 

(1)  Gro-Lux  F40-Gro,  6610  Electronic  Drive,  Springfield,  Va.  22151 

(2)  Vita-Lite  Powertwist,  Duro-Lite  Lamps, Inc.  17—  10,  Willow  Street,  Fair  Lawn,  N.J. 
07410 

(3)  Purina  Pigeon  Chow  (Breeder),  Purina  Monkey  Chow,  Ralston  Co.,  Camp  Hill,  Pa. 

(4)  Vionate,  E.  R.  Squibb  &  Sons,  Inc.,  Princetown  N.J.  08540 

(5)  Gevral  Protein,  Lederle  Laboratories  Division,  American  Cyanamid  Company, 

Pearl  River,  N.Y.  10965 

(6)  Magazine  of  the  Parrot  Society,  Chairman/Secretary,  N.D.  Cooper,  17  De  Parys 
Avenue,  Bedford,  Vol.  XII,  No.  3,  March,  1978 

(7)  Composition  of  Foods  Agriculture  Handbook  No.  8,  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C. 
20402 

(8)  14  Grain,  Seed  and  Nut  Mix,  Potomac  Health  Foods,  8400  Carroll  Avenue,  Takoma 
Park,  Md.  20012 


134  W.  S.  PERATINO  -  BREEDING  THE  SALMON-CRESTED  COCKATOO 


MOLUCCAN  COCKATOO  EGG  DATA 


Date 

#  of 

Date 

Incubation  Miscellaneous 

Laid 

Eggs  Hatched 

Time 

Comments 

1/14/76 

1 

2/10/76 

28  days 

Calcium  deficiency,  both  chicks  died  at 

1/16/76 

1 

2/12/76 

28  days 

age  of  6  weeks 

9/10/76 

1 

Soft  shelled,  found  broken  on  floor 

12/25/76 

1 

1/22/77 

28  days 

Both  died  from  over  supplementation  with 

12/27/76 

1 

1/24/77 

28  days 

vitamin  D3 

5/21/77 

l 

Infertile 

5/23/77 

1 

Infertile 

12/11/77 

1 

Infertile 

12/13/77 

1 

Infertile 

2/3/78 

1 

3/3/78 

28  days 

Death  by  D3  toxicity 

4/27/78 

1 

Found  first  egg  broken  after  4  days’ 

4/29/78 

1 

incubation.  Removed  second  egg  for 
artificial  incubation;  died  at  17  days 

7/7/78 

1 

8/4/78 

Taken  for  hand  rearing,  successful 

7/9/78 

1 

Infertile 

10/24/78 

1 

Full  term  embryos,  dead  in 

10/26/78 

1 

shell 

Total 

COMPILATION  OF  EGG  DATA 
Number  of  Eggs 

16 

Per  cent 
100.0 

Fertile 

9 

56.2 

Infertile 

5 

31.2 

Hatched 

6 

37.5 

Fertile,  did  not  hatch 

2 

12.5 

Broken 

2 

12.5 

Raised  to  maturity 

1 

6.2 

135 


THE  BREEDING  AND  BEHAVIOUR  OF  THE 
YELLOW-THROATED  SPARROW  Petronia  xanthocollis 

By  JEFFREY* Trollope  (Hounslow,  Middlesex) 


Introduction 

The  petronias,  whose  general  breeding  biology  and  behaviour  appears  to 
be  close  to  that  of  sparrows  in  the  genus  Passer ,  have  received  little  attention 
from  aviculturists.  The  only  breeding  records  for  the  U.K.  are  those  of 
Meade- Waldo,  (1896—7)  P.  petronia  and  Trollope  (1977)  P.  dentata. 

This  lack  of  interest  in  the  genus  is  not  difficult  to  explain  as,  even  in  the 
days  of  uninhibited  bird  importations,  shipments  were  few  and  erratic 
because  of  poor  demand,  as  these  birds  lack  colour,  singing  ability  and  rarity, 
three  of  the  values  on  which  avicultural  demand  is  based.  Petronias  are  not 
easy  birds  to  breed,  but  they  are  interesting  and  display  little  of  the  inter¬ 
specific  aggression  attributed  to  sparrows  of  the  genus  Passer.  Apart  from 
their  lively  and  interesting  behaviour,  I  think  another  avicultural  virtue  they 
possess  is  that,  as  hole-nesters,  they  can  fill  an  ecological  ‘niche’  in  an  aviary, 
without  displaying  the  aggression  which  some  other  hole-nesters,  such  as 
titmice  demonstrate. 

Description  (From  two  males  and  two  females) 

A  more  slender  and  elegant  looking  bird  than  sparrows  of  the  genus 
Passer ,  with  a  longer  pointed  conical  bill. 

Approx.  6  ins.  (152.4mm). 

Male:  Bill,  dark  horn,  showing  little  if  any  seasonal  change,  irides,  dark 
brown.  Upperparts  ashy-brown,  wings  brown  with  two  bars,  the  upper 
white,  the  lower  pale  huffish,  and  a  chestnut  patch  on  the  lesser  wing-coverts. 
The  chin  is  greyish-white,  with  a  pronounced  yellow  patch  on  the  throat. 
Underparts  greyish  becoming  white  on  the  abdomen,  legs  and  feet  light 
brown. 

Female:  Bill,  greyish-brown,  the  ywllow  throat  patch  is  very  faint  and  the 
chestnut  wing  patches  are  replaced  by  a  pale  ruddy  brown,  not  readily 
noticeable. 

Young  birds  at  18  days:  Bill,  light  horn,  whitish  near  tip,  irides  brown,  upper- 
parts  greyish-brown,  slight  indication  of  bars  on  wings,  underparts  light 
grey,  feet  and  legs  light  brown. 

Distribution  and  habitat 

The  distribution  of  P.  xanthocollis  extends  from  Iraq,  Iran  and  Afghanistan 
almost  throughout  the  Indian  subcontinent.  Whistler  (1963)  records  that 
they  are  essentially  a  bird  of  the  trees  in  both  cultivated  and  barren  land,  but 
avoid  heavy  forest.  They  will  nest  in  gardens  and  readily  use  nest  boxes 
where  provided. 


136  J.  TROLLOPE  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-THROATED  SPARROW 


Birds  and  Housing 

Two  pairs  of  P.  xanthocollis  were  purchased  in  July  1974,  pairs  ‘A  &  B’, 
they  were  rung  with  coloured  identification  rings.  The  male  of  pair  ‘B’  died 
during  the  winter  of  1974.  The  surviving  three  birds  were  housed  in  an 
outside  bird  room  from  November  to  April,  heated  to  approx.  50 °F,  and  with 
artificial  light  provided  until  2030  hours.  Pair  ‘A’  were  released  into  a  planted 
aviary  every  season  in  April. 

Food  and  Feeding 

The  birds  are  fed  on  mixed  millet  canary  mixture  and  live  food,  mainly 
maggots.  Greenfood  such  as  chickweed  and  seeding  grasses  are  provided 
when  available,  while  cuttlefish  (crushed)  fine  grit  and  oystershell  are  always 
provided.  As  noted  with  P.  dentata  most  live  food  is  accepted  with  the 
exception  of  white  worms. 

Breeding 

In  1977  and  1978,  pair  ‘A’  were  released  into  an  aviary  planted  with  privet 
bushes,  a  wide  variety  of  nesting  receptacles  from  waxbill-type  nesting 
baskets,  to  budgerigar  nest-boxes  were  provided.  The  aviary  measured 
3. 25X1. 5X2. 25m,  clumps  of  gorse  were  hung  up  to  provide  additional 
nesting  sites  and  cover.  In  both  seasons  a  nest  was  made  in  a  budgerigar  nest 
box  and  eggs  were  laid;  however  they  were  deserted  and  some  were  found  on 
the  aviary  floor  under  the  nest  box. 

In  April  1979,  pair  ‘A’  were  released  into  a  planted  aviary  (which  measured 
3.25  X  1.5  X  2.25m  high).  On  14th  May,  the  male  bird  was  observed 
‘singing’  at  the  entrance  hole  of  a  budgerigar  nest  box  hung  on  the  aviary  side 
some  2m  from  ground  level  at  the  front  of  the  aviary,  during  the  next  few 
days  this  activity  continued  and  he  was  seen  displaying  to  the  female.  On 
19th  May  the  female  was  seen  carrying  dried  grass,  feathers  and  bits  of  paper 
to  the  nest  box,  and  both  sexes,  spent  some  time  inside  the  box.  The  pair 
were  seen  copulating  on  a  perch  on  11th  June,  the  nest  contained  one  egg 
when  I  examined  the  box.  A  second  egg  was  laid  on  12th  June  and  a  third  on 
the  13th.  As  far  as  I  could  ascertain,  incubation  commenced  with  the  third 
egg,  but  the  birds  were  very  wary  about  entering  the  box  if  they  thought  that 
they  were  being  observed  and  I  used  binoculars  to  watch  them.  Three  chicks 
hatched  on  the  28th  June  and  the  parents  displayed  great  excitement,  flying 
up  and  down  the  aviary  and  continually  flying  back  to  the  box  and  going 
inside.  I  suppied  lots  of  small  maggots  (known  as  ‘pinkies’  to  fishermen) 
and  tipped  a  collection  of  insects  and  spiders  into  the  aviary  twice  a  day; 
these  were  obtained  by  beating  nettle' beds  with  a  stick,  into  a  plastic  bag. 
The  parent  birds  soon  learnt  that  this  bag  contained  live  food,  and  would  fly 
down  to  the  aviary  floor  as  soon  as  they  saw  the  bag,  waiting  for  me  to  shake 
out  the  contents.  Six  days  after  the  chicks  were  hatched,  I  supplied  the  birds 
with  mealworms,  but  these  were  ignored.  Although  the  adults  had  shown 
little  interest  in  mealworms  when  not  breeding,  I  thought  they  might  like 


J.  TROLLOPE  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-THROATED  SPARROW  137 


them  when  they  had  chicks.  The  parents  would  never  fly  to  the  box  directly 
if  they  thought  they  were  being  observed,  but  would  fly  to  the  rear  of  the 
aviary  and  work  their  way  back  to  the  box,  using  the  gorse  clumps  on  the 
aviary  sides  as  cover.  Both  parents  were  soon  removing  fecal  sacs  from  the 
nest  box,  and  the  chicks’  hunger  calls  could  be  heard  from  the  seventh  day 
after  hatching. 

One  chick  left  the  nest  at  1700  hours  on  12th  July  and  the  second  at  1830 
hours.  The  remaining  chick  was  out  of  the  nest  in  the  a.m.  of  the  13th.  The 
pattern  of  care  for  the  young  at  this  stage  seemed  to  be  similar  to  that  of  P. 
dentata, ,  the  male  bird  feeding  the  young.  The  female  spent  a  lot  of  time  in 
the  box  on  the  13th  and  an  egg  was  laid  on  the  14th  and  a  second  on  the  15th, 
the  female  incubating  the  second  clutch.  The  young  birds  of  the  first  brood 
were  flying  on  the  14th,  and  one  was  seen  feeding  itself  on  the  22nd,  although 
they  were  still  soliciting  food  from  the  cock  on  the  24th.  The  chicks  were 
completely  independent  and  removed  from  the  aviary  on  3rd  August. 

The  second  brood  which  consisted  of  two  chicks  were  dead  on  the  6th; 
they  appeared  to  be  well  nourished  and  no  apparent  cause  of  death  was 
obvious. 

Eggs 

Greenish-white  ground  colour  marked  with  brown  and  ashy  brown,  not 
so  heavily  marked  as  those  of  P.  dentata. 

Nest 

A  crude  cup  made  in  a  mass  of  dried  grass,  paper  etc.,  which  nearly  filled 
the  whole  nest  box,  the  cup  was  lined  with  feathers:  as  with  P.  dentata  there 
was  no  indication  of  any  attempt  to  use  any  other  nest  site  than  a  hole. 

Chicks 

Unlike  P.  dentata ,  the  chicks  of  the  first  brood  did  not  return  to  the  nest 
box  after  leaving.  The  chicks  of  the  second  brood  had  a  purplish  skin  and 
showed  dark  grey  areas  of  feather  growth.  The  gape  and  palate  markings 
were  white. 

Voice 

The  advertising  call  is  given  by  the  male  at  the  nest  box,  long  before  and 
after  nesting  has  commenced.  The  call  or  ‘song’  is  a  cheerful  but  rather 
monotonous  ‘chip-chop,  chip,  chip-chop,  chirric-chik’.  When  aggression  is 
displayed  to  other  birds  a  ‘churr-churr’  note  is  given. 

Displays 

The  sexual  display  consists  of  the  male  approaching  the  female  with  the 
head  lifted,  displaying  the  yellow  throat  patch  to  her.  The  posture  is  not  so 
upright  as  that  of  P.  dentata  and  the  wings  are  moved,  so  displaying  the 
chestnut  patches.  The  threat  display  is  a  head  forward  movement;  sometimes 


138  J.  TROLLOPE  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-THROATED  SPARROW 

the  bill  is  open.  These  birds  are  not  particularly  aggressive,  even  when 
breeding,  aggressive  acts  to  other  birds  are  rare.  Tail-flicking  which  is  seen 
in  Passer  domesticus  and  P.  dentata  has  not  been  observed  in  this  species. 

Summary 

1)  The  breeding  and  behaviour  of  captive  P.  xanthocollis  is  described, 
with  some  comparative  notes  on  P.  dentata. 

2)  Their  general  breeding  biology  and  certain  behaviour  patterns  are 
similar  to  those  of  Passer  domesticus  and  Petronia  dentata.  However,  tail- 
flicking  which  is  common  to  both  these  species,  has  not  been  observed  in 
Petronia  xanthocollis. 


REFERENCES 

Meade-Waldo,  E.G.B.,  (1896-  7)  Avic,  Mag.  3  28-  29 

TROLLOPE,  J.  (1977)  The  breeding  and  behaviour  of  the  Bush  Petronia.  Petronia  dentata. 
Avic.  Mag.  83,  69  —  74. 

WHISTLER,  H.  (1963)  Popular  Handbook  of  Indian  Birds,  fourth  ed.  Oliver  &  Boyd. 
Edinburgh  &  London. 


As  described  the  Yellow-throated  Sparrow  Petronia  xanthocollis  has  been  bred  by  Mr.  J . 
Trollope  and  this  is  believed  to  be  the  first  success  in  this  country,  but  anyone  knowing 
of  another  is  asked  to  inform  the  Hon.  Secretary. 


139 


BREEDING  THE  BROLGA 

By  CHRIS  LaRue,  (Head  Aviculturist,  International  Crane  Foundation, 
Baraboo,  Wisconsin,  USA) 

The  International  Crane  Foundation  has  maintained  a  pair  of  Australian 
Cranes  or  Brolgas  Grus  rubicundus  since  1974  without  breeding  success  until 
1979.  Beginning  in  1976  the  Brolgas  at  ICF  were  subjected  to  periodic 
artificial  rain  in  an  effort  to  simulate  the  Australian  rainy  season  in  which 
they  breed.  In  1979  the  artificial  rain  was  increased  to  a  one  hour  period  in 
the  morning  and  a  one  hour  period  in  the  afternoon  beginning  in  June.  The 
rain  was  produced  by  using  three  soaker  hoses  (each  25  feet  long)  suspended 
above  the  pen  on  the  flight  netting  and  was  operated  daily  by  student 
researcher  Kate  Lindsay. 

The  Brolga  enclosure  consists  of  an  unheated  shelter  (4.6m  X  4.6m)  and 
an  outside  pen  (13.7m  X  18.2m)  covered  with  nylon  mesh  flight  netting.  The 
pen  contains  tall  grass  with  a  few  shrubs  and  is  surrounded  by  old  Christmas 
trees  for  privacy. 

Because  both  birds  are  flightless  they  are  artificially  inseminated  during 
the  breeding  season.  This  year  AI  was  done  every  other  day  beginning  in 
May.  The  male  produced  45  semen  samples  from  May  4th  to  August  24th 
averaging  .19ml  per  ejaculate.  The  female  Brolga  laid  her  first  and  only  egg 
on  July  30th  after  receiving  28  good  inseminations. 

The  brownish  spotted  egg  was  immediately  collected  and  placed  in  a 
forced  air  incubator  at  37°C  dry  bulb  and  30°C  wet  bulb.  While  in  the 
incubator  the  egg  was  turned  automatically  every  2  hours.  On  the  26th  day 
the  egg  was  transferred  to  the  hatcher  and  was  not  turned  thereafter.  The 
hatcher  is  maintained  at  33°C  wet  bulb.  During  the  incubation  period  the 
198.6  gram  egg  showed  a  13%  weight  loss. 

The  silver  grey  chick  hatched  on  August  30th  after  an  incubation  period  of 
31  days.  The  chick  pipped  at  1400  hours  on  August  29th  and  was  helped 
from  the  shell  28  hours  later.  The  chick  weighed  122.1  grams  16  hours  after 
hatching.  The  chick  was  fed  a  23%  protein  starter  diet  in  a  ^inch  pellet  form. 
It  was  first  observed  drinking  water  at  2  days  of  age  and  also  began  eating 
pellets  from  a  spoon  on  the  second  day.  The  chick’s  weight  fluctuated  up  and 
down  for  the  first  four  days  but  began  to  increase  steadily  by  the  fifth  day. 
The  chick  was  eating  well  on  its  own  by  the  fourth  day. 

The  brooder  pen  is  about  1  metre  square  and  is  located  in  a  heated  room 
kept  at  25.5°C  by  an  electric  space  heater.  A  250  watt  red  heatlamp  suspended 
above  the  floor  maintains  the  brooder  pen  at  about  31°C  through  a  plug-in 
thermostat.  A  second  heatlamp  is  connected  to  a  back-up  thermostat  and  set 
to  operate  in  case  the  first  lamp  fails.  The  floor  of  the  pen  is  covered  with 
indoor-outdoor  carpeting  which  is  changed  twice  a  day.  The  chick  was  taken 
outside  for  short  exercise  periods  beginning  on  the  first  day  and  allowed  to 
swim  for  a  few  minutes  in  a  wading  pool  every  day  the  temperature  permitted. 


140 


C.  LaRUE  -  BREEDING  THE  BROLGA 


While  exercising,  the  chick  frequently  catches  and  eats  grasshoppers,  crickets 
and  other  insects. 

By  two  weeks  of  age  the  chick  was  moved  to  a  large  pen  with  sand  on  the 
floor.  The  exercise  periods  were  increased  and  the  chick’s  diet  was  changed 
to  a  19%  grower  ration  also  made  in  the  Vs  inch  pellet.  The  chick’s  weight 
gain  is  monitored  closely  through  daily  weighing  to  prevent  leg  problems. 
The  daily  weight  gain  is  kept  below  20%  and  is  regulated  by  exercise  and  by 
switching  to  the  lower  protein  grower  diet  at  two  weeks  of  age. 

The  adult  Brolgas  are  fed  a  20.5%  protein  breeder  diet  during  the  summer 
and  a  19%  protein  maintenance  diet  during  the  winter.  The  adult  pellet  is 
3/i6  inch  and  is  accepted  by  young  birds  when  they  are  4— 6  weeks  old.  The 
only  supplements  fed  include  small  amounts  of  whole  corn  during  the  winter 
and  vitamins  in  the  drinking  water  for  young  birds  during  their  first  6  weeks. 

At  the  time  of  this  writing  the  chick  is  30  days  old,  doing  well,  and  weighs 
963.9  grams.  The  adult  birds  have  started  moulting  and  appear  to  be  finally 
adjusted  to  our  northern  hemisphere  seasons. 


141 


BREEDING  ATTEMPT  WITH  THE  GOLDEN-COLLARED 
HONEYCREEPER  IN  1977 
Tangara  pulcherrima 

By  A.  McEWEN  (Plymouth,  Devon) 

The  Golden-collared  Honeycreeper,  until  recently  was  placed  as  sole 
representative  of  the  genus  Iridophanes  (de  Schauensee,  1970)  but  is  now 
generally  included  with  the  Tangara  (Ingels,  1974;  Gruson,  1976). 

The  male  has  a  black  head,  upper  mantle  and  tail-coverts.  Breast  and  sides 
of  body  are  straw  coloured  with  lower  breast  and  abdomen  whitish.  The 
collar  is  bright  golden  yellow  and  wings  purplish  blue.  Sexual  dimorphism 
exists  with  the  female  lacking  the  golden  collar  and  having  a  greenish  back 
and  greyish  breast  and  throat.  A  coloured  plate  depicting  the  male  appears  in 
de  Schauensee. 

The  pair  were  obtained  in  October  1975  when  still  immature.  The  male  at 
the  time  being  much  the  same  colour  as  the  female.  From  the  first  the  pair 
were  very  bold  and  confiding  and  the  cock  was  seen  to  feed  the  hen  several 
times  each  day,  even  though  they  were,  as  already  mentioned,  still  in 
immature  plumage. 

By  January  1976  both  birds  had  completed  a  moult  and  were  now  in  full 
colour.  In  early  April  a  cup-shaped  nest  was  built  in  the  fork  of  a  branch  in 
the  outside  flight  and  constructed  mainly  of  sheep’s  wool  and  dry  leaves. 
However,  no  use  was  made  of  it. 

In  the  same  month  of  1977  the  same  site  was  used  to  construct  a  similar 
nest,  this  time  using  horse  hair  as  no  sheep’s  wool  was  available.  Both  of  these 
nests  were  built  by  the  male  only.  No  eggs  were  laid  but  the  female  was  seen 
to  spend  the  whole  of  one  day  sitting  in  it  and  being  fed  by  the  cock. 

Within  a  few  days  of  seeing  this  unusual  behaviour  the  male  was  seen  to 
“attack”  the  female  repeatedly  and  very  aggressively.  These  attacks  took 
place  inside  the  birdroom,  even  while  I  was  present.  The  cock  would  fly  at 
the  hen  at  terrifying  speed,  “screaming”  his  high  pitched  call  note  and 
seemingly  oblivious  of  the  other  birds  in  the  birdroom.  The  female,  with 
equal  speed,  would  dash  wildly  about  before  finally  landing  in  a  place  where 
she  might  avoid  the  male.  During  the  periods  she  remained  hidden,  the  male 
searched  for  her  and  “screamed”  in  an  agitated  manner.  Eventually,  she 
would  break  from  cover  and  the  whole  mad  dash  would  be  repeated.  After 
the  third  of  these  chases  the  cock,  doing  his  usual  searching  for  the  hen, 
spotted  her,  and,  as  before,  dashed  at  her  in  just  the  same  furious  fashion  as 
on  the  three  previous  occasions.  This  time,  however,  the  hen  remained 
cowering  where  she  was,  whereupon  the  male  landed  on  herback  and  fed  her. 

The  following  day  a  nest  was  being  constructed,  again  of  horse  hair  and 
dry  leaves  and  also  in  the  fork  of  a  branch,  but  this  time  inside  the  birdroom. 
This  nest  was  again,  so  far  as  could  be  seen,  built  solely  by  the  male,  with  the 
female  seeming  very  indifferent  to  what  was  going  on,  though  she  did,  on  two 


142 


A.  McEWEN  -  GOLDEN-COLLARED  HONEYCREEPER 


occasions,  visit  it  with  him.  Within  a  few  days,  and  with  the  nest  still 
incomplete,  the  hen  wras  seen  building  a  second  nest  in  a  nest  box,  also  in  the 
birdroom  and  at  the  highest  point  available  within  it  (the  cock’s  nest  being 
some  4ft  off  the  ground,  while  the  hen’s  was  approximately  6ft  6ins.).  The 
nest  box  was  the  type  normally  intended  for  small  finches  and  was  5  inches 
square  with  a  small  oblong  slot  at  the  top  of  the  front  to  facilitate  inspection. 
The  nest  within  was  made  of  coarse  fibres,  removed  from  disused  furniture; 
these  formed  the  cup  which  was  later  lined  with  horse  hair. 

The  two  nests  were  eventually  completed  after  about  a  week  with  neither 
bird  helping  the  other  to  complete  their  nest.  They  still  flew  together  when 
visiting  the  outside  flight  but  seemed  oblivious  to  each  other’s  building 
activities.  The  male,  however,  continued  to  feed  his  spouse  through  this 
period, 

This  period  of  great  activity  was  followed,  much  to  my  surprise,  by  a  long 
period  of  almost  total  inactivity.  Neither  bird  seemed  its  usual  boisterous  self 
and  both  were  very  quiet  during  this  period;  though  they  were  noted  for  their 
constant  calling  to  each  other,  even  this  seemed  to  occur  only  rarely.  Most 
important  of  all,  however,  was  the  fact  that  the  pair  showed  no  interest  at  all 
in  either  of  the  two  nests  which  they  had  spent  so  much  time  building. 

I  had  begun  to  believe  that  all  of  this  was  just  a  false  alarm  when,  after 
roughly  one  week,  I  entered  the  birdroom  to  see  the  hen  sitting  in  the  nest 
which  she  had  built  in  the  nest  box.  The  cock  was  in  attendance  on  a  perch 
about  one  foot  away.  He  was  continuously  uttering  a  call  I  had  not  heard 
from  him  before.  It  consisted  of  only  two  notes,  one  high  and  one  low,  and 
was  delivered  slowly  but  at  regular  intervals.  He  maintained  this  constant 
calling  for  about  an  hour  after  I  entered  the  birdroom.  I  never  heard  this  call 
at  any  time  again. 

The  cock  eventually  fed  her  on  the  nest  very  excitedly  several  times  in  a 
relatively  short  space  of  time.  Later,  the  hen  left  the  nest  to  fly  with  the  cr>ck 
into  the  outside  flight  which  gave  me  a  chance  to  look  in  the  nest  box;  it 
contained  one  egg. 

The  cock  now  became  very  aggressive  for  the  first  time  towards  the  other 
birds  in  the  birdroom  which  approached  the  vicinity  of  the  nest.  He  never 
actually  attacked  any  of  the  birds  however;  he  simply  drove  them  away  from 
the  immediate  area  in  which  the  nest  was  situated  and  then  returned  to  his 
perch  near  the  nest.  The  second  egg  was  laid  the  following  day. 

The  hen  carried  out  incubation  alone  and,  since  she  and  the  male  would 
make  occasional  trips  together  to  the  outside  flight,  it  was  possible  for  me  to 
regularly  check  that  the  eggs  were  alright.  They  seemed  surprisingly  large 
for  the  size  of  the  bird  and  were  a  pronounced  oblong  shape,  pale  bluish-grey 
in  colour  with  rust  coloured  streaks  —  faintest  at  the  narrow  end  and 
becoming  gradually  more  dense  over  the  length  of  the  egg  until,  at  the  blunt 
end,  they  converged  to  form  a  solid  patch  of  rusty  brown.  I  noticed  with 
interest  that  the  eggs  were  turned  lengthways  daily.  The  blunt  ends  facing 
the  nest  box  entrance  one  day  and  the  narrow  ends  facing  the  entrance  the 
next,  and  so  on. 


A.  McEWEN  -  GOLDEN-COLLARED  HONEYCREEPER 


143 


The  first  chick  was  hatched  early  one  morning  with  the  second  hatching 
around  2.30  p.m.  the  same  day.  It  was  now  that  the  real  difficulty  presented 
itself  for,  although  the  parents  had  always  taken  maggots  and  mealworms 
since  their  arrival,  they  refused  to  feed  anything  but  flies  to  the  young.  They, 
themselves,  continued  to  take  nectar,  fruit  and  softfood. 

Since  there  were  very  few  flies  about  within  the  birdroom,  it  was  necessary 
for  me  to  begin  catching  them  myself  out  in  the  garden  and  bring  them  into 
the  birdroom  for  the  birds  to  take.  A  reasonably  successful  method  was 
found  of  achieving  this  by  placing  an  empty  milk  bottle  over  a  fly  which  was 
sunning  itself  on  a  leaf  or  such,  it  invariably  flew  upwards  into  it.  It  was 
possible  to  catch  10  —  12  flies  at  a  time  in  this  manner  without  any  escaping. 
These  were  then  released  into  the  birdroom  where  they  were  eagerly  snapped 
up  by  the  parents.  It  was  necessary  to  repeat  this  process  as  often  as  20  times 
a  day  to  keep  up  with  the  demand  for  them  by  the  parent  birds  who  got  so 
used  to  the  procedure  over  the  following  three  weeks  that,  as  I  entered  the 
birdroom,  they  would  sometimes,  in  their  anxiety  to  get  at  the  flies,  land 
upon  the  bottle  while  I  was  still  holding  it. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  all  other  birds  sharing  their  aviary  had  been 
removed  prior  to  the  hatching  of  the  chicks  so  there  was  no  competition  for 
any  live  food  placed  in  the  birdroom. 

Another  aviculturist  friend  in  my  area,  knowing  of  my  plight  would  help 
out  with  fly  catching  operations  when  he  could  and  would  also  bring  with 
him  any  spiders  he  happened  to  find.  The  latter  were  taken  by  the  birds  along 
with  flies  (blue  bottles)  but  greenfly,  fruitfly,  beetles  and  grasshoppers  were 
all  ignored  when  offered. 

In  the  evenings  when  there  were  no  bluebottles  about,  it  was  possible  to 
catch  horseflies  instead  but,  although  they  were  taken,  they  were  not  so 
much  in  favour  with  the  parents  as  had  been  the  bluebottles.  Once  the  hen 
had  settled  for  the  evening,  usually  around  6  p.m.  nothing  further  was  taken 
for  the  young,  even  though  there  was  still  two  or  three  hours  of  daylight  left. 

At  one  point  the  hen  was  seen  to  take  a  piece  of  pear  to  the  nest  and  offer  it 
to  the  young  but  it  must  have  been  refused  for  she  left  the  nest  still  carrying  it 
in  her  beak. 

The  youngsters  developed  well  and  after  six  days  were  seen  to  have  their 
eyes  partially  open,  the  following  day  they  were  fully  open.  They  feathered  up 
slowly  but  seemed  perfectly  alright.  When  almost  completely  feathered  it 
was  easily  seen  that  they  were  cock  and  hen.  The  young  cock  being  black  and 
fawn  in  the  areas  where,  as  an  adult,  he  would  be  black  and  golden  straw 
coloured.  At  this  age,  however,  there  was  no  blue,  these  areas,  wings  and  tail, 
being  black  also.  The  young  hen  was  a  dull  version  of  the  adult  hen. 

Unfortunately,  the  young  cock  was  found  dead  in  the  nest  at  13  days  old.  I 
had  noticed  for  some  time  previously  that  the  young  hen  —  the  larger  of  the 
two  —  was  getting  more  than  her  fair  share  of  the  food  being  offered,  often 
reaching  past  the  young  male  to  take  the  food  being  offered  to  him.  But  there 
was  nothing  I  could  think  of  to  do  to  prevent  this. 


144 


A.  McEWEN  -  GOLDEN-COLLARED  HONEYCREEPER 


The  hen  continued  to  thrive  and  was  often  seen  preening  herself  in  the 
nest.  One  day  however,  she  was  found  out  of  the  nest  and,  when  checked, 
was  found  to  have  a  long  piece  of  horse  hair  knotted  around  her  foot.  I  have 
never  experienced  this  trouble  with  sheep’s  wool  and  would  never  use 
horse  hair  again  as  a  nesting  material.  Although  the  hair  was  carefully 
removed  it  was  obvious  that  it  had  tangled  around  the  foot  some  time  ago 
since  it  never  took  on  the  correct  attitude  and  remained  slightly  turned 
inwards  and  semi-closed. 

The  youngster  itself  seemed  very  fit  and,  when  returned  to  the  nest  soon 
settled  down  to  calling  for  food.  This  deliberate  calling  to  be  fed  by  the 
chicks,  was  noticed  after  the  first  few  days  of  their  being  hatched. 

In  the  evenings  the  hen  would  settle  on  the  nest  for  the  night  as  she  had 
from  the  first.  At  no  time  was  the  cock  ever  seen  to  actually  go  on  the  nest. 
Indeed,  the  only  time  he  visited  it  at  all  was  to  feed  either  the  hen  or  the 
chicks. 

The  chick  eventually  left  the  nest  at  17  days  old  and  was  continued  to  be 
fed  by  the  parents.  That  is  until  the  23rd  day  when,  on  entering  the  birdroom 
it  was  found  drowned  in  a  shallow  dish  of  water  on  the  floor  where,  I 
presume  it  must  have  landed  having  taken  its  first  flight  —  with  a  10ft  X  8ft 
floor  area  in  which  to  land  it  found  a  6  inch  diameter  dish  of  water. 

The  adults  were  fluttering  about  in  obivous  distress  and  were  calling 
piteously.  This  distress  was  short  lived  and  it  was  not  long  before  the  hen  was 
seen  repairing  the  same  nest  she  used  in  the  box.  There  followed  the  period 
of  complete  inactivity  and  again  after  roughly  one  week,  the  hen  was  found 
sitting  on  the  nest. 

When  the  opportunity  arose  to  check,  she  was  found  to  be  sitting  on  only 
one  egg.  During  her  incubation  of  this  egg  I  saw  and  heard  the  cock  singing 
what  I  can  only  describe  as  one  of  the  saddest  sounding  songs  that  I  have  ever 
heard  from  a  bird.  It  was  the  only  time  I  had  heard  him  truly  “sing”,  indeed,  I 
had  thought  that  this  species  had  no  real  song  at  all.  I  never  heard  him  sing 
like  that  other  than  on  that  one  occasion. 

The  egg  eventually  hatched  and,  again,  I  was  faced  with  the  fly-catching 
problem.  However,  this  time,  unlike  the  previous  occasion,  the  weather  was 
particularly  cold  and  therefore  very  few  flies  were  to  be  seen  let  alone  caught. 
I  therefore  decided  to  let  the  parents  fly  at  liberty  in  the  garden  to  catch 
whatever  food  they  chose. 

I  had  done  this  some  time  before  with  Pekin  Robins  quite  successfully  and 
could  see  no  reason  why  it  should  be  that  this  species  prove  any  less  faithful 
to  their  young.  A  hole  was  opened  in  the  wire-netting  and  it  wasn’t  long 
before  the  male  came  out,  looked  around  excitedly,  dashed  into  the  nearest 
shrub  —  and  was  never  seen  again! 

Rightly  or  wrongly  I  decided  to  leave  the  hole  open  to  allow  the  hen 
opportunity  to  catch  food  for  her  youngster  and,  hopefully  to  allow  the  male 
to  re-enter  should  he  return.  The  hen,  although  she  came  into  the  outside 
flight,  did  not  go  through  the  hole  but  went  from  corner  to  corner  of  the 


A.  McEWEN  -  GOLDEN-COLLARED  HONEYCREEPER 


145 


flight  calling  loudly  for  the  cock. 

Ironically,  on  the  following  day,  blowfly  chrysalids  set  inside  the  birdroom 
to  hatch  into  flies  for  the  birds  to  feed  to  any  young,  did  hatch  and  the 
birdroom  then  abounded  with  blowflies  which  the  hen  fed  to  the  chick. 
Periodically  she  would  go  into  the  outside  flight  and,  again,  spend  some  little 
time  calling  for  the  male. 

The  chick  appeared  to  flourish  under  her  attention  until  the  7th  day  when 
on  entering  the  birdroom,  the  chick  was  found  dead  on  the  birdroom  floor. 
Needless  to  say  that  the  hen  had  finally  made  use  of  the  hole  in  the  wire.  I 
never  could  fathom  why  the  chick  died  so  abruptly,  and  though  I  kept  a  vigil 
for  many  weeks  after,  I  never  saw  either  of  the  adult  pair  again. 

REFERENCES 

De  SCHAUENSEE,  R.M.  1970.  A  Guide  of  the  Birds  of  South  America 
GRUSON,  E.C.  1976  Check-list  of  the  Birds  of  the  World 

INGELS,  J.  A  vie.  Mag.  1974, 21.  Rare  Tanagers  Imported  into  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands 
in  1973. 


146 


BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 

Colius  macrourus 

By  L.  GIBSON  (Burnaby,  British  Columbia) 

The  half-dozen  species  of  Colius  all  live  in  Africa,  from  the  southern  edge 
of  the  Sahara  desert  to  the  Cape  Province.  C.  macrourus  lives  in  a  wide  band 
across  the  continent  just  south  of  the  Sahara  and  is,  like  other  Colius ,  a  dry 
area  bird,  which  is  naturally  at  home  in  fairly  arid  country.  The  range  of  this 
species  falls  mostly  between  650  —  3,000  ft  (200  —  900m),  but  other  species 
are  found  in  the  5  —  6,000  ft  (1500  —  1800m)  plateaux  of  South  Africa, 
where  they  may  encounter  cool  nights.  These  birds  are  therefore  used  to 
wide  variations  between  day  and  night  temperatures,  but  they  are  all  miserable 
in  wet  conditions.  They  have  adapted  well  to  farmland,  parkland  and 
suburban  gardens,  and  can  be  found  inside  many  city  limits.  Regarded  as  a 
threat  to  crops,  they  are  fair  game  to  farmers,  gardeners  and  small  boys.  If 
concentrated  in  any  numbers  Colius  could  do  considerable  damage  to  fruit 
crops.  In  addition,  they  may  eat  or  damage  a  variety  of  leaves,  flowers  and 
vegetables. 

Mousebirds  are  interesting  to  watch  as  they  are  completely  unlike  other 
birds  in  habits  and  appearance,  indeed  they  are  in  a  scientific  order  all  by 
themselves.  To  anyone  who  has  kept  these  birds,  the  suggestion  is  nonsense 
that  the  name  is  due  to  rodent-like  “running  about”.  This  statement  is 
repeated  in  several  books,  probably  all  copying  some  obscure  misinformed 
source,  as  is  fairly  common  practice  in  avicultural  literature.  In  foliage,  they 
proceed  in  deliberate  jumps,  and  on  the  ground  they  move  in  clumsy  hops 
for  very  short  distances. 

The  birds  are  uncomfortable  on  the  ground  and  spend  as  little  time  there 
as  possible,  and  the  maximum  amount  of  travel  noted  there  was  five  hops. 
Due  to  the  long  tail  and  the  peculiarities  of  the  leg,  they  are  unable  to  take  off 
from  the  ground  as  readily  as  normal  birds.  No  doubt  they  are  called 
mousebirds  because  of  the  long  tail  and  the  short  brownish-grey,  fur-like 
body  feathers. 

Colius  are  not  active  flyers,  and  are  not  built  for  easy  flight.  The  wings  are 
small  and  the  long  tail  seems  to  unbalance  the  bird,  so  that,  in  a  short  flight  at 
least  they  fly  with  the  body  tilted  slightly,  head-up  and  tail  down.  The 
perferred  and  usual  landing  position  is  with  the  body  almost  vertical,  so  that 
they  land  woodpecker-like  against  the  chosen  surface.  Landing  horizontally 
involves  something  of  a  flop,  especially  on  the  ground.  When  the  birds  enter 
a  dense  bush  with  no  obvious  branch  to  land  upon,  they  simply  crash 
through  the  leaves  until  the  feet  find  a  grip.  When  chased  within  the  confines 
of  the  aviary,  they  crash  about  in  a  similar  manner.  When  undisturbed,  the 
normal  method  of  movement  within  a  bush  is  slow  and  deliberate,  consisting 
of  a  hop  or  jump,  followed  by  a  definite  pause,  the  bird  usually  being 
inclined  more  towards  the  vertical  than  the  horizontal.  This  upright  stance  is 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


147 


normal  for  mousebirds. 

The  inner  toe  of  the  Colius  is  reversible  and  the  birds  are  commonly  seen 
perching  on  a  vertical  surface  with  all  four  toes  pointing  upwards  (forward). 
However,  the  first  toe  may  be  out  sideways  in  a  horizontal  plane,  or  pointing 
down. 

The  fourth  (outer)  toe  is  also  reversible,  but  from  my  observations  at  least, 
it  is  not  so  commonly  used  this  way,  whereas  the  first  toe  is  used  freely  in 
either  direction.  When  the  bird  is  sitting  on  top  of  a  thin  branch,  the  toes  grip 
in  the  normal  manner  of  three  forward  and  one  (the  first)  back.  When 
perching  horizontally  or  when  standing,  the  bird  rests  on  the  tarsi.  It 
commonly  rests  the  abdomen  on  a  branch,  but  does  not  do  this  when  eating 
at  the  feeding  table.  Mousebirds  are  incapable  of  standing  up  “normally’  on 
their  legs  for  more  than  a  few  seconds,  and  this  is  usually  seen  only  when  they 
are  hopping.  To  the  uninformed,  they  look  like  they  have  broken  legs  or 
rickets  {Rachitis).  This  is  because  the  leg  is  structured  to  be  free  swinging, 
and  they  can  hang  upright  with  the  feet  above  the  head,  like  swinging 
gibbons,  or  bats  in  reverse.  The  birds  can  hover  a  bit,  and  they  can  fly  fairly 
straight  up  to  the  roof  and  cling  there.  Because  of  these  clinging  habits,  the 
feet  are  disproportionately  large  and  powerful,  as  are  the  tarsi,  evidently  at 
the  expense  of  the  upper  leg.  As  can  be  gathered  from  the  above,  one  should 
make  provision  for  the  perching  requirements  of  these  birds. 

The  tail  is  8in  (20cm)  long,  and  is  two-thirds  of  the  total  length  of  the  bird. 
The  shafts  are  very  thick  and  rigid  at  the  base,  but  taper  to  fine  soft  tips.  The 
tail  is  used  as  a  support  against  vertical  surfaces  and  for  this  reason  as  much 
as  a  quarter  of  the  length  may  be  worn  away  by  moulting  time.  The  tail 
feathers  are  in  matched  pairs,  the  two  central  ones  being  longest.  The  shafts 
are  lined  with  very  short  barbs,  so  there  is  practically  no  surface  for  air-lift. 
Probably  for  this  reason  (rather  than  length  and  weight)  the  tail  drops  in 
flight.  By  contrast,  the  tail  is  useful  as  a  balance  against  the  forward  perching 
position  of  the  feet. 

Mousebirds  are  by  nature  very  wary  and  they  retain  this  characteristic  in 
the  aviary.  In  a  cage  or  very  small  aviary  they  panic  readily.  This  fact,  along 
with  their  odd  perching  habits,  (not  to  mention  their  copious  droppings), 
makes  them  totally  unsuitable  to  life  in  a  cage.  They  do  best  in  an  earth- 
floored  aviary  with  some  dense  cover,  roofed  over  at  least  partially,  to  keep 
some  of  the  bushes  dry.  They  also  appreciate  some  sunlight,  especially  early 
or  late  in  the  day. 

The  four  adult  birds  I  obtained  were  nervous  in  a  confined  space,  but 
when  moved  to  a  large  aviary  they  settled  well  and  could  be  observed  freely 
from  a  discreet  distance.  They  still  moved  to  the  opposite  side  whenever  an 
observer  approached  the  wire,  and  they  would  not  come  down  to  feed  if 
anyone  was  nearby,  but  they  are  not  skulkers.  They  only  became  disturbed  if 
the  aviary  was  entered,  and  then  only  a  little. 

As  Colius  do  not  like  flying,  much  of  their  spare  time  is  spent  lounging 
about,  preferring  a  wide  branch  or  ledge  to  support  the  whole  body  while 


148 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


they  sunbathe  or  preen.  Most  of  the  time  they  could  be  seen  in  the  open,  and 
only  kept  to  dense  cover  when  nesting  or  shepherding  chicks  or,  of  course,  if 
being  chased.  The  favourite  socialising  place  was  a  small  dead  pear  tree.  All 
non-breeding  activity  is  always  carried  out  in  a  group,  and  an  isolated  bird  is 
very  uncomfortable.  They  are  completely  gregarious  and  even  when  nesting 
never  molested  smaller  birds,  although  they  can  hold  their  own  at  the 
feeding  table.  The  nearest  they  came  to  being  aggressive  was  a  half-hearted 
peck  at  any  other  species  who  happened  to  be  monopolising  the  banana,  (this 
usually  worked).  However,  they  never  did  this  to  each  other,  and  never  used 
a  threat  posture,  even  if  the  nest  was  disturbed,  although  this  has  been 
described  for  other  species  of  Coitus.  The  only  time  they  became  really 
agitated  was  when  the  newly  fledged  chicks  were  being  caught  up  for 
photographing.  Both  parents  then  came  very  close,  especially  the  hen,  and 
gave  a  few  excited  whistles. 

At  night  all  four  birds  roosted  together,  except  when  nesting.  They  sleep 
head-up,  with  the  feet  grasping  a  twig  just  above  the  head.  The  bodies  are 
pressed  together  with  the  tails  meeting  perfectly  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  tell 
how  many  birds  are  in  the  bunch.  Alternatively  they  will  roost  on  a  vertical 
surface,  usually  the  wire,  and  at  the  highest  point  available.  In  this  case  they 
press  together  side-by-side.  This  sleeping  position  makes  them  vulnerable  to 
cats,  and  should  be  discouraged  by  chasing  the  birds  inwards  at  dusk.  The 
high  altitude  plateaux  habitat  in  some  parts  of  the  mousebirds’  range  can 
drop  to  quite  low  night  temperatures  in  the  winter  (e.g.  around  40°F  (5°C) 
or  less,  and  probably  for  this  reason  the  birds  have  developed  their  protective 
roosting  habit.  This  is  further  made  necessary  by  the  sparse  hair-like  covering 
of  the  body  feathers.  Colius  will  huddle  together  during  the  day  if  it  cold. 
After  a  cold  night  they  can  be  seen  against  the  wire,  thawing  out  in  the  scant 
rays  of  the  morning  sun. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  they  are  partly  poikilothermic.  Although  they 
provide  mutual  protection  from  the  cold,  I  would  not  like  to  keep  them 
outside  at  freezing  temperatures.  Night  temperatures  did  drop  to  the  mid¬ 
thirties  °F  (2°C)  every  night  when  they  were  nesting,  and  there  was  nightly 
frost  starting  two  nights  before  the  chicks  fledged.  But  the  birds  were  always 
dry.  They  are  very  miserable  when  wet,  and  would  probably  succumb 
rapidly  if  they  got  both  cold  and  wet  at  night. 

Health 

The  mousebirds  were  never  sick  and,  at  the  time  of  writing,  (chicks  six 
months  old),  all  are  in  good  health.  They  are  one  of  the  few  species  I  have 
kept  in  which  no  parasites  were  found/  They  have  come  through  three 
moults  without  any  problems.  An  adult  bird  weighs  around  50g. 

Housing 

When  the  birds  were  acquired  it  was  midwinter,  necessitating  housing 
them  indoors.  These  birds  love  to  eat,  and  they  presented  a  problem  in  that 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


149 


they  were  eating  enough  bananas  to  finance  a  small  revolution  in  South 
America,  and  consequently  were  producing  enough  guano  to  start  a  modest 
fertilizer  plant.  Their  penchant  for  clinging  to  the  wire  sides  of  the  cage 
made  cleaning  up  all  the  more  difficult.  In  their  favour,  the  droppings  are  on 
the  dry  side  and,  like  everything  else  about  these  birds,  they  are  strange  and 
unbirdlike.  The  problem  was  lessened  by  covering  the  inside  of  the  roof  with 
plastic  sheeting  and  leaving  a  large  square  of  bare  wire  in  the  centre. 
Droppings  were  (more  or  less)  confined  to  the  middle  of  the  floor  after  that, 
and  cleaned  up  by  peeling  off  a  layer  of  newspaper  about  twice  a  day. 

In  the  spring  the  birds  were  moved  outside  to  a  small,  roofed  aviary  which 
they  enjoyed,  but  which  was  unsuitable  for  nesting  because  of  the  lack  of 
plant  cover.  They  were  later  moved  to  a  large  aviary  32ft  X  10ft  X  7ft  high 
(9.7  X  3  X  2.1)  which  had  dense  cover  in  the  shelter  end,  and  a  wide 
assortment  of  flowers  and  seeding  plants,  interspersed  with  lettuce  covering 
the  rest  of  the  ground.  The  shelter  area  is  solid  wood  on  the  north  end,  with 
acrylic  sheeting  on  the  side  and  roof,  for  a  quarter  of  the  length  of  the  aviary. 
The  far  (east)  side  of  the  aviary  is  formed  by  the  garden  wall,  which  is  made 
of  solid  concrete  blocks,  and  backed  by  a  row  of  dense  Chamaecyparis  trees. 
The  highest  plants  are  in  the  shelter  and  consist  of  a  dense  tangle  of  wisteria 
and  honeysuckle  at  roof  height,  above  a  rhododendron.  Just  outside  the  roof 
area  is  a  fairly  thin  weigela  bush  6ft  (2m)  high.  The  vegetation  outside  the 
shelter  area  was  kept  lower  and  thinner,  to  encourage  birds  to  roost  in  the 
covered  area.  The  mousebirds  shared  the  area  with  six  Chloropsis  and  a  hen 
Blackcap  S.  atricapilla ,  hen  Shama  and  a  pair  of  Leiothrix.  Later  five  rails 
were  added.  Because  several  Chloropsis  insisted  on  sleeping  in  the  wiegela, 
the  area  above  it  was  roofed  over  with  plastic  sheeting.  The  sides  of  the 
aviary  are  of  16  gauge  ^in  X  lin  welded  wire.  This  is  an  important 
consideration  for  Colius  as  they  frequently  perch  on  the  wire.  Thinner  wire 
netting  would  be  damaging  to  their  feet. 

Feeding 

The  preferred  feeding  situation  is  arboreal,  and  the  birds  were  fed  at  a 
stand  made  of  concrete  blocks.  When  given  a  choice,  they  would  not  eat  on 
the  ground,  and  descended  there  only  to  have  a  sand-bath,  which  they  took 
several  times  a  week.  They  never  bathed  in  water.  An  old  report  on  wild 
mousebirds  mentions  that  they  gathered  at  a  red  “mineral-earth”  patch, 
presumably  to  eat  the  minerals.  I  never  saw  them  take  grit,  as  do  all 
omnivorous  birds,  and  they  ignored  red  mineral  grit,  sold  for  pigeons. 
Possibly  these  wild  birds  were  just  bathing,  and  it  is  strange  that  no  one 
seems  to  have  recorded  the  fact  that  they  are  earth-bathers  or,  at  least,  I  have 
not  seen  such  a  report. 

Reports  have  been  made  of  mousebirds  eating  vegetables  in  African 
gardens,  but  mine  never  once  landed  on  the  ground  to  eat  the  wide  assortment 
of  plants,  including  lettuce,  to  be  found  there.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
they  stripped  a  large  brassica  plant  by  hanging  from  a  rhododendron  bush  to 


150 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


do  so. 

A  similar  plant  nearby  was  not  touched  because  it  could  not  be  reached 
from  a  branch,  yet  the  plant  itself  was  big  enough  (1m)  to  be  perched  upon. 
This  mystery  plant  sprang  from  bird  seed  (which  the  Colius  never  touched). 
Strangely,  the  birds  never  ate  greens  from  their  feeding  dish,  and  did  not 
touch  leaves  of  the  aforementioned  plant  when  they  were  pulled  and  placed 
on  the  feeding  table.  The  other  plant  eaten  was  a  weigela  bush.  Only  new 
shoots  and  young  leaves  were  taken.  Some  damage  was  done  to  new  honeysuckle 
shoots, but  it  was  not  clear  whether  the  Colius  or  the  Chloropsis  did  this.  Large 
masses  of  yellow  broom  flowers  Genista  were  put  in  the  aviary,  when  in 
season.  The  mousebirds  ate  the  insides  of  these  flowers,  usually  biting  out 
the  stamens. 

They  could  have  been  attracted  by  either  the  pollen  or  the  nectar.  Nectar- 
milk,  put  in  for  the  Chloropsis ,  was  consumed  regularly  by  the  mousebirds 
and  yet  I  never  once  saw  them  drink  water,  although  others  have  seen  this. 
Probably  the  dry  nature  of  the  natural  habitat  has  modified  the  need  of  the 
Colius  to  drink  water,  and  much  of  the  required  moisture  is  obtained  from 
food.  Ground-growing  flowers  in  the  aviary  were  untouched,  but  red  rhodo¬ 
dendron  flowers  were  pulled  off  and  dropped  uneaten.  Although  I  suspect 
the  Colius  had  a  hand  in  this,  only  a  Chloropsis  was  actually  caught  in  the  act. 

Rather  conservative  feeders  in  the  aviary  as  far  as  variety  goes,  the 
mousebirds  made  up  for  this  by  disposing  of  huge  quantities  of  the  preferred 
foodstuff.  No  nibblers,  they  fill  up  to  the  brim  at  each  feed,  and  I  once  saw  a 
bird  take  75  bites  of  banana,  without  a  pause,  in  exactly  3  minutes.  This  is  a 
long,  single  feeding  time  for  a  small  bird.  When  newly  obtained,  they 
moulted  soon  afterwards  on  a  diet  of  banana  spread  with  soft  margarine  and 
little  else.  Banana  was  always  eaten  first,  and  apple,  orange  and  pear  were 
eaten  only  when  the  banana  was  finished.  C.  macrourus  is  one  of  the  few 
species  in  my  collection  that  would  not  eat  bread.  They  snacked  regularly  on 
scrambled  egg,  which  was  originally  put  in  for  other  birds,  and  they  ate  some 
rice  pudding.  Some  soft  berries,  like  raspberries,  were  eaten  when  nothing 
else  was  left,  but  hard  berries  were  never  touched.  Assorted  cooked  and  raw 
vegetables  were  only  eaten  if  the  birds  were  getting  desperate  and  no  live 
food  or  meat  of  any  kind  was  eaten.  They  would  not  eat  “insectivorous” 
mixture. 

Assorted  small  eggs  (e.g.  Zosterops),  were  placed  on  the  feeding  table,  but 
they  were  not  even  damaged.  Eggshell  was  not  eaten.  Food  was  never 
chopped  up.  Banana  was  fed  whole  with  a  strip  of  skin  peeled  off.  Other  large 
fruits,  such  as  apple,  were  cut  in  half.  The  raptor-like  razor-edged  beak  is 
ideal  for  quickly  slicing  pieces  out  of  fruit.  Apple  for  instance,  is  eaten  neatly 
down  to  a  paper-thin  skin.  Yet  the  formidable  beak  is  never  used  in  anger  or 
in  defence,  even  if  the  bird  is  held  in  the  hand.  Sometimes  food  is  held  under 
the  foot,  which  in  spite  of  its  parrot-like  versatility  is  never  used  to  pick  up 
food.  No  doubt  this  is  because  the  bird  could  not  stand  on  one  leg. 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


151 


The  mousebirds  were  more  reluctant  than  most  to  try  new  foods.  When  I 
was  experimenting  with  this,  they  held  out  as  long  as  possible,  whistling  so 
plaintively  that  I  often  gave  in  and  supplied  them  with  banana.  About  half  a 
large  banana  was  consumed  per  day  by  each  bird,  along  with  some  other 
food.  Margarine  was  seldom  spread  on  the  bananas  when  it  was  noted  that 
the  birds  were  drinking  milk  and  eating  egg. 

Calls  and  Sexing 

These  very  quiet  birds  were  never  heard  to  make  any  noise  other  than  a 
single  long  whistle.  The  call  is  rather  plaintive  although  not  unattractive, 
and  was  never  found  to  be  annoying  or  boring.  They  use  the  whistle  to 
communicate  if  they  are  apart,  and  thus  help  to  bring  the  flock  together 
again.  The  call  was  also  used  in  alarm  if  they  were  flushed  (e.g.  from  the 
feeding  table).  If  the  food  dish  was  not  replenished  for  some  time,  the  birds 
hung  around  and  called  forlornly.  Calling  was  not  noted  in  courtship  or 
during  nesting,  and  the  only  other  situation  in  which  it  was  heard  was  when 
chicks  were  being  chased  for  examination. 

The  chicks  themselves  were  quiet,  only  cheeping  a  little  in  the  nest.  Just 
after  they  fledged  they  were  heard  to  call  like  the  adults.  So  the  same  call  is 
used  in  several  situations.  It  is  used  commonly  for  communication,  and 
whenever  these  phlegmatic  birds  get  excited.  Perhaps  they  have  subtle 
differences  in  pitch  etc.,  which  only  they  can  hear.  This  could  easily  be 
checked  with  the  right  equipment. 

The  whistle  is  low-pitched  and  one  bird  had  a  slight  but  noticeable 
increase  in  pitch  over  the  others.  It  was  fairly  certain  that  this  was  the 
smallest  bird,  and  it  was  also  surmised  that  this  was  the  only  hen.  This  bird 
could  be  spotted  by  its  shorter  tail,  (by  about  1cm).  The  other  3  birds  were 
slightly  larger,  and  were  all  the  same  size.  All  four  birds  were  identical  in 
colour,  as  viewed  in  the  aviary.  The  difference  in  tail  lengths  could  only  be 
seen  if  the  birds  were  together,  especially  on  the  wire. 

The  difference  in  whistle  pitch  is  probably  a  good  way  to  pick  a  pair,  and  is 
a  method  that  has  not  been  exploited  by  aviculturists.  For  instance,  Zosterops 
can  be  sexed  this  way,  and  in  my  experience,  with  several  species,  the  hen  has 
the  higher  pitched  call,  as  would  be  expected. 

Practically  no  signs  of  courtship  were  seen,  although  it  must  be  admitted 
that  not  much  attention  was  being  paid  to  the  Colius  because  of  the  lateness 
of  the  season.  On  and  off  through  the  year,  one  or  other  large  bird  was  seen  to 
feed  the  small  one.  During  nesting,  while  the  presumed  father  was  incubating, 
one  large  bird  fed  the  off-duty  mother,  then  they  locked  beaks  and  twisted 
their  heads  from  side  to  side  for  a  few  seconds  and  that  is  as  worked  up  as 
they  were  ever  seen  to  get. 


152 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


Nest  and  Eggs 

In  spite  of  their  rather  clumsy  comings  and  goings,  the  mousebirds  were 
remarkably  secretive  nesters.  So  much  so  that  the  first  clutch  had  been  laid 
for  nearly  a  week  before  being  spotted,  and  no  nest-building  had  been  seen. 
This  was  partly  because  no  courtship  activity  was  evident  earlier,  and  the 
late  date  added  to  the  surprise.  The  eggs  were  first  noticed  on  August  27th, 
1978.  It  may  have  been  more  than  a  coincidence  that  the  eggs  were  laid 
during  a  very  wet  spell,  following  almost  six  weeks  of  warm,  dry  weather. 
This  follows  the  pattern  of  wild  birds  in  savanna  areas,  who  nest  during  or 
immediately  after  the  brief  wet  season. 

The  nest  was  in  a  small  wicker  basket.  This  was  originally  a  closed  basket 
in  which  waxbills  had  nested.  It  had  started  to  come  apart,  so  had  been 
unwound  for  about  half  its  length  then  stood  on  end,  to  give  a  somewhat 
tapered  cup  S^in  (9cm)  across  at  the  top.  It  had  some  ribs  sticking  up  around 
the  rim  to  a  height  of  4  —  6  ins  ( 10  —  1 5  cm).  This  unlikely  site  was  crammed  to 
its  full  depth  of  3^  in  (9cm)  with  lumps  of  short  grass,  pulled  mostly  from 
dry  turf.  No  weaving  was  involved.  The  filling  was  almost  level  with  the  top 
of  the  basket,  leaving  only  a  slight  depression.  The  only  attempt  at  a  lining 
was  the  addition  of  3  Chloropsis  body  feathers.  The  basket  was  wired  5ft 
(1.5m)  up  in  a  thin  weigela  bush,  but  there  was  a  thick  umbrella  of  leaves  at 
the  top  of  the  bush  which  effectively  hid  the  nest. 

Two  eggs  were  laid,  and  both  hatched.  The  eggs  were  rather  symmetrical 
(ellipsoidal)  and  were  a  matt  white  and  chalky  to  the  touch.  Reddish-brown 
angular  spots  and  short  thin  scratch-like  marks  were  fairly  evenly  distributed 
over  the  eggs.  Some  of  these  marks  looked  so  like  chips  in  the  shell  that  some 
anxious  moments  were  experienced  before  it  was  ascertained  that  they  were 
merely  markings. 

The  weather  was  very  wet  and  cool  during  incubation,  the  highest  day 
temperature  being  56°F  (13°C)  and  the  lowest  night  recording  39°F  (4°C). 
The  eggs  were  never  left  uncovered  for  more  than  a  second  or  two,  one  bird 
nearly  touching  the  other  when  they  changed  over.  Most  of  the  incubation 
was  done  by  the  hen,  and  she  was  fed  on  the  nest  by  her  mate  by  regurgitation. 
It  was  not  determined  if  the  hen  fed  the  cock  on  the  nest,  but  this  was 
unlikely  as  she  was  off  for  shorter  spells  of  up  to  half  an  hour.  It  was  fairly 
certain  that  the  two  non-breeding  birds  did  not  bring  food  to  the  nest,  but 
due  to  the  identical  appearance  of  the  birds,  this  could  not  be  completely 
ruled  out,  for  they  all  shared  other  activities.  It  was  certain,  however,  that 
only  two  birds  shared  the  incubation.  The  male  bird  slept  beside  the  nest  at 
night,  and  possibly  in  it.  The  thick  canopy  of  leaves  made  it  impossible  to 
check  his  exact  position.  The  other  two  birds  roosted  together  elsewhere. 
Both  birds  sat  very  tight,  and  neither  flushed  readily.  Even  after  several 
hours  of  unbroken  incubating,  the  hen  would  not  leave  until  I  was  less  than  a 
yard  (lm)  from  the  nest,  and  obviously  going  to  touch  it.  A  daily  inspection 
did  not  upset  the  birds  unduly,  and  they  always  waited  at  a  discreet  distance. 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


153 


The  incubating  bird  always  returned  directly  to  the  nest  immediately  after 
the  aviary  was  vacated.  The  normal  cautious  approach  to  the  nest  was  used 
only  when  there  was  already  one  parent  sitting.  They  appeared  to  be 
concerned  about  the  eggs  cooling.  The  other  two  birds  were  unaffected  by 
the  inspections  and  did  not  appear  concerned  about  the  nest.  It  was  difficult 
to  say  if  they  were  directly  concerned  about  the  fledged  chicks  as  all  the  birds 
stayed  in  a  fairly  tight  group. 

The  grey  colour  of  the  birds  blended  very  well  with  the  dark  green  foliage. 
The  sitting  bird  covered  the  small  nest  and  yet  was  difficult  to  see.  It  further 
aided  concealment  by  sticking  its  tail  up  alongside  a  wicker  rib  or  weigela 
twig.  The  tail  was  never  left  sticking  straight  out  or  hanging  down  over  the 
rim  of  the  nest  and  the  bird  sat  facing  in  random  directions.  The  birds  were 
always  cautious  about  approaching  the  nest,  especially  when  the  chicks  had 
hatched.  The  nest  was  only  6ft  (2m)  from  the  feeding  table,  but  the  bird 
collecting  food  always  flew  to  the  end  of  the  aviary,  then  approached  the  nest 
circuitously,  stopping  at  every  patch  of  cover  on  the  way. 

The  incubation  period  was  not  determined  exactly  for  various  reasons,  but 
it  is  very  short,  probably  10—11  days,  and  not  more  than  twelve.  A  strange 
thing  happened  with  the  second  clutch.  When  the  first  chicks  were  three 
weeks  old,  three  eggs  were  laid.  Six  and  seven  days  later  two  more  eggs 
appeared.  The  later  eggs  were  normal-sized  at  21  X  16mm,  while  the  first 
three  were  slightly  smaller,  with  the  smallest  being  20  X  15mm.  All  5  were 
fertile  and  the  first  one  hatched  on  October  4th,  but  the  chick  had  difficulty 
in  getting  out  of  the  shell  and  was  only  half  out  by  1  p.m.  Normally  they  are 
out  within  three  hours  of  sunrise.  The  next  day  it  was  missing,  and  the 
following  day  the  two,  now  very  dark,  ‘old’  eggs  were  broken  open.  They 
contained  dead  chicks  of  about  a  week  old.  Six  days  after  the  first  chick 
hatched,  a  healthy  chick  emerged  from  a  ‘new’  egg,  followed  by  another 
chick  the  next  day.  Although  possibly  a  second  hen  laid  in  the  nest,  I  very 
much  doubt  it.  But  I  am  at  a  loss  to  explain  the  double  clutch.  It  was  as  if  the 
bird  knew  that  the  first  clutch  was  defective,  because  the  second  eggs  were 
laid  at  about  the  time  the  first  two  stopped  development. 

Chicks 

The  chicks  hatched  on  successive  days,  so  incubation  must  commence 
immediately.  C.  macrouris  chicks  are  completely  naked,  and  the  body  is  grey 
with  a  yellowish  tinge.  They  look  very  like  psittacines,  with  their  hooked 
beaks.  The  head  area,  including  the  beak,  is  a  horrible  bilious  yellow-green 
colour,  and  there  is  a  white  spot  (?egg-tooth)  on  the  tip  of  the  upper 
mandible.  They  eat  from  the  word  go,  and  were  always  very  fat.  By  the  time 
the  older  chick  was  3  days  old,  it  was  half  as  large  again  as  the  smaller  one. 
The  chicks  were  examined  daily  and  this  did  not  put  the  parents  off  feeding 
or  brooding.  This  was  just  as  well,  for  no  way  was  found  to  make  the  chicks 
beg,  thus  hand-feeding  would  have  been  hopeless  at  an  early  age.  When 
disturbed,  the  chicks  pressed  down  in  the  nest  and  remained  motionless. 


154 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


After  the  eyes  had  opened,  they  did  the  same  and  closed  their  eyes  tightly. 
The  chicks  at  first  rested  head-to-tail  in  the  nest,  until  the  eyes  opened  fully 
at  about  6  days,  then  they  both  faced  in  the  same  direction  as  the  sitting 
parent.  They  stuck  their  heads  out,  one  on  either  side  or  both  on  the  same 
side,  and  cheeped  quietly  for  food.  The  chicks  were  fed  by  the  sitting  parent, 
usually  the  hen,  who  received  food  by  regurgitation  from  the  male.  It  is 
unlikely  that  the  hen  brought  food  this  way  to  the  cock. 

As  with  the  eggs,  the  chicks  were  never  left  uncovered  for  a  moment,  and 
they  were  brooded  until  fledged.  The  exception  to  this  was  when  one  or 
other  chick  voluntarily  sat  out  for  a  while.  In  spite  of  the  cool  weather 
(45  —  55°,  7— 13°C)  a  chick  would  occasionally  become  hot  enough  to 
hyperventilate  by  sticking  its  head  well  out  and  rapidly  oscillating  its  throat, 
while  gaping  widely.  The  adults  cooled  off  this  way  too. 

Only  when  the  chicks  left  the  nest  were  they  seen  to  be  fed  directly  by  the 
visiting  parent.  It  is  likely  that  the  chicks  could  have  been  fed  directly  for  a 
few  days  before  leaving,  as  at  1 1  — 12  days  they  voluntarily  climbed  from  the 
nest  and  sat  on  adjacent  twigs,  but  returned  at  nightfall,  along  with  the 
mother.  At  15  and  16  days  they  vacated  the  nest  and  moved  into  dense  vines, 
just  under  the  roof,  within  the  shelter.  All  the  adults  huddled  around  the 
chicks  at  night,  but  only  the  parents  fed  them.  The  second  chicks  were 
slightly  smaller  than  the  first  in  size,  at  the  same  age.  They  were  a  day  older 
before  they  climbed  out  of  the  nest,  but  still  left  it  by  the  15th  and  16th  day. 
The  rapidly  shortening  days  and  consequently  shorter  feeding  time  probably 
caused  this  slight  difference.  There  was  by  now  only  about  ten  hours  of 
daylight  —  two  and  a  half  hours  less  than  there  was  for  the  first  clutch.  The 
weather  changed  dramatically  for  the  second  clutch,  which  hatched  on  the 
10th  and  11th  of  October.  The  month  broke  records  for  sunshine  and 
warmth,  but  consequently  the  clear  nights  were  cold.  The  days  were  around 
60°F  (15°C)  and  the  nights  in  the  mid-thirties  (2°C).  There  was  frost  on  the 
two  nights  before  the  chicks  left  the  nest  on  October  26th  and  each  night 
thereafter.  So  three  days  after  the  second  brood  fledged,  all  the  Colius  were 
taken  indoors. 

Feeding  Chicks 

The  chicks  were  fed  on  only  four  items  of  food.  The  principle  food  was 
scrambled  egg,  followed  by  banana.  The  bananas  were  spread  with  soft 
margarine  at  least  once  a  day,  although  this  was  probably  superfluous  in  view 
of  the  amount  of  egg  consumed.  Leaves  were  fed  daily  to  the  chicks  as  could 
be  seen  by  the  green  colour  in  the  crop,  through  the  thin,  stretched  skin,  for 
the  crops  were  always  bulging.  These, were  the  only  softbills  I  have  raised 
which  had  a  crop.  The  bulging  throat  further  likened  them  to  baby  parrots. 
The  leaves  were  either  from  the  brassica  or  from  the  weigela,  as  these  were 
the  only  plants  depredated.  All  four  adults  steadily  chewed  the  leaves  and 
shoots  from  around  the  nest,  so  that  by  the  time  the  second  chicks  left,  the 
nest  could  be  more  readily  seen  through  the  gaps.  The  fourth  food  item  was 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD  155 


Colius  Macrouris  Chick  —  at  16  days  old  —  left  nest,  then  showing  typical  resting 
position  on  tarsi  and  abdomen.  16th  Sept.  1978 


boiled,  sweetened  rice  pudding,  made  with  milk.  Not  a  great  deal  was  eaten, 
and  it  was  fourth  in  choice. 

No  meat  or  any  other  foodstuff  was  used.  Interestingly  no  insects  of  any 
kind  were  fed  to  the  chicks,  although  a  fair  variety  was  offered,  including 
mealworms,  pupae  and  beetles.  The  adults  were  never  seen  to  search  for 
insects  in  the  aviary,  and  they  ignored  the  assortment  of  flies,  spiders,  bees, 
aphids,  etc.  that  passed  through. 

The  ofurepeated  statement  in  the  literature  about  mousebirds  making  off 
with  fledglings  would  not  apply  to  C.  macrourus ,  and  indeed  they  ignored  a 
dead,  two-day  old  Zosterops  chick.  Although  I  cannot  find  the  original 
reference,  if  I  remember  rightly,  it  was  a  single  observation  on  another 
species,  and  possibly  there  was  some  explanation  other  than  predation. 

When  the  mousebirds  nested,  all  the  other  birds  were  removed  except 
the  hen  Blackcap.  Nectar-milk  was  then  supplied  to  the  Colius  on  a  somewhat 
sporadic  basis.  Although  the  adults  continued  to  drink  it,  there  was  no  way  of 
determining  what  role,  if  any,  it  played  in  the  feeding  of  chicks.  In  retrospect, 
this  could  have  been  checked  easily  by  dyeing  the  nectar  red,  and  checking  the 
chicks’  crops  or  droppings. 

When  f  ledged,  the  chicks  looked  like  the  adults,  but  with  shorter  tails.  They 
lacked  the  red  colour  on  the  legs  and  beak,  but  they  did  have  little  crests  and 
faint  blue  nape-patches.  The  crest  was  obvious  at  a  week  old,  as  was  the 


156 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  THE  BLUE-NAPED  MOUSEBIRD 


sprouting  body  ‘fur’,  which  grows  out  all  over,  and  not  in  the  usual  tracts  of 
other  birds.  The  khaki-green  beak  showed  a  little  red  colour  at  the  base  in  the 
seventh  week,  and  by  3  months  the  beak  (and  the  legs)  were  a  pale  pinkish 
colour,  which  served  as  an  instant  differentiation  from  the  red  of  the  adults. 

On  leaving  the  nest,  the  chicks  could  climb  well,  but  could  flutter  only 
about  a  metre.  Two  days  after,  they  could  fly  from  bush  to  bush  with  an 
upright,  hovering  flight  and  large  spaces  were  crossed  by  landing  on  the  roof 
wire  at  10ft  (3m)  intervals.  The  chicks  were  fed  by  the  adults  for  at  least  40 
days,  although  I  believe  they  could  have  fed  themselves  at  about  18  days. 
The  fledgelings  remained  hidden  for  much  of  the  day,  high  up  in  dense 
vines,  and  were  fed  there.  Even  when  they  later  accompanied  the  adults  to 
the  feeding  table,  they  begged  and  were  fed.  As  all  the  birds  left  the  premises 
when  the  oldest  chicks  were  8  weeks  old,  I  did  not  ascertain  exactly  when 
parental  feeding  stopped  entirely. 

I  have  long  given  up  the  idea  of  “free-breeding  aviary  strains  of  birds,  to  the 
Nth  generation”,  which  people  are  continually  advocating  as  highly  desirable. 
It  is  highly  impractical  (except,  perhaps,  for  zoos).  One  reason  is  that  I  would 
not  be  able  to  accumulate  information  on  more  than  two  or  three  species, 
when  my  aviaries  would  be  full.  The  other  (and  not  the  least)  reason  is  that  I 
usually  have  great  trouble  in  disposing  of  exotic  birds,  and  the  thought  of  16 
or  20  mousebirds  happily  munching  through  a  “six-hand  bunch”  has  frightening 
economic  considerations.  So  they  went  to  the  zoo,  where  they  joined  nine 
other  birds  from  these  premises.  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  are  now  next  door  to 
their  old  aviary  companions,  the  rails.  Many  birds  have  come  and  gone  from 
my  aviaries,  some  scarcely  remembered,  but  the  mousebirds  will  always  be 
remembered  clearly,  and  I  actually  miss  them. 


157 


BREEDING  THE  GREEN-CHEEKED  CONURE 

Pyrrhura  molinae 

By  GEORGE  A.  SMITH  (Peterborough) 

The  Green-cheeked  Conure  comes  from  Bolivia,  Brazil  and  the  Argentine: 
see  figure.  Export  of  birds  from  the  two  latter  countries  is  prohibited  and 
Bolivia  is  so  politically  and  commercially  isolated  that,  it  seems,  only  one 
person,  Dr.  Romero,  deals  in  birds,  largely  confining  himself  to  the  Plum- 
crowned  Pionus  Pionus  tumultuosus  and  the  Red-cheeked  Macaw  Ara  rubrogenys. 
Therefore,  other  than  those  that  I  have,  the  only  Green-cheeked  Conures 
that  I  know  of  in  Europe  are  those  at  Walsrode  Zoo,  in  West  Germany,  and 
with  the  Spenkelinks  in  the  Netherlands. 

In  appearance  the  Green-cheeked  Conure  is  not  spectacular.  It  is  very  like 
the  better-known  Red-bellied  Conure  Pyrrhura  frontalis:  differing  because 
the  top  of  the  tail  is  maroon-red,  for  its  entire  length,  and  there  is  a  brown, 
and  not  a  green,  cap  to  the  head.  They  may  be  imagined  as  green,  black¬ 
billed  parrakeets  with  a  white  skin  surrounding  the  eyes,  scalloped  feathers 
around  the  neck  and  upper  chest  and  a  patch  of  dull  red  to  the  abdomen. 
They  are  squawky-noisy  when  alarmed;  but  this  is  bearable  and  might  be 
acceptable  to  any  but  the  most  unreasonable  of  neighbours. 

By  inserting  the  Pearly  and  the  Crimson-bellied  Conures  P.  perlata  and  P. 
rhodogaster  between  the  Red-bellied  and  the  Green-cheeked  Conures,  Peters 
(1937)  must  have  considered  that  they  were  a  most  distinctive  species. 
Forshaw  (1978)  did  not  question  Peters.  It  is,  however,  curious  that  Miss 
Rosemary  Low  (1972),  who  is  definitely  on  the  side  of  the  ‘lumpers’  when  it 
comes  to  American  parrots,  also  treated  them  as  separates.  She  has  recently 
told  me  that,  now  that  she  knows  them  better,  they  are  so  similar  as  to  be  the 
same.  The  three  ‘species’  (the  Blaze-winged  Conure  P.  devillei  being  the 
third),  in  my  opinion,  are  conspecific.  It  might  also  be  explained  that  the 
three  museum  skins  of  the  ‘Yellow-sided  Conure  P.  hypoxantha\  are  rather 
obviously,  ‘diluted’  examples  of  the  Green-cheeked  Conure:  it  is  most  likely 
that  the  ‘dilution’  is  a  nutritional  deficiency  and  not  a  genetic  mutation. 

I  bought  four  adult  Green-cheeked  Conures  from  Mrs.  Stephanie  Belford 
in  late  autumn  1978.  Their  wildness  had  caused  them  to  break  their  tails 
into  stubs  and  badly  fray  their  flight  feathers  as  they  frantically  moved  about 
their  cage.  To  settle  them  down  they  were  put  into  a  2X1X2  metre-high 
aviary  well  away  from  the  house  and  disturbance.  After  a  month,  or  so,  the 
damaged  feathers  were  plucked  to  get  the  birds  to  look  more  presentable. 
Somehow  they  were  never  moved  from  their  secluded  flight,  so  no  observations 
could  be  made  on  their  behaviour.  They  are  quite  the  wildest  birds  I  have 
kept  and  on  the  handful  of  occasions  when  I  could  glimpse  them  unobserved 
—  through  the  garage  window  —  it  seemed  that  they  had  formed  two  pairs. 
Expecting  them  to  lay  any  day  I  was  not  surprised  to  find  an  egg  (measuring 
25. 2X23. 4mm)  on  the  22nd  March.  By  next  morning  it  had  gone.  No  more 


158  G.  A.  SMITH  -  BREEDING  THE  GREEN-CHEEKED  CONURE 


appeared  and  it  was,  therefore,  assumed  that  while  this  hen  was  laying  the 
second  was,  simultaneously,  cleaning  out  the  nest-box  before  she  too  laid. 
This  was  confirmed  for  on  the  6th  April  a  larger  egg  was  discovered 
(measuring  26.6 X  21.9mm).  (The  average  weight  of  six,  perfectly  fresh,  eggs 
was  7  grams).  This  egg  was  taken  in  case  it  might  be  destroyed.  A  smaller, 
rounder,  egg  the  next  day  proved  that  there  were  two  laying  hens.  This  egg, 
and  the  next  three,  was  taken  for  artificial  incubation,  where  at  a  temperature 
of  100°F  (38°C),  four  hatched  after  22  days.  Between  them  the  hens 
continued  laying  until  they  had  another  seven  eggs.  Left  in  the  nest  box  they 
took  between  twenty-two  and  twenty-four  days  to  hatch.  The  two  hens  sat 
amicably  enough  side-by-side  to  incubate  and  the  males  seemed  equally 
friendly  towards  each  other.  These  seven  eggs  all  hatched;  but  chicks 
disappeared.  On  investigation  it  was  found  that  they  were  being  excessively 
groomed  and  the  damage  to  the  ends  of  the  wings  and  the  feet  caused 
bleeding  and  once  they  weakened  the  chicks  were  mutilated  even  more. 
When  they  died  the  parents  promptly  ate  them.  It  was  only  the  fresh- 
hatched  chicks  that  were  killed  and  I  took  it  that  four  parents,  between  them, 
were  too  attentive  for  the  good  of  the  chicks. 


G.  A.  SMITH  -  BREEDING  THE  GREEN-CHEEKED  CONURE  159 


At  about  this  time  I  had  two  Hawk-headed  Parrots  Deroptyus  accipitrinus 
hatch  in  the  incubator.  One  Hawkhead  died,  after  four  days,  and  the  other 
did  not  grow  as  it  should.  I  might  explain  that,  having  previously  hand- 
reared  a  Hawkhead,  a  growth-curve  was  there  for  comparison.  It  was 
decided  that  the  best  way  of  getting  this  chick  started  was  to  put  it  with*  the 
Green-cheeked  Conures,  for  it  has  been  my  experience  that  it  can  be  very 
difficult  for  parrot  chicks,  when  artificially  reared,  to  put  on  weight  after 
hatching.  Anyone  can  rear  a  week-old  chick.  Obviously  it  is  my  foster-food 
that  is  to  fault;  but  that  is  a  subject  for  another  article.  To  test  the  conures  I 
first  gave  them  the  three,  so  far  successfully  hand-reared  conures.  These 
they  accepted  except  that  the  day  I  put  the  Hawkead  with  them  I  found  that 
they  now  had  but  five  chicks  left:  half  the  brood  they  might  have  had.  The 
Hawkhead  sounded  different  from  a  Green-cheeked  chick:  it  was  loud  and 
penetrating  whilst  they  had  a  little  pipping  squeak.  The  next  day  the 
Hawkhead  was  fed  and  fluffy.  (One  extremely  noticeable  difference  between 
hand-reared  and  parent-reared  parrot  chicks  is  that  the  parents  carefully 
groom  and  clean  them.  So  that,  for  example,  the  Green-cheeked  chicks,  fed 
by  myself,  were  thinly  coated  with  a  yellow  sparseness  of  down  that  was 
pressed  close  to  the  body.  Within  a  few  hours  of  being  put  with  the  parents 
they,  like  their  natural-hatched  siblings,  were  completely  enveloped  with  a 
whispy  down  that  gave  them  a  furry-look).  Two  more  Green-cheeks  were  to 
be  cannibalized  and  yet  the  Hawkhead  flourished.  After  twenty-four  days 
the  Hawkhead  was  removed  for  (successful)  hand-rearing.  At  seven  weeks 
old  the  three  Green-cheeked  Conures  left  the  nest.  They  differed  from  the 
adults  only  in  that  they  had  less  maroon-red  to  the  abdomen  and  the  red  of 
the  tail  appeared  to  be  of  a  clearer  and  paler  red.  All  seven  live  in  perfect 
harmony  and  the  parents  did  not  nest  again. 

REFERENCES 

FORSHAW,  J.  1978.  The  Parrots  of  the  World  2nd  Edition  —  David  &  Charles:  Devon. 
LOW,  ROSEMARY,  1972.  The  Parrots  of  South  America  —  J.  Gifford:  London 
PETERS,  J.  L.  1937.  Check-list  of  Birds  of  the  World  \  ol.  3,  Cambridge:  Harvard  University 
Press. 

As  described,  the  Green-cheeked  Conure  Pyrrhura  molinae  has  been  bred  by 
Mr.  G.  A.  Smith  and  this  is  believed  to  be  the  first  success  in  this  country, 
but  anyone  knowing  of  another  is  asked  to  inform  the  Hon.  Secretary. 


160 


ON  THE  BREEDING  OF  CONGO  PEAFOWL  AT 
COPENHAGEN  ZOO 

By  GERT  SKIPPER  (Herlev,  Denmark) 

During  an  expedition  to  the  Belgian  Congo  in  1913,  the  American 
zoologist  J.  P.  Chapin  purchased  from  a  native  of  the  Ituri  Forest  region,  a 
red  wing  feather  of  a  bird  which  was  totally  unknown  to  him.  He  later  tried 
to  identify  it  on  his  return  to  America  but  was  unable  to  do  so.  It  was  not  until 
twenty-one  years  later  when  working  on  a  book  on  the  birds  of  the  Congo 
that  he  visited  the  famous  Musee  du  Congo  at  Tervueren  in  Belgium.  There 
he  found  two  dusty  mounted  birds,  erroneously  identified  as  young  Blue 
Peafowl,  with  red  feathers  bearing  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  one  he  had 
obtained  in  the  Congo.  He  could  still  not  identify  the  bird  and  the  mystery 
remained  until  1937,  when,  on  an  expedition  to  the  Congo,  Chapin  managed 
to  obtain  specimens  and  duly  named  the  species  Afropavo  congensis. 

The  cock  is  a  blackish  bird  with  dull  green  back  and  areas  of  green  and 
violet  metallic  gloss.  He  also  has  a  crest  with  a  peculiar  tuft  of  white  bristles 
preceding  it.  The  hen  differs  in  that  she  is  basically  reddish-brown  with 
green  back;  her  crest  is  smaller  and  she  lacks  the  white  tuft  of  bristles. 

Since  its  discovery  the  Congo  Peafowl  has  been  kept  in  captivity  on  only  a 
few  occasions  in  Europe  and  America.  Antwerp  Zoo,  the  most  successful 
establishment  with  this  species,  obtained  specimens  some  years  ago  and  it  is 
their  progeny  that  we  have  stationed  here  at  the  Copenhagen  Zoo.  The  hen 
of  our  original  pair  had  been  some  time  alone  since  the  loss  of  the  male.  He 
was  replaced  early  in  1978  and,  within  a  short  period  a  clutch  of  four  eggs  was 
laid.  These  all  proved  to  be  infertile  but  from  another  clutch  of  four,  two 
hatched  late  in  April.  However,  these  survived  for  no  length  of  time,  dying  at 
the  ages  of  seven  and  twenty-eight  days  old,  despite  seeming  to  thrive  in  the 
early  stages  of  development. 

After  this  failure,  conditions  and  diet  were  altered.  The  first  two  attempts 
were  made  in  winter  and  spring  and  therefore  the  birds  were  in  inside 
accommodation  measuring  3X4  metres.  The  ground  covering  was  of  sand 
except  for  a  small  area  of  earth  and  dead  leaves  where  the  nest  was  made. 
Access  was  now  given  to  a  connecting  outside  aviary  of  the  same  dimensions 
as  the  inside  quarters.  The  floor  of  the  sheltered  part  was  left  as  bare  earth 
apart  from  some  dead  leaves.  The  remainder  consisted  of  a  fine  grassmat 
with  two  huge  bamboo  plants  as  cover.  Suitable  perching  was  placed  a  metre 
or  so  off  the  ground. 

By  late  June,  the  first  egg  of  the  third  clutch  was  laid  in  a  simple  scraped 
nest  situated  on  the  ground  near  the  back  of  the  aviary.  Three  more  eggs 
were  laid  at  48  hour  intervals.  The  eggs  were  uniform  brown  in  colour  and 
only  slightly  larger  than  a  fowl’s  egg.  The  male  was  removed  as  a  precaution 
as  soon  as  incubation  started,  after  which,  the  hen  undertook  her  duties 
perfectly  only  venturing  off  the  eggs  to  feed.  After  twenty-eight  days,  two 
hatched  followed  by  a  third  the  next  day.  The  fourth  egg  was  infertile. 


G.  SKIPPER  -  BREEDING  CONGO  PEAFOWL 


161 


Considerable  care  was  taken  this  time  regarding  the  feeding.  As  the  birds 
were  kept  outdoors  on  a  natural  ground,  no  extra  live  food  was  given,  the  hen 
managing  to  pick  or  dig  up  sufficient  from  the  leaves.  A  little  chicken  food 
mixed  with  an  insectile  mixture,  cheese  and  plenty  of  finely  diced  apple 
was  given  twice  a  day.  The  whole  mixture  was  sprinkled  with  a  vitamin  and 
mineral  powder.  Enough  food  was  given  at  each  feed  to  ensure  it  was  entirely 
consumed  before  the  next  was  given.  After  a  few  days  a  little  minced  meat 
and  sprouted  seed  were  added. 

Many  observations  were  made  on  the  feeding  of  the  chicks.  The  female  — 
and  later  the  male  —  fed  the  chicks  with  guided  feeding  playing  only  a  small 
part  at  the  beginning.  This  method  gradually  took  over  as  the  chicks  grew 
but  they  were  still  given  certain  items,  usually  live  food,  by  the  parents  for 
some  time  afterwards.  All  items  of  the  diet  were  consumed  but  they  were 
especially  fond  of  sprouted  seed  while  much  time  was  spent  busily  searching 
for  insects  among  the  leaves  which  were  always  appreciated. 

Additional  live  food  was  given  when  several  weeks  old  and  took  the  form  of 
grasshoppers,  cockroaches,  house  flies  and  a  few  mealworms,  but  not  more 
than  could  be  eaten  in  a  few  minutes.  Various  new  food  items  were  added 
from  time  to  time  with  small  berries  such  as  the  mountain  cranberry  greatly 
relished.  Unlimited  access  to  sprouted  seed  was  given,  something  they  liked 
much. 

A  clearer  picture  now  became  evident  as  to  what  could  have  been  wrong  to 
cause  the  demise  of  the  last  brood.  Firstly,  the  diet  was  evidently  too  rich, 
giving  an  excess  of  protein  with  too  little  calcium.  The  amount  of  chicken 
food  and  insects  were  reduced  during  the  initial  stages  of  growth.  Secondly, 
it  was  thought  that  the  sand  covered  floor  created  too  dry  an  atmosphere. 
Bathing  was  rarely  witnessed  indoors  despite  adequate  facilities,  but  once 
outside  the  birds  eagerly  bathed  on  the  wet  grass  after  rain.  Thirdly,  the  male 
was  separated  once  incubation  had  commenced  for  fear  he  would  do  harm  to 
the  eggs  and  chicks.  This  time  he  was  put  back  when  the  chicks  were  about  a 
week  old,  and  immediately  he  called  and  started  to  feed  them.  As  a  later 
breeding  attempt  showed,  he  is  better  taken  away  during  incubation  as  he 
started  to  peck  at  the  incubating  female. 

The  chicks  grew  well  and  at  two  weeks  old,  were  roosting  with  their 
parents  off  the  ground.  One  later  died  of  coccidiosis  but  the  remaining  two 
developed  quickly  and  proved  to  be  a  pair;  being  clearly  distinguishable  as 
such  at  six  months. 

The  latest  breeding  attempt  indoors  is  progressing  satisfactorily  —  three 
chicks  are,  at  the  time  of  writing,  six  weeks  old.  The  extremely  bad  summer 
this  year  forced  the  birds  inside,  but  fortunately  the  measures  taken  to  prevent 
a  recurrence  of  the  first  failure  indoors  have  proven  successful. 


162 


COCK  RED-CHEEKED  CORDON-BLEU  HATCHING 
AND  REARING  YOUNG 

By  Derek  Goodwin  (London) 

In  the  past  twenty-one  years  during  which  I  have  always  had  specimens  of 
at  least  two,  and  often  all  three  species  of  cordon-belus  or  blue  waxbills, 
Uraeginthus  spp.  I  have  on  some  occasions  had  males  of  the  Red-cheeked 
Cordon-bleu,  U.  bengalus ,  and  both  males  and  females  of  the  Cordon-bleu  or 
Blue-breasted  Waxbill,  U.  angolensis,  form  homosexual  pairs.  Male  pairs  of 
the  Red-cheeked  Cordon-bleu  sometimes  take  over  nests  with  eggs  from 
heterosexual  pairs.  Most  often  in  such  cases  neither  male  will  incubate  or 
brood  at  night  and,  when  this  is  so,  young  are  seldom  (though  occasionally) 
hatched  and  never  survive.  On  a  very  few  occasions  a  male  has  sat  regularly 
at  night  and  young  been  hatched  and  reared.  Usually  such  homosexuallv 
paired  birds  have  to  satisfy  their  thwarted  parental  drives  by  adopting  one  or 
more  young  of  a  heterosexual  pair  after  they  have  fledged,  sometimes  taking 
over  the  whole  brood  and  feeding  it  so  well  that  its  own  parents  bother  no 
further  but  cease  feeding  their  fledglings.  This  happens  if  (and  only  if)  they 
are  in  any  case  going  to  nest  again. 

I  recently  had  a  cock  Red-cheeked  Cordon-bleu  take  over  the  entire  care 
of  a  young  Blue-headed  Cordon-bleu,  U.  cyanocephala ,  from  at  least  the  day 
on  which  it  was  hatched  and  probably  from  two  or  three  days  before 
hatching.  The  case  seems  worth  recording  in  our  magazine  even  though  it 
may  be  typical  of  what  would  occur  if  a  cock  of  this  species  were  bereaved  at 
the  time  this  one  was. 

This  year  I  had  left  in  my  bird  room  only  a  few  pairs  of  Blue-headed 
Cordon-bleus,  two  pairs  of  Golden-breasts,  Amandava  subflava,  and  two  homo- 
sexually  paired  male  Red-cheeked  Cordon-bleus.  One  of  these  latter  had  had 
for  over  a  year  some  semi-crippling,  possibly  arthritic,  complaint.  For  about 
six  months  he  had  been  unable  to  fly  but  in  the  late  spring  of  this  year 
regained  his  powers  of  flight  to  some  extent.  He  and  his  mate  took  over  a  nest 
containing  one  Blue-headed’s  egg.  After  they  had  been  sitting  about  a  week, 
to  my  surprise,  another  egg  was  laid  in  it,  necessarily  by  one  or  other  of  the 
hen  Blue-headed  Cordon-bleus.  I  imagined  that,  as  usual,  neither  cock  was 
sitting  at  night,  so  took  little  heed  of  their  nesting  behaviour.  However,  about 
ten  days  after  the  second  egg  appeared  in  their  nest,  the  arthritic(?)  cock 
suddenly  became  worse,  no  longer  took  turns  on  the  nest  and  within  two 
days  had  died.  Two  days  later  I  noticed  that  the  other  cock  was  still  sitting, 
and  on  feeling  and  then  looking  into  the  nest,  found  to  my  surprise,  a  nestling 
that  could  not  have  been  more  than  two  days  old  (I  could  not  see  it  very 
clearly)  and  that  I  think  was  then  less  than  a  day  old. 

I  did  not  much  fancy  its  chances  of  survival  but  in  this  I  was,  happily, 
proved  wrong,  as  it  was  successfully  reared  by  its  foster  father  and  is  now 
independent.  I  am  not  sure  of  its  sex*  as  it  is  one  of  those  ambiguously 
plumaged  young  Blue-headed  Cordon-bleus,  neither  so  bright  around  the 


D.  GOODWIN  -  RED-CHEEKED  CORDON-BLEU 


163 


head  as  to  enable  one  to  be  sure  it  is  a  cock  or  with  so  little  blue  as  to  enable 
one  to  be  sure  it  is  a  hen.  I  hope  on  humanitarian  grounds  that  it  will  be  the 
latter  as  it  is  almost  sure  to  be  firmly  imprinted  on  its  foster  father’s  species 
and  as  he  has  not  now  got  a  mate,  two  problems  will  thus  be  solved  at  once  it 
is  proves  a  hen.  It  regularly  clumps  beside  its  foster  father  when  resting 
though  this  may  merely  be  because  it  has  no  siblings  —  normally  young 
Uraeginthus  clump  with  siblings  of  the  same  brood  —  and  he  now  has  no 
mate. 

^October  1979  —  now  clearly  a  cock. 


164 


HYBRID  TEAL 

By  A.  W.  E.  FLETCHER,  (Warrington,  Cheshire) 

It  is  well  known  that  in  certain  species  of  teal  the  plumage  is  the  same  in 
both  sexes  and  no  eclipse  takes  place.  A  less  known,  but  more  interesting 
aspect  of  such  species  is  that  the  drake  helps  the  duck  to  rear  the  offspring  in 
the  same  way  that  a  gander  helps  a  goose.  In  species  where  an  eclipse 
plumage  occurs,  the  drake  is  entirely  indifferent  to  the  ducklings  and  may 
indeed  be  hostile. 

An  interesting  example  of  this  has  occurred  over  the  past  four  years  in  my 
waterfowl  collection. 

A  widowed  Cape  Teal  Anas  capensis  drake  paired  up  with  an  odd  Chestnut¬ 
breasted  Teal  Anas  castanea  duck  before  I  could  obtain  a  mate  of  his  own 
species  for  him,  and  during  the  last  four  years  they  have  hatched  six  clutches. 
In  no  case  have  they  reared  less  than  three  of  the  seven  or  eight  ducklings 
hatched  in  a  collection  which  includes  ten  or  eleven  pairs  of  geese  and  many 
other  smaller  waterfowl.  They  also  receive  attention  from  Crows,  Magpies, 
Jackdaws  and  Grey  Squirrels. 

Although  the  geese  can  cope  fairly  satisfactorily  with  such  vermin,  none  of 
the  smaller  waterfowl,  on  the  occasions  when  they  have  been  allowed  to 
hatch  their  eggs,  have  succeeded  in  keeping  their  ducklings  alive  for  more 
than  two  or  three  days. 

The  Cape  Teal  drake’s  behaviour  is  extraordinary  and  like  all  his  kind  he  is 
bad  tempered  at  all  times,  but  once  the  ducklings  are  hatched  he  becomes  a 
bulldog.  No  goose  is  too  big  to  be  attacked  and  he  has  been  seen  giving  chase 
to  the  little  Muntjac  deer  which  share  the  enclosure. 

On  one  occasion  a  duckling  got  stuck  in  a  loose  roll  of  wire  netting  lying  on 
the  ground  and  when  I  went  to  rescue  it,  both  duck  and  drake  attacked  me 
fearlessly. 

The  procedure  after  the  ducklings  hatch  is  always  the  same.  One  of  the 
smaller  ponds  (12ft  X  8ft)  in  the  enclosure  is  almost  choked  with  water  iris 
and  the  ducklings  are  always  taken  to  this  spot  for  the  first  week  after  they 
hatch.  The  only  help  they  get  is  that  suitable  food  is  placed  at  the  edge  of  the 
pond  twice  a  day.  The  drake  makes  certain  that  no  other  waterfowl  approach 
it. 

After  a  week  or  ten  days,  they  can  be  found  on  any  of  the  several  other 
ponds  and  at  three  weeks  old  the  ducklings  are  sturdy  enough  to  be  brought 
by  the  parents  to  the  area  where  the  whole  collection  is  fed.  The  drake 
remains  extremely  aggressive  until  the  ducklings  can  fly. 

None  of  these  hybrids  have  been  pinioned  and  no  doubt  some  have  been 
shot  by  Mersey  wildfowlers.  The  odd  one  or  two  return  from  time  to  time 
and  one  is  thought  to  have  been  seen  at  the  Wildfowl  Trust’s  Martin  Mere. 

My  conclusion  is  that  species  without  an  eclipse  plumage  have  a  very 
distinct  advantage  over  those  where  the  female  alone  is  involved  in  rearing. 


165 


NEWS  FROM  SAN  ANTONIO  ZOO  -  1978 
By  BRUCE  W.  Miller  (Supervisor  of  Birds) 

The  1978  bird  breeding  season  was  one  of  the  most  successful  in  recent 
years.  In  November  1977,  S.  David  McKelvey  arrived  to  serve  as  staff 
aviculturist,  and  the  bird  department  began  new  growth  period.  I  became 
supervisor  of  birds  in  September  of  1978. 

During  the  early  part  of  this  year,  the  Hixon  Bird  House  has  been 
renovated,  and  units  have  been  set  up  as  miniature  habitats  with  appropriate 
plantings  and  murals  to  simulate  an  African  waterhole,  the  Australian 
outback,  an  African  village,  a  Texas  coast  line  and  a  riverbank  in  Africa. 
Many  of  the  birds  expressed  appreciation  for  their  new  homes  by  nesting  for 
the  first  time  since  arrival  at  our  zoo  years  ago. 

A  large  outdoor  African  walk-through  flight  cage  was  completed  and 
stocked  this  year,  and  a  number  of  birds  successfully  nested  there  also.  Plans 
are  being  completed  for  off-exhibit  holding  and  breeding  areas  which  will 
simplify  management  of  this  large  collection.  The  number  of  species  has 
been  reduced  from  more  than  450  to  about  350  in  order  to  improve  breeding 
programmes.  The  total  collection  remains  at  1500+,  and  this  year  it  received 
a  “Master  Breeder”  award  for  a  mixed  collection  from  American  Pheasant 
and  Waterfowl  Association. 

The  following  species  bred  and  young  were  reared  to  maturity  during  the 
1978  season: 

Abyssian  Yellowbill  Duck  (17) 

Cuban  Whistling  Duck  (2) 

Hawaiian  Duck  (4) 

Ringed  Teal  (8) 

Fulvous  Whistling  Duck  (6) 

Laysan  Teal  (5) 

Canada  Goose  (8) 

Java  Green  Peafowl  (6) 

Coturnix  Quail  (20) 

Philippine  Gallinule  (9) 

Common  Chachalaca  (3) 

Striated  Mousebird  (6) 

Crested  Seriema  (1) 

Nicobar  Pigeon  (1) 

Blue  Mountain  Lorikeet  (4) 

Double-striped  Thick-knee  (3) 

Lilford’s  Crane  (2) 

Scaly-crowned  Weaver  (1) 

Hawaiian  Goose  (9) 


Indian  Spotbill  Duck  (11) 

Brazilian  Teal  (9) 

Northern  Red-billed  Whistling 
Duck  (48) 

Green-winged  Teal  (2) 

Radjah  Shelduck  (11) 

Ruddy  Shelduck  (5) 

Impeyan  Pheasant  (1) 

Mikado  Pheasant  (1) 

Scaled  Quail  (4) 

Kenya  Crested  Guineafowl  (1st  in  U.S.) 
Crested  Wood  Partridge 
Double-toothed  Barbet  (2) 

African  Ring-necked  Dove  (9) 
Edwards’  Lorikeet  (2) 

Ruppell’s  Glossy  Starling  (3) 

Stanley  Crane  (2) 

Demoiselle  Crane  (2) 

Red-necked  Ostrich  (2) 


166 


B.  W.  MILLER  -  SAN  ANTONIO  ZOO  NEWS 


These  species  laid  or  hatched  young  that  did  not  survive: 


Andean  Condor  (pipped  and 
died  in  shell) 

Thayer’s  Gull 
Falcated  Teal 

Golden-breasted  Glossy  Starling 
Bali  Mynah 
Pekin  Robin 
Arrow-marked  Babbler 


Whooping  Crane  (fertile  egg) 
Ring-billed  Gull 
Wattled  Curassow 
Double-wattled  Cassowary 
Giant  Pitta 
Superb  Starling 
Pagoda  Mynah 


New  arrivals  for  the  breeding  programme  include:  Shama,  Fairy  Bluebird, 
Gold-fronted  Chloropsis,  Sibias.  Two  more  Shoebill  Storks  have  been  added 
to  bring  our  group  to  four. 


167 


BERLIN  ZOO  NEWS,  July  to  September  1979 
By  PROF.  Dr.  HEINZ-Georg  KlOS,  Scientific  Director 


Birds 

New  arrivals: 

10  Lesser  Flamingos 

2  Wandering  Tree  Ducks 

3  Indian  Tree  Ducks 

4  White-faced  Tree  Ducks 
2  Red-breasted  Geese 

2  Versicolor  Teal 
2  Baikal  Teal 
2  Goosander 

2  North  American  Ruddy  Ducks 
2  Bald  Eagles 
2  Tasmanian  Waterhens 
2  Egyptian  Plovers 

2  Dollarbirds 

Birds  hatched: 

3  Cattle  Egrets 

3  European  Flamingo 
7  Chilean  Flamingos 

3  Swan  Geese 

7  Lesser  Snow  Geese 
2  Common  Shelducks 

1  Satyr  Tragopan 

4  Great  Argus 

2  Nepal  Kalij 

2  Ocellated  Turkeys 

3  Red  Junglefowl 

1  Herring  Gull 

2  Wood  Pigeons 

1  White-crowned  Pigeon 
1  Palm  Turtle  Dove 
1  Cockatoo  hybrid 

1  Laughing  Kookaburra 

2  Common  Mynahs 

2  Superb  Glossy  Starlings 

3  Gouldian  Finches 


Phoeniconaias  minor 
Dendrocygna  arcuata 
Dendrocygna  javanica 
Dendrocygna  viduata 
Branta  ruficollis 
Anas  versicolor 
Anas  formosa 
Mergus  merganser 
Oxyura  jamaicensis 
Haliaeetus  leucocephalus 
Tribonyx  mortieri 
Pluvianus  aegyptius 
Eurystomis  orientalis 

Ardeola  ibis 

Phoenicopterus  ruber  roseus 

Phoenicopterus  ruber  chilensis 

Anser  cygnoides 

Anser  c.  coerulescens 

Tadorna  tadorna 

Tragopan  satyra 

Argusianus  argus 

Gennaeus  leucomelanos 

Agriocharis  ocellata 

Gallus  gallus 

Larus  argentatus 

Columba  palumbus 

Columba  leucocephala 

Streptopelia  senegalensis 

Cactua  moluccensis  X  Cacatua  alba 

Dacelo  novaeguineae 

Acridotheres  tristis 

Spreo  superbus 

Chloebia  gouldiae 


168 


WHITE-CROWNED  PIGEONS  AT  THE  BERLIN  ZOO 

(Columba  leucocephala) 

White-crowned  Pigeons  are  a  species  rarely  kept  in  zoos  or  by  private 
owners. 

Therefore,  the  Berlin  Zoo  was  fortunate  in  being  able  to  obtain  two  pairs 
of  this  species  from  Cuba  on  an  exchange  basis.  These  pigeons  originate 
from  the  Caribean  Islands,  east  Mexico  and  southern  Florida. 

Already  during  quarantine  the  birds  proved  to  be  rather  aggressive  and 
had  to  be  separated.  Only  after  changing  partners  several  times  was  a 
breeding  couple  established,  while  the  two  other  birds  would  not  become 
accustomed  to  one  another. 

The  pair  was  housed  in  an  indoor  aviary  of  4m  by  3m,  shared  with  a  pair  of 
Crested  Screamers  Chauna  torquata:  an  outdoor  aviary  of  the  same  size  was 
also  available.  The  free  use  of  the  outdoor  cage  is  given  during  the  summer 
months,  while  during  the  winter  the  birds  are  only  let  outdoors  in  mild 
weather.  They  are  fed  the  ordinary  pigeon  diet. 

To  offer  the  pair  a  chance  to  breed,  a  nest  support  made  of  wire  was 
supplied  on  which  the  birds  built  their  nest  in  spring  1979,  using  straw  for 
building  material.  That  year  they  bred  twice,  one  egg  each  time.  Interestingly 
enough,  already  by  the  end  of  the  first  month  after  hatching,  the  sex  of  the 
young  was  clearly  indentifiable.  The  first  chick  hatched  showed  a  dirty  grey 
colouring  on  its  forehead  which  is  characteristic  for  the  female,  while  the 
second  one  was  clearly  identifiable  as  a  male  by  its  characteristic  white 
forehead. 


169 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 

An  interesting  report  has  been  received  from  the  Norfolk  Wildlife  Park 
concerning  a  solitary  Grey  Heron  Ardea  c.  cinerea  which  has  lived  for  some 
years  amongst  the  willows  on  an  island  in  the  Park,  having  been  originally 
brought  in  by  the  RSPCA  with  a  broken  wing  which  had  to  be  amputated. 
Having  proved  to  be  very  aggressive  towards  any  potential  mates,  it  has  lived 
on  its  own  until  this  year.  During  April  it  was  seen  to  build  a  large  nest  of 
twigs  and  branches  on  the  ground  on  the  island  and  then  to  be  incubating 
four  eggs.  These  were  first  assumed  to  be  infertile  but  by  29  May  four  chicks 
had  been  hatched  and  at  about  this  time  the  Park’s  staff  noticed  a  wild  heron 
associating  with  the  pinioned  bird.  It  was  assumed  that  the  wild  one  was  a 
female  since,  judging  by  its  size,  the  resident  bird  was  a  male.  The  wild  female 
was  often  seen  leaving  the  nest  on  the  island  when  the  staff  began  work  in 
the  park  early  in  the  morning. 

Daily  observations  were  then  made  and  it  appeared  that  the  wild,  presumably 
female,  heron  incubated  during  the  night  whilst  the  pinioned,  apparently 
male,  bird  took  over  during  the  daytime.  Both  parents  fed  the  chicks,  all  of 
which  survived  to  independence  and  can  now  be  seen  in  the  willow  trees  on 
the  island. 


★  ★ 


★ 


Mr.  Edwin  Hardy  of  Swanage,  Dorset,  purchased  an  adult  cock  Green 
Singing  Finch  in  August  1959  and  it  is  still  going  strong.  He  asks  if  this  is  a 
record? 

Note:  Mr.  David  Attenborough,  on  his  first  “Zoo  Quest”,  brought  back  a 
collection  of  birds  from  Sierra  Leone,  among  them  a  Green  Singing  Finch 
which  lived  for  21  years,  40  days  (A.M.  1976,  vol.  82,  pi  13)  —  Ed. 

★  ★  ★ 

The  Royal  Zoological  Society  of  South  Australia  (Adelaide  Zoo)  has  written 
to  announce  that  it  has  recently  published  a  book  called  THE  STATUS 
OF  ENDANGERED  AUSTRALASIAN  WILDLIFE  which  is  described 
as  the  first  attempt  to  establish  which  animals  are  genuinely  endangered  in 
various  parts  of  the  southwest  Pacific  region.  It  comprises  seventeen  chapters 
by  specialist  contributors  on  mammals,  birds,  reptiles  and  amphibians  of 
Australia,  New  Zealand  and  New  Guinea  and  is  illustrated  with  photographs 
and  line  drawings.  Obtainable  from  Adelaide  Zoo,  Frome  Road,  Adelaide, 
South  Australia  5000,  price  6.65  Australian  dollars. 

Recent  breeding  successes  from  Adelaide  Zoo  include:  3  Buff-breasted 
Pittas,  3  Northern  Rosellas,  5  Cloncurry  Parakeets,  4  Green  Rosellas,  1 
Golden-shouldered  Parakeet,  2  Eclectus,  6  Mandarin  Ducks  and  2  Australian 
Dotterel  Peltohyas  australis.  A  Partridge  Pigeon  was  partially  reared,  dying 


170 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


shortly  after  leaving  the  nest  site.  Zoo-bred  Scarlet  Macaws  and  Regent 
Bowerbirds  are  incubating,  as  are  Razor-billed  Curassows. 

*  *  ★ 

Remaining  in  that  part  of  the  world  for  another  item  of  news  —  Mr.  Fred 
Bohner  from  Adelaide  has  reared  two  Hooded  Parakeets.  He  is  also  particularly 
successful  at  breeding  the  Red-tailed  Black  Cockatoo,  his  pair  having  reared 
one  chick  each  season  for  four  years.  The  latest  young  is  now  five  months  old 
and  seems  to  be  a  male. 


★  ★  ★ 

Derek  Goodwin  writes  from  London:  “German  aviculturists  have  brought 
the  care  and  breeding  of  Gouldian  Finches  to  a  fine  but  very  demanding  and 
expensive  art.  Among  the  many  other  foods  needed,  according  to  the  experts, 
is  a  mixture  of  egg  yolk  and  ground  millet  that  must  be  dried  in  the  sun .  The 
hens  laying  the  eggs  from  which  the  yolks  are  taken  for  this  purpose  must  be 
on  free  range,  have  been  tested  by  a  vet.  and  found  free  from  all 
diseases  and,  most  important,  must  never  be  allowed  to  eat  any  food  that  has 
been  grown  on  soil  that  has  been  treated  with  phosphates  or  other  artificial 
manures.  Besides  this,  they  must  have  unripe  spray  millet,  soaked  seed, 
“wood  earth,”  mineral  mixtures,  an  assortment  of  live  food  plus  extra  vitamins. 
So  I  somehow  don’t  think  that  the  Gouldian  Finch  is  ever  likely  to  become  a 
widely-kept  domesticated  species.  I’m  glad  that  I  personally  think  the  more 
easily-kept  cordon-bleus  are  more  beautiful.” 


Ponderosa 
Bird  Aviaries 

Branch  Lane,  The  Reddings,  Cheltenham 
Telephone:  Churchdown  713229 


Specialist  Supplier  of  Foreign  and  Exotic  Birds 
Ministry  Approved  Quarantine  Premises 
English  Bred  Quality  Birds  Always  Wanted 
Wide  Range  of  Specialist  Bird  Books 
All  Types  of  Breeding  Boxes,  Cages,  etc. 
Varied  Selection  of  Bird  Seeds  and  Foods 


Mealworms  supplied  by  Return  of  Post 


Open  9  a.m.  to  1  p.m.  and  2  p.m.  to  6  p.m. 
Six  Days  a  Week — Closed  on  Mondays. 

1st  OCT— 31st  MARCH 
TUES-FRI.  9  a.m.  - 1  p.m.  2  p.m.  -  6  p.m. 
SAT  &  SUN  10a.m.  -  1  p.m.  2  p.m.  -  5  p.m. 


Under  the  Personal  Supervision  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  J.  R.  Wood  P.T.A.  Dip. 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 

Founded  1894 

Membership  Subscription  is  £5.00  (U.S.A.,  $13.00)  per  annum,  due  on  1st  January 
each  year,  and  payable  in  advance.  Subscriptions,  Changes  of  Address,  Names  of  Candidates 
for  Membership,  etc.,  should  be  sent  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 

Hon.  Secretary  and  Treasurer:  Harry  J.  Horswell,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill 
Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


THE  AVICULTURAL  Magazine  is  distributed  by  the  Avicultural  Society  and  members 
should  address  all  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is  £6.00  (U.S.A.  $15.00)  per  year,  payable  in 
advance,  and  the  price  for  individual  numbers  is  £1  ($2.50)  per  copy.  Non -members  should 
also  send  their  subscriptions  and  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the  Hon. 
Secretary  and  Treasurer. 


NEW  MEMBERS 

Mr.  R.  ADAMS,  12  St.  Mary’s  Flats,  St.  Mary’s  Gate,  Ripon,  N.  Yorkshire  HG4  1LY. 
Mr.  M.  Atkinson,  476  34th  Street,  Manhattan  Beach,  Calif.  90266,  USA. 

Mr.  R.  BARNDEN,  2  Rashwood  Lane,  Mells,  Nr.  Frome,  Somerset. 
Mon.  F.  BOURDON,  30  rue  Rabutin-Chantel,  Nouveau  Parc  Sevigne,  13009  Marseille, 
France. 

Mr.  G.  BRADLEY,  184  Edenhurst  Road,  Longbridge,  Birmingham. 

Mr.  C.  S.  Brazier,  5  Shandon  Road,  Broadwater,  Worthing,  W.  Sussex. 

Mr.  E.  J.  BRISTOW,  43  Locarno  Road,  Copner,  Portsmouth,  Hampshire,  P03  5DG. 
Mr.  J.  BROSOSKY,  P.O.  Box  31,  586-  1700  Juneau,  Ak  99802,  USA. 

Mr.  C.  V.  DAVIS,  1822  Conner,  Dalis,  Texas  75217,  USA. 

Mr.  E.  de  MOLL,  160  Waverley  Avenue,  Twickenham,  Middlesex,  TW2  6DL. 

Mr.  J.  FOSTER,  85  Dumbarton  Road,  Ipswich,  Suffolk,  IP4  3JS. 

Mr.  T.  Glen,  4330  N.  E.  129th  Place,  Portland,  Or.  97230,  USA. 

Mr.  MERAND,  6  avenue  Jeanne  d’Arc,  44380,  Pornichet,  France. 

Mr.  S.  G.  HAYES,  13  Field  Close,  Nan  Park,  Flint,  Clwyd. 

Mr.  N.  Hill,  The  Fox  Rissington  Road,  Bourton  on  the  Water,  Glos. 

Mr.  J.  A.  HORNING,  1315  Webster  Avenue,  Brookfield,  Wisconsin  53005,  USA. 

Mr.  P.  JORGENSEN,  Hovmalvej  88—07,  Dk  2300,  Copenhagen  5,  Denmark. 

Mr.  D.  T.  Lance,  2201,  Loy  Lake  Road,  Denison,  Texas  75020,  USA. 

Mrs.  D.  E.  I.  Lewis,  119  Roseberry  Gardens,  Cranham,  Upminster,  Essex,  RM14  1NJ. 
Mr.  E .  J .  LLOYD ,  38  Mikasa  Stree t ,  Walney  Island ,  Barrow  in  F urness,  Cumbria ,  LA  1 4  3E A . 
Mr.  MERAND,  6  avenue  Jeanne  d’Arc,  44380,  Pornichet,  France. 

MISS  S.  Normandia,  340  West  28th  Street,  New  York,  NY  10001,  USA. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Phillips,  92  Golden  Farm  Road,  Cirencester,  Glos. 

Ms.  Barbara  A.  Sallee,  PSC  No.  1,  Box  27879,  APO  San  Francisco,  Calif  96230  USA. 
Mr.  L.  G.  R.  SANTOS,  Faculdade  Tuiuti,  Rua  Fernando  Simas  s/n  Curitiba  Parana,  Brazil. 
Mr.  T.  SILVA,  8825  W.  30th  Street,  N.  Riverside,  Ill.  60546,  USA. 

MON.  C.THOUVENIN,  50 rue  duGeneralle  de  Gaulle,  68440 Die twiller-Habsheim, France. 
Mr.  R.  T.  Ueki,  2752  Kahoaloha  Lane,  No.  307  946-9224,  Honolulu,  Hawaii  96826,  USA. 
Miss  B.  Wilkins,  43  Ormond  Crescent,  Hampton,  Middlesex. 

MRS.  R.  WILLIAMS,  Rose  Cottage,  Westhill,  Ottery  St.  Mary,  Devon. 

Mr.  I.  J.  WILTON,  6  The  Paddock,  New  Forest  Park,  Cadmore,  Southampton,  S04  2SF. 


CHANGE  OF  ADDRESS 


Mr.  W.  D.  CUMMINGS,  to  Mitchell  Park  Aviaries,  Durban,  S.  Africa. 

Mr.  J.  A.  ELLIS,  to  Les  Augres  Manor,  Trinity,  Jersey,  C.  I. 

Dr.  D.  G.  HAMBERGER,  to  Department  of  Zoology  and  Physiology,  Louisiana  State 
University,  Baton  Rouge,  Louisiana  70803,  USA. 

Mr.  H.  KAPYLA,  to  Ylannekatu  16E40,  20520  Turku  52,  Finland. 

Mr.  S.  Kanan,  to  809E  Chelsea  Street,  Tampa,  Fla  33603,  USA. 

MS.  C.  SCHRENZEL,  to  2754  N.  Hampden  Ct.,  Apt.  1101,  Chicago,  Ill.  60614,  USA. 

Mr.  W.  TlMMIS,  to  Hare  wood  Bird  Gardens,  Hare  wood,  Leeds  LSI  7  9LF. 


DONATIONS 


Mr.  C.  Beardshaw 
Mr.  W.  G.  Conway 
Mr.  L.  D.  Dean 
Prof.  J.  R.  Hodges 
Mrs.  J.  Holden-White 
Mr.  G.  Kirk 
Mr.  K.  Kolar 


Mr.  K.  Lansdell 
Mr.  W.  K.  Macy 


Mr.  D.  W.  Robinson 


Ms.  B.  A.  Sallee 
Mr.  J.  H.  Swift 


Mr.  R.  Weatherly 
Mr.  J.  D.  Willmott 


Printed  by  Quintrell  &  Co.  Limited.,  Wadebridge,  Cornwall. 


^CULTURAL 
MAGAZINE 


VOLUME  85 
NUMBER  4 
OCTOBER  -  DECEMBER 
1S79 


SPECIAL  PHEASANT  ISSUE 
CONTENTS 

Introduction  by  Dr.  JEAN  DELACOUR,  President  of  the  Avicultural  Society  .  .  171 

Pheasant  Aviculture  by  N.  L.  S.  WH ALLEY .  173 

Changing  Techniques  in  Pheasant  Rearing  by  K.  C.  R.  HOWMAN  (with  plates)  176 

Hatching  Pheasant  Eggs  in  Incubators  by  Dr.  A.  F.  ANDERSON  BROWN 

(with  plates) .  181 

Exotic  Pheasants  at  Liberty  by  IAIN  GRAHAME  (with  plates) .  190 

World  Pheasant  Association  —  The  first  three  years,  by  Dr.  T.  LOVEL .  195 

Tragopans  by  CHARLES  SIVELLE  (with  plates) .  199 

The  Cracidae  by  Dr.  J.  E.  LOPEZ  (with  plates) .  216 

Quail  in  Captivity  by  G.  E.  S.  ROBBINS .  216 

The  Pheasant  Trust  by  PHILIP  WAYRE  (with  plates) .  224 

Aviculture  Magazine  Special  Issues  by  the  Editor .  232 

Review .  233 

Index .  235 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE 

The  Magazine  is  published  quarterly,  and  sent  free  to  all  members  of  the  Avicultural 
Society.  Members  joining  at  any  time  during  the  year  are  entitled  to  the  back  numbers  of 
the  current  year  on  the  payment  of  subscription. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire  SL5  8LT, 
England. 


White-crested  Kalij  Pheasant  Lophura  leucomelana  hamiltom 
From  the  painting  by  R.  David  Digby 


171 


Avicultural  Magazine 

THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Vol.  85  -  No.  4  -  All  rights  reserved  OCTOBER  -  DECEMBER  1979 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  PHEASANT  ISSUE 
By  Dr.  JEAN  Delacour,  President  of  the  Avicultural  Society 

It  is  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  that  pheasants  of  many  species 
began  being  imported,  reared  and  established  in  Europe.  In  those  days, 
parks,  extensive  shooting  preserves  and  game  farms  were  numerous.  Their 
owners  were  trying  to  introduce  new  game  birds  and  most  of  them  maintained 
pheasantries  to  exhibit  the  most  beautiful  species,  which  constituted  fine 
additions  to  their  gardens.  Zoological  societies,  particularly  in  Paris,  London 
and  Antwerp,  were  organized  and  they  built  their  zoos;  one  of  their  main 
activities  was  to  import,  acclimatise  and  propagate  suitable  mammals  and 
birds  which  could  be  distributed  later  to  their  members.  There  were  also  a 
number  of  bird  amateurs,  who  kept  important  collections  of  pheasants,  as 
well  as  many  lesser  breeders,  most  of  them  enthusiastic  and  very  competent. 
To  mention  only  the  most  famous  —  Baron  Comely  near  Tours  (Beaujardin), 
Baron  Alphonse  de  Rothschild  at  Ferrieres,  M.  Delaurier  at  Angouleme, 
had  splendid  collections  in  France  and  reared  a  number  of  species  for  the 
first  time  in  captivity.  Fortunately  their  successes  have  been  recorded  in  the 
Bulletin  de  la  Societe  d’Acclimatation. 

When  I  started  collecting  pheasants  in  1905,  many  species  were  still 
extensively  bred.Fine  pheasantries  were  not  rare  and  I  shall  cite  a  few;  those 
of  Mm  C.  Debreuil  and  J.  Hermenier  in  France,  A.  Ghigi  in  Italy,  W.  H.  St 
Quentin  and  H.  D.  Astley  in  England.  Other  breeders  were  numerous,  and 
there  was  a  number  of  commercial  game  farms.  In  fact  it  was  then  easy  to 
acquire,  each  summer,  specimens  of  all  the  species  kept  in  captivity. 

There  were  no  blood  pheasants  available  but  tragopans  were  commonly 
reared;  Satyrs  remained  fairly  rare  but  Temminck’s  and  Cabot’s  were  avail- 
large  numbers  .  Himalayan  Monals  were  widespread,  as  were  Brown  Eared 
Pheasants;  the  Blue  had  not  yet  come  (I  imported  it  for  the  first  time  in  1929). 
Argus  were  fairly  rare,  but  Grey  Peacock  Pheasants  common  and  there  were 
a  few  Malay  and  Germain’s.  Silvers,  Kalijs,  Swinhoe’s  were  abundant  in  diff¬ 
erent  forms .  Also  Elliot’s  and  Reeves’s;  Coppers  were  rather  scarce  and  Mikado 
came  later.  There  were  no  Bar-tailed;  Cheers  were  uncommon  but  available. 
I  collected  and  brought  over  Edwards’s,  Imperials  and  Crested  Argus  in 
1924.  Firebacks  were  not  too  numerous,  except  for  the  Siamese,  and  Bulwer’s 
and  Salvadori’s  arrived  for  the  first  time  in  the  late  thirties,  as  well  as  the 
Palawan,  the  Bronze-tailed  Peacock  Pheasants  and  Blyth’s  Tragopan. 


172 


Pheasant  keeping  started  developing  in  America  at  the  same  time.  Until 
then,  only  the  New  York  (Bronx)  Zoo  and  a  very  few  others,  and  privately, 
Colonel  A.  Kuser  in  New  Jersey  had  good  collections.  But  excellent  breeders 
soon  appeared,  in  particular  Messrs.  C.  Sibley,  F.  Yessler,  C.  Denley,  Dr.  D. 
S.  Newill,  W.  J.  Mackensen,  W.  Leland  Smith. 

At  the  same  time  in  Europe,  very  important  collections  had  replaced  the 
previous  ones  and  those  of  Cleres  and  of  Mme  Lecallier  in  France,  Spedan 
Lewis  in  England,  M  and  Mme  Malisoux  in  Belgium,  A.  Ghigi  and  others  in 
Italy,  Holland  and  Germany. 

It  all  resulted  in  the  organizations  of  the  Ornamental  Pheasant  Society  in 
Europe,  and  of  the  American  Pheasant  Society.  Their  publications  were 
excellent  and  they  worked  well  together. 

Pheasant  studies  and  collections  had  reached  a  peak  in  1939,  but  the  war 
destroyed  the  European  stocks  to  a  great  extent.  A  few  rare  species,  particularly 
Blyth’s  Tragopans  and  Crested  Argus  disappeared  and  have  so  far  never 
been  replaced. 

There  still  were,  however,  a  number  of  birds  left  in  America  and  even  in 
England.  Soon  after  1946  others  came  from  their  native  countries  and 
pheasant  collections  prospered  again.  They  have  now  reached  a  very  high 
standard  and  I  feel  happy  to  witness  the  accomplishments  of  many  friends, 
particularly  in  America.  Changes  in  physical  and  social  conditions  have 
necessitated  new  techniques  and  ways  to  rear  birds,  and  they  prove  to  be 
adequate. 

The  propagation  of  game  birds  is  the  more  important  at  present  since  most 
species  are  threatened  with  extinction  in  their  native  lands  by  the  destruction 
of  the  forests,  their  indispensable  habitat,  not  to  speak  of  the  increasing 
interference  of  man. 


173 


PHEASANT  AVICULTURE 
By  N.  L.  S.  WHALLEY  (Guildford,  Surrey) 

Since  some  sixteen  of  the  forty-eight  species  of  pheasant  are  officially 
listed  as  endangered,  any  aviculturist  who  decides  to  keep  and  breed  these 
very  beautiful  birds  can  make  a  worthwhile  and  important  contribution  to 
conservation. 

Obviously  the  various  species  all  need  different  techniques  for  successful 
breeding  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  detail  these  in  a  short  article  but  there 
are  several  basic  guidelines  which  apply  to  most  of  the  species  and  I  have 
tried  below  to  list  these  to  anyone  who  has  not  yet  kept  pheasants. 

One  must  start  by  considering  the  species  one  would  like  to  keep  for  this 
will  determine  the  type  and  size  of  aviary  necessary.  Undoubtedly,  the 
easiest  to  obtain  and  to  keep  is  the  Golden  Pheasant  Chrysolophus 
pictus  which  everyone  knows.  They  have  the  advantage  of  being  very  hardy 
and  also  inexpensive.  The  major  drawback  is  that  they  take  two  years  to 
mature  and  attain  full  plumage.  However,  they  can  be  a  problem  if  one 
breeds  a  number  of  them  only  to  find  that  you  cannot  give  them  away  as  they 
are  so  plentiful.  One  could,  instead,  try  one  of  the  long-tailed  pheasants,  the 
Reeves’  Syrmaticus  reevesi  for  example  which  is  only  slightly  more  expensive 
than  the  Golden,  or  even  the  Elliot’s  Pheasant  Syrmaticus  ellioti  or  Hume’s 
Bar-tailed  S.  humiae.  These  latter  two  are  not  so  easy,  being  very  aggressive 
towards  their  hens  in  early  spring  but  one  can  cope  with  this,  the  Elliot’s 
and  the  Hume’s  are  both  listed  as  endangered  species  but  can  readily  be 
acquired  in  this  country. 

Having  made  up  one’s  mind  on  the  species,  then  one  can  plan  one’s  aviary. 
For  a  pair  of  Golden  the  minimum  floor  area  would  be  100  square  feet;  for 
the  larger  pheasants  about  double  that  size.  Within  reason  the  larger  the 
aviary,  the  better  it  is  for  the  birds  but  with  materials  costing  so  much 
obviously  one  must  provide  adequate  rather  than  luxurious  accommodation. 

The  choice  of  materials  must  lie  with  the  individual,  but  a  treated  timber 
framework  with  wire  mesh  Qfo"  or  1"  mesh  to  keep  out  vermin)  is  the  most 
common.  The  aviaries  should  be  6ft.  tall  to  allow  ease  of  access  for  the 
keeper.  Although  most  of  the  pheasants  that  a  beginner  is  likely  to  have  are 
very  hardy,  they  must  all  have  some  form  of  shelter  both  from  the  rain  and 
also  from  draughts.  Nearly  all  pheasants  like  to  roost  off  the  ground  so  a 
perch  under  some  form  of  roofing  must  be  provided.  The  roof  of  the  main 
aviary  can  be  either  soft  synthetic  netting  or  wire  mesh  but  must  be  capable 
of  withstanding  any  likely  snowfalls.  The  birds  will  appreciate  some  form  of 
boarding  round  the  base  of  the  aviary  to  exclude  draughts  and  it  also  has  the 
benefit  of  preventing  them  from  trying  to  attack  their  neighbours  if  two  or 
more  aviaries  are  built  side  by  side.  One  should  also  sink  the  wire  netting  into 
the  ground  about  one  foot  to  deter  foxes  and  the  next-door  neighbour’s 
Alsatian  from  digging  in  and  killing  one’s  birds. 


174 


N.  L.  S.  WK ALLEY  -  PHEASANT  AVICULTURE 


With  most  species  of  pheasant,  a  pair  should  live  happily  together  but  on 
no  account  should  one  ever  out  two  or  more  adult  cock  birds  together  or  the 
murder  of  one  will  soon  follow.  With  the  more  aggressive  species  such  as  the 
Hume’s  or  Elliot’s  provision  should  be  made  to  keep  separate,  but  within 
view,  the  cock  and  the  hen  for  all  but  the  spring  breeding  season.  This  can  be 
done  quite  simply  by  dividing  one’s  aviary  with  wire  netting  without  forgetting 
a  small  connecting  door.  In  this  way  the  unfortunate  harassment  of  the  hens 
can  be  avoided.  If  the  aviary  is  sufficiently  large,  one  can  put  several  hens  to 
each  cock  bird  with  excellent  results. 

All  breeders  have  their  own  ideas  on  the  flooring  for  the  aviary.  The 
cheapest  is  to  leave  this  as  grass.  This  has  the  advantage  in  that  as  long  as  the 
area  is  well-drained  and  not  too  small,  of  looking  natural  and  of  course  all  the 
pheasants  love  to  eat  the  grass  and  scratch  and  dust-bath  in  the  soil 
However,  some  species,  for  example  the  monals,  will  peck  out  all  the  grass 
within  a  very  short  period,  but  more  seriously  in  a  permanent  aviary  one  can 
do  little  to  contain  the  build  up  of  disease  and  parasites.  Many  breeders  now 
use  sharp  sand  or  gravel,  both  of  which  are  easier  to  keep  clean  and  well- 
drained.  Although  this  adds  to  the  initial  cost  of  the  aviaries,  if  one  is  thinking 
of  keeping  some  of  the  more  expensive  species,  it  is  essential  as  valuable  and 
rare  birds  can  be  lost  unnecessarily. 

Some  planting  of  bushes  to  provide  both  shelter  and  to  add  to  the  aesthetic 
value  of  the  aviaries  should  be  done.  Again,  this  will  be  a  personal  choice.  I 
personally  have  rhododendrons  and  juniper  but  these  are  slow  growing 
although  they  are  resistant  to  the  attentions  of  the  pheasants.  There  are 
numerous  shrubs  and  grasses  which  are  suitable.  A  selection  of  evergreen 
and  deciduous  makes  the  most  attractive. 

Perhaps  the  next  point  to  consider  is  feeding  which  in  modern  times  is 
very  simple  for  all  but  a  few  species. 

There  are  numerous  proprietary  brands  of  made-up  foods  available  for 
the  various  stages.  These  can  either  be  pheasant  or  turkey  pellets,  since  the 
content  is  much  the  same.  The  types  of  pellet  or  crumb  are  entirely  self- 
explanatory.  Breeder  pellets  for  the  adult  birds  before  and  during  the 
breeding  period,  chick  crumbs  for  the  first  three  — four  weeks  after  the 
chicks  hatch,  a  grower  pellet  for  the  next  two  months  and  a  maintenance 
pellet  for  all  other  times  with  some  mixed  corn  added.  Too  much  wheat, 
which  many  use  for  economy,  leads  to  fat  unhealthy  birds  and  problems  at 
laying  time. 

The  amount  one  feeds  to  the  birds  is  really  quite  simple.  One  can  either 
always  have  hoppers  with  an  ad-lib  supply  of  food  but  this,  of  course,  attracts 
rats  and  therefore  disease,  or  one  can  feed  them  by  hand.  The  birds  will  soon 
tell  you  if  you  are  not  giving  enough  by  rushing  towards  you  whenever  you 
appear  or  be  leaving  stale  food  on  the  ground  if  overfed.  Hand-feeding  does 
tend  to  help  tame  down  the  birds  and  this  is  obviously  desirable  from  all 
standpoints.  A  small  quantity  of  titbits  such  as  sultanas  and  chopped  pieces 
of  apple  will  also  be  appreciated.  Most  pheasants  need  plenty  of  green  food 


N.  L.  S.  WK ALLEY  -  PHEASANT  AVICULTURE 


175 


such  as  lettuce  leaves,  particularly  if  there  is  no  grass  in  the  pens.  Fresh  water 
is  another  obvious  must  as  is  grit  available  at  all  times.  This  is,  by  necessity,  a 
very  simplified  guide  to  the  feeding  requirements  and  several  of  the  rarer 
species  will  need  special  treatment,  but  it  does  show  how  what  was  once  a 
chore,  whan  all  feed  had  to  be  home-made,  is  now  so  simple  as  to  make  it  a 
pleasure  and  allow  one  to  enjoy  one’s  birds  all  the  more. 

Disease  is  another  wide-ranging  subject  since  there  are  unfortunately  so 
many  ailments  that  the  pheasant  family  can  catch.  One  must  take  precautions 
to  keep  out  rats  and  sparrows  and  always  maintain  a  high  standard  of  hygiene 
particularly  with  the  young  stock.  Treatment  against  worms  particularly  the 
gapeworm  should  be  done  regularly  two  or  three  times  a  year  with  one  of  the 
proprietary  drugs  available.  Other  than  this,  one  should  simply  keep  an  eye 
on  one’s  stocks  and  notice  any  signs  of  ill-health  as  soon  as  possible.  There 
are  several  good  books  on  the  diseases  and  their  symptoms  which  should  be 
in  every  keeper’s  library.  Diagnosis  before  death  is  difficult  except  in  a  few  of 
the  commoner  ailments  but  one  most  always  send  dead  birds  for  a  post¬ 
mortem  in  order  to  contain  any  outbreak. 

If  the  keeper  seriously  wishes  to  breed  the  pheasants  he  has,  provision  for 
the  hatching  and  rearing  of  the  chicks  must  be  made  in  good  time  before  the 
birds  start  to  lay  in  March/April.  There  are  a  number  of  small  incubators 
available,  the  best  probably  being  the  Marsh  Roll-X  which  is  automatic  and 
very  simple  to  use.  This,  however,  is  a  large  expense  for  the  breeder  who  has 
only  a  few  birds.  Perhaps  an  easier  alternative  is  to  keep  a  small  flock  of 
bantams  or  to  attempt  to  find  broody  hens  at  the  right  time.  As  much  care 
should  be  taken  with  the  health  of  these  as  with  the  pheasants.  The  advantage 
of  a  bantam  foster-mother  is  that  she  will  not  only  hatch  the  eggs  but  take 
care  of  the  chicks  afterwards  with  the  simple  provision  of  a  coop  and  small 
run.  However,  if  one  hatches  in  an  incubator  some  form  of  heater  probably 
an  infra-red  dull-emitter  which  are  easily  purchased.  Some  chicks  can  be  a 
problem  to  start  feeding  but  with  some  hard-boiled  egg  or  ants’  eggs  in 
addition  to  the  chick  crumbs,  most  will  respond. 

With  artificial  heat,  one  must  slowly  wean  the  chicks  from  about  a  90°F 
heat  for  the  first  week  to  no  heat  at  all  by  five  — six  weeks  of  age,  a  process 
which  they  will  achieve  naturally  with  a  foster-mother. 

These,  then,  are  the  major  factors  governing  basic  pheasant  aviculture 
and  on  re-reading  this  article,  I  can  think  of  many  queries  that  will  occur  to 
the  would-be  breeder.  There  are,  however,  many  books  on  the  subject,  some 
very  much  up-to-date  with  the  latest  developments  and  these  should  be 
consulted.  There  is,  however,  no  substitute  for  practical  experience  and 
learning  by  one’s  own  mistakes  the  best  guide.  Everyone  will  develop  their 
own  techniques  and  have  their  own  ideas  but  this,  after  all,  is  the  pleasure  of 
any  undertaking. 


176 


CHANGING  TECHNIQUES  IN  PHEASANT  REARING 
By  K.  C.  R.  HOWMAN  (Shepperton,  Middx.  England) 

The  last  decade  has  seen  great  advances  in  avicultural  techniques,  particularly 
amongst  aviculturists  concerned  with  waterfowl  and  pheasants,  where  the 
benefits  from  research  in  the  poultry  industry  on  game  farms  and  by 
organisations,  like  the  Wildfowl  Trust,  are  most  applicable. 

My  own  techniques  are  now  almost  unrecognisable  from  those  I  used 
when  first  starting  twelve  years  ago.  Many  of  the  mistakes  made  then  have 
been  eliminated  by  redesign  of  the  equipment  used  at  the  different  stages.  So 
much  so  that  it  is  hard  to  remember  all  the  unnecessary  mistakes  one  made  as 
a  beginner.  In  this  article  I  will  try  to  recall  some  of  those  errors  and  how 
they  are  now  avoided  by  describing  the  techniques  used  when  starting,  and 
how  they  have  been  developed. 

There  is  not  the  space  to  discuss  other  than  briefly  aviary  design  and  its 
effect  on  the  health  and  propogation  of  pheasants.  However,  we  all  have  to 
build  aviaries  for  our  first  pheasants  and  this  can  be  where  we  make  the  first 
mistakes  that  can  affect  the  breeding  potential  of  the  birds  they  house. 

Following  on  from  the  inevitable  Golden  Pheasant,  my  first  birds  were 
from  the  group  of  long  tailed  pheasants  Syrmaticus  and  were  Reeves’s 
Elliot’s  and  Hume’s.  Grass  formed  the  base  to  the  pens  and  the  size  of  those 
first  aviaries  was  7'  wide  by  24'  long.  The  first  lesson  was  soon  learned  when, 
within  months  of  introducing  the  birds,  the  pens  were  bare  earth.  So  one 
quickly  learned  that  few  pheasant  species  will  retain  a  grassy  base  to  their 
pen  if  it  is  under  200  square  feet,  and  this  needs  to  be  at  least  doubled  for  the 
more  vegetarian  species. 

Where  pens  cannot  be  increased  in  size,  a  base  of  sand  or  pea  gravel  may 
well  make  a  more  practical  base,  and  certainly  has  the  advantage  of  looking 
neat  and  being  hygenic.  Only  recently  have  we  found  that  a  weld  mesh  floor 
2 "  above  the  earth  both  protects  the  grass  roots  and  reduces  disease  problems. 

As  with  humans  however,  green  food  or  roughage  does  help  the  diet,  and  if 
a  sand  or  gravel  base  is  used  the  introduction  of  bunches  of  weeds,  or  lettuce, 
is  advisable.  My  own  amateur  rather  than  scientific  observations  would 
indicate  that  grass  or  other  green  food  plays  an  important  part  in  the 
production  of  fertile  eggs. 

In  spite  of  aviary  shortcomings,  we  did  get  fertile  eggs  in  our  early  years. 
No  proper  plans  had  been  made  in  advance,  so  the  hunt  for  broody  hens 
began  and  we  soon  realised  that  mistakes  2  and  3  had  been  made  and  that  in 
this  modern  age  of  hybrid  chickens  our  own  flock  of  bantams  was  essential  — 
more  important  still  was  proper  planning  before  the  start  of  the  breeding 
season. 

Coops  and  runs  were  hurriedly  acquired  from  a  game  keeper  who  had 
used  them  for  rearing  game  pheasants  and  with  them  sets  of  nesting  boxes. 

As  with  most  aviculturists,  it  is  a  spare  time  hobby  and  one  quickly  found 
that  the  old  fashioned  method  of  pegging  out  broody  hens  was  time  consuming 


K.  C.  R.  HOWMAN  -  CHANGING  TECHNIQUES 


177 


Nest  box  with  run  attached 


and  led  to  many  potential  broodies  never  settling  down.  The  nest  boxes  were 
therefore  given  a  sliding  hatch  and  small  wire  runs,  2'6"  X  12"  were 
attached.  Eleven  years  later  we  still  use  this  system  which  is  simple  and 
effective. 

At  that  time  the  only  small  electric  incubator  available  was  the  Curfew 
still-air  incubator.  A  reliable  machine  but  one  from  which  hatches  seldom 
exceeded  50%  with  ornamental  pheasant  eggs  from  start  to  finish.  However, 
we  quickly  learned  that  as  a  hatcher  it  was  excellent  and  that  double  time 
could  be  extracted  from  most  broody  hens  by  taking  eggs  away  from  the  hens 
and  putting  them  into  the  Curfew  for  hatching  and  at  the  same  time  setting  a 
new  clutch  under  the  broody. 


178 


K.  C.  R.  KOWMAN  -  CHANGING  TECHNIQUES 


Small  still-air  incubator.  A  moving  air  version  of  this  is  now  available. 


This  however  produced  its  own  problems  in  that  instead  of  a  broody  hen 
to  rear  the  chicks,  brooder  lamps  were  necessary. 

It  is  in  the  brooding  of  chicks  that  we  have  made  most  changes.  In  year  one 
it  was  entirely  with  broody  hens  out  on  grass  in  coops  and  runs.  Losses 
occurred  for  many  reasons.  We  had  escapes  from  under  the  runs,  chicks 
flying  out  when  being  fed,  broody  hens  attacking  the  chicks,  or  losing 
interest  and  letting  them  be  chilled.  Thunderstorms  took  their  toll  as  did 
disease  and  all  in  all  we  felt  a  more  efficient  method  was  necessary. 

Escapes  and  ravages  of  the  weather  were  easily  catered  for  by  a  number  of 
small  runs  inside  a  shed.  Disease  also  seemed  to  be  less  serious  but  was  not 
eliminated.  As  the  runs  were  fixed  and  not  being  moved  onto  fresh  ground 
constant  cleaning  was  necessary  and  the  time  factor  alone  necessitated  a 
change. 

Black  heat  infra  red  lamps  were  the  choice  of  brooder  and  these  were  hung 
within  oil  tempered  hardboard  surrounds  with  peat  as  the  floor.  Highly 
successful  for  the  first  two  to  three  weeks  —  then  problems  of  chicks  flying 
out.  We  made  up  weldmesh  tops  to  the  surrounds,  but  from  three  weeks 
onwards  every  time  we  fed  and  watered,  chicks  would  be  flying  in  all 
directions. 

The  solution  was  to  do  what  should  have  been  done  in  the  first  place,  and 
construct  small  pens  2'  X  3'  fitted  out  with  a  black  heat  infra  red  lamp  and 
250  watt  bulb.  In  addition  to  a  door  of  the  full  width  of  the  pen,  small  9"  X 


K.  C.  R.  KOWMAN  -  CHANGING  TECHNIQUES 


179 


Chicks  under  a  black  heat  infra-red  lamp. 


Plastic  bits,  bottom  centre,  with  the  alternative  metal  bit  requiring  special  fitting 
pliers. 


180 


K.  C.  R.  HOWMAN  -  CHANGING  TECHNIQUES 


9"  doors  were  also  made  for  feeding  without  risk  of  escapes.  The  pens  were 
constructed  in  rows  on  either  side  of  the  shed  and  in  two  tiers,  one  above  the 
other  to  save  space.  Thus  thirty  units  were  contained  within  a  shed  only  30' 
X  10'  with  a  central  corridor. 

In  the  early  days  after  trials  with  different  bases,  peat  was  found  to  be  the 
best  and  produced  no  problems  other  than  dust.  Provided  the  pens  were 
sprayed  each  day  with  a  fine  mist  sprayer  this  problem  was  controlled  and 
indeed  the  feathering  of  the  chicks  also  benefitted.  However,  with  thirty 
pens  of  chicks  cleaning  became  very  time  consuming  and  a  further  improvement 
was  made  in  substituting  fine  gauge  mesh  floors. 

Weldmesh  floors  are  boring  for  the  chicks  and  two  things  have  been  found 
to  help  this.  One  is  the  introduction  of  perches  into  every  pen.  Even  at  two 
days  old  many  chicks  will  start  to  use  them.  The  other  is  to  hang  up  every  day 
bunches  of  weeds  for  the  chicks  to  peck  at.  This  keeps  them  occupied  and 
reduces  feather  pecking.  Feather  pecking  once  started  used  to  be  hard  to  stop 
even  with  constant  debeaking.  However,  plastic  bits  developed  for  the 
poultry  and  game  farming  industries  have  come  to  our  aid  and  if  used 
sensibly  almost  totally  eliminate  the  problem. 

Incubators  have  advanced  enormously  and  small,  comparatively  inexpensive 
units  are  now  available  with  automatic  turning  and  of  moving  air  type. 
However,  whilst  undoubtedly  they  are  great  timesavers,  I  still  prefer,  when 
possible,  to  use  a  broody  hen  as  the  incubator.  In  one  respect  only  therefore 
we  are  still  using  the  same  fundamental  rearing  technique  with  which  we 
started. 


181 


HATCHING  PHEASANT  EGGS  IN  INCUBATORS 
By  DR.  A.  F.  Anderson  Brown  (Lowestoft,  Suffolk) 

Aviculture  is  undergoing  a  revolution.  Each  year  there  are  fewer  wild- 
caught  birds  available,  due  not  only  to  their  vanishing  habitat,  but  also  to  the 
quarantine  regulations  designed  to  protect  the  poultry  industry  from  acci¬ 
dentally  imported  disease. 

Successful  breeding  of  captive  birds  has  become  imperative,  and  made 
possible  by  the  tremendous  advances  in  nutrition,  genetics,  and  incubation 
in  the  poultry  industry.  The  wealth  of  knowledge  and  experience  of  this 
industry  is  percolating  into  aviculture. 

Incubation,  for  so  long  an  art,  is  now  an  exact  science,  thanks  to  the 
chicken. 

When  first  laid,  an  egg  may  be  regarded  as  a  genetic  plan  for  a  new  bird,  with 
sufficient  tools  and  building  materials  to  make  it.  Should  the  plan  be 
defective,  or  the  tools  inadequate,  it  will  not  produce  a  new  bird.  Nothing 
can  be  done  to  improve  the  egg  once  it  has  been  laid,  but  it  can  be  ruined  by 
T^ad  management  afterwards. 

Pre-incubation  care  of  the  egg 

An  egg  begins  to  deteriorate  from  the  moment  that  it  is  laid.  The  rate  of 
this  deterioration  depends  on  the  physical  conditions  under  which  it  is 
stored,  the  ideal  being  a  temperature  of  55  degrees  Farenheit,  and  a  relative 
humidity  of  seventy  per  cent.  Under  these  conditions,  and  if  stored  for  less 
than  a  week,  turning  the  eggs  does  not  produce  an  increase  in  hatchability.  If, 
however,  conditions  are  not  ideal,  or  if  the  egg  is  to  be  stored  for  longer  than  a 
week,  then  turning  does  produce  a  significant  increase  in  hatchability. 

On  the  assumption  that  storage  conditions  are  never  ideal,  it  is  prudent  to 
turn  the  eggs  daily,  and  never  store  for  longer  than  a  week. 

Hygiene  and  disease 

With  the  exception  of  virus  diseases,  such  as  Newcastle,  and  Salmonella 
infections,  which  are  transmitted  inside  the  egg,  all  other  harmful  bacteria 
gain  entry  to  the  egg  through  the  pores  in  the  shell  after  it  has  been  laid. 
Many  more  bacteria  will  enter  the  egg  if  it  is  wet  and  dirty,  than  will  if  it  is 
clean  and  dry.  Sterilising  the  egg  before  storage  will  only  kill  those  bacteria 
on  the  shell,  but  does  not  harm  those  that  have  already  entered. 

Eggs  should  be  picked  up  as  soon  as  possible  after  laying,  and  clean  ones 
put  straight  into  the  store.  Dirty  eggs  should  be  cleaned  with  sandpaper,  and 
then  sterilised  with  detergent  hypochlorite  solution,  at  the  manufacturer’s 
recommended  strength  and  temperature.  Fumigating  with  formaldehyde 
vapour,  at  the  concentration  recommended  for  chicken  eggs,  does  seem  to 
produce  a  slight  drop  in  hatchability.  Washing  with  a  damp  cloth  merely 
spreads  any  potential  infection  to  every  egg  handled,  and  ensures  the  speedy 
passage  of  the  bacteria  into  the  egg. 


182 


DR.  A.  F.  ANDERSON  BROWN  -  INCUBATORS 


The  incubator  room 

The  incubator  room  should  be  kept  at  a  steady  even  temperature  of  about 
seventy  degrees  Farenheit.  Marked  fluctuations  of  day  and  night  temperature 
are  mirrored  inside  the  incubator,  as  no  one  make  has  a  perfect  design  of  heat 
distribution.  The  humidity  within  the  room  should  be  kept  as  constant  as 
possible  and  it  should  be  well-ventilated.  Direct  sunlight  should  not  be 
allowed  to  fall  on  the  machine,  or  it  will  cause  overheating.  The  room  must 
be  kept  scrupulously  clean,  and  all  incubator  debris,  dead  eggs  etc.  removed 
immediately.  Infection  from  one  egg  can  rapidly  spread  to  the  others. 

The  physical  conditions  necessary  for  successful  incubation. 

1.  Temperature 

Development  of  the  embryo  within  the  egg  will  proceed  very  slowly  at 
temperatures  above  seventy-two  degrees  F arenheit,  and  the  embryo  will  die  if 
maintained  for  any  length  of  time  at  a  temperature  above  one  hundred  and 
five  degrees.  Successful  incubation  only  occurs  if  the  embryo  is  maintained 
within  very  narrow  limits  at  a  temperature  of  99.5  deg  F.  Short  periods  of 
cooling  down  to  72  deg  F  are  not  harmful,  but  overheating  is  very  detri¬ 
mental. 

In  the  initial  stages  of  incubation,  the  embryo  does  not  produce  any  heat, 
but  towards  hatching  time,  the  living  chick  within  the  egg  is  producing 
animal  heat,  and  maintains  its  own  body  temperature  several  degrees  hotter 
than  the  air  in  the  incubator. 

2.  Humidity 

The  liquid  contents  of  the  egg  evaporate  through  the  shell  pores.  The 
developing  chick  utilises  the  foodstores  in  the  egg,  effectively  burning  them 
to  produce  carbon  dioxide  and  water.  This  water  must  too  evaporate.  The 
humidity  within  the  incubator  determines  the  rate  of  water  evaporation,  and 
to  successfully  hatch,  an  egg  must  lose  about  twelve  per  cent  of  its  initial 
weight  by  hatching  time.  If  there  is  too  much  loss  of  water,  the  chick  cannot 
mobilise  the  calcium  of  the  shell  for  bone  growth,  and  if  there  is  too  little,  it 
cannot  concentrate  its  waste  products  in  the  egg  membranes.  A  common 
cause  of  poor  hatches  is  too  much  water  in  the  early  stages.  Humidity  levels 
can  be  monitored  either  by  observing  the  air  cell  size,  or  by  weighing  the  eggs 
at  periodic  intervals. 

At  hatching  time,  when  the  chick  is  breaking  out  of  the  shell,  the  damp 
membranes  are  exposed,  and  rapidly  toughen  if  they  dry.  This  tough 
membrane  prevents  the  chick  from  escaping,  and  it  dies  of  exhaustion. 
Toughening  of  the  membranes  can  be  minimised  by  giving  the  eggs  a  dry 
shell  period  just  before  they  chip,  and  then  raising  the  humidity  to  the 
maximum  possible  for  hatching.  Still  air  is  less  drying  then  moving  air. 

3.  Ventilation 

During  it’s  stay  in  the  incubator,  a  pheasant  egg  will  use  about  two  pints  of 
oxygen,  and  give  out  about  a  pint  and  a  half  of  carbon  dioxide.  It  must 


183 


Dead  Eggs  as  seen  on  the  candling  lamp. 


Death  at  3  days’  incubation.  The  embryo  and  blood  vessels  Death  at  7  days.  Note  there  is  no  structure,  just  an  amorphous 

have  disintegrated  to  a  single  blood  line.  Often  this  is  present  blob.  This  egg  was  removed  from  the  incubator  on  the  18th 
as  a  ring.  day,  so  that  the  air  space  is  the  correct  size. 


Two  examples  of  late  death .  Note  the  total  absence  of  blood  vessels,  the  unused  albumen  in  the  small  end  of  the  egg  and  the 
fuzzy  borders  of  the  embryo  at  its  junction  with  the  air  space. 


184 


3  days  5  days  7  days 

First  appearance  of  the  “Spider”  An  infertile  The  black  blob  in  the  centre  of  the  egg  is  the  Considerable  growth  of  the  embryo  which  is 
egg  shows  no  development.  embryo.  The  heart  can  be  seen  beating.  now  moving  about  quite  rapidly. 


9  days  11  days  14  days 

The  membranes  have  grown  considerably,  Note  the  increasing  air  cell  size.  The  Egg  completely  blacked  out.  The  membranes 
obscuring  the  embryo.  membranes  have  almost  reached  the  small  line  the  entire  shell  apart  from  the  air  space. 

end  of  the  egg. 


16  days  18  days  21  days 

Completely  blacked  out  with  well  developed  Completely  blacked  out,  with  well  developed  Final  size  of  air  space,  at  transfer  to  hatcher, 
air  space.  air  space. 


188 


DR.  A.  F.  ANDERSON  BROWN  -  INCUBATORS 


therefore  have  a  plentiful  supply  of  fresh  air,  suitably  warmed  and  moistened. 
The  optimum  concentration  of  carbon  dioxide  in  the  incubator  is  about 
0.03%.  It  is  virtually  impossible  to  give  too  much  ventilation,  but  a  stuffy 
incubator  room  could  have  an  adverse  effect  on  the  eggs. 

4.  Turning 

Pheasant  eggs  need  more  turning  than  chicken  eggs.  Twice  daily  is  not 
really  sufficient,  and  it  is  best  done  hourly  automatically.  Insufficient  turning 
in  the  early  stages  is  a  very  common  cause  of  dead  in  shell,  but  in  the  last 
three  days  prior  to  hatching,  turning  is  not  necessary. 

The  Incubator 

There  are  many  makes  and  sizes  of  incubator  available.  If  the  potential 
value  of  the  eggs  is  considered,  it  is  false  economy  to  buy  an  incubator  merely 
because  it  is  cheap.  The  smaller  incubators  are  often  manufactured  to  a 
price,  temperature  control  and  humidity  levels  being  somewhat  elastic,  and 
needing  constant  adjustment  and  supervision. 

Still  Air  Incubators 

Still  Air  Incubators 

In  this  type  of  machine  air  movement  is  by  convection,  so  that  the  top  of 
the  egg  chamber  is  hot,  and  the  bottom  cooler.  There  is  only  one  plane  across 
the  box  at  the  correct  incubation  temperature.  The  eggs  must  be  in  this 
plane.  The  manufacturers  instructions  must  be  followed  to  the  letter,  but  in 
general,  the  thermometer  is  placed  two  inches  above  the  floor  of  the  egg  tray, 
and  the  controls  set  to  give  a  temperature  of  103F  above  the  eggs.  The  upper 
surface  of  the  egg  should  then  be  about  102F,  the  centre  99.5F,  and  the  floor 
of  the  machine  about  90F. 

Humidity  control  is  by  filling  water  pots  inside  the  machine. 

Cabinet  Incubators 

In  these  machines  a  fan  or  paddles  move  the  air  about,  so  that  all  parts  of 
the  incubator  are  at  the  same  temperature,  and  it  is  possible  to  have  more 
than  one  tray  of  eggs.  The  optimum  temperature  for  pheasants  is  99.5  F,  but 
the  manufacturer’s  instructions  must  be  followed  to  the  letter,  as  the 
temperature  in  the  egg  trays  may  be  slightly  different  from  where  the 
thermometer  is  sited,  and  the  optimum  temperature  does  vary  with  the  air 
speed  within  the  incubator.  Turning  can  be  automatic,  or  mechanical,  as  can 
humidity  control. 

Hatching 

The  physical  conditions  for  hatching  are  totally  different  to  the  preceding 
setting  period.  The  chicks  are  producing  more  heat,  and  need  more  ventilation. 
Where  large  numbers  of  eggs  are  hatching  in  one  machine,  it  is  usual  to  lower 
the  temperature  half  a  degree,  and  open  the  vents  fully  to  give  a  relatively  dry 
period.  As  soon  as  a  significant  number  of  the  eggs  have  chipped,  the 
ventilators  are  partially  closed,  and  extra  humidity  added.  From  now  until 
the  hatch  is  complete,  the  door  of  the  incubator  must  not  be  opened,  or  this 
precious  moisture  will  be  lost.  Once  the  hatch  is  complete,  the  ventilators  are 
opened  to  allow  the  chicks  to  dry  off. 


DR.  A.  F.  ANDERSON  BROWN  -  INCUBATORS 


189 


Where  more  than  one  or  two  clutches  of  eggs  per  season  are  being 
incubated,  it  is  preferable  to  have  two  machines,  one  for  setting,  and  one  for 
hatching.  The  eggs  are  set  at  weekly  intervals,  and  transferred  to  the  hatcher 
either  on  the  twenty  second  day,  or  when  the  first  of  the  clutch  starts  to  chip. 
After  each  hatch,  the  hatcher  should  be  thoroughly  cleaned  and  disinfected, 
as  should  the  setter  at  every  available  opportunity.  At  the  beginning  and  end 
of  every  season,  every  incubator  should  be  thoroughly  fumigated. 


190 


EXOTIC  PHEASANTS  AT  LIBERTY 
By  IAIN  GRAHAME  (Lamarsh,  Suffolk) 


Introduction 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century  and  early  this  century,  when 
many  of  the  large  houses  in  Europe  boasted  fine  collections  of  exotic  birds 
and  animals  (and  countless  staff  to  administer  to  their  needs),  it  was  still 
possible  to  do  things  on  a  grand  scale.  Aviaries  were  often  of  intricate  design, 
or  so  immense  as  to  create  almost  feral  conditions  for  the  occupants.  There 
are  descriptions  of  ‘good  results’  being  obtained  in  England  from  pinioned 
Tragopans  ‘kept  in  five-acre  paddocks’  and,  at  Cleres,  ‘where  hundreds  of 
Tragopans  were  raised  between  1920  and  1940’,  these  were  housed  in 
aviaries  covering  2,500  sq.  ft.  (Delacour,  1951).  Koklass  imported  to  Europe 
in  the  1880’s  thrived  so  well  that  they  were  regarded  as  a  potential  ‘new  game 
bird  in  France’  (ibid.).  Reeves’s  and  Soemmering’s  Copper  Pheasants  were 
recommended  as  ‘adapted  for  the  covert’  (Tegetmeier,  1873). 

Modern  trends  in  aviculture  are  altogether  different.  Improved  methods 
of  husbandry,  economic  considerations  and  lack  of  space  have  all  led  to  very 
much  smaller  aviaries.  In  Holland,  for  example,  excellent  breeding  results  of 
Tragopans  are  regularly  obtained  in  aviaries  measuring  no  more  than  50  sq. 
ft. 

Despite  the  obvious  advantages  of  keeping  exotic  pheasants  under  such 
cramped  conditions,  the  aesthetic  appeal  is  inevitably  limited  and  the  birds’ 
movements  severely  restricted.  Pheasants  look  their  best  against  a  natural 
background  of  mountain,  marsh  or  woodland  —  a  far  cry  indeed  from  plastic 
water  bowls  and  artificial  perches! 

For  aviculturists  with  sufficient  space  at  their  disposal,  enormous  pleasure 
can  be  derived  from  keeping  certain  pheasant  species  at  liberty.  This  short 
paper  enumerates  some  of  the  factors  that  should  be  taken  into  consideration 
when  embarking  on  such  a  venture. 

Protection 

Exotic  pheasants  should  be  pinioned  prior  to  release  and  the  release  area 
selected  should  be  surrounded  by  a  protective,  escape-proof  fence.  Both  these 
factors  are  important,  not  only  to  provide  protection  for  the  birds,  but  to 
minimise  the  danger  of  introducing  exotic  species  into  an  alien  environment. 

Since  a  fence  that  serves  both  these  purposes  will  be  extremely  costly  it 
will  restrict  those  that  can  keep  exotic  pheasants  under  such  conditions  to 
zoological  parks,  wildlife  parks  and  suchlike.  For  others,  it  is  perhaps 
fortunate  that  such  ideal  species  for  liberty  as  the  Golden  and  Lady  Amherst’s 
Pheasants  are  (following  numerous  escapes!)  now  classified  as  British  species, 
although  both  originate  from  China.  Unpinioned  stocks  of  these  can  readily 
be  established  in  a  suitable  woodland  area  after  a  transitional  period  in  a 
makeshift  pre-release  pen.  Old  fruit  cages  or  Whitlock  pens  can  both  be  used 


IAIN  GRAHAME  -  EXOTIC  PHEASANTS 


191 


Tim  Greenwood 


Male  Koklass  feeding  among  fallen  leaves  in  autumn. 
for  this  purpose.  In  order  to  avoid  hybridization,  however,  only  one  of  these 
two  species  should  be  put  at  liberty  in  a  given  area.  One  word  of  warning 
must  be  added  regarding  Goldens  and  Amherst’s,  namely  that  both  are 
aggressive  to  game  pheasants  and,  consequently,  no  gamekeeper  can  be 
blamed  for  killing  them. 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  true  exotics  do  not  escape  over  a  nine-foot  high, 
fox-proof  fence,  all  branches  close  to  or  hanging  over  this  fence  from  the 
inside  must  be  cut  down.  Pinioned  pheasants  can  readily  jump  onto  any 
object  six  foot  from  the  ground  and,  if  suitable  tree  formations  exist  they  will 
hop  to  roost  to  a  height  of  fifty  feet  or  more  —  one  of  the  most  enjoyable 
sights  of  liberty  pheasants! 

Selection  of  Pheasants 

Exotic  pheasants  that  are  aggressive  (e.g.  Reeves’s),  or  delicate  (e.g.  tropical 
species  such  as  Firebacks  and  Peacock-Pheasants)  are  not  suitable  for  release 
in  cold  climates.  Nor,  as  mentioned  above,  are  combinations  of  species  that 
will  readily  hybridize  with  each  other  —  e.g.  Golden/ Amherst,  Brown/Blue 
Eared,  Silver/Kalij. 


192 


IAIN  GRAKAME  -  EXOTIC  PHEASANTS 


Tim  Greenwood 

The  Satyr  Tragopan  will  thrive  at  liberty. 


Another  limiting  factor  in  selecting  suitable  pheasants  for  liberty  is  that 
the  males  of  all  pheasants  are,  in  varying  degrees,  aggressive  toward  males  of 
their  own  and  other  pheasant  species.  One  exception,  the  commonest  of  all 
pheasants  kept  at  liberty,  is  the  Indian  Blue  Peafowl,  together  with  its  captive 
mutations,  the  White  and  the  Black-shouldered.  All  pheasants  suitable  for 
liberty  are  polygamous,  so  up  to  six  hens  can  be  kept  with  one  cock. 

It  is  my  experience  that  among  the  most  suitable  species  for  release  into  a 
protected  environment  are  Lady  Amherst’s,  Blue  Eared,  Mikado  and  Koklass. 
The  latter,  being  predominantly  vegetarian,  will  thrive  in  grassy  areas 
containing  plentiful  trees  and  shrubs.  The  Koklass,  incidentally,  also  seems 
to  be  one  of  the  least  pugnacious  of  all. 


IAIN  GRAHAME  -  EXOTIC  PHEASANTS 


193 


Iain  Grahame 

The  Blue-Eared  Pheasant  will ,  as  in  the  wild ,  dig  through  thick  snow  to 
obtain  natural  food. 


194 


IAIN  GRAKAME  -  EXOTIC  PHEASANTS 


Diseases 

Pheasants  kept  at  liberty  not  only  look  far  healthier  than  those  in  aviaries, 
but  feather  damage  is  rare  and  incidence  of  disease  very  infrequent. 

Great  care,  however,  must  be  taken  in  pinioning  these  birds,  and  for  this 
operation  an  intramuscular  TT  injection  (3  cc.),  as  well  as  the  application  of 
suitable  antibiotics  and  a  fly-deterrent  ointment  to  the  wound  is  important. 

Gapeworms  are  particularly  prevalent  in  the  autumn,  but  as  the  symptoms 
are  quickly  recognizable,  infected  birds  can  easily  be  caught  up  as  required, 
confined  to  an  aviary  or  shed  and  given  an  anthelmintic  drug  (e.g.  Mebenvet) 
for  the  prescribed  period. 

Food  and  Water 

At  Daws  Hall  Wildfowl  Farm,  where  a  large  collection  of  waterfowl  are 
kept  on  series  of  ponds,  liberty  pheasants  drink  where  they  feel  inclined  and 
feed  with  the  other  birds.  With  the  immense  amount  of  natural  food  available 
to  them,  their  intake  of  corn  and  pellets  is  very  small.  Where  such  conditions 
do  not  prevail,  clean  water  and  food  must  be  distributed  as  required. 

Breeding 

Due  to  inter-specific  aggression,  predators  and  other  factors,  spectacular 
breeding  results  from  exotic  pheasants  at  liberty  are  unlikely  to  be  obtained. 
The  routine  on  this  farm  is  to  lift  all  first  clutches  and  to  hatch  and  rear  the 
offspring  using  broody  hens  or  artificial  methods.  Later  clutches  are  left  to 
the  parent  birds  and  some  will  always  succeed  in  hatching  and  rearing  their 
own  offspring.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  pheasant  poults  raised  by  their 
own  mothers  grow  far  quicker  than  those  subjected  to  artificial  methods. 
From  the  time  of  leaving  the  nest,  the  chicks  are  remarkably  independent 
and  roost  with  their  mothers  a  week  from  birth. 

Behavioural  Observation 

Those  keeping  pheasant  species  at  liberty  have  unrivalled  opportunities 
for  observing  their  natural  behaviour.  By  keeping  a  notebook  and  recording 
as  much  information  as  possible,  much  can  be  learned  about  the  natural 
instincts  of  these  beautiful  and  fascinating  birds. 

REFERENCES 

DELACOUR,  J.,  1951.  Pheasants  of  the  World. 


TEGETMEIER,  W.  B.,  1873.  Pheasants  for  Coverts  and  Aviaries. 


195 


WORLD  PHEASANT  ASSOCIATION: 

THE  FIRST  THREE  YEARS 

By  DR.  T.  LOVEL  (Andover,  England) 

One  evening  in  May  1975  three  friends  and  their  wives  were  discussing 
over  dinner  the  pheasants  which  they  all  kept  in  their  aviaries.  The  talk 
turned  to  the  lack  of  up-to-date  knowledge  about  these  birds  in  the  wild  and 
the  great  need  for  research  on  their  requirements  in  captivity.  By  the  end  of 
the  dinner  a  clear  decision  had  been  taken  to  endeavour  to  form  an  internat¬ 
ional  organisation  specifically  devoted  to  this  group  of  birds.  This  was  how 
the  World  Pheasant  Association  came  into  existence.  On  the  20th  June  a 
meeting  in  London  attended  by  a  dozen  enthusiasts  formed  the  Foundation 
Council  meeting.  It  was  agreed  that  the  organisation  would  have  four  object 
ives:  conservation,  education,  research  and  good  aviculture  with  the  form¬ 
ation  of  reserve  collections.  The  next  important  decision  was  to  invite  Jean 
Delacour, undoubtedly  the  most  famous  living  ornithologist  in  the  world,  to 
become  our  president,  and  to  this  he  readily  agreed.  It  was  on  his  advice  that 
we  decided  to  include  all  the  Galliformes ,  rather  than  just  the  pheasants  which 
had  been  our  primary  aim.  This  meant  that  the  grouse  species,  the  partridges 
and  quail,  the  megapodes,  the  large  family  of  cracids,  the  curassows,  guans 
and  chachalacas,  the  turkeys  and  the  guinea  fowl  were  all  included  in  our 
scope.  We  decided  on  the  name  of  the  World  Pheasant  Association,  notwith¬ 
standing  its  narrow  scope,  as  “Galliforme”  was  considered  too  esoteric  and 
“Gamebird”  too  loaded. 

The  take-off  from  that  inaugural  meeting  was  truly  phenomenal.  We  set 
out  to  attract  members  and  now  have  over  1400  members  from  more  than  50 
countries.  Quite  soon  individual  countries  wished  to  have  their  own  sections 
or  chapters  of  W.  P.  A.  and  these  have  been  formally  started  in  Pakistan, 
France,  Nepal,  India  and  West  Germany.  Other  chapters  will  follow  soon, 
and  eventually  become  strong  enough  to  publish  their  proceedings  in  their 
own  languages. 

The  chairman  of  each  group  is  ex-officio  a  member  of  Council,  and  we 
have  found  the  language  barrier  to  be  of  little  significance,  for  one  can 
overcome  any  difficulties  when  such  enthusiasm  is  present.  To  facilitate 
matters,  however,  our  brochures  are  now  printed  in  four  different  languages. 
W.  P.  A.  was  elected  a  non-governmental  member  of  the  International 
Union  for  Conservation  of  Nature  and  Natural  Resources  (IUCN),  a  signal 
honour  for  such  a  young  organisation.  It  has  also  been  accorded  formal 
liaison  relationship  by  the  International  Council  for  Bird  Preservation  (ICBP). 

Clearly  any  organisation  is  of  little  value  without  money  with  which  to 
implement  its  policies,  so  in  1976  W.  P.  A.  launched  an  ambitious  appeal  for 
funds  under  the  presidency  of  Lord  de  L’Isle.  This  was  a  great  success  and  in 
less  than  12  months  we  achieved  our  target  of  giving  W.  P.  A.  an  income  of 


196 


DR.  T.  LOVEL  -  WPA 


around  £10,000  per  annum  over  the  next  ten  years,  which  will  support 
several  of  the  important  projects  that  we  wish  to  encourage.  However,  this 
does  not  by  any  means  imply  that  we  are  flush  with  funds!  Almost  all  this 
money  is  already  ear-marked  for  specific  projects  and  we  have  now  reached  a 
stage  where  ideas  for  new  work  come  in  almost  daily.  Each  involves  a  lengthy 
process  of  consultation  and  reference  to  acknowledged  authorities  in  that 
particular  field,  for  we  must  be  sure  that  a  project  is  well  worked  out  and 
likely  to  produce  worthwhile  results,  and  that  we  get  our  priorities  right. 

Bird  people  always  like  to  get  together.  A  one-day  meeting  in  September 
1975  at  Ashmere  was  followed  by  our  first  convention  at  Daws  Hall  the 
following  year.  This  proved  very  popular  and  therefore  in  1977  we  hosted  an 
international  convention  which  began  at  Ashmere  and  then  moved  to  Cleres 
for  the  celebration  of  our  President’s  87th  birthday.  240  people  came  from  16 
countries,  including  the  U.S.A.,  Canada,  Pakistan,  Mexico  and  Australia. 
Next  year  another  very  successful  convention  was  held  at  Bradford  and 
Harewood  Bird  Garden.  We  feel  that  it  is  of  vital  importance  to  bring  people 
together  in  this  way,  either  in  large  conventions  or  in  smaller  symposia  and 
workshops,  to  achieve  the  best  cross  fertilisation  of  ideas  and  methods.  A 
symposium  on  the  woodland  grouse  species  last  December  brought  together 
scientists  from  every  country  where  Black  Grouse  and  Capercaillie  are  found, 
so  that  the  present  status  and  future  needs  of  these  birds  could  be  reviewed; 
the  proceedings  have  now  been  published  for  the  benefit  of  others. 

Research  is  paramount  in  our  programme.  In  Great  Britain  the  study  of 
the  infertility  problems  of  the  Brown  Eared  Pheasant  in  captivity  was  under¬ 
taken  at  Cambridge  University  by  Dr.  Douglas  Wise  (Project  72)  and  in  eight 
weeks  he  had  proved  that  these  birds  suffer  from  a  behavioural  problem  in 
failing  to  mate,  rather  than  being  truly  sterile.  This  had  never  been  demonstrated 
before  and  was  of  great  importance,  both  for  this  species  and  in  indicating 
the  troubles  which  other  species  may  develop  in  captivity.  In  Malaysia  we 
supported  Geoffrey  Davison,  who  is  already  doing  research  on  the  Great 
Argus  Pheasant,  in  a  new  project  No.  33)  which  enabled  him  to  undertake  a 
long  and  hazardous  mission  to  the  extreme  north  of  Malaysia,  and  there  to  be 
the  first  non-Asian  ever  to  see  the  Crested  Argus,  Rheinartia  ocellata ,  in 
the  wild.  We  also  supported  his  participation  in  the  Royal  Geographical 
Society’s  expedition  to  the  Gunong  Mulu  reserve  in  Sarawak  where  he 
surveyed  the  phasianids  of  the  area.  F urther  work  on  the  Malaysian  phasianids 
is  being  planned.  In  Nepal  the  Langtang  Expedition  of  Durham  University 
was  supported  by  W.  P.  A.  (project  103)  and  much  useful  information  about 
the  pheasants  in  that  area  has  been  obtained.  In  Papua  New  Guinea  our 
research  fellow,  David  Bishop,  has  begun  a  two  year  survey  of  the  megapodes 
(Project  24)  in  the  area  and  in  spite  of  numerous  difficulties,  injury  and 
illness,  David  has  proved  an  outstanding  field  worker. 

In  Pakistan,  W.  P.  A.  has  carried  out  field  censuses  on  the  Western 
Tragopan  and  Koklass  pheasants  (Project  39)  and  recently  financed  the 
appointment  of  Dr.  Sheldon  Severingham  of  Cornell  University  to  undertake 


DR.  T.  LOVEL  -  WPA 


197 


full  time  field  work  in  Pakistan  (Project  86).  Shel  is  well  known  to  most 
pheasant  enthusiasts  for  his  five  years’  research  in  Taiwan  on  the  Swinhoe’s 
and  Mikado  pheasants,  and  he  proved  to  most  people’s  satisfaction  that 
both  the  Mikado  andSwinhoe  are  far  from  being  near  to  extinction. 
They  are  difficult  to  find,  but  undoubtedly  exist  there,  in  some  number,  and 
the  Mikado  particularly  is  making  a  considerable  come-back  where  primitive 
high  forest  has  been  felled  and  replaced  by  secondary  scrub.  Recent  habitat 
destruction,  however,  in  Taiwan  causes  great  concern  for  the  future  of  both 
species  —  vide  W.  P.  A.  Journal  III. 

Education  is  always  vital  —  and  W.  P.  A.  has  endeavoured  to  teach  the 
general  public  about  the  need  for  conservation  of  the  Galliformes  by  every 
means.  It  has  held  displays  at  numerous  events  such  as  the  British  Game 
Fairs,  Scottish  Game  Fair,  and  similar  events  overseas,  and  this  has  attracted 
great  interest.  At  the  Game  Fair  1977  we  calculated  that  18,000  people  had 
passed  through  the  W.  P.  A.  stand  in  two  days.  We  decided  to  publish  a 
Newsletter  and  an  annual  Journal  and  under  the  co-editorship  of  Iain 
Grahame  and  Steve  Wylie  (St.  Louis  Zoo)  this  has  been  an  outstanding 
success.  A  Newsletter  three  times  a  year  gives  members  an  up-to-date 
account  of  what  is  going  on  in  a  bright  and  informative  way.  The  Journal  is 
published  once  a  year  and  comprises  over  130  pages  of  original  work, 
research  reports  and  articles  specially  commissioned,  all  of  the  highest 
quality  and  interest.  It  has  already  been  accepted  as  one  of  the  leading 
scientific  journals  on  this  particular  subject.  W.  P.  A.  has  also  been  honoured 
to  be  the  joint  publisher  with  Spur  Publications  of  the  second  edition  of  Jean 
Delacour’s  great  work  The  Pheasants  of  the  World.  This  was  very  exciting  and 
I  personally  felt  a  tremendous  responsibility  as  I  brought  the  precious 
typescript  back  by  hand  from  Jean’s  house  at  Cleres  to  deliver  it  to  the 
printer.  After  numerous  crises  lasting  almost  six  months  I  was  able  to  take 
the  first  six  copies  from  the  printer  to  the  Convention  in  September  1977  and 
to  give  the  very  first  copy  into  the  hands  of  the  author.  W.  P.  A.  has  made  a 
film,  Vanishing  Pheasants  which  has  been  shown  in  four  continents  and  this 
will  be  followed  by  other  films  in  due  course. 

Trainees  from  Pakistan,  Thailand  and  elsewhere  have  come  to  Britain  for 
education  on  pheasant  management  and  aviculture  (Project  69)  and  have 
gone  home  to  put  this  experience  into  practice.  An  education  committee  has 
been  formed  to  oversee  all  these  activities  and  to  plan  future  developments. 
Conservation  is  a  word  that  is  on  everyone’s  lips,  but  W.  P.  A.  feels  strongly 
that  rushing  some  European-bred  birds  into  a  tropical  country  for  release 
without  proper  studies  both  before  and  after  such  release  is  a  waste  of  time 
and  effort,  to  say  nothing  of  birds. 

Even  in  captivity,  birds  bred  in  a  temperate  zone  such  as  Britain  do  not 
withstand  the  abrupt  change  to  tropical  life,  and  therefore  W.  P.  A.  does  not 
believe  in  sending  out  adult  birds  at  all  to  such  areas.  In  Nepal,  Pakistan  and 
India  the  W.P.A.  has  first  sent  out  from  the  U.K.  eggs  of  good  bantams  to 
establish  a  flock  of  broodies  which  are  reliable  and  quiet.  This  also  tests  the 
ability  of  the  airline  concerned  to  carry  .eggs  safely,  and  of  the  recipients  to 


198 


DR.  T.  LOVEL  -  WPA 


handle  and  rear  these  hardy  birds.  The  following  years  we  have  sent  eggs 
from  Cheer  and  Monal  Pheasants  and  have  obtained  good  hatching  results. 
In  1978  a  large  programme  has  been  devised  for  the  export  of  eggs  of  both 
these  species  and  of  the  White-crested  Kalij  to  both  India  and  Pakistan.  We 
are  sure  that  chicks  hatched  in  these  countries  will  do  very  much  better  than 
if  they  had  been  reared  in  the  U.K.  and  flown  out  later. 

It  is  most  important  to  have  a  healthy  avicultural  programme  because  of 
the  great  need  for  stocks  of  these  species  to  be  preserved  as  reserve  popula¬ 
tions  for  future  or  indeed  present  calamity  in  the  wild.  Such  species  as  the 
Elliot’s,  Hume’s  and  Edwards’s  Pheasants  are  maintained  throughout  the 
world  in  considerable  numbers,  and  until  precise  field  work  can  be  done  in 
the  wild  to  determine  their  status  it  is  very  important  to  maintain  these  birds 
in  captivity.  The  Edwards’s  Pheasant  has  started  almost  at  the  inception  of 
the  W.  P.  A.  The  official  approval  of  the  IUCN  was  obtained  for  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  such  a  Stud  Book;  we  had  no  knowledge  of  this  pheasant’s  status  in 
the  wild  except  that  it  lived  only  on  the  demilitarized  zone  of  Vietnam,  and 
had  been  rare  even  before  the  twenty  years  of  warfare  devastated  that  country. 
Its  status  in  captivity  was  also  unknown,  but  worrying  tendencies  to  genetic 
mutation  were  beginning  to  appear.  Sterility  and  a  tendency  to  breed  only 
male  young  was  also  apparent  in  some  countries. 

Now  after  three  years’  work  running  the  Stud  Book  I  can  say  that  I  have 
registered  over  850  individual  Edward’s  Pheasants,  a  population  never  coun¬ 
ted  before.  We  can  also  contrust  pedigrees,  give  advice  on  the  best  pairing  of 
birds  and  arrange  transfer  of  birds  between  one  breeder  and  another  (and 
indeed  between  one  continent  and  other),  to  obtain  the  best  possible  “mix”  of 
the  genetic  pool  available.  Every  major  collection  in  the  world  which  possesses 
this  species  has  co-operated  with  this  study,  and  scores  of  private  breeders 
have  sent  in  their  replies  to  my  questionnaire.  I  shall  never  manage  to  record 
every  single  Edwards’s  Pheasant,  but  the  vast  majority  will,  I  am  sure,  benefit 
from  being  identified,  numbered  and  watched  over!  There  is  already 
considerable  evidence  that  fertility  in  the  U.K.  stock  has  improved  markedly 
since  this  study  began,  particularly  thanks  to  the  generous  help  given  us  by 
Jersey  W.  P.  T. 

Avicultural  research  on  such  important  topics  as  nutrition,  soil- borne 
diseases  and  release  techniques  into  the  wild  are  all  important,  and  W.  P.  A. 
is  currently  undertaking  research  in  these  and  other  matters. 

One  could  continue  forever  writing  about  W.  P.  A.  —  indeed  for  those  of 
us  at  the  hub  of  the  organisation,  it  has  taken  over  our  homes  and  lives  to  a 
large  extent!  It  has  produced  many  opportunities  for  us  to  lecture  and  for 
some  to  travel  abroad;  it  has  meant  that  we  have  made  many  marvellous 
friendships  which  otherwise  we  would  never  have  achieved;  and  for  those  of 
us  who  stay  at  home  it  has  meant  that  we  can  do  much  to  preserve  these 
beautiful  and  endangered  birds  in  the  peace  and  quiet  of  their  own  gardens, 
and  thus  contribute  to  their  ultimate  survival. 


199 


TRAGOPANS 

By  CHARLES  SlVELLE  (Long  Island,  N.Y.) 

As  I  have  been  enthralled  with  this  genus  for  the  past  twenty 
years,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  write  this  article.  Of  the-  48  species  of 
identified  pheasants,  thirty-seven  have  been  successfully  maintained  in  my 
aviaries  at  one  time  or  other  and  another  five  have  been  observed  elsewhere. 
Although  the  display  and  feathering  of  the  male  Argus  is  the  ninth  wonder  of 
the  world,  the  colouring  and  courtship  of  the  common  Golden  and  Amherst 
males  exquisite,  and  that  of  the  peacock  pheasants  spectacular,  the  tragopans 
must  be  considered  as  the  best  all-round  aviary  genus  with  singular 
courtship  display,  hardiness,  long  life  and  friendly  nature. 

This  article  will  be  confined  primarily  in  its  material  to  the  Temminck’s 
Tragopan  temmincki ’  Satyr  Tragopan  satyra  and  Cabot’s  Tragopan  Tragopan 
caboti.  The  first  two  have  been  propagated  in  captivity  for  many  years  by  the 
writer  with  fair  success  and  the  latter  rather  recently.  I  do  not  have  any  secret 
formula  or  special  know-how,  but  I  do  care  for  the  welfare  of  my  birds,  am 
attentive  to  their  needs  and  can  detect  at  once  when  they  do  not  appear 
normal.  Further  it  is  not  my  intention  to  use  this  space  to  reiterate  the  many 
vivid  descriptions  of  colour,  habitat,  etc.  so  oft  repeated  in  regards  to  these 
species,  but  offer  a  list  of  references  that  can  be  found  at  the  end  of  the  article 
where  such  information  is  available. 


Charles  Swelled  Tragopan  Aviary 


200  CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


Blyth’s  Tragopan 


The  successful  propagation  of  tragopans  is  directly  related  to  the  quality 
of  the  stock,  a  propitious  mating,  ideal  aviary  conditions  and  _good  fortune. 
The  species  reached  new  lows  in  their  captive  propagation  during  the  period 
from  1955  through  1975. 

The  Blyth’s,  which  prior  to  that  time  was  kept  in  several  private  aviaries 
has  disappeared  in  captivity.  A  captive  population  of  this  species  was  collected 
for  the  Kohima  Zoo  in  India  from  the  Naga  Hills,  but  their  breeding  success 
has  been  limited. 

The  Western  has  always  been  extremely  rare  in  captivity  and  it  is  only  in 
recent  years  that  working  projects  for  their  captive  breeding  have  been 
initiated  in  Pakistan  with  the  assistance  of  the  World  Pheasant  Association. 
This  remarkable  organization  has  been  responsible  for  progress  in  captive 
breeding  programmes  of  endangered  species  of  pheasants  in  Pakistan,  India 
and  Nepal.  They  report  the  existence  of  two  specimens  in  captivity  in  their 
last  Census. 

The  Cabot’s  though  bred  freely  in  captivity  prior  to  1920  was  not  available 
for  the  private  propagator  until  1976.  The  last  Cabot’s  imported  into  the  U.S. 
were  those  obtained  by  the  late  Walter  Oakie  in  1954;  however  he  never 
raised  any  young.  The  current  stock  all  originate  from  birds  imported  by  the 
Pheasant  Trust  from  China  via  Hong  Kong.  It  is  believed  that  about  15  birds 
(wild  caught)  were  imported  over  a  period  of  ten  years  and  although  a  good 
number  of  young  were  raised,  it  was  not  until  1975  that  any  of  the  stock  was 
sold  to  a  private  propagator.  Several  Trust  members  did  obtain  some  on 
breeding  loan  but  only  one  was  successful  in  raising  young  recently.  During 
1978  and  1979  the  Trust  sold  all  their  Cabot’s  to  five  or  six  private  breeders 
and  several  have  raised  young.  It  is  now  hoped  that  a  greater  success  may  be 
attained  with  this  wider  dispersion  resulting  in  an  ever  increasing  number  of 
the  species  in  captivity. 

Our  Cabot’s,  which  were  obtained  from  the  Pheasant  Trust,  average 
three-four  clutches,  12—14  eggs.  However  fertility  during  1978  was  nil  from 
two  pairs.  The  males  were  seen  to  display  and  the  neck  feathers  on  one  hen 
were  ruffled.  In  1979  the  Cabot’s  were  all  kept  apart  with  male  and  female 
being  in  adjoining  aviaries.  Further  a  Cabot’s  cock  which  was  supposed  to 
have  been  fertile  at  the  Trust  was  also  imported  in  late  ’78  as  well  as  a  ’78  hen. 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


201 


The  adult  birds  were  all  kept  singly  in  adjoining  aviaries.  Hen  No.l  in  first 
aviary,  cock  No.  1  in  second,  then  proven  cock  No.  3,  hen  No.  2  and  cock 
No.  2,  and  a  young  ’78  hen.  All  the  birds  were  closely  observed  and  in  late 
March  when  cock  No.  1  seemed  to  have  attracted  hen  No.  1,  the  hatchway 
was  opened  and  the  birds  allowed  to  mix.  Although  the  first  clutch  of  4  were 
infertile,  the  next  7  were  good  and  all  were  hatched.  The  last  egg,  (No.  12) 
was  infertile.  The  same  tactic  was  tried  with  hen  No.  2  and  cock  No.  2.  When 
the  first  six  eggs  were  infertile,  hen  No.  2  was  allowed  to  join  prior  fertile 
cock  No.  3.  All  the  subsequent  10  eggs  were  infertile.  The  first  year  hen 
never  laid  and  did  not  display  any  mating  activity.  Six  young  Cabot’s  have 
been  raised  this  season  and  although  they  are  all  from  one  pair,  it  is  hoped 
that  better  results  will  be  obtained  next  year,  with  the  hope  of  establishing  a 
fi  and  f2  generation  from  this  breeding  stock  by  1982. 

The  Satyr  Tragopan  is  that  most  widely  distributed  and  most  common 
today  in  the  aviaries  of  private  propogators  throughout  the  world.  It  is  the 
largest  and  most  colourful  of  the  tragopan  species  and  seems  to  have 
adapted  to  the  widest  temperature  range.  Whereas  this  very  characteristic 
has  been  the  cause  of  a  rather  widespread  hybridization  of  this  species  with 
the  Temminck’s  in  the  U.S.,  the  stock  in  Europe  has  been  relatively  pure 
due  to  the  rarity  of  the  Temminck’s  and  new  importations  have  decreased 
inbreeding.  Both  of  these  tragopans  will  readily  interbreed  and  the 
differentiation  between  the  females  requires  an  experienced  eye.  Delacour 
reports,  “During  the  twenties  we  reared  a  few  Temminck’s  each  season. 
They  were  much  inbred  and  we  barely  kept  the  species  going.  We  also  reared 
hybrids  with  Satyrs  and  recrossed  them.  The  %  hybrids  were  indistinguishable 
from  pure  Temminck’s.”  The  pureness  of  the  Satyr  is  suspect  in  America  and 
it  behoves  the  various  authorities  on  the  subject  to  be  considerably  more 
specific  in  their  descriptions  and  the  standards  that  they  have  established.  In 
1972,  I  imported  with  others  several  pairs  of  wild  caught  Satyrs.  Four  of 
these  pairs  are  still  alive  in  excellent  condition.  All  have  bred  in  captivity  since 
their  arrival  and  unrelated  fi  and  f2  breeding  pairs  have  also  been  established. 

Captive  bred  Satyr  hens  rarely  lay  their  first  year  and  I  have  not  had 
fertility  from  a  first  year  cock  either  with  a  first  or  second  year  hen.  F  i,  F2  and 
F3  generation  hens  never  laid  their  first  year  nor  did  the  cocks  prove  fertile 
although  developing  full  plumage  at  this  time.  Wild  caught  hens  laid  clutches 
of  one  egg  which  was  25%  larger  in  size  than  eggs  laid  by  hens  from  a  long 
captive  lineage.  They  usually  averaged  4  eggs  during  the  breeding  season. 
First  generation  hens  lay  an  average  of  seven  eggs  —  some  four  to  five,  others 
eight  to  nine.  A  second  generation  hen  laid  ten  eggs  in  1978  and  nine  in  1979. 
Fertility  averaged  70%  from  this  stock  with  an  above  average  85%  hatchability. 
The  chicks  are  large  and  strong  and  shatter  the  egg  shell  easily  when 
hatching.  Although  inbred  captive  stock  laid  many  more  eggs,  fertility  and 
hatchability  was  less  than  50%.  Wild  caught  hens  obtained  have  been  laying 
annually  since.  Perhaps  it  was  luck  but  the  original  pairing  of  the  wild  caught 
birds  were  more  or  less  propitious.  They  all  got  along  well  producing  many 
fine  offspring. 


Wild  caught  Satyr  Tragopans  -  Slim  and  Upright 


Many  pairs  have  been  distributed  from  this  pure  stock  throughout  America 
and  Europe  and  it  is  hoped  that  this  lineage  can  be  kept  free  of  the  impure 
stock  that  still  exists.  All  the  wild  caught  Satyr  cocks  that  were  examined 
were  covered  with  coal  black  feathers  on  the  head  and  wattles  while  most  of 
the  Satyr  cocks  that  I  had  at  the  time  as  well  as  many  seen  in  private 
collections  throughout  the  country  had  a  very  sparse  black  feathering  in 
these  areas.  So  sparse  in  fact  that  the  blue  coloration  of  the  skin  was  exposed 
in  a  manner  similar  to  that  of  the  Temminck’s. 

The  wild  caught  birds  are  slim  and  stand  upright.  They  are  always  looking 
upward,  perhaps  to  escape  the  confines  of  their  aviary.  The  Satyr  hatched 
and  raised  in  captivity  from  captive  stock  is  invariably  a  heavier  bird, 
especially  the  hen  and  they  very  rarely  look  upward,  keeping  their  heads 
down  in  the  direction  of  the  aviary  floor.  The  colorations  of  the  wild-caught 
cocks  are  very  vivid  and  bright  with  the  ocelli  being  sharply  defined. 
Obviously  the  females  of  the  two  species  which  are  similar  in  appearance, 
when  crossed  with  opposite  males  result  in  offspring  which  is  off-colour  in 
the  body  with  a  sparse  black  feathering  on  the  head  of  the  Satyr  cock.  The 
blue  skin  appears  exposed  and  the  ocelli  blurred  rather  than  sharply  defined. 
The  Satyr  hen  is  larger  and  stands  higher  than  the  Temminck’s.  It  is  slightly 
lighter  in  colour,  more  on  an  even  brownish  colour.  The  Temminck’s  hen  has 
dark  markings  on  head,  neck  and  back.  The  Satyr  is  somewhat  more  nervous 
and  less  trusting  than  the  other  species. 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS  203 


Temminck’s  Tragopans 


Wild  caught  male  Captive-raised  female 

Although  Iwas  extremely  lucky  with  the  matings  of  the  imported  Satyrs, 
such  has  not  been  the  case  with  the  Temminck’s  and  Cabot’s.  In  the  former 
case  I  have  frequently  exchanged  mates,  kept  extra  hens  and  cocks  in 
adjoining  cages  with  hope  of  creating  fertile  pairs.  I  have  usually  succeeded 
in  obtaining  a  fertile  pair.  Several  breeders  have  been  using  artificial  insemination 
to  solve  this  problem  especially  where  the  male  may  be  unable  because  of 
physical  problems  to  copulate  naturally.  AI  would  also  be  useful  in  cases 
where  the  male  may  come  into  breeding  condition  before  the  females  and 
semen  from  another  male  could  then  be  used.  I  have  had  all  the  species  I  now 
have  at  one  time  or  other  breed  naturally  and  find  that  sufficient  acclimation 
to  the  captive  existence  of  the  species  has  already  been  made  without  the 
“ultimate”.  AI  should  only  be  the  last  resort  or  a  tool  for  the  physically 
handicapped  bird. 

The  Temminck’s  prior  to  1975,  although  available  in  many  U.S.  collections 
was  extremely  rare  in  Europe.  The  late  Samuel  Holmgren  was  by  far  the 
most  prolific  breeder  of  this  species  for  almost  thirty  years  in  the  U.S. 
Unfortunately  his  stock  had  never  been  revitalized  with  new  blood  from  the 
wild  and  as  a  result  only  limited  success  was  attained  in  the  captive  breeding 
of  his  progeny.  Present  stock  in  the  U.S.  including  mine  and  those  in  Europe 
are  inbred  and  tainted  by  crossing  with  the  Satyr.  However  several  pairs  of 
wild  caught  birds  have  now  been  obtained  and  it  is  hoped  that  a  pure  line  can 
be  established. 

Temminck’s  hens  lay  an  average  of  ten  eggs  and  occasionally  a  hen  will  lay 
as  many  as  .sixteen.  The  stock  is  inbred  and  fertility  with  mated  pairs  has 
been  a  poor  35%  and  only  careful  incubator  control  of  temperature  and 
humidity  permits  a  75%  hatch.  A  first  generation  wild  caught  Temminck’s 
hen  mated  with  a  good  two  year  cock  laid  two  eggs  her  first  year  in  1978,  both 
were  fertile,  hatched  and  raised  to  maturity.  In  1979  the  hen  was  paired  with 
a  wild  caught  male  and  laid  six  fertile  eggs,  all  of  which  hatched.  I  have  never 
successfully  kept  trios  of  either  of  these  species  over  a  period  of  time. 


204 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


Although  several  propagators  in  the  U.S.  have  succeeded  over  a  longer 
period  of  time  with  fertility  being  obtained  with  both  hens.  One  hen  always 
appeared  to  become  subservient  to  the  other  and  the  problem  was  mainly  the 
relationship  between  the  two  hens  rather  than  the  cock.  Often  one  hen  would 
keep  the  other  away  from  the  feed  and  in  another  trio  one  hen  fought 
constantly  with  the  other.  I  have  had  a  single  cock  fertilize  two  hens  each  in 
an  adjoining  aviary.  I  kept  the  cock  four  days  with  one  hen  and  four  days 
with  the  other  using  a  hatchway  to  connect  the  aviaries. 

The  age  of  production  may  vary  in  breeding  pairs  of  the  same  species,  but 
I  have  a  pair  of  Temminck’s  that  have  laid  from  eight  to  ten  eggs  annually 
since  1964  with  a  minimum  of  four  chicks  being  hatched  each  year.  Although 
my  longest  such  production  with  a  Satyr  has  been  nine  years,  I  have  heard  of 
pairs  laying  fertile  eggs  for  thirteen  years. 


Wild- caught  Temminck’s  Tragopan  -  lateral  display 


Aviaries 

It  is  said  that  the  larger  the  aviary  size  the  better  the  breeding  results  and 
physical  condition  of  the  birds.  Tragopans  have  a  tendency  to  become  heavy 
and  should  be  given  as  much  room  as  possible  to  exercise  in.  Our  aviaries  for 
tragopans  have  evolved  through  the  years  from  minimal  enclosures  of  120 
square  feet  with  scant  protection  to  our  present  set  up  which  now  appears  to 
yield  superior  results  as  well  as  protection  against  our  winters  which  are 
gradually  becoming  more  severe.  During  the  past  years  the  prolonged 
periods  of  freezing  temperatures,  heavy  snowfalls,  and  ice  storms  have 
created  the  necessity  for  a  protected  inside  enclosure.  Although  the  tragopans 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


205 


are  known  as  high  altitude  cold  weather  birds,  they  do  fluff  up  their  feathers 
when  exposed  to  our  damp  cold  to  provide  more  efficient  insulation  against 
this  exposure.  Trees  and  plantings  within  the  aviary  provide  shade  and 
provisions  are  made  for  good  circulation  of  air  during  the  hot  periods  of 
summer.  Our  present  aviaries  have  an  inside  enclosure  sixteen  feet  high  at 
one  end  with  a  translucent  fibreglass  roof  arching  down  from  the  16'  height 
to  8'.  The  arch  prevents  snow  accumulation.  Perches  extending  from  15'  to 
5'  in  height  are  provided  as  well  as  tree  stumps  of  different  lengths  and  slopes 
within  the  inside  enclosure  which  has  a  width  of  twelve  feet.  A  hatchway  16" 
high  X  14"  wide  leads  to  an  outside  aviary  36'  long,  12'  wide  and  9'  high. 
Weeping  grafted  mulberry  trees  which  provide  shade  and  berries  are  in  each 
outside  aviary  with  Andorra  creeping  juniper,  dwarf  Mugho  pine,  morning 
glory  vine,  rhododendron  thickets  and  dwarf  cotoneaster.  Perennial  rye  grass 
is  sown  in  the  outdoor  aviary  and  replenished  every  spring.  Hardware  cloth 
0/4"  galvanized  steel  mesh)  30"  wide  extending  18"  under  ground  level 
culminating  in  a  6"  right  angle  bend  facing  away  from  the  aviary  wall  is 
fastened  to  redwood  boards  (1"  X  12")  which  start  6"  in  the  ground.  This 
serves  as  a  deterrent  to  most  rodent  type  predators  when  they  attempt  to  dig 
underneath  the  aviary.  The  boards  are  bolted  on  to  a  2"  galvanized  pipe 
which  is  used  for  uprights  and  cross  members.  The  arched  roof  is  also 
supported  by  2"  galvanized  pipe  that  is  bent  in  a  jig  to  create  an  arched  slope 
for  the  roof.  An  additional  two  feet  of  redwood  siding  is  used  creating  a  wall 
30"  above  the  ground  level  and  also  between  adjoining  aviaries.  Half  inch 
galvanized  aviary  wire  is  used  to  form  the  outer  walls  and  a  protective  roof  of 
translucent  fibreglass  extends  from  the  curvature  of  the  roof  of  the  inside 
aviary,  eight  feet  out  over  the  roof  of  the  outside  aviary.  One  inch  galvanized 
aviary  wire  is  used  for  the  roof  to  allow  for  snow  fall.  An  outside  perch  under 
the  middle  of  the  outside  roof  5  feet  high  is  also  used  besides  the  various 
plants,  rocks  and  tree  stumps.  The  floor  of  the  inside  aviary  has  a  6"  layer  of 
bank  gravel  on  top  of  the  soil.  This  is  easy  to  keep  clean,  supplies  grit  and  is 
dust  free.  In  early  spring  after  raking,  this  floor  is  treated  with  live  steam 
from  a  portable  steam  generator  as  are  the  side  boards,  perches,  and  nest 
boxes.  All  wood  parts  in  the  aviary  (perches,  nest  boxes,  side  walls,  ceiling) 
are  painted  with  a  thin  slurry  of  a  decontaminating  agent  (Carbola).  This 
process  is  repeated  after  the  breeding  season  and  again  before  winter  sets  in. 
All  our  tragopans  are  arboreal  in  nature  and  perch  at  night  on  branches  at 
the  peaks  of  the  indoor  aviary  (13"  — 15"  high),  although  I  use  an  automatic 
watering  system  in  the  inside  aviaryies  most  of  the  year,  during  the  winter 
five  gallon  galvanized  water  units  are  used  with  a  temperature  controlled 
water  heater  threaded  into  the  bottom  of  the  can.  The  units  will  heat  the 
water  at  35°F  and  kick  out  at  40°F.  The  water  is  kept  clean  and  fresh.  The 
feeders  are  made  of  galvanized  metal  with  an  inclined  cover  and  a  device  to 
prevent  food  materials  from  being  strewn  on  the  aviary  floor. 


206 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


Nesting  Boxes 

Are  of  two  types  both  of  which  are  placed  in  every  aviary  in  the  inside 
enclosure.  One  box  is  3  feet  long,  14"  high  and  two  feet  wide  placed  6  feet 
above  the  ground  alongside  a  perch.  It  is  treated  with  a  poultry  dust  before 
the  breeding  season  and  lined  with  pine  needles  and  alfalfa  hay.  The  second 
is  on  legs  6 '  high  30"  wide  and  8"  deep.  It  is  four-sided  with  plywood  and 
also  contains  a  shelf  two  feet  above  the  ground  with  two  openings  in  which  a 
bird  may  hide  and  be  free  from  outside  disturbance.  Aviaries  also  contain  a 
shelf  6'  long  10"  above  the  aviary  floor  and  12"  wide  which  is  connected  to 
the  aviary  wall  and  serves  as  a  protective  area  under  which  a  hen  may  retreat 
in  case  her  mate  becomes  belligerent.  I  have  never  had  a  tragopan  hen  attack 
a  cock  except  when  a  trio  was  attempted.  Tragopans  will  lay  all  their  eggs 
consistently  in  their  nest  box  once  it  has  been  accepted.  They  are  almost 
always  clean  and  rarely  have  any  excrement  on  them.  One  out  of  ten  hens 
might  occasionally  lay  an  egg  from  a  perch  or  not  in  the  nest  box,  however 
their  next  clutch  invariably  will  be  in  the  box. 

Incubation 

Eggs  are  collected  in  the  morning  and  at  dusk  and  are  placed  in  the 
incubator  within  four  hours  after  collection.  My  incubator  room  is  kept  at 
70°F  and  the  humidity  is  fairly  constant.  The  incubator  temperature  is  kept 
at  99.5°F  ±  l/4°.  The  relative  humidity  is  maintained  at  84%  wet  bulb 
reading.  Eggs  are  hand  turned  in  two  planes  three  times  daily  —  pipped  eggs 
are  removed  to  a  hatcher.  The  hatcher  is  kept  at  88%  to  90%  relative 
humidity  (wet  bulb  reading).  *4"  hardware  cloth  is  used  for  footing  therein 
and  the  chicks  are  kept  in  the  hatcher  twenty-four  hours  after  hatching  at 
which  time  they  are  thoroughly  dry  and  very  alert.  The  additional  moisture 
is  necessary  especially  to  assist  the  inbred  Temminck’s  chicks  in  their  final 
hours  of  hatching.  Although  I  have  used  foster  mothers  for  incubation  over  a 
period  of  time,  I  find  the  use  of  incubators  more  efficient  and  the  ultimate 
results  superior  to  the  more  costly  use  of  the  broody  hen.  At  present  we  raise 
from  three  to  four  hundred  rare  pheasants  annually  and  it  would  take  a 
prohibitive  bank  of  broodies  to  service  this  quantity  which  are  hatched 
within  a  60  day  period. 

Brooding 

Upon  removal  from  the  incubator  the  chicks  are  then  placed  in  individual 
brooder  boxes  made  of  wood  —  12"  wide,  18"  high  and  24"  long.  Paper 
towels  are  placed  on  the  bottom  and  a  blue  grow  bulb  is  used  for  heat.  The 
heat  intensity  is  controlled  by  a  rheostat.  The  paper  towel  and  individual 
bird  in  the  box  allows  me  to  observe  the  droppings  of  the  chick.  The  chick  is 
started  with  a  mixture  of  chick  grains  (fine  cracked  corn,  millets  and  barley) 
and  water  medicated  with  a  vitamin  added  streptomycin  penicillin  mixture 
for  the  first  few  days.  As  soon  as  the  tract  has  been  cleared,  fine  ground 
crumbles  are  added  as  well  as  fine  chopped  pieces  of  alfalfa.  The  chicks, 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


207 


like  their  parents,  are  very  fond  of  greens  and  fresh  cut  alfafa  is  added  three 
times  daily  on  top  of  the  feed  which  is  a  commercial  turkey  starter  feed  with 
grains  added.  Protein  level  is  kept  below  20%.  Perches  are  supplied  at  once 
and  temperature  in  the  brooder  box  starts  at  95°C  and  is  reduced  five 
degrees  a  week.  After  three  weeks  the  chick  is  transferred  with  another  chick 
to  a  small  cage  3  feet  high,  2  feet  wide  and  20"  deep.  The  temperature  is 
maintained  at  80°C.  A  small  pine  branch  is  used  both  for  hiding  and 
perching.  The  older  chicks  are  continued  on  the  same  diet  of  fresh  cut  alfalfa 
and  starter  pellets.  After  4  weeks  the  chicks  are  moved  with  two  others  into 
an  inside  aviary  6  feet  high,  8  feet  wide  and  10  feet  long.  A  heat  lamp  is 
provided  and  again  pine  branches  are  used  for  perching  and  hiding.  Mealworms 
and  peanuts  are  now  used  to  get  the  chicks  moving  and  accustomed  to  their 
new  aviary.  After  two  weeks  a  hatch  leading  to  an  outside  aviary  is  opened. 
Fresh  lettuce,  apple,  squash,  cucumber  and  melon  (when  available  from 
garden)  and  peanuts  are  fed  consecutively  on  different  days.  The  floor  of  the 
inside  aviary  is  a  bank  run  gravel  which  drains  well  and  can  be  readily 
cleaned.  The  outside  aviary  is  landscaped  with  evergreen  and  has  a  stand  of 
alfalfa  and  grasses. 

Nutrition  of  Breeders 

In  conjunction  with  propitiously  mated  breeding  stock,  draughtfree 
landscaped  large  aviaries,  breeder  feed  is  most  important  in  sustaining  good 
fertility,  hatchability  and  the  potential  of  both  adults  and  offspring.  Tragopans 
are  by  nature  of  their  original  habitat  primarily  vegetarians  and  we  feed  fresh 
cut  alfalfa  daily  after  they  have  grazed  down  the  spring  sowings  of  alfalfa  and 
grasses.  Squash,  cucumbers  and  apples  are  fed  as  they  become  available  in 
our  own  gardens.  Raspberries  and  mulberries  are  made  available  from 
plantings  within  the  aviary.  During  the  Long  Island  winter,  raisins,  cut 
grapes  and  small  shelled  green  peanuts  are  substituted.  Although  mealworms 
are  fed  to  the  chicks  especially  when  they  are  moved  from  a  smaller  enclosure 
to  a  large  one  we  do  not  find  it  necessary  to  give  them  to  the  adults.  We  use 
this  tidbit  as  a  means  of  decreasing  the  emotional  stress  which  at  times 
results  in  a  curling  of  the  toes.  Most  of  the  above  are  offered  once  a  week 
except  for  apples  which  are  supplied  daily. 

Commercial  game  bird  grower  (19%  protein)  (July  to  Dec.)  and  breeder 
(Jan.  to  June)  (21%  protein)  are  kept  in  hoppers  throughout  the  year.  The 
feed  is  checked  twice  weekly  and  only  a  fixed  quantity  is  added  to  the 
hoppers  at  that  time.  Peanuts  are  given  to  the  breeders  daily  (a  dozen  to  a 
pair)  at  the  same  time  each  morning.  They  are  usually  awaiting  my  arrival  or 
as  soon  as  they  hear  the  sounds  emitted  by  those  fed  before,  hasten  to  the 
front  of  the  aviary  for  this  tidbit. 

Health  Care 

Using  the  peanut  technique  we  can  examine  every  bird’s  condition  daily 
and  if  a  bird  does  not  make  an  appearance  at  this  time,  I  immediately  search 
them  out.  At  times  I  do  discover  a  problem,  but  with  this  technique  we  can 


208 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


almost  always  remedy  an  ailment  having  caught  it  in  time.  Needless  to  say, 
birds  are  occasionally  lost  and  at  these  times  they  are  immediately  posted. 
We  do  have  our  own  small  hospital  with  a  quarantine  area,  where  weekly 
fecal  analyses  are  made,  an  aviary  section  at  a  time.  Several  aviaries  are  used 
for  quarantine  purposes  of  new  arrivals  in  this  building  and  contain  special 
heating  arrangements  for  use  in  the  treatment  of  sick  birds.  In  the  Long 
Island  area,  heavy  rains  followed  by  a  sharp  drop  in  temperature  frequently 
upset  a  bird  and  an  anti-biotic  given  orally  or  injected  in  conjunction  with  a 
heated  aviary  usually  leads  to  a  quick  recovery. 

Marking  and  Record  Keeping 

All  eggs  are  marked  with  the  date  and  aviary  number  and  recorded  in  a 
note  book  when  picked  up.  Upon  hatching  or  if  infertile  —  recording  is  so 
made.  The  chick  is  banded  to  indicate  the  parents  and  young  birds  from 
different  parents  are  shipped  to  other  propagators  with  the  hope  of  creating 
productive  matings. 

In  conclusion,  the  most  important  factors  for  the  propagation  of  tragopans, 
as  for  most  pheasants,  require  a  good  breeding  stock,  a  propitiously  mated 
pair,  large  landscaped  avaiaries  with  greens  and  fruits  being  added  to  the  diet 
regularly. 

The  following  are  recommended  for  information  as  to  the  history,  habitat, 
nutrition  and  behaviour  of  tragopans  in  the  wild. 

1)  Ali,  Salim  and  Ripley,  S.  Dillon  (1969)  —  “Handbook  of  the  Birds  of 
India  &  Pakistan”  —  Oxford  University  Press 

2)  Beebe,  William  (1918— 1922)  “A  Monograph  of  Pheasants”  Witherby, 
London 

3)  Delacour,  Jean  (1951  —  1957)  Reprint  1978,  “The  Pheasants  of  the 
World”  —  Country  Life,  London. 

★  ★  ★ 


Note: 

The  author  has  been  propagating  pheasants  for  the  past  twenty  years.  He 
has  been  responsible  for  the  importation  and  establishment  or  re-establishment 
of  the  following  species  of  pheasants  within  the  United  States: 

a)  Bornean  Argus  Argusianus  argus  grayi  first  world  breeding  raised  and 
distributed  about  50  pairs  in  7  years.  None  present  in  captivity  in 
world  at  time  of  importation. 

b)  White  Eared  Cros.  cros.  drouyni  raised  and  distributed  over  65  pairs 
since  1973.  No  breeding  pairs  in  captivity  in  U.S.  at  time  of  importation. 

c)  Sumatran  Bronze-tail  Peacock  Pheasant  Polyplectron  chalcurum  raised 
and  distributed  38  pairs  in  4  years.  No  breeding  pairs  in  captivity  in 
U.S.  at  time  of  importation. 


CHARLES  SIVELLE  -  TRAGOPANS 


209 


d)  Malaysian  Crestless  Fireback  Lophura  e.  erythrophthalma  raised  and 
distributed  15  pairs  in  2  years  —  only  breeding  stock  in  U.S.  at  this 
time. 

e)  Bulwer’s  Wattled  Pheasant  Lophura  bulweri  first  to  import  in  1971  — 
first  breeding  in  the  U.S.,  responsible  for  importation  of  all  birds, 
none  in  world  captivity  at  time. 

f)  Salvadori’s  Lophura  inornata  inornata  —  first  breeding  in  the  U.S. 

g)  Cabot’s  Tragopan  caboti  —  only  breeding  stock  in  U.S.  at  this 
time. 

i)  Bornean  Crested  Fireback  Lophura  i.  ignita  raised  and  distributed  72 
pairs  from  imported  stock  —  only  one  breeding  pair  in  captivity  in 
U.S.  at  time. 

Within  the  past  fifteen  years  quantities  of  Koklass,  Brown  Eared,  Palawans, 
Coppers,  Edwards’s,  Satyrs,  Temminck’s,  Malay  Argus,  Germain’s,  Mikados, 
etc.  have  also  been  raised  and  distributed. 


210 


THE  CRACIDAE 

By  Dr.  Jesus  Estudillo  Lopez  (Mexico) 

As  the  Phasianidae  family  is  native  both  to  the  Old  World  and  the  New 
World,  so  the  members  of  the  Cracidae  are  exclusive  to  the  tropical  Americas; 
from  Mexico  to  the  tropics  in  Central  and  South  America. 

Both  families  are  of  the  order  Galliformes,  although  they  are  totally 
different;  the  Cracidae  phylogenetically  are  completely  separate  from  the 
rest  of  the  Galliformes,  hybrids  between  pheasants  and  domestic  chickens, 
guinea  fowl,  have  frequently  been  described  while  a  hybrid  has  never  been 
reported  between  a  cracid  and  any  other  galliform  bird. 

The  Cracidae  comprise  various  genera:  Crax,  Mitu,  Pauxi ,  which 
includes  the  large  representatives  of  the  family,  and  which  in  English  are 
known  as  curassows,  which  name  is  totally  inadequate,  since  in  the  island  of 
Curacao  off  South  America,  there  has  never  existed  any  species  of  these 
birds,  but  apparently  the  first  birds  which  were  sent  to  Europe  from  Curacao 
Island  came  originally  from  the  continent. 

The  so-called  guans  are  of  numerous  genera  and  well  defined;  some 
comprise  several  species  as  in  the  case  of  the  genus  Penelope ,  with  the  species 
purpurascens ,  argyrotis ,  montagm,  barbata,  jacuacu ,  marail ,  ortom \  albipenms, 
obscura,  jacucaca,  super ciliar is,  dabbenei ,  ochrogaster,  pileata. 

The  members  of  the  genus  Penelope  are  birds  of  a  bronze  colour  with 
different  shades  from  almost  black  to  an  ochre  colour  sprinkled  with  white; 
according  to  the  species  they  vary  from  a  medium  sized  turkey  (P.  purpur¬ 
ascens)  to  birds  somewhat  larger  than  a  pigeon  {argyrotis,  superciliaris). 

The  genus  Pipile  comprises  six  species:  pipile,  cumanensis,  nattereri,  cujubi, 
granyiand  jacutinga.  These  birds  are  of  a  black  coloration  with  the  tips  of  the 
wings  white  and  with  different  colouring  on  the  head  and  face,  according  to 
the  species.  Chamaepetes,  a  genus  with  two  species:  unicolor  and  goudoti,  the 
first  of  a  dark  black  colour  and  blue  face,  native  to  Central  America,  the 
second,  in  different  tones  of  brown  and  native  of  South  America,  both 
species  inhabiting  cloud  forests. 

Other  genera  such  as  Oreophasis,  Penelopina  and  Aburria  are  each  of  a 
single  species  comprising  individuals  totally  different  in  all  their  characteristics, 
size,  form,  voice,  etc. 

Finally,  the  genus  Ortalis,  which  covers  the  smallest  members  of  the 
Cracidae,  the  chachalacas,  all  of  them  possessing  a  loud  voice. 

All  the  members  of  the  Cracidae  inhabit  the  tropical  jungles  of  America, 
rain  or  cloud  forests,  with  the  exception  of  chachalacas  which  live  in  the  edges 
of  jungles  or  in  semi-arid  tropics. 

In  no  other  family  of  game  birds  is  there  so  little  information  available;  in 
many  cases  knowledge  concerning  a  species  was  based  exclusively  on  information 
acquired  by  one  or  two  individuals,  often  ignoring  the  geographic  distribution 
in  nature. 


DR.  J.  E.  LOPEZ  -  CRACIDAE 


211 


This  lack  of  knowledge  takes  in  such  basic  aspects  as  the  taxonomy,  since 
to  some  authors  Crax,  Mitu  and  Pauxi  are  all  of  the  same  genus  although 
personally  my  opinion  is  that  there  are  three  different  genera.  As  much  can 
be  said  of  the  genera  Aburria  and  Pipile ,  which  are  indistinctly  known  as  one 
genus  or  also,  two  different  genera.  In  the  near  future,  through  kario-types 
studies  and  electrophoretic  studies  on  plasma  and  haemoglobin,  we  hope  to 
be  able  to  give  more  solid  arguments  for  the  full  understanding  of  these 
genera. 

As  a  general  rule,  cracids  are  extremely  territorial;  never  are  two  species  of 
the  same  genus  found  sharing  the  same  habitat  without  a  good  reason  which 
may  force  them,  such  as  a  long  drought,  etc. 

On  occasions  the  altitude  may  be  the  reason  for  the  limited  distribution  of 
species  of  the  same  genus;  for  example,  in  the  case  of  guans  of  the  genus 
Penelope  in  the  Andes  of  South  America,  Penelope  montagni  is  found  at 
2500  —  3000  metres  above  sea  level,  Penelope  argyrotis  substitutes  at  1500  —  2000 
metres  in  the  same  zone  and  in  the  jungles  at  the  foot  of  the  Andes  and  in 
lower  zones  at  800  metres  or  less.  Other  species  substitutes  the  former,  such 
as  Penelope  ortoni,  jacuacu ,  etc.  Other  times,  geographic  factors  such  as  high 
ridges,  the  great  rivers  of  South  America,  open  lands,  tend  to  limit  the 
distribution  of  species,  but  in  a  good  number  of  cases,  the  limiting  factor  for 
the  distribution  of  one  species  is  not  known.  Some  species  may  have  enormous 
territories  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  square  kilometres,  such  as  Crax 
globulosa  and  Crax  fasciolata,  the  first  occupying  part  of  the  Amazon  jungle, 
to  the  south  of  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Peru,  north  and  central  Brazil,  the 
second,  occupying  the  regions  of  Mato  Grosso  in  Brazil,  Bolivia  and  Paraguay, 
while  other  species  are  autolimited  to  very  small  territories,  as  in  the  case  of 
Crax  blumenbachi  in  the  north-east  of  Brazil  and  although  there  is  scientific 
evidence  that  sometimes  these  jungles  communicated  with  the  Amazon 
region,  this  species  only  proliferates  near  the  coast.  There  are  other  numerous 
examples  in  the  territoriality  of  the  Cracidae  in  which  species  have  autolimited 
themselves  to  very  restricted  and  specialized  territories.  As  in  the  case  of 
Oreophasis  which  only  lives  in  volcanic  regions  of  the  extreme  south  of 
Mexico  and  in  the  north  of  Guatemala  between  1200  —  3000  metres  high 
without  a  satisfactory  explanation  as  to  why  they  did  not  spread  toward  the 
north  of  the  Sierra  Madre  in  Mexico,  or  toward  the  south  of  Guatelama 
where  there  are  similar  habitats. 

It  is  very  probable  that  the  voice  may  be  one  of  the  mechanisms  which 
serve  to  mark  territory,  not  only  between  the  different  species  but  also 
among  individuals  of  a  same  species.  During  reproduction  pairs  are  formed 
and  stay  together  during  all  the  reproduction  and  raising  of  the  chicks  in 
which  the  male  also  takes  part.  In  the  case  of  Crax,  Mitu  and  Pauxi  during 
the  period  of  reproduction,  the  voice  of  the  male  is  heard  emitting  sounds 
which  go  from  a  very  low  pitch  to  a  very  high  one,  something  like  a  howling 
ending  in  a  very  shrill  sound,  almost  imperceptible  to  the  human  ear.  On 
more  than  one  occasion  when  a  pair  of  birds  has  been  dispersed  by  the 


212 


DR.  J.  E.  LOPEZ  -  CRACIDAE 


presence  of  man  or  some  predator,  the  male  emits  a  very  shrill  sound  in  order 
to  establish  contact  with  his  companion.  In  the  same  manner,  if  the  female 
with  her  young  is  frightened,  she  gathers  the  chicks  who  remain  in  hiding 
among  dry  leaves  if  they  are  still  unable  to  fly  and  when  the  danger  is  over  the 
mother  calls  them  through  very  shrill  sounds. 

Cracids  are  essentially  arboreal,  above  all,  guans  and  species  of  cloud 
forests.  They  feed  on  fruits,  tender  foliage,  insects  and  most  probably  on 
small  reptiles  and  mammals;  during  the  breeding  period  they  are  frequently 
found  along  the  edges  of  rivers  and  lakes  searching  for  water  snails  and  other 
animal  protein  food. 

The  adaption  to  the  environment  of  a  species  is  very  specialized,  as  for 
example,  the  species  which  live  in  high  places  have  their  face  and  neck 
densely  covered  with  feathers  as  well  as  their  legs  down  to  the  tarsus,  as  in  the 
case  of  Chamaepetes,  Aburria  and  other  guans  which  inhabit  high  mountains, 
while  species  of  the  same  genera  which  inhabit  torrid  zones,  have  the  same 
parts  devoid  of  feathers. 

Within  a  same  species  the  influence  of  the  environment  is  manifested  in 
several  forms.  As  a  general  rule,  the  species  situated  in  the  extreme  northern 
part  of  the  distribution  for  the  Cracidae,  are  the  largest  for  example,  Crax 
rubra  of  Mexico  and  Central  America,  which  is  the  largest  of  all  Crax ; 


Crax  rubra  —  Male 


DR.  J.  E.  LOPEZ  -  CRACIDAE 


213 


Penelope  purpurascens  of  Mexico  and  Central  America  is  not  only  the  largest 
of  the  Penelope  species,  but  also,  the  same  species  in  the  extreme  southern 
distribution  in  Venezuala  and  Colombia:  Penelope  purpurascens  equatorialis 
is  30%  smaller  than  the  Mexican  race  as  also  in  the  Ortalis;  Ortalis poliocephala 
is  the  largest  of  the  chachalacas.  In  several  species  there  are  considerable 
changes  in  colour  depending  on  the  territory;  this  adaptation  is  especially 
noticeable  in  the  femals  for  example,  in  the  colour  of  the  female  of  Crax  rubra 
in  Mexico  which  is  dark  mahogany  in  the  States  of  Tamaulipas  and  Veracruz, 
in  the  State  of  Yucatan  it  is  slightly  clearer;  the  same  species  in  the  south  of 
Central  America,  in  Costa  Rica  and  Panama,  shows  clear  bands  in  the  tail 
and  in  Colombia,  the  same  species  is  of  a  reddish  colour.  Besides  the 
adaptation  to  the  environment,  there  are  sudden  and  inexplicable  variations 
in  colour  (phases)  and  which  differ  completely  from  the  characteristic  colour 
of  the  species. 

All  this  has  caused  confusion  and  reflects  on  the  scientific  nomenclature; 
such  phases  in  colour  have  led  to  belief  that  they  are  different  species. 

Territoriality,  its  low  reproduction  rate,  the  lowest  of  the  galliformes:  two 
or  three  eggs  maximum  per  year,  added  to  the  constant  hunting  to  which  all 
the  members  of  the  Cracidae  are  subject,  since  they  are  the  preferred  game 
birds  of  the  American  jungle  because  of  their  size  and  flavour,  added  to  the 
massive  destruction  of  their  habitat  for  agricultural  purposes  has  unfortunately 
placed  in  danger  of  extinction  several  members  of  the  family. 

Since  remote  times  it  has  been  possible  to  keep  curassows  and  guans  as 
they  have  been  kept  as  semi-domestic  birds  by  natives  and  some  attempt  had 
been  made  at  domestication  as  was  done  with  the  turkey,  native  of  Mexico 
and  North  America.  Because  of  the  difficulty  to  reproduce  them  in  captivity 
and  lack  of  precocity,  the  attempt  at  domestication  was  rapidly  abandoned. 

In  order  to  carry  out  their  reproduction  in  captivity,  it  is  necessary  to  keep 
in  mind  several  factors:  the  adaptation  to  captivity,  climatic  needs,  specialized 
nutrition,  etc.  Besides  the  previous  factors,  in  several  members  of  the 
Cracidae,  the  determination  of  sex  is  difficult,  for  genera  such  as  Penelope, 
Chamaepetes,  Mitu,  Pauxi  and  Oreophasis  do  not  have  sexual  dimorphism  at 
all,  for  which  reason  it  is  much  more  difficult  to  propagate  them  since  birds 
of  the  same  sex  may  be  kept  for  some  time  without  the  owner  knowing  it. 

In  some  cases  there  exist  tracheal  loops  in  the  male  which  permit  the 
differentiation  of  sexes  such  as  Urumutum,  Ortalis,  but  in  other  cases,  there  is 
no  such  indication  and  only  through  constant  observation  is  it  possible  to 
determine  sex.  When  one  has  more  than  two  birds  in  an  aviary  there  is 
danger  when  establishing  the  pairs  that  the  dominant  male  and  the  female 
will  rapidly  kill  the  extra  male  or  the  surplus  female,  which  may  occur  one 
day  without  previous  notice. 

At  present  it  is  possible  to  use  laparotomy  and  chromosome  determinations 
for  the  sexing. 

Cracida  do  not  stand  low  temperatures  and  less  than  40°F  produces 
serious  respiratory  problems  such  as  pneumonia  as  well  as  frozen  toes  at 


214 


DR.  J.  E.  LOPEZ  -  CRACIDAE 


lower  temperatures. 

My  avaries  measure  15  metres  long,  5  metres  wide  and  3  high;  they  are 
densely  planted  with  trees  and  bushes,  and  the  guans  pass  most  of  the  time 
atop  the  trees.  The  nests  are,  in  accordance  with  the  size  of  the  species, 
always  located  in  high  places  since  all  cracids  build  their  nests  in  trees.  The 
breeding  season  is  normally  during  the  months  of  March,  April  up  to  July, 
when  the  rainy  season  starts  in  Mexico.  Birds  from  the  jungle  in  their  first 
year  of  breeding  in  captivity  rarely  produce  more  than  a  clutch  of  two  eggs, 
while  birds  born  in  captivity  can  produce  up  to  three  clutches  of  eggs  and 
through  a  light  control  combined  with  an  increase  in  proteins,  it  is  possible  to 
obtain  clutches  in  other  seasons  of  the  year  in  the  months  of  November  and 
December. 

The  basic  nourishment  is  a  balanced  feed  with  28%  protein,  fruits  such  as 
banana,  papaya,  tomatoes,  and  during  the  reproduction  period  soya  paste  is 
added  with  egg  and  minced  meat. 

Most  of  the  curassows  and  guans  are  maintained  in  pairs  and  occasionally, 
I  have  kept  them  in  trios.  During  the  breeding  season  the  male  displays  in  a 
tree  by  arching  his  back,  emitting  a  unique  low  mating  call  which  varies 
greatly  from  one  species  to  another;  he  flutters  his  wings,  arches  his  tail  up 
and  prances  around  the  hen  in  this  manner.  He  also  runs  back  and  forth  in 


Pauxi  pauxi  —  3  days  old 


DR.  J.  E.  LOPEZ  -  CRACIDAE 


215 


the  aviary  around  the  hen.  Normally,  they  are  fertile  in  their  third  year  of 
age;  eggs  are  quite  large  in  relation  to  the  bird’s  size,  of  a  white  colour  with 
very  thick  shell. 

These  eggs  I  incubate  in  automatic  turning  incubators  which  turn  every 
hour.  They  are  kept  at  a  temperature  of  99.8° F  the  first  25  to  28  days  with  a 
relative  humidity  of  86°  the  last  2  or  3  days,  temperature  is  lowered  to  99.5° 
and  humidity  is  increased  from  88  to  90°.  The  chick  at  birth  is  very  strong, 
and  readily  breaks  out  of  the  egg  shell. 

Chicks  are  fed  the  first  few  days  with  starter  turkey  mash  with  added 
vitamins  and  chopped  fruit.  It  is  also  effective  to  use  domestic  broody  turkey 
hens  who  can  do  a  good  job  in  the  incubation  of  curassow  and  guan  eggs. 

The  brooder  box  I  use  when  the  chicks  are  hand-raised  is  18"  high  by  18" 
long  and  14"  wide  and  contains  an  electric  bulb  for  heat.  Perches  are 
supplied  in  the  brooder  box,  where  curassows  as  well  as  guans  perch  from 
the  very  first  day  and  this  avoids  toe  problems.  The  floor  is  wire  for 
cleanliness;  temperature  is  approximately  70°  F.  The  chicks  are  not  pugnacious 
and  as  many  as  four  can  be  kept  together;  they  usually  do  not  feather  pick  and 
after  one  month  are  transferred  to  a  larger  brooder  box.  Two  months  later 
they  are  taken  to  their  permanent  quarters.  Young  may  be  mixed  but  must 
be  marked  for  indentification,  as  the  males  of  the  different  species  of 
currasow  look  very  much  the  same  when  they  are  young.  This  is  even  more 
important  with  guans  as  they  can  be  confused  very  easily. 

Birds  are  paired  when  they  are  two  years  of  age  and  up:  imprinting  must 
be  avoided. 

At  present,  I  have  all  the  species  of  Crax ,  Mitu,  Pauxi ,  16  forms  of 
Penelope ,  Penelopina ,  Chamaepetes,  Oreophasis ,  Aburria,  Pipile,  Ortalis ,  of 
which  I  have  fortunately  been  able  to  recognize  approximately  25  species. 

In  the  future  it  will  be  necessary  to  protect  the  species  which  are  in  danger 
of  extinction  and  establish  plans  for  the  perpetuation  of  these  splendid  birds 
before  it  is  too  late. 

I  was  recently  in  Peru  and  Brazil  where  I  was  lucky  to  observe  Penelope 
albipennis  and  Mitu  mitu  mitu ,  both  species  which  were  considered  extinct 
for  more  than  a  century  and  I  established  contact  with  the  avian  authorities 
of  these  countries  for  the  establishment  of  plans  for  the  propagation  and 
conservation  of  both  species. 


216 


QUAIL  IN  CAPTIVITY 
By  G.  E.  S.  ROBBINS  (Mendlesham  Suffolk) 


During  1978  the  World  Pheasant  Association  carried  out  a  census  of 
grouse,  quail,  partridge  and  francolin,  and  from  the  results  it  became  clear 
that  out  of  44  listed  species  only  22  were  recorded  in  captivity;  furthermore 
only  a  small  number  are  well  enough  established  in  sufficient  quantities  to 
represent  a  reasonable  breeding  nucleus.  It  is  therefore  essential  to  develop 
breeding  groups  in  each  country  to  eliminate  the  possibility  of  a  species 
dying  out,  and  to  allow  an  interchange  of  breeding  stock  to  maintain  good 
blood  lines,  and  prevent  inbreeding  to  the  extent  of  genetic  deformities 
together  with  low  fertility  in  the  future.  Unlike  certain  other  members  of  the 
Phasianidae  family,  quail  are  prolific  egg  layers  when  kept  in  captivity,  thus 
giving  the  aviculturist  the  opportunity  of  achieving  success  in  breeding  and 
rearing  exotic  species. 

Quite  often  quail  are  relegated  to  the  floor  of  the  aviary  and  people  wonder 
why  they  are  unsuccessful  in  hatching  and  rearing  young.  This  can  be 
explained  as  follows,  quail  do  not  like  being  subjected  to  draughts  and  damp; 
a  wet  aviary  in  an  exposed  position  is  not  the  environment  to  bring  birds  into 
breeding  condition  at  the  beginning  of  a  season. 

Over  the  last  few  years  a  number  of  breeders  have  been  experimenting 
with  various  types  of  housing.  To  date  the  best  accommodation  would 
appear  to  be  an  enclosed  house,  except  for  the  front  which  contains  the 
access  door,  feeding  compartment  with  the  remaining  area  covered  in  wire 
mesh.  The  floor  area  measuring  1.3mX1.3m  with  walls  lm  high;  for  ease  of 
feeding  the  house  is  raised  approximately  0.5m  off  the  ground,  the  roof  being 
covered  in  stiff  corrugated  polythene  sheeting  on  a  wooden  frame  under 
which  a  piece  of  thin  polythene  is  stretched  to  act  as  a  cushion  should  the 
birds  fly  upwards.  The  most  suitable  floor  covering  is  a  mixture  of  sharp 
sand  and  peat,  which  eliminates  the  possibility  of  worm  infection.  The  house 
described  is  adequate  to  house  one  breeding  pair  and  for  the  aviculturist  who 
has  a  small  garden,  a  number  of  houses  built  together  in  module  form  can 
take  up  very  little  space,  yet  achieve  the  same  satisfaction  as  the  large 
pheasant  breeder  with  plenty  of  land  at  his  disposal. 

The  majority  of  species  available  to  the  aviculturist  in  the  U.K.  and 
europe  originate  from  the  New  World;  listed  are  the  species  which  are 
known  to  be  breeding  in  captivity.  (Extract  from  1978  census). 


CALIFORNIAN  QUAIL  Lophortyx  californicus 

Valley  Quail,  Crested  Quail,  Topknot  Quail 
Cock  10"  Incubation  22  —  23  days 

Origin  West  coast  of  N.  America  from  Oregon  to  southern  California. 


G.  E.  S.  ROBBINS  -  QUAIL 


217 


GAMBEL’S  QUAIL  Lophortyx  gambelii 

Desert  Quail 

Cock  9V2n  Incubation  22  days 

Origin  Southern  Nevada  and  S.  W.  Utah  to  extreme  N.  W.  California. 

Northern  to  S.W.  New  Mexico  and  extreme  western  Texas. 

BOB  WHITE  QUAIL  Colinus  virginianus 

Virginian  Colin 

Cock  9"  Incubation  22  —  23  days 

Origin  Eastern  United  States  of  America. 

MASKED  BOB  WHITE  QUAIL  Colinus  virginianus  ridgwayi 
Masked  Colin 

Cock  8l/2n  Incubation  22  —  23  days 

Origin  Mid-southern  Arizona,  south  to  northern- central  Sonora  Mexico. 

BLACK-THROATED  BOB 
WHITE  QUAIL  Colinus  nigrogularis 

Yucatan  Bob  White 

Cock  8 yj'  Incubation  22  —  23  days 

Origin  Yucatan  peninsula,  coastal  portions  of  British  Honduras  to 
extreme  north-eastern  Nicaragua. 

SCALED  QUAIL  Callipepla  squamata 

Blue  Scaled  Quail,  Blue  Quail,  Cottontop  Quail,  Mexican  Quail 
Cock  9^"  Incubation  23  days 

Origin  Mexico,  Arizona. 

MOUNTAIN  QUAIL  Oreortyx  picta 

Painted  Quail,  Plumed  Quail,  Mountain  Partridge 
Cock  10"  Incubation  24  —  25  days 

Origin  North  America  from  state  of  Washington  to  California  also  in 
Mexico. 

BARRED  QUAIL  Philortyx  fasciatus 

Banded  Quail,  Chorunda 
Cock  8^"  Incubation  22  —  23  days 

Origin  South-west  Jaslisco  to  south-eastern  Geurrero,  Mexico. 

ELEGANT  QUAIL  Callipepla  douglasii 

Benson  Quail,  Douglas  Quail,  Yaqui  Quail 
Cock  10"  Incubation  22  days 

Origin  Western  Mexico  from  Sonora  and  Chihuahua  to  Nayairt  and 
Jalisco. 


218 


b.  R.  Bayliss 


GambeVs  Quail 


D.  R.  Bayliss 


Bob  White  Quail 


219 


D.  R.  Bayliss 


Blue  Scaled  Quail 


D.  R.  Bayliss 


Californian  Quail 


220 


G.  E.  S.  ROBBINS  -  QUAIL 


MEARN’S  QUAIL  Cyrtonyx  montezumae 

Harlequin  Quail,  Black  Quail,  Montezuma  Quail 
Cock  9^"  Incubation  24  —  25  days 

Origin  S.W.  America  to  Mexico. 

RAIN  QUAIL  Coturnix  coromandelica 

Black-breasted  Quail 
Cock  6"  Incubation  17  days 

Origin  India,  Ceylon,  Burma  to  Shan  State. 

PAINTED  BUSH  QUAIL  Perdicula  erythrorhyncha 

Cock  6"  Incubation  21  days 

Origin  India,  Western  Ghats  from  Khandala  south  to  Travancore. 

CHINESE  PAINTED  QUAIL  Coturnix  chinensis 

Blue-breasted  Quail,  Blue  Quail,  King  Quail 
Cock  5"  Incubation  16  —  18  days 

Origin  India,  South-east  China,  Thailand,  Indochina,  Ceylon,  Hainan, 
Formosa. 

COMMON  QUAIL  Coturnix  coturnix 

Eurasian  Quail,  Migratory  Quail 
Cock  7"  Incubation  16  —  18  days 

Origin  Eurasia  and  North  Africa. 

JAPANESE  QUAIL  Coturnix  japonica 

Cock  ll/2n  Incubation  16—18  days 

Origin  East  Asia,  Assam,  China,  Taiwan,  Philippines. 

HARLEQUIN  QUAIL  Coturnix  delagorguei 

Cock  6"  Incubation  17  days 

Origin  Africa,  South  of  about  15  degrees  north  latitudes. 

BROWN  QUAIL  Coturnix  ypsilophorus 

Cock  1"  Incubation  unknown 

Origin  Australia. 

To  maintain  breeding  birds  during  the  winter  a  diet  of  chick  crumbs 
mixed  with  white  millet  at  proportions  of  three  to  one  is  adequate;  in  the  case 
of  the  smaller  quail  mixed  millet  and  maw  seeds  is  added  to  the  crumbs 
together  with  a  little  live  food.  Birds  are  fed  ad  lib  all  the  year  round  from  a 
hopper,  grit  being  available  at  all  times. 

Given  reasonable  cover  of  grasses  and  shrubs  most  species  will  make  a 
scrape  for  a  nest,  and  if  the  eggs  are  left  untouched  the  parents  will  collect 
them  into  the  nest  and  brood  them  when  the  full  clutch  has  been  laid.  If  the 


G.  E.  S.  ROBBINS  -  QUAIL 


221 


breeding  pair  have  laid  within  a  confined  space  the  chicks  will  usually  stay 
with  the  parent  birds  to  maturity. 

For  those  who  wish  to  incubate  artificially  there  are  a  number  of  good 
incubators  on  the  market  which  will  hatch  quail  eggs  most  successfully:  we 
use  a  still  air  type  incubator  which  is  housed  in  a  barn  with  high  humidity, 
but  a  stone  outbuilding  or  stable  where  the  temperature  remains  constant  is 
equally  suitable. 

Eggs  should  be  collected  daily  and  stored  in  a  cool  place  until  sufficient 
numbers  are  available  to  set:  during  storage  they  should  be  turned  daily 
through  180  degrees,  it  is  unwise  to  keep  eggs  for  more  than  10  days  and 
expect  a  high  hatch  rate. 

When  using  a  still  air  incubator  the  eggs  have  to  be  turned  twice  a  day  and 
sprayed  with  water  on  each  occasion;  this  is  unnecessary  with  a  fully  automatic 
egg  turning  incubator.  It  is  well  to  date  the  eggs  at  the  time  of  setting  so  stale 
eggs  can  be  recognized  and  removed. 

When  the  quail  hatch,  they  are  left  in  the  incubator  for  at  least  twelve 
hours  before  being  placed  in  a  brooder  box.  This  is  made  of  13mm  chipboard 
and  measures  18"  (45.5cm)  by  16"  (41cm)  wide  by  9"  (23cm  high,  with  a 
wire  top  covered  with  a  sheet  of  glass  to  retain  the  heat  given  by  two  60  watt 
red  lamps  situated  at  the  rear  of  the  box.  A  floor  temperature  of  95  degrees  is 
obtained  under  the  lamps  by  adjusting  the  amount  of  air  space  on  the  top  by 
sliding  back  the  sheet  of  glass  the  required  amount.  For  ventilation 
(lcm)  holes  are  drilled  around  the  top  of  the  box.  The  chicks  if  too  hot  will 
spread  out  from  under  the  lamp,  if  too  cold  they  will  huddle  together. 

Newly  hatched  chicks  are  fed  on  chick  starter  crumbs  (25%  protein) 
ground  in  a  household  grinder  to  reduce  the  grain  size.  Additional  food  is  not 
normally  required  excepting  those  species  which  have  an  insectivorous  diet. 
The  chicks  remain  in  the  brooder  box  for  approx:  3  weeks  during  which  time 
the  heat  is  gradually  reduced;  they  are  then  transferred  to  an  outside  shed, 
the  floor  of  which  is  covered  in  peat,  the  heat  is  continued  until  the  quail  are 


Box 


UAH >  3z££OiN<i  Ho*A$c 


222  G.  E.  S.  ROBBINS  -  QUAIL 


lim. 


G.  E.  S.  ROBBINS  -  QUAIL 


223 


approx:  6  weeks  old  and  are  well  feathered. 

At  8  weeks  of  age  in  a  number  of  species  the  cock  birds  can  be  identified; 
however  with  those  such  as  Scaled  Quail,  one  has  to  wait  until  they  moult 
into  adult  plumage  at  between  12  —  16  weeks  before  they  can  be  feathered 
sexed. 

The  protein  level  required  at  8  weeks  can  be  reduced  to  20%  by  using  a 
chick  crumb  rather  than  a  starter  crumb;  young  quail  always  prefer  the 
smallest  crumb  size  possible. 

As  the  cock  birds  are  identified  it  is  advisable  to  separate  them  from  the 
hens  to  prevent  feather  pecking  and  fighting. 

With  the  difficulties  now  being  experienced  in  transferring  birds  from  one 
country  to  another,  due  to  restrictions,  together  with  the  high  cost  of 
quarantining,  it  makes  it  most  important  that  the  breeding  stock  held  in  each 
country  is  maintained  at  a  high  standard,  with  exchanges  being  made  to 
prevent  inbreeding. 

It  is  with  this  objective  in  mind  that  W.P.A.  Quail  group  was  formed  in 
April  1979. 


REFERENCES 

NIGEL  Whalley  —  W.P.A.  Census  of  Grouse,  Quail,  Partridge  and  Francolins.  W.P.A. 
Journal  III  1978. 


224 


THE  PHEASANT  TRUST 

By  PHILIP  Wayre,  Hon.  Director  (Great  Witchingham,  Norfolk) 

Twenty  years  ago,  this  year,  on  25  May,  1959,  the  Pheasant  Trust  came 
into  being  as  a  registered  public  charity.  Jean  Delacour  was  the  first  President 
and  was  to  remain  in  that  office  for  many  years,  while  Lord  Walsingham  was 
the  Trust’s  first  Vice  President.  Other  famous  names  to  hold  office  in  the 
new  Trust  include  Professor  Alessandro  Chigi,  Lord  Chaplin,  David  Seth- 
Smith,  John  Yealland,  Phyllis  Barclay-Smith  and  Edward  Hindle.  In  those 
days  the  Pheasant  Trust,  then  called  the  Ornamental  Pheasant  Trust,  was 
closely  affiliated  to  the  Avicultural  Society  and  the  Trust’s  first  four  Annual 
Reports  were  published  in  the  Avicultural  Magazine  for  it  was  not  until  1964 
that  the  Pheasant  Trust  produced  its  own  Annual  Report  in  conjunction 
with  that  of  the  Norfolk  Wildlife  Park.  At  that  time  Arthur  Prestwich, 
Honorary  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the  Avicultural  Society,  was  also  a 
prominent  member  of  the  Trust’s  Council. 

In  those  early  days  Europe  was  still  struggling  to  pull  itself  together  after 
the  devastation  of  World  War  II  and  there  were  few  pheasant  collections  in 
private  hands  of  any  size  either  on  the  Continent  or  in  Britain.  The  Leckford 
pheasantry  of  Spedan  Lewis,  soon  to  close  down,  was  at  that  time  still  by  far 
the  most  important  in  Britain. 

One  of  the  Pheasant  Trust’s  main  aims  has  always  been  to  breed  endangered 
species  of  pheasant  in  captivity  so  that  where  possible  young  birds  can  be 
reintroduced  to  the  wild  in  their  native  lands  wherever  suitable  habitat  still 
survives.  Other  aims  have  been  to  encourage  people  to  keep  and  study 
pheasants  in  captivity  and  to  use  whatever  means  are  available  to  promote 
the  conservation  of  these  beautiful  birds  in  the  wild.  Bearing  in  mind  the 
paucity  both  of  species  and  of  numbers  in  captivity  at  the  time  of  its 
foundation,  the  Trust  soon  set  about  importing  fresh  blood  from  abroad  and 
its  first  Annual  Report  gives  details  of  52  individuals  of  14  species  of  game 
birds  imported  by  the  Trust  during  the  first  year  of  its  operation.  This 
important  contribution  to  aviculture  was  to  continue  on  an  increasing  scale 
and  in  the  years  to  come  wild-caught  specimens  of  the  following  34  forms  of 
pheasant  were  imported,  most  of  which  have  been  propagated  at  Great 
Witchingham  and  they  or  their  progeny  distributed  to  members  throughout 
the  world:  — 

Western  Tragopan  Tragopan  melanocephalus,  Temminck’s  Tragopan 
Tragopan  temmincki ,  Cabot’s  Tragopan  Tragopan  caboti ,  Common  Koklass 
Pucrasia  m.  macrolopha,  Himalayan  Monal  Lophophorus  impeyanus,  Tonkinese 
Red  Junglefowl  Gallus  gallus  jabouillei ,  Ceylon  Junglefowl  Gallus  lafayettei , 
Sonnerat’s  Junglefowl  Gallus  sonnerati ,  Green  Junglefowl  Gallus  varius , 
Lineated  Kalij  Lophura  leucomelana  lineata ,  White-crested  Kalij  Lophura 
leucomelanahamiltoni,  Nepal  Kalij  Lophural.  leucomelana ,  Swinhoe’s  Pheasant 


PHILIP  WAYRE  -  PHEASANT  TRUST 


225 


Lophura  swinhoeii \,  Greater  Bornean  Crested  Vivebzck  Lophura  ignita  nobilis , 
Lesser  Bornean  Crested  Fireback  Lophura  ignita  ignita ,  Viellot’s  Crested 
Fireback  Lophura  ignita  rufa,  Malay  Crestless  Fireback  Lophura  erythrophthalma 
erythropthalma ,  Siamese  Fireback  Lophura  diardi,  Szechuan  White  Eared 
Pheasant  Crossoptilon  c.  crossoptilon,  Brown  Eared  Pheasant  Crossoptilon 
mantchuricum ,  Cheer  Pheasant  Catreus  wallichh ,  Elliot’s  Pheasant  Syrmaticus 
ellioti,  Hume’s  Bar-tailed  Pheasant  Syrmaticus  h.  humiae ,  Burmese  Bar¬ 
tailed  Pheasant  Syrmaticus  humiae  burmanicus,  Mikado  Pheasant  Syrmaticus 
mikado,  Chinese  Ring-necked  Pheasant  Phasianus  colchicus  torquatus,  Bianchi’s 
Pheasant  Phasianus  colchicus  bianchii,  Southern  Green  Pheasant  Phasianus  v. 
versicolor,  Himalayan  Grey  Peacock  Pheasant  Polyplectron  bicalcaratum  bakeri, 
Malay  Peacock  Pheasant  Polyplectron  malacense  malacense,  Palawan  Peacock 
Pheasant  Polyplectron  emphanum,  Malay  Great  Argus  Argusianus  argus  argus, 
Bornean  Great  Argus  Argusianus  argus  grayi  and  Indo-Chinese  Green  Peafowl 
Pavo  muticus  imerator. 

It  is  probably  true  to  say  that  without  the  Trust’s  importation  and  subsequent 
propagation  of  nearly  all  of  these  species  many  of  them  would  not  exist  to¬ 
day  in  private  collections  in  this  country,  Europe  or  America.  Certainly  no 
other  organisation  or  individual  has  ever  carried  out  importations  and 
subsequent  propagation  of  rare  pheasants  on  anything  like  this  scale. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  as  far  back  as  its  first  Annual  Report  in  1960, 
the  Trust,  through  the  generosity  and  enthusiasm  of  one  of  its  founder 
members,  Dr.  K.  C.  Searle,  already  possessed  two  pairs  of  the  very  rare  and 
endangered  Cabot’s  Tragopan.  For  many  years  to  come  the  Trust’s  nucleus 
of  this  species  was  the  only  breeding  group  in  captivity  in  the  world  and 
between  1960  and  1978  76  specimens  of  this  species  were  bred  at  Great 
Witchingham.  Only  recently  did  Council  decide  to  disperse  these  birds  to 
breeders  in  Britain,  America  and  Europe  in  an  attempt  to  ensure  its  future  in 
captivity  since  the  possibility  of  re-introduction  to  the  wild  in  its  native  land 
of  China  seemed  remote. 

Also  as  far  back  as  1960  the  importation  of  Common  Koklass  to  Great 
Witchingham  is  recorded.  These  birds  were  bred  successfully  for  the  first 
time  in  Britain  the  following  year  when  7  young  birds  were  reared.  For  a 
number  of  years  the  Trust  was  the  only  place  in  the  world  breeding  this 
species  in  captivity  and  since  1961  a  total  of  363  specimens  of  this  species  has 
been  reared  at  Great  Witchingham  and  since  it  is  not  considered  to  be  in 
danger  of  extinction  in  the  wild  all  of  these  birds  have  now  been  distributed 
to  other  breeders  throughout  the  world. 

More  recently  the  Pheasant  Trust  has  broken  new  ground  by  being  the 
first  organisation  in  Britain  to  carry  out  an  exchange  of  zoological  specimens 
with  the  People’s  Republic  of  China,  as  a  result  of  which  2  pairs  of  wild- 
caught  specimens  of  the  rare  and  endangered  Szechuan  White  Eared  Pheasant 
and  also  of  Brown  Eared  Pheasant  were  imported  and  young  birds  subsequently 
bred  from  them.  The  Szechuan  White  Eared  Pheasants  are  probably  the 
only  pure-bred  specimens  of  this  particular  race  in  captivity  outside  China, 


The  new  way  —  incubators  and  brooder  units  in  the  new  brooder  house  built 
in  1974. 


The  old  way  —  tending  bantam  foster  mother  with  young  pheasants  in  a 
Leckford  type  brooder  in  the  1960's. 


PHILIP  WAYRE  -  PHEASANT  TRUST 


The  old  way  -  tending  bantam  foster  mothers  in  the  Trust's  old  hatchery 
in  the  1960's. 


The  new  way  —  removing  newly  hatched  Szechuan  White  Eared  Pheasants 
Crossoptilon  c.  crossoptilon  from  an  incubator  in  the  new  brooder  house. 


228 


PHILIP  WAYRE  -  PHEASANT  TRUST 


while  no  wild-caught  specimens  of  the  Brown  Eared  Pheasant  appear  to  have 
been  imported  into  either  America  or  Europe  since  the  original  importation 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century.  The  fresh  genes  now  available  to 
breeders  will  make  an  important  contribution  to  the  future  of  this  species  in 
captivity. 

In  the  past  the  Trust  maintained  what  was  probably  the  largest  collection 
of  rare  pheasants  in  the  world,  but  in  recent  years  Council  has  decided  that 
with  the  future  of  many  species  assured  in  captivity,  the  Trust’s  resources 
should  be  devoted  to  the  conservation  of  pheasants  and  other  game  birds  in 
the  wild  rather  than  continuing  to  breed  species  in  captivity  for  which 
political  and  other  problems  preclude  the  possibility  of  re-introductions  to 
the  wild  in  the  foreseeable  future.  At  the  same  time  a  small  but  representative 
collection  of  endangered  species  will  continue  to  be  maintained  at  the  Trust’s 
headquarters  at  Great  Witchingham. 

During  the  past  two  decades  a  number  of  pheasants  which  were  rare  or 
non-existent  in  private  collections  have  been  bred  to  the  point  where  there 
are  now  satisfactory  numbers  in  captivity  in  Europe  and  America.  That  this 
satisfactory  state  of  affairs  has  been  reached  is  almost  entirely  due  to  the  past 
policy  of  the  Pheasant  Trust. 

Endangered  Species  Bred  at  Great  Witchingham 

Emphasis  has  always  been  placed  on  breeding  endangered  species  particularly 
where  there  seemed  to  be  a  possibility  of  a  successful  re-introduction  to  the 
wild.  Of  the  18  pheasants  listed  in  the  I.U.C.N.  Red  Data  Book  of  Endangered 
Species,  1,162  individuals  of  9  forms  have  been  bred  at  Great  Witchingham, 
some  of  which  as  detailed  below  have  been  returned  to  the  wild  in  their 
native  lands. 

Fortunately  the  Trust  has  the  space,  facilities  and  experience  to  breed 
large  numbers  of  pheasants  at  comparatively  short  notice.  This  means  that 
whenever  a  viable  re-introduction  programme  exists  within  its  native  land 
for  any  endangered  species  the  Trust  is  in  a  position  to  breed  young  birds 
specifically  for  such  a  project. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  during  the  past  two  decades  new  methods  of 
pheasant  management  have  been  evolved  at  Great  Witchingham  and  in 
particular  in  the  incubation  and  rearing  of  the  young  birds.  In  1974  a  new 
brooder  house  was  built  and  equipped  with  brooders  of  a  novel  but  simple 
kind  developed  at  the  Trust.  This  unit  proved  remarkably  successful  in 
subsequent  years.  At  the  same  time  the  policy  of  starting  eggs  off  under 
broody  bantams  and  subsequently  hatching  them  in  Marsh  Rolex  incubators 
was  instituted.  This  too  has  proved  extremely  successful  and  has  eliminated 
the  use  of  broody  bantams  as  foster  parents  with  all  the  disease  risk  which 
that  involves. 

Conservation 

Re-introductions  to  the  wild  have  always  been  high  on  the  Trust’s  list  of 
conservation  priorities.  The  first  successful  operation  to  help  save  a  pheasant 
which  had  become  extremely  rare  in  the  wild  was  carried  out  by  the  Trust  in 


PHILIP  WAYRE-  PHEASANT  TRUST  229 


Young  Swinhoe’s  Pheasants ,  Lophura  swinhoeii ,  bred  at  Great  Witchingham 
being  transferred  to  the  temporary  holding  pen  prior  to  their  release  in  the 
Che  Chi  Reserve  Forest  in  Taiwan  in  1967. 


Loading  Cheer  Pheasants,  Catreus  wallichii,  bred  at  the  Trust  for  their  4,500 
mile  journey  by  air  to  Himachal  Pradesh  in  northern  India  where  they  were 
subsequently  re-introduced  into  the  wild  in  the  western  Himalayas. 


230 


PHILIP  WAYRE  -  PHEASANT  TRUST 


1967  when  a  number  of  young  Swinhoe’s  Pheasants,  bred  at  the  Trust,  were 
released  in  a  reserved  forest  in  their  native  island  of  Taiwan.  The  colourful 
Swinhoe’s  Pheasant  is  unique  to  the  island  and  is  found  only  on  the  forested 
slopes  of  the  central  mountain  range.  The  area  chosen  for  the  release  is  under 
the  control  of  the  National  Taiwan  University.  Swinhoe’s  Pheasants  used  to 
be  found  there  and  now,  as  a  result  of  the  Trust’s  efforts,  it  is  once  again 
present.  A  further  consignment  of  young  birds  was  sent  for  release  in  the 
same  area  in  1968. 

In  the  autumn  of  1971,  24  young  Cheer  Pheasants  were  sent  as  a  gift  to  the 
Government  of  Himachal  Pradesh  for  release  in  a  reserved  forest  near  Simla. 
The  Cheer  Pheasant  although  not  as  colourful  as  some,  is  nevertheless  an 
interesting  bird  which  is  found  only  on  the  high  slopes  of  the  western 
Himalayas  where  it  lives  among  the  stunted  trees  in  the  boulder-strewn 
ravines.  Because  of  its  relative  tameness,  the  Cheer  Pheasant  is  easy  to  shoot 
and  to  trap  and  for  this  reason  its  very  existence  is  threatened.  Not  many 
years  ago  it  was  found  in  the  forests  round  Simla.  In  1973  a  further  consignment 
of  24  young  birds  was  sent  for  release  in  the  same  area  and  the  operation 
appears  to  have  been  successful  in  that  the  species  now  occurs  not  far  from 
the  locality  and  the  birds  may  well  be  descended  from  the  released  specimens. 

The  success  of  this  re-introduction  project  has  been  confirmed  by  two 
independent  workers.  Mr.  K.  L.  Mehta,  one  time  Wildlife  Warden  for 
Himachal  Pradesh  has  confirmed  that  on  a  recent  survey  of  the  area  he  found 
35  Cheer  Pheasants  including  4  hens  accompanied  by  7  to  9  chicks.  In 
addition,  Dr.  Anthony  Gaston  who  made  an  independent  visit  has  confirmed 
that  these  birds  still  occur  in  the  general  locality  and  may  well  have  descended 
from  the  introduced  specimens,  although  on  a  one  day  visit  to  the  actual 
release  area  he  was  unable  to  locate  any  birds  owing  to  the  height  of  the 
vegetation  at  that  time  of  the  year. 

The  Trust  has  always  given  support  and  encouragement  to  foreign  Govern¬ 
ments  and  organisations  attempting  to  breed  pheasants  for  re-introduction 
purposes.  Towards  the  end  of  1976  three  pairs  of  Himalayan  Monal,  three 
pairs  of  White-crested  Kalij  and  three  pairs  of  Cheer  Pheasants  were  presented 
to  the  Pakistan  National  Appeal  of  the  World  Wildlife  Fund  to  enable  the 
Government  of  the  Punjab  to  set  up  a  captive  breeding  project  for  these  three 
species,  all  of  which  are  indigenous  to  Pakistan  but  have  become  in  danger  of 
extinction  there.  One  of  the  aims  of  the  project  is  to  breed  large  numbers  of 
young  birds  which  can  be  released  in  suitable  wildlife  reserves  in  Pakistan. 

In  1971  five  pairs  of  Hume’s  Bar-tailed  Pheasants  and  other  endangered 
species  were  presented  to  Rangoon  Zoo  to  enable  its  Director  to  start  a 
captive  breeding  project. 

In  addition  to  its  re-introduction  projects,  the  Pheasant  Trust  has  produced 
a  full  Advisory  Report  on  the  conservation  of  wildlife  in  Taiwan,  including 
Pheasants,  for  the  Government  of  that  country.  An  Advisory  Report  on 
pheasant  conservation  in  Pakistan  with  a  special  reference  to  the  Kaghan 
Valley  was  produced  for  the  World  Wildlife  Fund  and  the  Government  of 


PHILIP  WAYRE  -  PHEASANT  TRUST 


231 


Pakistan.  In  addition,  field  work  and  surveys  of  pheasant  populations  have 
been  supported  by  the  Trust  in  Taiwan,  India,  Pakistan,  the  Philippines  and 
Malaysia. 

No  account  of  the  Pheasant  Trust’s  conservation  work  would  be  complete 
without  mention  of  the  International  Council  for  Bird  Preservation  of  whose 
Specialist  Pheasant  Group  the  Trust’s  Hon.  Director  was  Chairman  for  ten 
years.  During  that  time  the  Trust  provided  the  Headquarters  of  the  Group 
at  Great  Witchingham. 

Education 

Many  thousands  of  school  children  visit  the  Norfolk  Wildlife  Park  annually 
in  organised  parties  and  have  the  opportunity  to  see  the  Trust’s  birds  and  at 
the  same  time  to  learn  about  the  kind  of  work  the  Trust  is  doing  in  the  way  of 
practical  conservation.  In  addition,  the  Trust  has  trained  field  workers  and 
students  from  Nepal,  India,  Pakistan  and  Hong  Kong  in  pheasant  breeding 
and  rearing  and  in  conservation  generally. 

As  to  the  future,  the  Pheasant  Trust  will  continue  to  give  financial  support 
to  projects  connected  with  pheasant  conservation  throughout  Asia  and  to 
this  end  it  has  recently  established  an  Endowment  Fund,  the  income  from 
which  will  be  used  for  this  purpose.  The  breeding  of  large  numbers  of  a 
particular  species  of  pheasant  will  only  be  undertaken  when  a  viable  re- 
introduction  project  in  the  species’  native  land  becomes  practicable. 


232 


AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE  SPECIAL  ISSUES 

This  is  the  first  of  a  new  series  of  special  issues  which  will  occupy  the  last 
number  of  Avicultural  Magazine  in  each  year,  the  intention  being  to  discuss 
in  detail  the  aviculture  of  particular  groups  of  birds.  We  hope  that  these 
issues  will  be  a  source  of  much  interest  and  useful  information  to  our  readers. 

We  would  like  to  thank  all  the  contributors  who  have  spared  time  from 
busy  lives  to  write  for  this  issue  and  our  particular  thanks  are  due  to  John 
Yealland  who  has  been,  as  always,  a  patient  and  kindly  source  of  advice  and 
knowledge,  and  whose  help  in  proof-reading  has  been  invaluable,  not  only 
for  this  issue  but  for  every  number  of  the  Magazine  published  this  year. 

Since  the  breeding  of  rare  and  endangered  species  of  pheasants  is  a  vital 
part  of  their  conservation,  both  in  captivity  and  ultimately  in  the  wild,  it 
follows  that  the  pooling  of  experience  on  this  subject  is  essential.  In  this 
special  Pheasant  Issue  we  have  tried  to  gather  together  a  collection  of 
articles  which  are  representative  of  present  knowledge.  Inevitably,  the  great 
enthusiasm  which  pheasant  breeders  are  currently  showing  for  their  projects 
also  produces  conflict  of  opinion  and  this,  too,  is  reflected  in  some  of  the 
articles  in  this  issue.  The  Editor  cannot  accept  responsibility  for  the  opinions 
expressed  but  hopes  that  no  feathers  will  be  ruffled  by  any  of  them,  since  the 
common  aim  of  all  the  writers  is  to  preserve  this  very  beautiful  and  interesting 
group  of  birds.  It  is  also  hoped  that  this  issue  will  stimulate  further  articles, 
notes  and  correspondence  on  pheasant-keeping  for  future  publication  in  the 
Avicultural  Magazine. 

The  next  special  issue  will  appear  in  No.  4  of  V ol  86  (October — December 
1980)  and  will  be  devoted  to  birds  of  prey.  We  would  like  as  many  contributions 
as  possible,  long  or  short,  so  please  try  to  send  in  something.  The  final  copy 
date  is  1st  September  1980. 

Finally  we  would  like  to  wish  all  our  readers  a  very  happy  and  successful 
year  in  1980. 


Editor 


233 


WORLD  PHEASANT  ASSOCIATION  JOURNAL  IV  -  1979. 

Published  by  the  World  Pheasant  Association  1979.  Pp.  122:6  col.  pis., 

photos  and  drawings.  Price  £4.50. 

The  general  pattern  of  this  fourth  annual  publication  follows  that  of  its 
predecessors,  commencing  with  a  review  of  the  year’s  work  and  progress,  the 
seven  pages  devoted  to  it  being  largely  about  the  members  and  their  activities 
—  very  necessary  information  no  doubt,  though  unquestionably  the  birds 
make  more  interesting  reading  than  do  the  bird  people. 

A  paper  on  the  natural  life  of  two  flocks  of  the  Ocellated  Turkey  at  the 
Mayan  ruin  of  Tikal  (Tikal  National  Park)  Guatemala,  studied  for  two 
months  —  February  24th  until  April  13th  1977  goes  into  great  detail. 
Whether  this  species  is  sufficiently  different  from  the  other  member 
of  the  Meleagridae  to  warrant  a  separate  genus  is  a  matter  of  opinion  and 
here  the  former  generic  name  Agriocharis  gives  way  to  that  of  the  more 
northerly  (and,  of  course,  domesticated)  Meleagris  gallopavo.  The  American 
spelling,  “molt,  behavior”  etc.  should  have  been  brought  into  line  with  that 
in  the  other  papers,  particularly  as  this  is  an  English  publication,  exceptions 
being,  of  course,  quotations  which  must  be  given  exactly  as  in  the  original. 
There  must  surely  be  a  more  appropriate  name  for  the  adult  male  turkeys 
than  the  farmyard  term  “gobbler”.  The  two  coloured  photographs  of  male 
and  female  are  excellent,  the  iridescent  and  metallic  sheen  on  the  plumage 
being  accurately  depicted  and  this  is  so  in  the  case  of  a  coloured  plate  of  the 
male  Monal  in  this  Journal,  though  this  photograph  looks  sharp  enough  to 
have  been  much  enlarged  and  the  bird  could  have  been  twice  the  size  with, 
naturally,  the  back  and  foreground  correspondingly  reduced  in  area. 

There  are  comments  on  the  paper  in  the  1977  —  1978  Journal  on  the 
subject  of  inbreeding;  an  article  on  the  14  races  of  Silver  Pheasant  and  one 
on  the  parasitic  worms  which  includes  a  photograph,  much  enlarged,  of  the 
well  known  gapeworm,  though  the  magnification  is  not  given,  nor  is  it  clear 
whether  the  drug  Tetramisole  is  effective  with  Syngamus  as  with  other 
nematodes.  The  treatment  was,  however,  given  in  an  excellent  article  published 
in  the  Magazine  (vol.  84.  no.  4,  p.211)  together  with  advice  on  other  endo- 
parasites. 

An  account  of  the  Koklass  in  the  wild  in  the  northern  Pakistan  area  (WPA 
Project  86)  appears  to  suggest  that,  provided  sufficient  forest  is  left  (and,  of 
course,  the  birds  not  molested)  this  species  might  adapt  to  living  fairly  close 
to  human  habitation.  A  good  deal  of  space  is  devoted  to  the  calls  of  the 
Koklass,  but  a  reader  of  the  phonetic  renderings  of  these  or  most  other  bird 
calls  is  not  likely  to  be  any  the  wiser;  while  the  sonagrams  indicate  the  pattern 
and  volume,  only  a  recording  can  give  an  accurate  rendering  of  any  call. 

A  census  of  captive  pheasants,  junglefowl  and  peafowl  throughout  the 
world;  a  further  study  of  the  Crested  Argus  in  Malaysia;  an  account  of  the 
breeding  of  Crossoptilon  crossoptilon  in  the  Jersey  Wildlife  Park;  a  paper  on 
the  aviculturally  little  known  wood  quail  (12  or  14  species)  of  the  genus 
Odontophorus;  more  news  of  the  re-introduction  of  Cheer  Pheasants  into 


234 


Pakistan  and  reviews  of  recent  publications  of  relevance  to  the  Galliformes 
are  included  in  this  Journal  which  is  well  up  to  the  standard  of  previous 
numbers  at  no  increase  of  price  on  the  1977  —  1978  issue  and  only  five  fewer 
pages. 

J.J.Y. 


INDEX 


Acorn  Woodpecker,  Breeding  notes  on,  68 
Ajaia,  ajaja,  Handrearing  of,  23 
Amazon,  Isle  of  Pines,  85 
Amazona  leucocephaha  bahamensis,  18 
Amazona  leucocephaha  palmarum,  85 
Avicultural  Society,  Rules  of,  53 

Babbler,  Arrow,  Breeding  of,  112 
Breeding  Results  and  Photoperiod,  89 
Brolga,  Breeding  of,  139 

Cacatua  sulphur ea  citrinocristata  in  Sumba, 
93 

Chalcopsitta  s(c)intillata,  Breeding  of,  2 
Cockatoos,  Citron-crested  in  Sumba,  93 
Cockatoo,  Lesser  Sulphur-crested, 
Unusual  Feeding  habit  of,  31 
Cockatoo,  Salmon -crested,  Breeding  of, 
125 

Colibri-coruscans  X  Colibri  thalassinus, 
Rearing  of,  71 

Conure,  Green -cheeked,  Breeding  of,  157 
Coracias  caudata,  Breeding  of,  61 
Cracidae,  The,  210 
Cyanerpes  cyaneus,  Breeding  of,  6 

Garrulax  eruthrocephalus,  Breeding  of,  16 

Honeycreeper,  Golden-collared,  Breeding 
attempt  with,  141 
Hummingbird,  Hybrid  reared,  71 
Hummingbirds,  Methods  used  by  when 
capturing  insects,  26 

Jersey  Zoological  Park,  Breeding  results 
during  1978,  34 

Kenyan  Collection,  Notes  from,  95 

Laterallus  leucopyrrhus,  Breeding  of,  63 
Lilac-breasted  Roller,  Breeding  of,  61 

Mauritius  Pink  Pigeon,  Breeding  of,  1 
Melanerpes  formicivorus,  Breeding  notes 
on,  68 

Mousebird,  Blue-naped,  Breeding  of,  146 

Peafowl,  Congo,  Breeding  of,  160 
Pheasant  Aviculture,  173 
Pheasant  Eggs,  Hatching  in  Incubators, 
181 

Pheasants,  Exotic,  at  Liberty,  190 
Pheasant  Rearing,  Changing  Techniques 
in,  176 

Pheasant  Trust,  The  First  Twenty  years, 
224 

Pitta,  Giant,  Breeding  of,  109 


Red-billed  Hornbill,  Breeding  of,  59 
Red -headed  Laughing  Thrush,  Breeding 
of,  16 

Red-legged  Honeycreeper,  Breeding  and 
Handrearing  of,  6 
Reviews: 

Lovebirds  and  Related  Parrots  (G.  A. 
Smith),  42 

Veterinary  Aspects  of  Captive  Birds 
of  Prey  (J.  E.  Cooper),  44 
Highland  Wildlife  (R.  Perry),  101 
First  Aid  and  Care  of  Wild  Birds  (J.  E. 
Cooper  and  J.  T.  Eley),  102 
Raising  Doves  and  Pigeons  (C.  A. 
Naether),  103 

World  Pheasant  Association  Journal, 
IV,  1979,  223 

Snow  Goose,  Semi-albino,  5 
Social  Meeting,  Report  on,  99 
South  Africa,  News  from,  35 
Sparrow,  Yellow-throated,  Breeding  and 
Behaviour  of,  135 

Spenkelink,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  J.,  Collection 
of,  32 

Spoonbill,  Roseate,  Handrearing  of,  23 
Stanley  Cranes  at  Haughton  Hall,  96 

Tockus  erythrorhynchus,  Breeding  of,  59 
Tragopans,  199 

Trochilidae,  Methods  used  by  when 
capturing  insects,  26 

Woodpecker,  Great  Spotted,  Handrearing 
of,  121 

World  Pheasant  Association,  195 

Yellow-streaked  Lory,  Breeding  of,  2 

Zoos,  News  of: 

Berlin,  33,  98,  167 
Paignton,  97 


Quail  in  Captivity,  216 


THE  AVICULTURAL 
MAGAZINE 


BEING  THE  JOURNAL  OF 
THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Edited  by 

MARY  HARVEY 


VOL.  85 

JANUARY  1979  to  DECEMBER  1979 


Printed  by  Quintrell  &  Co.  Limited.,  Wadebridge,  Cornwall. 


1979 

(i) 


CONTENTS 


Title  Page  ............................ . . . . .  i 

Contents  ................................................  ii 

List  of  Contributors  . . . .............  iii 

List  of  Plates  . . . . . . . .  vi 

Index  ....................................................  235 


LIST  OF  CONTRIBUTORS 


Barnicoat,  F.  C. 

News  from  South  Africa .  35 

Bertagnolio,  P. 

Unusual  Feeding  habits  of  a  Lesser  Sulphur-crested  Cockatoo .  31 

Brown,  Dr.  A.  F.  Anderson 

Hatching  Pheasant  Eggs  in  Incubators .  181 

Carraway,  P.  &  C. 

The  Bahaman  Parrot .  18 

Coles,  D. 

Breeding  the  Red -headed  Laughing  Thrush .  16 

Crawford,  W. 

The  Handrearing  of  the  Roseate  Spoonbill .  23 

Dean,  G.  C. 

Stanley  Cranes  at  Haughton  Hall .  96 

DALACOUR,  Dr.  ]. 

Introduction  to  the  Pheasant  Issue .  171 

Dennis,  J.  V. 

The  Ivory-billed  Woodpecker .  75 

Elgar,  R.  J. 

A  Hybrid  Humming  bird  bred .  71 

Ellis,  M. 

Notes  from  a  Kenyan  Collection .  95 

Fletcher,  A.  W.  E. 

Hybrid  Teal .  164 

Gibson,  L. 

Breeding  and  Handrearing  the  Red-legged  Honeycreeper .  6 

Breeding  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus .  63 

Breeding  the  Arrow  Babbler .  112 

Breeding  the  Blue-naped  Mousebird .  146 

Goodwin,  d. 

Cock  Red-cheeked  Cordon  Bleu  hatching  and  rearing  young .  162 

Grahame,  I. 

Exotic  Pheasants  at  Liberty .  190 

Harvey,  M. 

The  Avicultural  Magazine .  45 


LIST  OF  CONTRIBUTORS 


Herring,  W.  p. 

Notes  on  the  Handrearing  of  the  Great  Spotted  Woodpecker .  121 

HODGES,  Prof.  J.  R.  and  R.  LOW 

The  Collection  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  J.  Spenkelink .  32 

HOWMAN,  K.  C.  R. 

Changing  Techniques  in  Pheasant  Rearing .  176 

JEGGO,  D. 

Breeding  the  Mauritius  Pink  Pigeon  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park .  1 

Breeding  Results  during  1978  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park .  34 

Kendall,  S.  b. 

Citron-crested  Cockatoos  in  Sumba .  93 

KLOS,  Prof,  Dr.  H.-G. 

News  from  the  Berlin  Zoo .  33,  98  ,  167 

White -crowned  Pigeons  at  the  Berlin  Zoo .  168 

KYME,  R.  T. 

Breeding  the  Yellow-streaked  Lory .  2 

LARUE,  C. 

Breeding  the  Brolga .  139 

Lopez,  Dr.  J.  E. 

The  Cracidae .  210 

LOVEL,  Dr.  T. 

The  World  Pheasant  Association .  195 

Low,  Rosemary 

Report  on  Social  Meeting .  99 

MCEWEN,  A. 

Breeding  attempt  with  the  Golden-collared  Honeycreeper .  141 

McKelvey,  S.  D.  &  Miller,  B.  W. 

Breeding  the  Giant  Pitta  at  San  Antonio  Zoo .  109 

MOBBS,  A.  J. 

Methods  used  by  Hummingbirds  when  capturing  insects .  26 

NOEGEL,  R. 

The  Isles  of  Pines  Amazon .  85 

Peratino,  W.  S. 

Breeding  the  Salmon-crested  Cockatoo .  125 


LIST  OF  CONTRIBUTORS 


Ripley,  Prof.  S.  Dillon 

A  Semi-albino  Snow  Goose .  5 

Robbins,  G. 

Quail  in  Captivity .  216 

Simmons,  J. 

Breeding  the  Red -billed  Hornbill .  59 

Breeding  the  Lilac -breasted  Roller .  61 

SlVELLE,  C. 

Tragopans .  199 

Skipper,  G. 

Breeding  Congo  Peafowl  at  Copenhagen  Zoo .  160 

Smith,  G.  A. 

Breeding  the  Green-cheeked  Conure .  157 

TODD,  W. 

Breeding  Notes  on  the  Acorn  Woodpecker .  68 

Trollope,  J. 

Breding  Results  and  Photo  Period .  89 

Breeding  the  Yellow-throated  Sparrow .  135 

WAYRE,  P. 

The  Pheasant  Trust .  224 

WHALLEY,  N.  H.  S. 

Pheasant  Aviculture .  173 


CORRESPONDENCE 

Request  tor  information  on  Captive  Grayson’s  Doves,  DR.  K.  C.  PARKES,  46.  First 
Breeding  Awards,  B.  E.  REED,  46.  Errata  in  the  Avicultural  Society’s  1977  Breeding 
Register,  DR.  J.  INGELS,  48.  Sexing  Bleeding-heart  Pigeons,  D.  COLES,  105.  Sexual 
ratio  in  Eclectus  Parrots:  Incidence  of  Twin  chicks  in  Psittaciformes,  W.  S.  PERATINO, 
106,  First  Breeding  Awards,  DR.  C.  HARRISON,  107.  Booming  display  of  the 
Yellow-knobbed  Curassow,  W.  TODD  &  P.  BAUML,  108.  Face-clawing  in  Parrots, 
ROSEMARY  LOW,  108.  Partial  Moult  in  a  Honeycreeper,  L.  GIBSON,  109. 


LIST  OF  PLATES 


Mauritius  Pink  Pigeon . . . . .  1 

Pair  of  Yellow-streaked  Lories .  4 

Semi-albino  Snow  Goose  . . . .  5 

Male  Red-billed  Hornbill  feeding  chicks . .  59 

Family  of  Red-billed  Hornbills .  60 

Lilac-breasted  Roller  chick . 61 

Laterallus  leucopyrrhus  chick  . . .  61 

Brown  Violetear  X  Green  Violetear  Hummingbird  chicks’  development 

(four  plates)  .  . . 72  &  73 

Juvenile  Giant  Pitta  assuming  adult  plumage . . .  109 

Nestling  Giant  Pittas  . . . . . .  Ill 

Arrow  Babbler  on  leaving  nest  at  14  days  old .  113 

Young  Great  Spotted  Woodpeckers  . . . .  122 

Development  of  young  Salmon-crested  Cockatoo  (eight  Plates)  128  &  129 

Young  Blue-naped  Mousebird . 155 

White-crested  Kalij  Pheasant  —  painting  by  R.  David  Digby  .....  171 

Pheasant  nest  box . . . .  .  177 

Small  still-air  incubator  . .  178 

Pheasant  chicks  under  black  infra-red  lamp  . . . .  179 

Plastic  Bits  for  Pheasants . 179 

Development  of  Pheasant  Eggs  (fourteen  plates  in  sequence)  .  .  183  —  187 

Male  Koklass  Pheasant . . . . . . .  191 

Satyr  Tragopan  . . .  . . . .  192 

Blue-eared  Pheasant . 193 

Tragopan  Aviary  . . .  . . . . .  199 


Blyth’s  Tragopan .  200 

Cabot’s  Tragopan .  200 

Wild-caught  Satyr  Tragopan .  202 

Temminck’s  Tragopan .  203  &  204 

Crax  rubra .  212 

Pauxi pauxi .  214 

Gambel’s  Quail .  218 

Bob  White  Quail .  218 

Blue  Scaled  Quail .  219 

Californian  Quail .  219 

Quail  Brooder  Box  (line  drawing) .  211 

Quail  Breeding  House  (line  drawing) .  222 

Brooding  methods,  old  and  new,  at  the  Pheasant  Trust .  226  &  227 

Swinhoe’s  Pheasants  released  in  Taiwan .  229 

Cheer  Pheasants  destined  for  release  in  India .  229 


The  Avicultural  Society 

FOR  THE  STUDY  OF 
BRITISH  &  FOREIGN  BIRDS 
IN  FREEDOM  &  CAPTIVITY 


OFFICERS  AND  COUNCIL 
as  at  31st  December  1979 


President 

DR,  JEAN  DELACOUR 


Vice-Presidents 


Miss  P.  Barclay-Smith  C.B.E.  J.  O.  D’eath 
W.  Van  den  bergh  J.  J.  Yealland 
D.  H.  S.  RlSDON 


Hon.  Vice-President 
A.  A.  Prestwick 


Hon.  Editor 

Mary  Harvey 


Hon.  Secretary-Treasurer 
H.  J,  HORSWELL 


Hon.  Assistant  Secretary 
Mary  Harvey 


Members  of  the  Council 


Coles 
Curzon 
W.  Ellis 
Miss  J.  Fenton 
Mrs.  R.  Grantham 
R.  C.  J.  Sawyer 


Prof.  J.  R.  Hodges 
K.  C.  R.  Howman 
K.  J.  Lawrence 
Dr.  T.  Lovel 
M.  Lubbock 
W.  Timmis 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 
PAST  AND  PRESENT 


PRESIDENTS 

1894-  1895  The  Countess  OF  Bective 

1895-  1920  The  Rev.  and  Hon.  F.  G.  DUTTON 

(later  CANON,  and  LORD  SHERBORNE) 
1921-  1925  The  Rev.  H.  D.  Astley 
1926-  1955  A.  Ezra,  O.B.E. 

1956-  1963  D.  SETH -SMITH 
1964-1967  Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 
1968-1972  A.  A.  PRESTWICH 
1972  Dr.  J.  Delacour 


1894- 

1895- 

1896- 
1899- 
1906- 


1925- 

1925- 

1925- 


VICE-PRESIDENTS 

1949-  1963 

1950-  1955 
1952-  1961 
1958-  1970 

1962-  1978 

1963-  1974 


-  1895  The  Rev.  and  Hon. 

F.  G.  Dutton 

-1900  The  Right  Hon.  the 

Baroness  Berkeley 
- 1899  Sir  H.  S.  Boynton,  Bt. 

-1906  A.  F.  Wiener 

-  1 937  Her  Grace  the  Duchess 

of  Bedford  1964-  1967 

1925-  1927  Her  Grace  the  Duchess  1967-  1973 

of  Wellington  1970 

1935  The  Lady  Dunleath 

1942  H.  R.  FlLLMER  1973 

1951  Dr.  E.  Hopkinson,  1973 

C.M.G.,  D.S.O.  1974-1979 

1938-1962  J.  Spedan  Lewis  1978 


Miss.  E.  Maud  Knobel 

D.  Seth -Smith 

E.  J.  Boose y 
Allen  Silver 

G.  S.  Mottershead 
Sir  Crawford 
McCullagh,  Bt. 

A.  A.  PRESTWICH 

J.  J-  Yealland 
Miss  P.  Barclay- 
Smith,  C.B.E. 

D.  H.  S.  Risdon 
J.  D’Eath 
W.  Conway 
W.  Van  Den  Bergh 


HON.  SECRETARIES 


1894-1896 

Dr.  C.  S.  Simpson 

1914-1916 

1896-1899 

H.  R.  FlLLMER 

1899-1901 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

1916-1919 

1901-1903 

R.  Phillipps 

1903-1904 

R.  Phillipps 

Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 

1919-  1920 

1904-1909 

T.  H.  Newman 

1921-1922 

Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 

1922-  1948 

1909-1914 

R.  I.  POCOCK 

1949-1970 

Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 

1971 

T.  H.  Newman 
Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 
Miss  R.  Alderson 
Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 
Dr.  L.  Lovell-Keays 
Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 
J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 
A.  A.  PRESTWICH 
H.  J.  Horswell 


HON.  ASSISTANT  SECRETARIES 
1950-1970  Miss  Kay  Bonner 
1971  Mrs  Mary  Harvey 


1894-  1897 
1897-  1899 

1899-1901 

1901-1906 

1906-1913 

1913-1917 


HON.  TREASURERS 
H.  R.  FlLLMER  1917-  1919 

O.  E.  CRESSWELL  1920 


A.  Ezra 

Dr.  L.  Lovell-Keays 


J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
W.  H.  St.  Quintin 
J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
B.  C.  Thomasett 


1921-  1922  J.  Lewis  Bonhote 
1923-1 948  Miss  E .  Maud  Knobel 
1949-  1970  A.  A.  PRESTWICH 
1971  H.  J.  Horswell 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTRUAL  SOCIETY 


HON.  EDITORS 

1804-1896 

Dr.  C.  S.  Simpson 

1924 

The  Marquess  of 

H.  R.  Fillmer 

Tavistock  (later  His 

1896-  1899 

H.  R.  Fillmer 

Grace  the  Duke  of 

1899-1901 

O.  E.  Cresswell 

BEDFORD) 

1901-1907 

D.  Seth-Smith 

1925 

The  Marquess  of 

1907-1908 

D.  Seth-Smith 

Tavistock 

Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 

D.  Seth-Smith 

1908-1909 

D.  Seth-Smith 

1926-  1934 

D.  Seth-Smith 

Frank  Finn 

1935 

The  Hon.  Anthony 

1909-1910 

Frank  Finn 

— 

Chaplin  (Later  the 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

Right  Hon. 

1910-1912 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

Viscount  Chaplin) 

1912-1917 

The  Rev.  H.  D.  Astley 

MissE.  F.  Chawner 

1917-1920 

Dr.  Graham  Renshaw 

1936-  1938 

MissE.  F.  Chawner 

1920-1923 

R.  I.  Pocock 

1939-  1973 

Miss  Phyllis 

D.  Seth-Smith 

Barclay-Smith, 

C.B.E. 

1974-  1978 

J.  J.  Yealland 

1979 

Mary  Harvey 

MEDALLISTS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


THE  PRESIDENT’S  MEDAL 
Miss  Phyllis  Barclay-Smith,  C.B.E.,  14th  March,  1960 
Arthur  Alfred  Prestwich,  14th  March,  1960 
Dr.  Jean  Delacour,  13th  March,  1967 
Walter  Van  Den  Bergh,  21st  February,  1973 


THE  KNOBEL  AWARD 
Sten  Bergman,  D.S.C.,  14th  March,  1960 
Curt  AF  Enehjelm,  14th  March,  1960 

THE  EVELYN  DENNIS  MEMORIAL  AWARD 
Mrs.  K.  M.  Scamell,  13th  November,  1967 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 

Founded  1894 

Membership  Subscription  is  £5.00  (U.S.A.,  $13.00)  per  annum,  due  on  1st  January 
each  year,  and  payable  in  advance.  Subscriptions,  Changes  of  Address,  Names  of  Candidates 
for  Membership,  etc.,  should  be  sent  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 

Hon.  Secretary  and  Treasurer:  Harry  J.  Horswell,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill 
Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


THE  AVICULTURAL  Magazine  is  distributed  by  the  Avicultural  Society  and  members 
should  address  all  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is  £6.00  (U.S.A.  $15.00)  per  year,  payable  in 
advance,  and  the  price  for  individual  numbers  is  £1  ($2.50)  per  copy.  Non-members  should 
also  send  their  subscriptions  and  orders  for  extra  copies  and  back  numbers  to  the  Hon. 
Secretary  and  Treasurer. 


Printed  by  Quintrell  &  Co.  Limited.,  Wadebridge,  Cornwall. 


fm 

5irds 

AVICULTURAL 

MAGAZINE 


VOLUME  86 


CONTENTS 


Breeding  the  Cock  of  the  Rock  at  Houston  Zoo  by  Rosemary  Low .  1 

(with  plate) 

Observations  of  Nesting  of  Greater  Hill  Mynahs  at  Van  Saun  Park  Zoo 

Paramus,  New  Jersey,  USA.  by  Andrew  J.  Ouse .  5 

Increasing  Fertility  of  Crane  Eggs  by  C.  LaRue .  10 

(with  plate) 

Some  Notes  on  Keeping  Cordon-Bleus  by  D.  Goodwin .  16 

Rothschild’s  Mynah  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park  by  D.F.  Jeggo .  30 

Some  Sources  of  Live  Food  by  L.  Gibson .  33 

Birds  of  a  Canberra  Garden  by  Alastair  Morrison .  40 

Report  of  a  Social  Meeting  held  on  16  January,  1980  by  Rosemary  Low .  44 

Miss  Phyllis  Barclay-Smith.  Obituary  by  Dr.  Jean  Delacour .  46 

Notes  on  the  Denver  Zoo  Bird  Collection  in  1979.  by  Edward  C.  Schmitt..  49 

News  from  the  Berlin  Zoo  by  Prof.  Dr.  H.  Georg  Klos .  50 

News  and  Views .  51 

Reviews . 56 

Correspondance .  60 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE 

The  Magazine  is  published  quarterly  and  sent  free  to  all  members  of 
the  Avicultural  Society.  Members  joining  at  any  time  during  the  year 
are  entitled  to  the  back  numbers  of  the  current  year  on  the  payment  of 
subscription. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire  SL5  8LT 
England. 


Cock  of  the  Rock  at  42  days 


Avicultural  —  Magazine 

THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Vol.  86  -  No.  1  -  All  rights  reserved. 


JANUAR  Y  -  MARCH  1 980 


BREEDING  THE  SCARLET  COCK-OF-THE-ROCK 
AT  HOUSTON  ZOO 

By  ROSEMARY  LOW  (New  Barnet,  Hertfordshire,  England) 


Prior  to  the  1970s  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  attempts  were  made  to 
breed  Cocks-of-the-Rock  in  captivity.  These  birds  were  well-known  to  avi- 
culturists,  however,  for  several  zoos  exhibited  single  males,  and  they  were 
occasionally  seen  on  the  show  bench. 

There  are  two  species,  the  Orange  ( Rupicola  rupicola ),  and  the  Scarlet 
or  Peruvian  (R.  peruviana).  Males  are  vividly  coloured,  especially  the  male 
Scarlet,  with  its  plumage  of  shiny  black,  scarlet  and  grey  and  its  striking 
full  crest.  Females  are  a  uniform  rich  reddish-brown.  Length  is  about 
36  cm  (14  in). 

The  Scarlet  Cock-of-the-Rock  is  found  in  Peru,  Colombia,  Ecuador, 
Venezuela  and  Bolivia.  It  is  renowned  for  its  communal  courtship  displays. 
Groups  of  males  dance  in  a  forest  clearing,  spreading  their  wings  and 
fanning  their  tails,  before  the  watching  females.  Their  nests  are  apparent¬ 
ly  constructed  from  mud  and  saliva  and  are  usually  positioned  against  a 
ravine  or  cliff,  usually  near  water. 

All  the  captive  breeding  attempts  which  occurred  during  the  1970s 
ended  in  failure.  In  Britain,  in  1970,  the  pair  belonging  to  Mr  and  Mrs  K. 
Scamell  hatched  a  chick  which  survived  for  23  days.  In  the  USA,  three 
zoos,  the  Bronx  (New  York),  Fort  Worth  and  Washington,  produced 
chicks,  none  of  which  lived  beyond  three  weeks. 

Success  was  finally  achieved  in  the  first  weeks  of  the  new  decade  -  at 
Houston  Zoo,  in  Texas.  So  many  breeding  successes  are  achieved  only 
after  previous  failure  and  much  heartache  -  known  only  to  those  who  are 
closely  involved  in  the  project  -  and  so  it  was  at  Houston. 


2 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  THE  COCK  OF  THE  ROCK 


This  story  started  in  the  summer  of  1978  when  a  female  was  acquired 
for  the  Zoo’s  single  male.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  Friends  of  Houston  Zoo 
who  provided  the  necessary  funds  for  the  purchase,  he  would  have 
remained  a  bachelor,  for  the  female’s  price  was  1,000  dollars.  After  the 
necessary  period  of  quarantine  the  female  was  introduced  into  the  rain¬ 
forest  exhibit  where  the  male  resided.  Only  three  days  later,  on  26th 
September,  she  started  to  construct  a  nest,  using  mud  and  palm  fibre,  in 
a  dark  corner.  A  single,  speckled,  buff-coloured  egg  was  laid  on  23rd 
November.  After  30  days  it  was  removed  and  found  to  be  infertile. 

In  January  the  female  laid  again  -  another  single  egg.  It  hatched  on  14th 
February.  The  male  was  then  removed  from  the  enclosure.  The  female 
proved  to  be  a  conscientious  parent.  She  was  seen  feeding  fruit  and  palm 
tree  berries  to  the  chick  and,  on  one  occasion,  a  mouse.  This  was  removed 
by  a  keeper  in  case  it  contained  poison. 

As  a  substitute  the  female  was  offered  an  anole,  a  small  lizard.  This  was 
eagerly  accepted  and  fed  to  the  chick.  As  she  had  previously  refused 
crickets  and  mealworms,  this  was  a  pleasing  development  as  some  protein 
was  essential  for  the  growing  chick.  However,  it  was  far  from  easy  to  find 
sufficient  anoles  during  the  cold  weather  of  March,  although  everyone  in 
the  Zoo  was  alerted  to  catch  these  lizards;  the  reptile  department  was  also 
able  to  supply  some.  Although  the  female  accepted  dog  chow,  fruit  and 
commercially  prepared  food,  she  obviously  preferred  the  anoles. 

By  the  time  the  chick  was  26  days  old  the  supply  of  these  lizards  had 
declined,  coinciding  with  weight  loss  in  the  chick.  To  monitor  its  growth, 
it  had  been  weighed  daily.  The  decision  was,  therefore,  made  to  remove 
the  chick  from  the  nest  on  the  28th  day.  To  the  intense  disappointment  of 
everyone  concerned,  the  chick  died  during  the  night.  Autopsy  revealed 
that  bacterial  enteritis,  or  inflammation  of  the  intestine,  was  the  cause 
of  death. 

At  the  end  of  November  1979  the  female  laid  two  eggs.  They  hatched 
on  25th  and  26th  December.  She  again  proved  to  be  a  conscientious  par¬ 
ent,  seldom  leaving  the  nest.  The  chicks  progressed  well  until  the  apparent¬ 
ly  critical  age  of  three  weeks,  when  their  weight  began  to  show  fluctua¬ 
tion.  Intervention  was  then  essential,  but  what  was  the  best  course  of 
action?  Should  the  chicks  be  given  supplementary  feeding,  should  one  be 
removed  from  the  nest  or  should  both  be  taken? 

The  first  alternative  was  rejected  for  fear  of  sating  the  chicks’  appetites, 
resulting  in  the  female  ceasing  to  feed  them.  The  second  was  discarded  as 


3 


R  .LOW  -  BREEDING  THE  COCK  OF  THE  ROCK 


it  was  felt  that  two  chicks  might  stimulate  each  other  to  feed  and  the 
third  alternative  was  decided  upon. 

The  chicks  were  removed  from  the  nest  on  15  th  January  and  taken  to 
the  home  of  the  Curator  of  Birds,  Robert  J.  Berry.  Under  his  surveillance 
night  and  day,  they  were  fed  hourly  during  the  day,  on  a  commercial 
food,  Zupreem ,  manufactured  for  birds  of  prey.  This  was  mixed  with  cat 
chow  and  offered  in  marble-sized  balls.  Alternative  feeds  consisted  of 
pieces  of  avocado  and  peeled,  halved  grapes.  As  the  grape  skin  was  not 
being  digested,  this  was  not  fed. 

The  eldest  chick  was  then  21  days  old  and  weighed  150  g;  the  maxi¬ 
mum  weight  of  the  previous  year's  chick  which  had  died  at  28  days  was 
159  g.  The  eldest  chick  soon  began  to  give  great  cause  for  concern.  Tests 
for  salmonella  proved  positive.  In  spite  of  injections  it  was  impossible  to 
control  the  infection  and  the  chick  died  on  20th  January  aged  25  days. 

More  problems  were  ahead.  Next  day  the  second  chick  developed  a 
high  temperature  and  rapid  respiration.  Despite  treatment,  it  lost  40  g 
in  five  days.  Due  to  the  intensive  24-hour  care  of  Bob  Berry  and  the 
attention  of  the  Zoo's  veterinary  surgeon,  Dr.  Harwell,  it  survived  this 

crisis. 


Its  diet  had  been  changed  gradually  to  consist  mainly  of  cat  chow, 
chopped  pink  mice  and  blueberries,  as  grapes  did  not  agree  with  it. 
Feeding  was  still  carried  out  at  hourly  intervals  during  the  day. 

No  more  problems  were  experienced  and  on  9th  February,  aged  46 
days,  the  young  Cock-of-the-Rock  picked  up  two  pieces  of  cat  chow  and 
ate  them.  Three  days  later  it  left  the  bowl  in  which  it  was  kept  on  its  own 
volition  and  made  a  3  ft  horizontal  flight.  By  then  it  had  acquired  the 
gutteral  tones  of  the  adult. 

A  few  days  later  the  mission  to  rear  the  first  Cock-of-the-Rock  in 
captivity  was  accomplished  and  the  young  bird  was  returned  to  the  Zoo. 

In  achieving  this  valuable  success,  the  Curator  of  Birds  acknowledges 
the  assistance  of  Trey  Todd,  supervisor  of  the  tropical  bird  house,  and 
keepers  Chelle  Plasse  and  Scott  McKnight. 

Multiple  successes  have  occurred  with  a  number  of  softbills  at  Houston. 


4 


R.LOW  -  BREEDING  THE  COCK  OF  THE  ROCK 


Results  with  Touracos,  for  example,  have  been  exceptional  and  unprece¬ 
dented  in  any  other  collection.  Breeding  pairs  of  eight  species,  including 
Grey,  Schalow’s,  White-cheeked,  Red-crested  and  White-crested,  are  kept 
and  all  eight  species  have  reared  young.  This  was  finally  achieved  last 
Christmas  with  the  fledging  of  a  Ross’s  Touraco,  Musophaga  rossae.  In 
addition,  some  Touracos  have  been  reared  to  several  generations. 

Another  world  first  breeding  at  Houston  Zoo  was  the  rearing  in  1978 
of  a  Red  Bird  of  Paradise,  Paradisea  rubra.  Other  notable  successes 
include  Toucans,  Hyacinthine  Macaws,  King  Vultures,  rare  cracids  such 
as  the  Nocturnal  Curassow,  and  Brown  Pelicans. 

Here  the  emphasis  is  very  much  on  consistent  results,  for  multiple 
generation  breedings  of  a  few  species,  rather  than  isolated  successes  with 
a  number,  are  the  only  way  to  achieve  significant  results. 


5 


OBSERVATIONS  OF  NESTING  OF  GREATER  HILL  MYNAHS 
(Gracula  religiosa )  AT  VAN  SAUN  PARK  ZOO,  PARAMUS, 
NEW  JERSEY,  USA 

By  ANDREA  J.  OUSE  (Assistant  Zoologist) 


Greater  Hill  Mynahs  have  been  popular  cage  birds  since  the  1940s 
(Bates  and  Busenbark,  1966)  though  importation  has  been  the  primary 
means  of  acquisition  because  of  their  general  reluctance  to  breed  in  cap¬ 
tivity.  Considering  the  greater  restrictions  on  importation,  these  obser¬ 
vations  of  their  nesting  behaviour  may  be  useful  to  others  who  wish  to 
propagate  this  species. 

The  Van  Saun  Park  Zoo  is  a  small  facility  (3  acres)  located  in  north¬ 
eastern  New  Jersey.  Many  of  the  exhibits  are  seasonal  with  delicate  ani¬ 
mals  held  in  off-display  areas  during  the  cooler  weather  (October-May). 
The  birds  in  this  study  bred  during  the  off-exhibit  season  when  they  were 
not  exposed  to  the  public. 

Over  a  period  of  several  years  the  Van  Saun  Park  Zoo  had  acquired 
five  Greater  Hill  Mynahs.  The  origins,  ages  and  sexes  were  unknown  as 
most  of  them  had  been  donated  to  the  Zoo  as  unwanted  pets.  The  group 
of  birds  was  housed  in  an  indoor  enclosure  measuring  4  feet  by  4  feet  by 
4  feet,  made  of  a  wooden  frame  and  14-inch  hardware  cloth.  Several  nat¬ 
ural  branch  perches  and  a  nest  box  measuring  12”  by  8”  by  13”  deep  with 
a  414”  hole  7”  from  the  bottom  were  provided.  The  area  received  natural 
daylight  augmented  by  fluorescent  lighting  that  was  turned  on  during  the 
working  hours  (8.00  a.m.  to  5.00  p.m.).  Although  there  was  a  great  deal 
of  exposure  to  keepers  moving  about  the  vicinity  of  the  cage  to  take  care 
of  other  animals,  perhaps  the  experience  of  human  contact  as  pets  pre¬ 
vented  the  birds  from  being  extremely  disturbed  by  it. 

The  birds  were  maintained  in  good  health  on  a  daily  diet  of  moistened 
Gaines  dog  meal,  Zu  Preem  Instant  Feline  diet,  ground  hard-boiled  egg, 
fresh  fruits  and  vegetables  and  a  multi-vitamin  and  mineral  supplement 
(Vitamycin).  Live  foods  such  as  mealworms,  crickets  and  newborn  mice 
were  offered  frequently  and  accepted  with  relish. 

On  March  17, 1979,  one  bird,  designated  VS  125,  its  acquisition  number, 
was  observed  visiting  the  nest  box,  peering  in  and  then  crouching  with 
quivering  wings  and  low  vocalisations  on  a  perch  near  the  box.  It  would 
then  hop  to  a  position  immediately  next  to  another  bird,  VS298,  which 


6 


ANDREA  I.  OUSE-  NESTING  OF  GREATER  HILL  MYNAHS 


would  preen  it  lightly  around  the  head  and  neck.  Birds  in  this  group  fre¬ 
quently  displaced  one  another  on  a  perch,  but  were  not  observed  to  come 
to  rest  in  such  close  proximity.  VS125  usually  assumed  a  very  erect  pos¬ 
ture  when  perched  near  VS298  who  crouched  slightly  except  when  preen¬ 
ing.  At  one  time  another  bird  flew  up  to  investigate  the  box  and  was  dri¬ 
ven  away  immediately  by  VS  125.  The  nest  investigating  and  preening  by 
the  two  birds  occurred  frequently  throughout  the  day,  and  the  following 
day  all  the  birds  except  for  the  assumed  pair  were  moved  to  other  quar¬ 
ters. 

A  variety  of  nest  material  was  offered  including  small  twigs,  straw  and 
pieces  of  string.  Immediately  after  placing  the  material  on  the  cage  floor, 
VS  125  began  to  carry  twigs  into  the  nest  box.  It  would  interrupt  the  nest 
building  occasionally  to  be  preened  by  VS  298.  On  several  occasions  VS 
298  visited  the  box  and  peered  in,  but  did  not  enter.  The  nest  building 
activity  by  VS  125  continued  for  six  days.  During  this  time  the  other  bird 
sometimes  manipulated  some  of  the  nest  material,  but  did  not  place  it  in 
the  nest.  A  few  days  later  though,  both  birds  were  seen  carrying  twigs  to 
the  box  with  VS  298  entering  the  nest  to  arrange  material  brought  up  by 
its  mate.  During  this  nest  building  period  both  birds  were  observed  to 
crouch  and  quiver  before  entering  the  box. 


On  2nd  April,  1979,  the  attending  keeper  checked  the  nest  but  found 
that  no  eggs  had  been  laid.  Through  the  following  week,  VS  298  spent  in¬ 
creasing  amounts  of  time  in  the  nest  box  though  VS  125  was  also  seen  in 
the  nest.  On  9th  April,  1979,  the  nest  was  checked  again  and  three  pale 
blue  eggs,  mottled  with  brown,  were  discovered.  Although  mating  was  not 
seen,  VS  125  was  assumed  to  be  the  male  and  VS  298  the  female,  based 
on  the  postures  described  by  Bates  and  Busenbark,  1966.  The  eye  and  leg 
colour  differences  described  by  Boosey  (1957)  were  not  obvious  in  our 
birds. 

During  the  incubation  period  we  wished  to  ascertain  quantitatively  which 
bird  spent  more  time  incubating  the  eggs  and  began  a  system  of  spot 
observations  recording  the  time  of  day,  which  bird  was  in,  which  out  of 
the  nest  and  comments  on  the  circumstances  of  the  observation.  Eighty- 
nine  observations  were  made:  in  46  (52%)  VS  298  was  alone  in  the  nest; 
in  17  (19%)  VS  125  was  in  the  nest;  in  26  (29%)  both  birds  were  out, 
usually  when  disturbed  or  when  food  was  presented.  In  no  instance  were 
both  birds  seen  in  the  nest  together,  nor  was  food  carried  to  the  incuba¬ 
ting  bird  by  its  partner. 


ANDREA  J.OUSE  -  NESTING  OF  GREATER  HILL  MYNAHS 


7 


The  first  hatching  occurred  on  20th  April  1979,  18  days  after  the  first 
egg  was  probably  laid.  A  cleanly-broken  shell  was  found  on  the  cage  floor. 
The  second  egg  shell  was  thrown  out  of  the  nest  on  23rd  April.  The 
third  egg  did  not  hatch,  and  was  presumed  to  have  been  eaten  by  the 
birds.  Greater  quantities  of  live  food,  mealworms,  crickets  and  newborn 
mice  were  offered  several  times  daily  as  soon  as  the  hatching  was  discov¬ 
ered,  and  both  parent  birds  took  turns  carrying  food  to  the  chicks. 
Usually  a  food  item  was  mashed  against  the  perch  before  being  brought 
into  the  nest  for  the  young  birds. 

Fledging  occurred  at  approximately  30  days,  though  the  young  birds 
continued  to  receive  food  from  the  parents  and  gradually  began  to  find 
food  for  themselves.  When  the  youngsters  were  obviously  self-reliant,  they 
were  removed  from  the  parents’  enclosure.  They  had  almost  reached  adult 
size,  and  differed  mainly  in  the  colour  and  size  of  the  wattles  which  app¬ 
eared  pale  and  small  compared  to  those  of  the  adults.  At  one  year  of  age, 
they  still  were  not  as  fully  developed  as  those  of  the  adults. 

Shortly  after  the  young  birds  were  removed,  the  parents  made  another 
attempt  to  nest.  No  new  material  was  added  to  the  nestbox,  but  three  eggs 
were  laid.  This  time  the  parents  seemed  less  attentive  to  the  incubation, 
and  after  20  days  the  eggs  were  found  broken  on  the  cage  floor.  Presence 
of  a  large  amount  of  yolk  indicated  that  they  had  not  developed  and  were 
probably  not  fertile.  Within  a  few  days  after  this  failed  attempt,  both  par¬ 
ents  moulted  and  lost  interest  in  the  nest. 

On  11th  October  1979,  VS  298  died  suddenly  of  liver  and  intestinal 
ailments.  Sex  was  determined  conclusively  as  a  female  at  the  post  mortem. 
This  confirmed  assumptions  that  most  of  the  nest  building  was  performed 
by  the  male  and  that  most  of  the  incubation  was  done  by  the  female. 

A  new,  sturdier  nest  box  measuring  8”  by  8”  by  12”  deep  with  a  3” 
hole,  5”  from  the  bottom,  was  placed  in  the  cage  with  VS  125  and  three 
other  adult  birds,  including  one  new  to  the  collection,  were  introduced 
with  the  hope  of  another  pair  forming  with  this  now  certain  male.  Instead, 
within  a  few  days,  frequent  conflict  was  observed  between  that  bird  and 
another,  VS  399.  Also,  VS  399  was  seen  in  close  proximity  to  VS  294, 
carrying  out  the  postures  and  preening  similar  to  those  seen  in  the  first 
pair. 

The  same  procedure  was  followed  with  this  new  pair.  After  two  unsuc¬ 
cessful  attempts,  a  clutch  of  three  eggs  was  laid  and  two  young  hatched. 


ANDREA  J.  OUSE  -  NESTING  OF  GREATER  HILL  MYNAHS 


The  third  egg  was  thrown  out  of  the  nest  about  a  week  later.  When  the 
attending  keeper  checked  the  nest  again,  13  days  later,  only  one  chick 
remained.  The  other  apparently  had  been  consumed  by  the  parent  birds. 
This  remaining  chick  was  raised  to  fledging  in  30  days  as  before. 

The  following  summarises  results  of  five  clutches  from  two  pairs  of 
Greater  Hill  Mynahs: 


1 

3  eggs 

VS298&  VS125 

Hatched  and  reared  two  to  fledging 

2 

3  eggs 

VS298  &  VS125 

Infertile  -  no  re-nesting 

3 

3  eggs 

VS294  &  VS399 

Thrown  out  of  nest  -  cage  disturbed 

4 

2  eggs 

VS294  &  VS399 

Dropped  on  floor  -  no  re-nesting 

5  3  eggs 

SUMMARY 

VS294  &  VS399 

Hatched  2,  reared  1  to  fledging 

1.  Though  a  large  aviary  may  be  desirable,  our  success  in  a  relatively 
small  area  demonstrates  that  compatible  partners, separated  from  distur¬ 
bances  by  other  members  of  the  same  species,  are  perhaps  more  critical 
than  cage  size. 

2.  Postures  mentioned  in  Bates  and  Busenbark  (1966)  seemed  valid  indi¬ 
cators  of  sex  though  eye  and  leg  colour  differences  suggested  by  Boosey 
(1957)  were  not  obvious  in  our  birds. 

3.  Nest  -building  was  initiated  in  each  case  by  the  male  bird. 

4.  Both  birds  shared  the  incubation,  but  the  female  spent  more  time  on 
the  nest  than  did  the  male. 

5.  Within  a  group  of  birds,  pairs  of  Greater  Hill  Mynahs  may  select 
themselves  if  a  suitable  nest  site  is  provided. 


I  wish  to  express  thanks  to  William  Fiore,  zoologist,  Van  Saun  Park  Zoo, 
for  his  support  and  encouragement  of  this  project,  to  James  Komsa, 
Animal  Keeper,  Van  Saun  Park  Zoo,  for  his  devoted  attention  to  the 
wellbeing  of  the  birds  in  this  study,  and  to  Kevin  Bell,  Curator  of  Birds, 
Lincoln  Park  Zoological  Garden,  for  his  suggestions  and  comments  on 
this  paper. 


ANDREA  J.  OUSE  -  NESTING  OF  GREATER  HILL  MYNAHS 


9 


REFERENCES 

BATES,  H.  and  R.  BUSENBARK,  1966.  Guide  to  Mynahs.  THF Publ 

BOOSEY,  E.J.  1957.  First  Breeding  of  the  Greater  Hill  Mynah  (. Eulabes  religiosa ) 

at  the  Keston  Foreign  Bird  Farm.  Avicultural Magazine  63:  160-162 


PRODUCTS  MENTIONED 

Gaines  Dog  Meal  -  General  Foods  Corporation,  White  Plains,  New  York 

Zu  Preem  Instant  Feline  Diet  -  Hills  Division,  Riviana  Foods  Inc.,  Topeka,  Kansas. 

Vitamycin  -  Pitman-Moore,  Washington  Crossing,  New  Jersey. 


10 


INCREASING  FERTILITY  OF  CRANE  EGGS 

By  C.  LARUE  (Head  Aviculturist,  International  Crane  Foundation 
Baraboo,  Wisconsin,  USA) 


Introduction 

Many  zoos  and  private  aviculturists  keep  cranes  which  are  rendered 
flightless  through  pinioning,  tenectomy,  or  wing  clipping.  The  high  inci¬ 
dence  of  infertile  eggs  in  many  captive  cranes  suggest  that  these  proced¬ 
ures  may  have  a  detrimental  effect  on  fertility.  Other  reasons  for  infertile 
eggs  may  be  the  absence  of  copulation  due  to  incompatible  pairs,  inter¬ 
ruption  of  precopulatory  behaviour  by  people  or  other  animals,  and  im¬ 
proper  sexing  of  the  “pair”. 

In  an  effort  to  increase  fertility  some  crane  breeding  centres,  notably 
the  Patuxent  Wildlife  Research  Center  and  the  International  Crane  Foun¬ 
dation,  have  implemented  artificial  insemination  (AI)  as  a  propagation 
tool.  Many  of  the  problems  which  produce  infertile  eggs  can  be  overcome 
by  using  AI.  Artificial  insemination  is  practiced  at  I.C.F.  for  a  variety  of 
reasons,  prominent  among  these  are  the  following  situations: 

(1)  Individuals  of  a  pair  are  incompatible  because  of  behavioural 
problems  and  must  be  kept  separated; 

(2)  There  is  a  shortage  of  unrelated  sexually  mature  males; 

(3)  Breeding-age  males  are  unable  to  copulate  due  to  pinioning 
or  other  anatomical  disabilities; 

(4)  Birds  are  sexually  imprinted  on  humans  and  will  not  form 
pair  bonds  with  other  cranes  ; 

(5)  A  pair  is  physically  capable  of  breeding  but  does  not  copulate 
due  to  one  or  more  of  a  variety  of  inhibiting  factors; 

(6)  New  bloodlines  are  desired  to  improve  the  genetic  variability 
in  the  captive  flock. 


The  technique  of  AI  through  the  massage  method  has  been  described  in 
other  publications  (Gee,  1969,  Archibald,  1974,  and  Gee  and  Temple,  1978) 
but  will  be  repeated  here  in  the  hope  of  encouraging  more  aviculturists  to 


C.LARUE  -  INCREASING  FERTILITY  OF  CRANE  EGGS 


11 


attempt  AI  when  applicable.  AI  is  as  much  an  art  as  a  science  but  it  is  not 
difficult  to  learn.  The  methods  used  vary  somewhat  between  individual 
people  and  individual  birds. 

Handling 

The  capturing  and  handling  of  the  bird  requires  a  concentrated  effort 
to  prevent  injuries  to  both  the  bird  and  the  aviculturist.  In  several  years  of 
AI  at  the  Foundation  there  has  never  been  a  fatality  or  serious  injury  dur¬ 
ing  this  process.  Normally  the  bird  is  herded  by  two  or  three  people  into  a 
corner  which  has  been  lined  with  conifers  to  act  as  padding.  The  bird  is 
then  grabbed  gently  by  the  neck  just  below  the  head  and  by  one  wing.  It 
is  important  to  protect  both  yourself  and  the  bird’s  neck  from  being 
struck  by  their  flailing  feet  and  sharp  nails.  The  bird  is  immediately  placed 
head  first  between  the  holder’s  legs.  The  bird’s  head  can  be  released  and 
the  bird  held  firmly  pressed  against  the  holder’s  thighs.  Normally  the  bird 
will  relax  a  little  at  this  point  but  if  it  continues  to  struggle,  a  hood  may  be 
placed  over  the  bird’s  head. 

Semen  Collection 

Three  people  are  usually  involved  in  semen  collection  although  two 
people  can  do  the  job  satisfactorily.  The  person  holding  the  bird  is  the 
“stroker”  whose  job  it  is  to  restrain  the  bird  while  stroking  the  bird’s 
thighs.  The  wings  are  allowed  to  remain  free  and  should  not  be  held  be¬ 
tween  the  stroker’s  legs.  The  arms  are  placed  behind  the  wings  with  the 
forearms  pressing  the  bird  forward  against  the  stroker’s  legs.  The  massage 
usually  begins  as  an  up-and-down  motion  on  the  birds’  sides,  moving  down 
to  the  inside  of  the  thighs  where  the  up-and-down  strokes  are  continued. 
Normally  the  bird  responds  by  raising  its  tail,  contracting  the  cloaca 
repeatedly,  and  often  purring  or  clucking. 

The  second  person  involved  is  the  “teaser”  who  squeezes  the  cloaca  in  a 
milking  action  which  results  in  the  ejaculation  of  a  small  quantity  of  sem¬ 
en.  This  usually  occurs  within  a  few  second  but  some  birds  may  take  long¬ 
er.  Various  methods  can  be  employed  but  our  preferred  method  is  for  the 
teaser  to  stand  on  the  right  side  facing  the  opposite  direction  of  the  bird. 
Placing  the  right  hand  around  and  above  the  cloaca,  the  thumb  is  at  the 
right  side  of  the  cloaca  and  the  fingers  are  at  the  left  side.  The  heel  of  the 
right  hand  helps  to  hold  up  the  bird’s  tail  pushing  it  over  the  bird’s  back. 
The  left  hand  is  placed  under  the  cloaca,  first  stroking  the  abdomen  a  few 
times.  The  thumb  of  the  left  hand  is  then  placed  above  the  cloaca  while 
the  fingers  are  below  the  cloaca  and  pressure  is  applied  in  unison  with  the 


12 


C:  LARUE  -  INCREASING  FERTILITY  OF  CRANES  EGGS 


thumb  and  fingers  of  the  right  hand.  This  method  results  in  a  milking  ac 
tion  from  all  four  directions  around  the  cloaca.  In  some  techniques  the 
left  hand  would  be  used  to  manipulate  the  cloaca  while  the  right  hand 
would  hold  the  shot  glass  or  eye  cup  for  collecting.  We  use  a  third  person 
to  hold  the  small  shot  glass  at  the  base  of  the  cloaca  to  catch  the  ejaculate. 
Very  small  samples  may  have  to  be  scraped  off  the  cloaca  onto  the  rim  of 
the  glass. 


Elizabeth  Deakman 

Collecting  semen  from  a  Red-crowned  Crane  ( Gms  japonensis ) 
in  a  small  plastic  funnel  with  plugged  end 


C.  LARUE  -  INCREASING  FERTILITY  OF  CRANES  EGGS 


13 


It  is  important  to  avoid  contamination  of  the  semen  with  urates  during 
the  collection.  It  helps  to  walk  the  bird  and  hestitate  before  capture  to 
encourage  the  bird  to  defecate  before  handling.  If  the  glass  becomes  con¬ 
taminated  during  the  collection  a  second  shot  glass  may  often  be  substitu¬ 
ted  quickly  enough  to  catch  a  clean  semen  sample.  Uncontaminated  semen 
is  translucent  with  a  slight  frosty  appearance.  Normally  only  a  few  drops 
will  be  ejaculated  measuring  from  about  .01  ml  to  0.3  ml.  If  the  ejaculate 
is  milky  and  of  large  volume  it  is  probably  contaminated  with  urates. 
Because  urates  will  kill  sperm  in  a  very  short  time  a  contaminated  sample 
will  greatly  reduce  the  fertilising  capability  of  the  insemination. 

Once  collected  in  the  glass,  the  semen  is  drawn  into  a  1  cc  tuberculin 
syringe  for  measuring  and  subsequent  insemination.  If  the  semen  is  to  be 
extended,  a  known  amount  of  extender  is  deposited  into  the  glass  and 
drawn  into  the  same  syringe  containing  the  semen.  The  sample  is  generally 
diluted  enough  to  give  an  insemination  volume  of  about  .2  ml.  Samples 
larger  than  1 .5  ml  are  not  diluted  unless  they  are  to  be  split. 

Extender 

Several  semen  extenders  are  available  that  can  be  used  with  cranes 
successfully.  Patuxent  uses  Beltsville  Poultry  Semen  Extender  while  IGF 
uses  Minnesota  Turkey  Semen  Extender  sold  by  the  Minnesota  Turkey 
Growers  Association.  The  use  of  a  semen  extender  is  advantageous  when 
very  small  samples  of  semen  are  collected  and  when  a  sample  is  to  be  split 
for  inseminating  more  than  one  bird  or  to  be  frozen  for  future  use.  In  the 
absence  of  a  commercial  extender  a  physiological  saline  solution  can  be 
used  for  fresh  inseminations. 

Insemination  of  the  Female 

The  actual  insemination  of  semen  can  be  the  most  difficult  part  of  AI 
in  cranes.  While  cloaca!  inseminations  can  give  satisfactory  results,  placing 
the  semen  directly  into  the  oviduct  is  preferred.  At  IGF  an  effort  is  made 
to  accomplish  mtrawaginai  inseminations  at  all  times.  A  female  in  breeding 
condition  that  has  laid  eggs  in  the  past  or  is  currently  laying  is  the  easiest 
to  inseminate.  A  female  not  in  breeding  condition  which  has  not  laid 
before  is  very  difficult  to  inseminate  properly. 

A  reddening  and  enlargement  of  the  opening  into  the  oviduct  is 
normally  a  reliable  indication  of  breeding  condition  in  the  female  crane.  A 
relaxation  of  the  cloaca  and  widening  of  the  pubic  bones  often 
accompanies  the  onset  of  breeding  condition. 


14 


C.  LARUE  -  INCREASING  FERTILITY  OF  CRANE  EGGS 


The  insemination  of  cranes  at  IGF  follows  the  same  pattern  as  semen 
collection  with  only  a  few  differences.  The  bird  is  caught  and  held  in  the 
same  manner  as  that  described  for  the  male.  The  female  is  usually  stroked 
on  the  back  and  sides  just  posterior  to  the  wings  instead  of  the  thighs. 
The  same  responses  of  tail  raising,  cloaca!  contractions,  and  purring  or 
clucking  are  normally  elicited  during  the  massage.  In  many  birds,  the 
oviduct  is  everted  briefly  and  appears  as  a  small  bright  pink  opening, 
surrounded  by  spongy  tissue,  located  at  the  upper  left  quadrant  of  the 
cloaca.  In  most  birds  it  is  necessary  to  gently  pull  the  cloacal  lips  apart 
wider  in  an  effort  to  expose  the  oviduct.  This  manipulation  is  usually  done 
by  the  teaser  while  the  third  person  inserts  the  syringe  once  the  oviduct 
is  located. 

After  locating  the  oviduct  the  syringe  is  gently  pushed  in  1-5  cms 
and  the  semen  is  deposited  slowly.  This  allows  the  oviduct  time  to  accept 
and  draw  in  deeper  the  contents  of  the  syringe.  Injecting  the  semen  too 
quickly  will  result  in  some  loss  of  semen.  When  the  insemination  is  com¬ 
pleted  the  syringe  is  withdrawn  slowly  to  prevent  pulling  the  semen  out 
with  the  syringe.  The  bird  is  released  quickly  and  gently  to  reduce  the 
possibility  of  expelling  semen. 

With  the  1  cc  tuberculin  syringe  there  is  generally  about  .04  ml  semen 
left  in  the  nose  of  the  syringe  after  insemination,  this  is  another  reason  for 
using  extender  with  small  samples.  The  remaining  semen  is  sufficient  for 
microscopic  examination  for  sperm  cell  concentration  and  motility.  These 
samples  can  be  taken  to  the  laboratory  and  examined  an  hour  or  two  after 
collection  if  the  samples  are  stored  at  about  5°C  and  are  not  heavily  con¬ 
taminated  by  urates.  Best  results  are  obtained  by  examining  samples  im¬ 
mediately  after  collection  with  a  microscope  in  the  field  at  43 OX. 

Frequency  of  Inseminations 

Generally  it  is  accepted  that  the  higher  the  frequency  of  inseminations 
the  higher  the  fertility  rate.  However,  it  is  also  true  that  the  timing  of  each 
insemination  is  extremely  important.  Inseminations  done  three  times  a 
week  and  on  days  an  egg  is  laid,  a  few  hours  after  laying,  should  give  good 
fertility.  Currently  at  ICF  we  do  AI  every  other  day  early  in  the  morning 
and  on  days  eggs  are  laid. 

Summary 

Artificial  insemination  can  help  improve  fertility  in  many  situations. 
The  procedures  are  not  overly  complicated  and  can  be  learned  in  a  short 
time  through  practice.  A  basic  knowledge  of  AI  techniques  can  be  acqui- 


C.  LARUE  -  INCREASING  FERTILITY  OF  CRANE  EGGS 


15 


red  at  many  university  poultry  science  departments  and  at  commercial 
turkey  breeding  farms.  These  institutions  provide  an  opportunity  to 
develop  AI  skills  before  the  cranes9  breeding  season  begins. 


REFERENCES 


ARCHIBALD,  G.S.  1974,  Methods  for  breeding  and  rearing  cranes  in 
captivity.  International  Zoo  Yearbook  14:  147. 

GEE,  G.F.  1969.  Reproductive  Physiology  of  the  Greater  Sandhill  Crane. 
A.  Progr.  Rep.  Admin .  Re.,  Patuxent  Wildlife  Research  Center,  1969: 
145-247. 

GEE,  G.F.  and  S.A.TEMPLE.  1978.  Artificial  insemination  for  breeding 
non-domestic  birds.  In  P.F.  Watson  (ed)  Artificial  breeding  of  non¬ 
domestic  animals.  Symp.  Zool  Soc.  Lond. 


16 


SOME  NOTES  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


By  DEREK  GOODWIN  (Heme  Hill,  London) 


Introduction 

I  find  I  have  now  been  keeping  blue  waxbills  or  cordon-bleus,  of 
one  or  more  species,  for  over  21  years.  It  is  an  awesome  reminder  of  how 
time  seems  to  go  faster  as  one  gets  older,  for  it  seems  to  me  hardly  cred¬ 
ible  that  I  have  kept  these  birds  for  more  years  than,  in  my  younger  days, 
I  kept  pigeons  or  jays  but  so  it  is.  I  started  off  with  Uraeginthus  angolensis, 
the  Cordon-bleu  of  most  bird  books,  the  Blue  Waxbill  of  South  African 
bird  books  and  the  Blue-breasted  Waxbill  of  English  aviculturists.  Of  these 
I  purchased  three  pairs  in  October  1958.  I  had  not  intended  to,  having 
meant  oply  to  buy  a  pair  of  Diamond  Doves  and  perhaps  a  few  hardy  small 
passerines  to  go  in  the  small  spare  room  that  I  intended  to  turn  into  a  bird 
room.  However,  blue  always  enchants  me,  whether  in  a  flower,  a  bird  or 
anything  else,  and  when  I  saw  a  big  cage  full  of  Blue-breasted  Waxbills  I 
could  not  resist  them  and  have  never  regretted  succumbing  to  the  tempta¬ 
tion  of  their  beauty.  I  subsequently,  indeed  before  I  had  kept  them  very 
long,  wrote  an  article  about  these  birds  for  our  Magazine  (Goodwin,  1959, 
Vol.  65,  p  J49). 

In  1961  I  added  Blue-headed  Cordon-bleus  or  Blue-headed  Waxbills, 
U.  cyanocephala,  to  my  stock.  This  is  the  bird  for  which,  in  comparatively 
recent  times,  ornithologists  have  coined  the  misleading  name  ‘Blue-capped 
Cordon-bleu’.  I  had  been  chary  of  getting  Red-cheeked  Cordon-bleus,  U. 
bengalus,  the  Cordon-bleu  of  the  avicultural  world,  having  heard  and 
read  much  about  their  delicacy,  but  the  desire  to  study  all  three  species  of 
the  group  induced  me,  in  1962,  to  do  so.  I  did  indeed  have  some  trouble 
before  I  managed  to  buy  any  that  were  not  already  ill  (and  all  that  were 
soon  died  despite  my  efforts)  but  at  length  got  some  that  lived  and  found 
them  henceforth  little  or  no  more  trouble  than  the  others. 

Shortage  of  space  and  perhaps  also  the  even  greater  beauty  of  the  other 
two  species,  led  to  my  letting  the  numbers  of  angolensis  sink  to  the  point 
of  no  return  and  so  for  many  years  now  I  have  had  only  the  Red-cheeked 
and  Blue-headed  species.  Now  (December  1979)  my  stock  has  dwindled 
to  only  two  Red-cheeked  and  six  Blue-headed. 


Probably  most  readers  will  know  what  these  birds  look  like  but  as  I 
myself  find  it  intensely  irritating  if  I  pick  up  an  article  on  a  bird  that  I  do 
not  know  and  in  which  it  is  not  described,  I  will  just  give  a  quick  descrip¬ 
tion  of  their  major  features  here.  The  (bird  book)  Cordon-bleu  or  Blue 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


17 


breasted  Waxbill  is  a  trim  little  bird  about  one  third  smaller  than  the  fami¬ 
liar  Zebra  Finch,  with  a  proportionately  longer  tail,  which  is  triangle¬ 
shaped  when  spread.  The  face,  breast  and  flanks  are  light  blue,  the  centre 
of  the  lower  breast  and  belly  pinkish  buff.  The  upper  parts,  except  for  the 
blue  rump  and  duller  blue  tail  are  light  greyish  brown.  The  bill  is  a  steely 
mauvish  grey  but  turns  reddish  purple  very  quickly  after  death,  hence  I 
suspect,  the  reason  that  some  collectors  have  recorded  bill  colour  of  their 
specimens  as  red  or  purple.  My  birds  were  all  of  the  nominate  race,  in 
which  the  sexes  can  be  distinguished  by  the  female  having  little  or  no  blue 
on  her  flanks.  In  some  races  of  angol ensis  the  female  has  almost  as  much 
blue  as  the  male. 

The  Red-cheeked  Cordon-bleu  is  very  similar  but  is  slightly  slimmer  and 
longer  tailed  and  the  brown  of  its  upper  parts  is  (in  most  races)  a  little 
more  reddish  in  hue.  The  male  has  a  conspicuous  dark  red  patch  on  the 
side  of  his  face.  The  female  lacks  the  red  and  her  blue  areas  are  less  bright 
and  less  extensive.  Many  different  races  or  subspecies  are  found  in  differ¬ 
ent  parts  of  tropical  Africa.  The  differences  shown  by  the  males  of  differ¬ 
ent  races  are  mostly  trifling  ones  of  size  and  the  precise  shade  of  brown  on 
the  upperparts  but  the  females  of  some  races  are  more  distinct,  varying  (in 
some  cases)  markedly  in  the  amount,  distribution  and  shade  of  the  blue  on 
their  faces,  breasts  and  flanks.  The  bill  of  this  species  is  mainly  pink  or 
mauvish  pink, 
c— 6 

These  two  Cordon-bleus,  angolensis  and  bengalus ,  are  sometimes  trea¬ 
ted  as  forms  of  a  single  species  but  this,  I  believe,  is  incorrect.  They  are 
closely  related  but  some  of  their  calls  differ  and,  even  in  captivity,  the 
males  distinguish  between  the  very  similarly  coloured  females,  usually 
showing  sexual  responses  (if  hense  of  both  species  are  available)  only  to 
hens  of  their  own  kind,  while  females  of  bengalus  show  an  innate  response 
to  the  red  facial  marks  of  their  own  males  (Goodwin  1965, 1972). 

The  Blue-headed  Cordon-Bleu  is  a  slightly  larger  bird  than  the  other 
two,  has  a  rather  rounder  head  and  shorter-looking  bill  and  tends  to  hold 
itself  more  upright.  The  cock  has  the  entire  head  blue  as  well  as  the  upper 
breast  and  flanks  and  is  a  redder  brown  above.  His  bill  is  pinkish  red  to 
crimson  red.  The  female  is  a  much  paler  bird  both  in  her  blues  and  her 
browns  and  she  has  less  blue  on  her  underparts  than  the  females  of  the 
other  species  usually  have.  She  often  has  a  little  blue  on  her  forehead  and 
just  above  her  eyes  but  usually  none  elsewhere  on  her  head.  Her  bill  is 
usually  paler  than  the  male’s,  often  pink  rather  than  red. 


18 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


The  young  of  all  three  species  much  resemble  the  adult  females  but  are 
paler  and  at  first  have  shorter  and  black  bills.  Most  of  them  can  be  sexed 
at  fledging  as  the  young  males  usually  have  about  as  much  blue  as  adult 
females  but  most,  though  not  all,  young  females  have  considerably  less. 

In  a  wild  state  all  tend  to  be  birds  of  more  or  less  dry  country  but  the 
Blue-headed  is  more  restricted  to  arid  scrub  and  semi-desert  than  are  the 
other  two.  All  are  known  to  feed  largely  on  grass  seeds  and  termites  but 
they  take  seeds  of  some  other  plants  and  other  small  insects  too.  Probably 
they  also  take  some  greenstuff  in  the  form  of  the  growing  tips  of  grass 
shoots.  The  Blue-breasted  Waxbill  or  Cordon-bleu,  U.  angolensis ,  has  re¬ 
cently  been  studied  in  some  detail  (at  least  as  regards  its  feeding  and  breed¬ 
ing)  in  the  wild  by  Dr.  Skead.  It  was  found  to  feed  largely  on  the  seeds  of 
a  prostrate  weed  as  well  as  on  grass  seeds  and  to  feed  its  nestlings  largely 
on  green  seeds  as  well  as  on  termites.  All  three  Cordon-bleus  seek  food 
mostly  on  the  ground.  They  catch  some  insects  in  flight  but  they  do  not 
cling  and  clamber  among  grass  stems  when  feeding  as  to  waxbills  of  the 
genus  Estrilda. 

Beauty  is  in  the  eye  of  the  beholder  and,  just  as  many  birdwatchers 
who  enthuse  wildly  over  the  beauty  of  rarities  like  Hoopoes  or  Ospreys  are 
seemingly  blind  to  and  certainly  unappreciative  of  the  equal  or  greater 
beauty  of  such  common  species  as  Black-headed  Gulls,  Bullfinches  and 
Woodpigeons,  so  all  too  many  aviculturists  seem  unappreciative  of  birds 
that  are  always  to  be  had  in  plentiful  supply  at  fairly  low  prices.  Certainly 
no  profit  will  be  made  out  of  breeding  Cordon-bleus  of  any  species.  Nor, 
if  my  experience  is  anything  to  go  by  (and  I  have  given  away  scores  of 
home-bred  Cordon-bleus  of  all  three  species),  are  many  aviculturists  inter¬ 
ested  in  perpetuating  captive  stocks  of  these  lovely  birds.  Dr  Butler,  in  his 
famous  book  “Foreign  Finches  in  Captivity”  clearly  thought  it  foolish  of 
anyone  to  bother  to  breed  Red-cheeked  Cordon-bleus  when  they  might 
use  their  time  and  aviary  space  to  breed  the  more  expensive  Australian 
estrildid  finches.  Another  olden  writer,  Gedney,  however,  shared  my  en¬ 
thusiasm  for  Cordon-bleus  and  wrote:  “ . ..I  can  confidently  recommend 

the  Cordon  Bleu  ( U.  bengalus)  and  my  advice  is  do  not  be  discouraged  for 
what  has  been  done  may  be  done  again,  and  if  other  people  have  bred 
these  birds  why  should  you  not  do  the  same?  The  experiment  will  not 

prove  a  costly  one  .  a  pair  may  be  bought  for  one-third  of  what  has 

to  be  paid  for  the  Australian  finches . (whose)  bulky  forms,  gay  colours 

and  rude  self-assertion  bear  the  stamp  of  vulgarity  when  compared  with 
the  graceful  outlines,  delicate  tintings  and  undemonstrative  nature  of 
the  lovely  Cordon-bleu”. 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


19 


I  can  second  all  Gedney  says,  except  his  ideas  as  to  the  “undemonstra¬ 
tive”,  “gentle”  and  “quiet”  nature  of  the  Cordon-bleus.  Although  they 
are  certainly  less  aggressive  than  many  other  species  and  several  pairs  can 
be  kept  in  a  room  or  aviary  without  serious  fighting,  very  often  the  impres¬ 
sion  sometimes  given  by  these  and  other  waxbills  of  gentleness  and  quiet¬ 
ness  is  either  because  they  are  not  fit  or  else  because  they  are  cowed  by 
the  close  enforced  presence  of  larger  and  stronger  birds,  too  often  both 
these  causes  are  simultaneously  involved. 

Housing 

My  birds  are  housed  in  a  small  but  very  well  lighted  room,  it  is  about 
8  feet  by  8  feet  (though  not  perfectly  square)  and  I  should  think  about 
8 Vi  feet  high.  It  is  warmed  by  an  electric  heater  which  is  kept  going  con¬ 
stantly  from  about  mid-October  to  late  April  but  is  put  on  during  periods 
of  colder  weather  at  other  times.  I  must  confess  to  being  very  unscientific 
in  that  for  many  years  I  did  not  get  around  to  using  a  thermometer  but 
“played  it  by  ear”  or  rather  by  eye  and  skin.  If  the  birds  looked  chilly, 
I  turned  the  heater  up  a  bit.  Now  I  have  a  thermometer  and  do  not  let 
the  temperature  go  below  65°  Fahrenheit  but  I  still  go  more  by  the  look 
of  the  birds.  In  winter  the  light  goes  on  at  between  4  and  5  a.m.,  so  that 
the  birds  get  at  least  a  12-hour  day  or  a  bit  over,  a  Venerette  time  switch 
has  now  served  me  well  for  a  great  many  years  but  before  I  had  it  I  used 
to  wake  to  put  the  light  on  and,  if  I  did  not  some  of  the  birds  would  start 
to  call  in  the  darkness.  When  I  am  at  home  I  usually  put  the  light  on  in  the 
bird  room  much  of  the  time  on  dull  or  very  overcast  days  but  if  I  am  not 
at  home  I  fix  it  so  that  it  remains  on  from  dawn  until  about  11  a.m.,  ex¬ 
cept  in  settled  spells  of  fine  weather. 

Whilst  there  may  be  a  danger  (but  not  much  I  think)  in  giving  the  birds 
too  long  a  day,  I  am  sure  there  is  a  much  greater  one  of  giving  them  too 
short  a  day.  I  find  Cordon-bleus,  and  other  waxbills  I  have  kept,  when 
awakened  by  the  light  going  on,  always  greet  their  mates,  often  fight  a  bit 
with  enemies,  fly  about,  and  preen  for  at  least  five  or  ten  minutes  before 
showing  any  inclination  to  fly  down  and  feed.  If  birds,  the  moment  they 
are  awake,  start  feeding  eagerly  that,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  clear  sign  that  the 
(necessarily)  foodless  night  has  been  too  long  and  their  light  should  be  put 
on  at  least  an  hour  earlier,  and  “the  same  again”  until  they  are  no  longer 
flying  straight  down  to  feed  on  awakening.  Of  course,  as  all  avid  readers  of 
old  copies  of  our  Magazine  will  know,  earlier  generations  of  aviculturists, 
prior  to  electric  light  (which  surely  ranks,  with  field  glasses  and  hot  water 
bottles,  as  one  of  the  few  boons  of  civilisation  with  no  built-in  drawbacks), 
coped  by  fixing  small  lights  to  illuminate  the  food  at  night  but  this  me- 


20 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


thod,  useful  in  its  day,  is  not  to  be  recommended  if  the  illumination  of 
the  entire  room  or  aviary  by  electricity  is  possible. 

The  top  quarter  of  the  south-facing  window  is  covered  with  wire  mesh 
and  several  perches  placed  so  that  the  birds  can  perch  in  the  sun.  From 
about  early  October  to  mid-May,  however,  the  wire  mesh  is  covered  with 
two  thicknesses  of  towelling. 

The  room  is  fitted  up  with  twiggy  branches  round  the  walls,  and  also 
two  or  three  thicker  horizontal  branches,  so  as  to  give  a  variety  of  perches. 
All  three  species  of  Cordon-bleus  have  bred  successfully  and  repeatedly, 
although,  of  course,  in  such  relatively  restricted  quarters  by  no  means 
every  nest  has  been  successful.  Undoubtedly  the  ideal  would  be  one  pair  of 
Cordon-bleus  in  a  room  or  aviary  by  themselves  but,  like  many  other  bird 
keepers,  I  have  had  to  make  do  with  the  best  feasible  rather  than  being 
able  to  achieve  the  ideal.  Outdoor  aviaries  are  good  in  theory  and  Cordon- 
bleus  and  other  waxbills  will  often  do  very  well  in  them  -  if  not  put  off  by 
larger  and  stronger  birds  sharing  the  space  -  during  hot  summers.  However, 
apart  from  the  evil  effects  of  sudden  cold  or  wet  spells  (both  of  which  may 
come  any  day  in  Britain),  the  owner  of  an  outdoor  aviary  is  likely  to  be 
plagued  by  visits  from  rats,  cats,  Tawny  Owls,  Sparrowhawks  and  other 
predators  which,  even  if  they  cannot  reach  the  birds,  may  cause  havoc  by 
disturbing  them. 

Indeed,  so  far  as  waxbills  are  concerned  I  think  an  outdoor  aviary  is 
only  really  desirable  if  it  has  a  roomy  and  well  lighted  shelter  attached, 
through  the  large  door(s)  of  which  the  birds  can  easily  be  driven  to  be 
shut  in  for  the  night  and  during  inclement  weather.  I  must  admit,  however, 
that  this  is  based  on  past  experience  with  other  kinds  of  birds  in  outdoor 
aviaries  and  on  the  fact  that  few  of  the  people  I  know  who  have  kept  wax- 
bills  in  outside  aviaries  seem  to  have  been  very  successful  in  breeding  them 
-  except  in  the  unprecedentedly  long  hot  summer  of  1976.  At  my  present 
home  I  have  never  ventured  on  an  outdoor  aviary  of  any  sort  because  the 
local  abundance  of  cats  is  such  that  it  would  be  foredoomed  to  failure. 

Nesting  and  Parent /Young  Behaviour 

When  I  wish  to  let  my  Ghrdon-bleus  breed  (usually  from  mid-May  to 
late  September,  when  at  least  some  wild  foods  are  available),  I  fix  nesting 
baskets  around  the  walls  of  the  room  and  supply  nesting  materials.  The 
baskets  I  use  are  ones  with  a  large  side  entrance,  rather  like  imitation  nests 
of  weavers  of  the  genus  Euplectes.  I  use  the  largest  size  available  for  “for- 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON  BLEUS 


21 


eign  finches”  as  this  gives  the  birds  scope  to  build  a  normal  nest  within  it. 
All  three  species  will  readily  build  nests  in  the  branches,  as  they  do  when 
wild,  but  under  captive  conditions  (unless  one  has  the  ideal  situation  of 
only  one  pair  in  a  bird  room  or  aviary)  such  nests  are  almost  certain  to  be 
destroyed  during  incubation  by  other  birds  pulling  material  from  them  to 
build  or  display  with.  If  any  of  my  birds  begin  to  build  a  nest  among  the 
twigs,  I  destroy  its  first  beginnings  and  fasten  a  basket  in  the  site  with  the 
entrance  facing  the  point  at  which  the  birds  approached  their  nest-to-be. 
It  is  always  accepted  and  the  nest  built  inside  it. 

Cordon-bleus  are  not  very  fussy  about  nesting  material  and  will  accept 
grass  stems  and  blades,  asparagus  fronds,  coconut  or  other  fibres,  fibrous 
roots  and,  for  the  lining,  white  or  pale-coloured  feathers  of  gulls,  water- 
waterfowl,  pigeons  or  other  largish  birds  and  soft  grass  panicles.  The  one 
essential  is  that  every  piece  of  material  must  have  a  rigid  or  near  rigid  end 
for  the  bird  to  carry  it  by.  Like  most  other  African  waxbills,  the  Cordon- 
Cordon-bleus  never  “bundle”  nesting  material  but  always  carry  a  piece  at  a 
time,  held  by  its  rigid  end  (or  by  some  firm  kink  or  projection  elsewhere). 
Thus  a  grass  blade  without  a  piece  of  fairly  rigid  stalk  attached,  the  webb- 
webbing  of  the  most  (otherwise)  desirable  large  white  body  feather  re¬ 
removed  from  its  shaft,  and  anything  in  the  nature  of  down,  wool,  etc.,  is 
of  nc  use  to  them. 

When  built  in  the  branches  the  nests  of  all  the  Cordon-bleus  are  more 
or  less  oval  or  rounded  with  a  side  entrance  hole.  This  latter  may  have  a  bit 
of  a  “porch”  of  projecting  stems  but  never  has  a  long  entrance  tube  like 
those  of  most  of  the  typical  waxbills  of  the  genus  Estrilda.  No  “cock  nest” 
is  built  on  top  or  alongside  it  and  although  nest-lining  material  is  carried  in 
after  incubation  has  started,  no  more  work  is  then  done  on  the  main  struc¬ 
ture  of  the  nest  and  no  attempt  is  made  to  repair  any  damage  done  to  it. 
Most  of  the  building  of  the  main  part  of  the  nest  is  done  by  the  cock,  who 
also  finds  and  carried  to  the  site  virtually  all  of  the  material.  Both  sexes, 
however,  bring  feathers  or  (less  often  if  feathers  are  available)  soft  grass 
panicles  or  asparagus  fronds  to  line  the  nest.  I  found  that  nests  of  the 
Cordon-bleu  or  Blue-breasted  Waxbill  that  I  examined  later,  always  con¬ 
tained  considerably  more  feathers  than  did  those  of  Red-cheeked  or  Blue¬ 
headed  Cordon-bleus  but  I  am  doubtful  how  far  this  would  hold  good  for 
wild  birds’  nests  throughout  the  range  of  the  three  species.  It  has  been  sta¬ 
ted  that  in  parts  of  its  range  the  Red-cheeked  Cordon-bleu  does  not  use 
feathers  to  line  its  nest.  This  may  be  due  either  to  different  night  tempera¬ 
tures  in  different  parts  of  the  species  enormous  range  or  simply  to  feathers 
not  being  available  in  some  places.  On  the  other  hand  it  may  be  a  false 
impression  due  to  the  different  stages  at  which  nests  have  been  examined . 


22 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


I  have  found  that  my  birds  (of  all  three  species)  are  most  eager  to  take 
feathers  to  the  nest  from  a  few  days  before  hatching  until  the  young  are 
a  few  days  old.  As  has  been  suggested  by  some  German  ornithologists,  it 
is  likely  that  one  function  of  the  feathers  is  to  make  the  begging  mouth  of 
the  young  bird  more  easily  visible  by  reflected  light.  I  have,  however, 
noticed  that,  at  and  shortly  after  the  hatching  of  the  young,  one  or  more 
large  feathers  are  usually  placed  so  as  partly  to  screen  the  nest  entrance. 
Possibly  this  deters  or  misleads  some  potential  predators.  The  same  may  be 
true  of  the  filmy-looking  down  on  the  heads  of  the  young.  Sir  Colling- 
wood  Ingram  many  years  ago  suggested  that  the  function  of  such  nestling 
down  might  be  to  camouflage  the  nest  contents.  I  think  he  is  right  as,  even 
knowing  that  a  Cordon-bleu’s  nest  contained  young,  I  have  sometimes 
been  momentarily  misled  by  the  filmy  blur  into  thinking  I  was  looking  at 
some  mildew-like  growth  in  a  deserted  nest,  when  I  have  peered  into  a  nest 
with  young  nearly  ready  to  fledge. 

The  clutch  consists  of  four  to  six,  most  commonly  five  eggs.  They 
are  laid  in  the  early  morning  at  daily  intervals.  Both  sexes  incubate  (and 
later  brood  the  nestlings)  in  turn  by  day,  usually  sitting  for  about  an  hour 
at  a  time,  but  only  the  hen  spends  the  night  inside  the  nest.  The  young 
fledge  at  17  or  18  days  old  and  if  healthy  can  fly  when  they  first  leave  the 
nest.  In  a  bird  room  or  aviary  they  are  at  first  clumsy  and  crash  into  walls, 
wire  or  windows  but  this  is  mainly  due  to  their  having  to  learn  the  limi¬ 
tations  of  their  un-natural  environment.  Both  parents  feed  the  flying 
young  but  if,  as  often  happens,  the  pair  goes  to  nest  again  immediately, 
then  the  hen  stops  feeding  her  fledgelings  when  or  shortly  before  she  be¬ 
gins  to  lay.  The  cock  then  takes  the  double  task  (but,  of  course,  for  the 
bird  it  is  rather  a  double  pleasure)  of  taking  his  turn  to  incubate  the  new 
clutch  and  feeding  the  young  of  the  former  brood. 

As  with  many  other  birds,  the  parents  appear  to  learn  to  recognise 
their  young  individually  at  fledging  time.  Probably  this  is  both  a  result  and 
a  function  of  the  intense  emotional  involvement  with  the  young  at  this 
time.  When  the  young  bird  first  flies  from  the  nest,  the  parents,  who  have 
been  answering  its  frequent  contact  calls  during  the  period  when  it  was 
looking  out  of  the  nest  entrance,  working  itself  up  to  “take  the  plunge” 
(if  such  a  simile  for  its  usually  wpward  first  flight  is  permissible),  at  once 
fly  to  it  and,  if  it  has  landed  on  or  (as  a  result  of  flying  into  the  wall)  falls 
to  the  floor  of  the  room,  attempt  to  entice  it  up  into  the  branches.  They 
do  this  by  repeatedly  flying  down  to  the  young  one,  uttering  alarm  or  con¬ 
tact  calls  (according  to  how  worked-up  they  are),  and  flying  back  up  into 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


23 


the  branches.  Until  the  young  can  fly  really  well  and  are  “quite  at  home” 
in  the  room,  their  parents  are  never  at  ease  unless  they  are  either  perched 
high  up  well  above  my  head  when  I  enter  the  room  or  are  out  of  sight  in 
cover. 

Birds  with  fledged  young  do  not  normally  (never  in  my  experience) 
feed  other  young  even  of  the  same  age  as  their  own.  If,  as  often  happens 
within  the  confines  of  my  bird  room,  these  beg  from  them  they  are  re¬ 
pulsed.  Some  writers  on  bird  behaviour  (who  can  have  had  little  first  hand 
experience  of  it)  often  write  as  if  all  parent  birds  respond  blindly  to  the 
stimulus  of  a  begging  young  one  and  thus  attempt  to  explain  the  rare  cases 
where  wild  fledgelings  are  observed  being  fed  by  parents  not  their  own, 
sometimes  indeed  of  other  species.  So  far  as  cordon-bleus  (and  other  birds 
that  I  have  kept)  are  concerned,  it  is  true  that  when  dealing  with  young 
still  inside  the  nest,  the  parent  does  appear  to  react  simply  to  the  stimuli 
of  appropriate  calls  and  begging  postures  (sometimes  even  to  rather  nzap- 
propriate  ones,  as  some  birds  will  accept  nestlings  of  other  species  and 
different  appearance  if  these  are  placed  among  their  own)  the  case  is  very 
different  once  the  young  have  left  the  nest.  Adult  cordon-bleus  (and  at 
least  some  other  birds)  will,  in  captivity,  frequently  “adopt”  one  or  more 
fledgelings  belonging  to  another  pair,  under  certain  conditions.  Such  adop¬ 
tion  is  almost  sure  to  occur  when  an  unpaired  individual,  either  cock  or 
hen  is  “in  love”  with  one  of  the  parents  of  the  young  in  question.  It  also 
happens  quite  often  if  a  pair  or  one  member  of  a  pair  have/has  been  frus¬ 
trated  in  their/its  attempts  to  breed.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  latter  type 
of  situation,  especially  when  its  own  young  have  been  killed  by  a  predator, 
is  the  usual  reason  for  such  “adoptions”  as  occur  in  the  wild. 

Young  Cordon-bleus  beg  in  the  typical  crouched,  neck  twisted  estrildid 
manner  which  will  be  familiar  to  anyone  who  has  watched  young  Zebra 
Finches  and  which  I  have  described  previously  in  our  Magazine.  They  very 
quickly  learn  to  beg  only  to  their  own  parents,  through  being  at  best  ig¬ 
nored  and  at  worst  sharply  pecked  when  they  do  not  do  so.  They  are, 
however,  quick  to  recognise  the  friendly  approach  of  any  would-be  adop- 
adopter,  even  if  it  is  of  a  species,  such  as  the  Avadavat,  Amandava  aman- 
dava,  very  different  in  appearance  from  their  own  parents.  Some¬ 
times,  but  not  very  often,  well  grown  but  not  yet  fully  independent 
young  will  feed  younger  fledgelings,  but  only  in  a  very  “half-hearted”  and 
rather  ineffective  manner.  Incidentally,  although  the  mouth  patterns  of 
the  young  of  all  three  species  are  similar,  fledgelings  of  the  Blue-headed 
Cordon-bleu  lack  the  blue  or  violet  gape  tubercles  of  the  other  two  species 
and  their  begging  calls  are  different  in  sound.  All  three  species  will,  how- 


24 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


however,  readily  rear  mixed  broods,  containing  both  cyanocephala  and 
angolensis ,  or  bengalus ,  and  show  no  discrimination  either  before  or  after 
they  leave  the  nest. 

Feeding 

Some  Victorian  aviculturists,  as  those  who,  like  myself,  delight  in 
browsing  through  early  issues  of  our  Magazine  will  know,  thought  that 
neither  their  children  nor  their  tropical  birds  should  be  “pampered”.  What 
is  even  more  surprising  than  that  they  should  have  believed  that  freezing 
temperatures,  long  dark  winter  nights  and  a  plain  diet  of  dry  seeds  were 
good  for  tiny  tropical  birds  is  that  some  of  the  latter  actually  appear  to 
have  thriven  under  such  regimes.  I  suspect,  however,  that  more  was  written 
about  a  few  survivors  than  about  multitudes  that  perished  of  cold  and 
malnutrition.  Some  of  the  advice  one  gets  even  today  in  English  writings 
on  the  care  of  waxbills  suggest  that  such  ideas  are  not  entirely  eradicated. 
German  works  or  at  least  most  that  I  have  read,  go  to  the  other  and  better 
extreme  and  are  apt  to  recommend  diets  and  standards  of  care  that  are 
likely  to  be  beyond  the  means  of  any  person  who  is  not  possessed  of  both 
great  wealth  and  a  great  deal  of  spare  time. 

I  give  panicum  millet  in  a  large  tray  on  the  floor,  Haith’s  foreign  finch 
tonic  food  (a  mixture  of  many  seeds  and  some  powdery  matter,  not  a 
great  deal  of  it  is  eaten  but  some  is  and  the  birds  invariably  pick  a  lot 
among  it)  and  white  millet.  These  are  placed  separately  on  clean  parts  of 
the  floor.  Until  about  ten  years  ago  I  always  gave  some  canary  seed  and 
Japanese  millet  also  but  the  latter  seed  is  among  those  in  the  foreign  finch 
tonic  mixture  and  very  little  canary  seed  is  eaten.  I  still  give  it  most  of  the 
time  (in  small  quantities)  but  do  not  bother  if  I  temporarily  run  out  of  it. 
In  terms  of  amount  consumed  the  panicum  and  white  millet  is  taken  in 
much  greater  quantity  than  the  other  seeds.  I  have  the  impression  that  my 
Blue-headed  Cordon-bleus  eat  more  white  millet  than  do  the  Red-cheeked, 
although  the  latter  certainly  take  an  appreciable  amount  of  it.  Seed  treated 
with  cod  liver  oil  or  halibut  liver  oil  is  given  once  or  twice  a  week  at  those 
times  of  year  when  the  birds  do  not  have  access  to  direct  sunlight. 

Eggfood,  made  by  forcing  a  hard-boiled  or  rather  “hard-simmered”  egg 
through  a  coffee  strainer  and  then  loosening  up  the  result  with  a  fork  is 
prepared  every  other  day,  half  given  to  the  waxbills  and  half  put  in  the 
fridge  for  next  day.  Not  a  lot  of  it  is  eaten  but  most  of  the  birds,  probably 
all,  eat  some  each  day  and  the  wild  birds,  especially  Starlings  and  Black¬ 
birds,  eagerly  take  every  morsel  when  the  “unexpired  portion”  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  day’s  ration  is  put  out  for  them.  Milk  sop  is  also  given  on  most  days. 
Only  a  very  little  is  eaten  but  the  remainder  feeds  my  whiteworm  culture. 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


25 


A  handful  or  two  of  whiteworm  culture  (peat  plus  whiteworms)  is 
spread  out  on  the  floor  every  two  or  three  days.  Once  the  substrate  begins 
to  dry  out,  the  whiteworms  ball  together  to  maintain  their  moisture.  The 
birds  are  reluctant  to  pull  individual  worms  from  such  clumps  although 
they  will  sometimes  do  so.  If  drying-up  clumped  whiteworms  are  “rescued’ 

’  in  time  they  can  be  resuscitated  by  putting  them  on  top  of  the  dish  of 
milk  sop.  If  not  too  far  gone  they  will  soon  separate  out  and  can  then  be 
returned  to  their  culture,  together  with  the  milk  sop. 

Greenfood  I  give  daily  when  possible  but  in  winter  they  sometimes 
only  get  it  four  or  five  times  a  week.  Chickweed  ( Stellaria  media),  Com¬ 
mon  Knotgrass  ( Polygonum  aviculare)  and  Annual  Meadow  Grass,  ( Poa 
annua)  are  prime  favourites  with  Cordon-bleus,  as  with  most  other  estrild- 
ids  that  I  have  kept.  The  green  or  ripe  seeds  are  principally  eaten  but  pie¬ 
ces  of  leaf  of  Chickweed  and  Knotgrass  and  the  tips  of  Poa  annua  blades 
are  also  often  freely  taken.  Other  grasses  that  are  seeding  or  budding,  other 
species  of  chickweed  and  of  knotgrass  are  also  given  when  I  can  find  them 
and  cannot  find  the  three  species  cited  above,  but  most  of  them  seem  to 
be  less  relished  than  their  relatives  cited  above.  Turves  of  grass  (with  or 
without  other  vegetatation)  are  given  whenever  available.  Especially  where 
young  grass  has  grown  up  in  autumn  and  winter  under  trees  after  leaf- 
shedding  it  is  easy  with  a  knife  to  dig  up,  or  even  at  a  pinch  to  kick  up, 
nice  turves  which  waxbills  delight  in  picking  over.  They  eagerly  take  the 
tips  of  growing  shoots  of  young  grass  and  other  vegetation  and  also  often 
find  some  edible  invertebrates.  In  winter  and  early  spring,  when  greenstuff 
may  be  hard  to  come  by,  I  sow  lawn  grass  seed  in  small  shallow  dishes  and 
give  it  to  the  birds  when  the  shoots  are  about  half  an  inch  to  an  inch  high. 

After  having  been  mangled  about  by  the  Cordon-bleus  and  other  wax- 
bills,  much  of  the  young  grass  will  recover  after  a  week  or  two  and  can  be 
used  again.  Young  leaves  and  whole  dug-up  young  plants  of  dandelions  , 
nipplewort,  clover,  etc.,  are  also  given.  As  with  other  leaf  greenstuff,  they 
are  sometimes  ignored  but  often  one  or  more  birds  will  eat  some  of  the  leaf 
eagerly. 

like  many  other  birds,  Cordon-bleus  usually  take  pieces  of  leaf  or 
shoot  by  seizing  a  bit  in  the  bill  and  tearing  it  off  with  a  backward  jerk.  This 
they  cannot  do  if  it  is  lying  loose.  Greenfood,  other  than  fairly  heavy 
turves,  should  therefore  always  be  pinned  under  a  brick,  clamped  between 
two  bricks  or  otherwise  firmly  fastened  so  that  the  birds  can  pull  against 
resistance.  Otherwise  it  is  quite  impossible  for  them  to  feed  efficiently  on 
it.  Greenfood  for  ground  feeding  birds  should  never  be  tied  in  bunches  and 


26 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


and  these  I  also  collect  for  my  birds.  Ant  pupae  are,  perforce,  collected 
along  with  much  of  the  nest  substrate  and  some  of  the  worker  ants. 
These  latter  are  not  eaten  but  are  used  by  Avadavats  and  Goldbreasts 
(Amandava  amandava  and  A.  subflava)  for  anting. 

Other  live  food  taken  by  captive  cordon-bleus  include  small  or  smallish 
smooth-  skinned  green  caterpillars,  small  centipedes,  tiny  earthworms, 
small  smooth-  bodied  spiders  and  grasshoppers.  The  latter  can  sometimes 
be  obtained  in  quantity  by  “sweeping”  grassland  although  I  manage  to  get 
around  to  doing  this  relatively  seldom  as  it  means  taking  a  net  and  suitable 
receptacles  with  me  on  weekend  excursions  into  the  country,  when  it  is 
usually  better  to  concentrate  on  trying  to  fmd  ants’  nests.  The  other 
items  listed  are  (sometimes)  obtainable  from  my  tiny  town  garden.  I  put 
infested  birch  branches,  cabbage  leaves,  etc.,  into  the  bird  room  and  also 
the  “top  spit”  of  soil,  plus  seedlings,  etc.,  from  parts  of  the  garden  least 
likely  to  have  been  much  defecated  by  wild  birds.  As  with  green  food,  I 
try  to  give  a  varied  selection  although  in  practice  circumstances  often 
preclude  this  for  longish  periods. 

As  my  Cordon-bleus  are  not  tame  enough  to  be  fed  individually,  I 
always  scatter  live  food  fairly  widely  on  the  floor  and  window  ledges. 
Especially  in  the  case  of  ant  pupae  or  larvae.  These  cause  great  excite¬ 
ment,  if  the  birds  have  not  been  glutted  with  them  for  some  time.  As 
soon  as  they  see  what  I  have  in  my  hands  they  begin  to  utter  excited, 
threatening  calls  (“getting  ready  to  be  angry  with  each  other”  as  a 
friend  once  said  of  similar  reactions  from  gulls).  As  soon  as  the  ant 
pupae  are  put  down,  quarrelling  and  attempts  to  drive  others  away 
from  the  food  break  out.  If  the  ant  pupae  were  put  in  a  dish  or  in  one 
small  area  only  the  strongest  and  boldest  individuals  would  get  any. 

Most  seed-eating  birds  seem  to  need  a  considerable  amount  of  mineral 
matter  in  addition  to  their  food.  Besides  the  (now  appallingly  expen¬ 
sive)  commercial  bird  sand  which  I  put  on  newspapers  on  the  floor  of 
the  room  and  on  the  window  ledges  (but  only  thickly  on  the  latter),  I 
give  ordinary  salt  (a  few  pinches  scattered  on  the  sand  on  the  window 
ledges),  Haith’s  mineralised  grit  (a  good  handful  each  week  or  more 
often  on  a  clean  part  of  the  floor),  a  lump  of  cuttle  bone,  and  crushed 
eggshell.  This  last  is  prepared  by  heating  eggshells  (to  sterilise  them)  and 
then  putting  them,  roughly  crushed,  between  clean  sheets  of  paper  and 
banging  them  with  a  hammer.  When  most  has  been  pulverised  but  there 
are  still  some  larger  bits  among  it,  several  finger  pinches  of  it  are  placed 
on  the  window  ledges  and  floor.  This  seems  to  contain  some  elements 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


27 


hung  up.  Only  species  that  under  natural  conditions  clamber  and  cling  am¬ 
ong  growing  grass  or  other  vegetation  can  feed  from  a  hanging  clump  of 
greenfood  and  even  they  find  difficulty.  In  this  situation  the  waxbills  of 
the  genus  Estrilda  are  not  switching  their  tails  from  side  to  side  in  pleas¬ 
urable  excitement  as  they  hang  on  the  swinging  clump,  as  some  bird-kee¬ 
pers  fondly  imagine,  they  are  doing  it  to  try  to  keep  their  balance! 

Soaked  seed  I  only  give  occasionally  to  non-breeding  birds.  In  theory  I 
am  inclined  to  agree  with  German  experts  on  estrildids  who  are  mostly 
adamant  that  soaked  seed  (in  addition  to  very  much  else)  must  be  supplied 
ad  lib  to  all  species.  In  practice  I  must  admit  that,  not  having  been  able  to 
see  any  difference  in  the  condition  of  my  birds  whether  they  were  or  were 
not  getting  soaked  seed,  I  tend  not  to  bother  with  it  except  when  the  birds 
have  young.  I  have  found  that,  contrary  to  the  experience  of  some  others 
and  to  what  is  often  recommended,  the  species  of  estrildids  I  have  kept,  in¬ 
cluding  those  now  discussed,  prefer  seed  that  has  soaked  only  about  12  to 
24  hours  to  seed  which  has  soaked  longer  and  whose  “sprouts”  (actually  I 
think  the  root  tips)  are  clearly  showing.  Again  contrary  to  what  is  often 
stated,  I  find  that  Cordon-bleus  (and  other  seed  eating  estrildids  that  I  have 
kept)  do  not  take  dry  seeds  only  when  forced  to  do  so  for  lack  of  soaked 
seed  and/or  of  wild  seeds  in  a  green  or  semi-ripe  state  but,  except  some¬ 
times  when  feeding  young,  always  eat  a  quantity  of  dry  seed  when  soaked 
seed,  wild  seeds,  and  even  such  favoured  live  foods  as  greenfly  and  fresh 
ant  pupae,  are  available. 

The  only  live  food  that  I  regularly  give  to  my  Cordon-bleus  are  home¬ 
bred  whiteworms  ( Enchytreae )  as  previously  described.  I  do,  however, 
make  every  effort  to  give  them  other  live  food  as  often  as  possible.  I  coll¬ 
ect  pupae  and  larvae  of  the  small  ants,  Lasius  fuscus  and  L.  niger ,  whenever 
the  opportunity  occurs  (usually  only  on  some  weekends  between  May  and 
September),  and  also  (in  plastic  bags)  any  nettles,  or  other  plants  that  I 
come  across  that  are  heavily  infested  with  greenfly.  Birds  are,  incidentally, 
sensitive  to  nettle  stings  which  is  no  doubt  why  (until  the  ladybirds  and 
hover  flies  breed  up  to  peak  numbers)  stinging  nettles  smothered  in 
greenfly  may  still  be  found  in  formidable  amounts.When  giving  greenfly 
from  nettles  I  shake  them  off  and  beat  them  off  by  striking  the  nettles 
together  or  brushing  with  a  soft  brush  and  take  great  care  to  pick  up  even 
the  smallest  bit  of  nettle  leaf  from  the  bird  room  floor.  A  cordon-bleu  or 
other  small  bird  that  treads  on  nettle  leaf  shows  every  sign  of  acute  pain 
and  is  unwell  for  a  little  time.  Probably  if  it  were  to  sting  its  eyes  or  orbi¬ 
tal  region  the  result  would  be  serious  if  not  fatal.  Poa  annua  and  many 
other  grasses  are  also  often  infested  with  greenfly  when  in  bud  or  flower 


28 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


lacking  in  the  other  minerals  supplied  as  if  the  birds,  especially  when 
breeding,  have  had  no  eggshell  for  four  or  five  days,  they  at  once  fly 
down  and  eat  it  eagerly,  even  although  they  have  had  grit,  cuttle  bone 
and  sand  ad  lib. 

When  any  of  the  birds  have  young,  the  above  regime  is  augmented  as 
follows:  Soaked  seed  (panicum  millet,  white  millet  and  commercial  grass 
seed)  is  given  daily;  in  small  quantities  several  times  daily  if  I  am  at  home. 
I  make  every  effort  to  give  as  much  wild  live  food,  especially  ant  grubs  and 
pupae  and/or  greenfly  as  possible;  if  I  am  at  home,  live  food  (if  available) 
is  given  several  times  daily.  Whiteworms  are  given  six  or  seven  times  daily 
if  I  am  at  home;  if  not,  several  heaps  of  whiteworm  culture  are  put  in 
daily.  I  find  that  my  Cordon-bleus  will  only  relish  soaked  seed  while  it  is 
still  moist,  once  it  is  dry  it  is  usually  ignored.  When  the  birds  have  young 
I  also  make  great  efforts  to  supply  seeding  greenfood  (as  previously  cited) 
and  also  turves,  top  spit  garden  earth  and  so  on.  However,  rather  to  my 
surprise,  I  have  often  had  good  broods  of  young  reared,  especially  by  Blue¬ 
headed  Cordon-bleus,  at  times  when  relatively  few  wild  insects  and  not  a 
great  deal  of  seeding  grass,  etc.,  could  be  obtained. 


Endpiece 

I  had  intended,  when  I  started,  to  include  information  on  displays 
and  also  some  discussion  of  other  matters,  but  this  article  is  already 
overlong  so  it  seems  best  to  finish  it  here.  In  any  case,  I  have  discussed 
voice  and  displays  of  the  Cordon-bleus  in  previous  papers. 

I  hope  this  will  inspire  other  keepers  and  breeders  of  these  beautiful 
estrildids  to  write  of  their  experiences  and  methods.  There  may  yet  be 
time  to  establish  stocks  of  Cordon-bleus,  creatures  which  to  my  mind, 
cheap,  plentiful  and  therefore  despised  though  they  may  now  be,  are 
lovelier  than  many  of  the  “valuable”  Australian  estrildids.  And,  if  not 
so  easy  to  keep  and  breed  as  Zebra  Finches,  they  are  at  least  much 
less  costly  and  demanding  to  maintain  than  Gouldians  would  appear  to 
be  (Ziegler). 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  ON  KEEPING  CORDON-BLEUS 


29 


REFERENCES 


GOODWIN,  D.  1959.  Observations  on  Blue-breasted  Waxbills.  Avicul- 

tural Magazine  65:  149-169. 

_ _ _ — — — —  1962.  Some  notes  on  my  Blue-headed  Waxbills.  Avicul- 

tural  Magazine  68:  117-128 

— - —  1965.  A  comparative  study  of  captive  Blue  Waxbills. 

Ibis  107:  285-315. 

_  1971.  Soft  foods  for  waxbills.  Avicultural  Magazine 


65-69. 

INGRAM,  C.  1958.  Camouflage  in  Nestling  Birds.  Proc.  12th  Int.  Orn. 
Congress  (1958):  332-342 

SKEAD,  D.M.  1975.  Ecological  Studies  of  Four  Estrildines  in  the  Central 
Transvaal  Ostrich,  suppL  no.  11. 


ZIEGLER,  G.  1963.  Die  Gouldamadine.  Sonderheft  of  Die  Gefiederte 


Welt 


Phillip  Coffey 


Rothschild’s  Mynah  Leucopsar  rothschildi  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park 


30 


ROTHSCHILD’S  MYNAH  Leucopsar  rothschildi 
AT  JERSEY  ZOOLOGICAL  PARK 


By  D.F.  JEGGO  (Deputy  Curator  of  Birds) 

This  striking,  almost  completely  white,  member  of  the  Sturnidae  was 
formerly  more  widespread  over  the  Indonesian  island  of  Bali;  but  today 
the  Rothschild’s  Mynah  Leucopsar  rothschildi  is,  by  and  large,  confined  to 
the  Barat  reserve,  where  a  current  population  of  some  500  individuals  sur¬ 
vives. 

In  1971  the  Jersey  Zoological  Park  obtained  eight  birds  with  a  view  to 
establishing  a  self-sustaining  population.  Since  then,  in  excess  of  one  hun¬ 
dred  specimens  have  been  successfully  reared.  They  are  housed  in  planted 
outdoor  aviaries,  with  unheated  shelters,  proving  perfectly  cold-hardy. 
Only  one  breeding  pair  is  accommodated  per  aviary,  which  they  may  share 
with  pheasants,  usually  Palawan  Peacock  Pheasants  Polyplectron  empha- 
num.  Although  in  a  range  situation,  they  never  occupy  adjacent  aviaries  as 
fighting  will  occur  through  the  wire,  but  are  in  sight  and  sound  of  others, 
as  this  may  help  stimulate  reproduction.  Aviaries  are  not  large,  our  most 
successful  measuring  7.5  x  2  x  1.15  m  high.  Receiving  a  diet  of  brown 
bread  crumbs,  moistened  with  milk,  a  proprietary  insec tile  mixture  Sluis , 
minced  heart  and  hard-boiled  egg,  a  small  amount  of  soaked  dried  fruit 
and  diced  fresh  fruit  (grapes,  banana  and  pear  with  halved  apples  and  oran¬ 
ges  spiked  on  to  nails),  the  feeds  are  sprinkled  with  a  mineral  and  vitamin 
powder,  Vionate  or  Vitetrin.  Mealworms  and  crickets  are  fed  throughout 
the  year,  the  amount  being  increased  during  the  breeding  season  (April  - 
October),  especially  when  broods  are  in  the  nest. 

There  is  little  sexual  dimorphism  and  both  males  and  females  perform 
the  characteristic  bobbing  display.  However,  males  do  tend  to  be  slightly 
bigger  and  bolder  in  appearance,  and  most  diagnostic,  their  crests  are  long- 
ger.  Nest  boxes  are  provided  at  the  end  of  March.  These  are  constructed 
from  20  mm  04”)  plywood,  measuring  24  x  24  cm  square  by  40  cm  high. 

A  small  entrance  hole  approximately  6  cm  in  diameter,  is  near  the  top  of 
the  front,  with  a  perch  just  below.  An  inspection  hatch  is  incorporated  in¬ 
to  the  design.  Invariably,  nest  building  starts  almost  at  once  and  an  untidy 
nest  of  hay,  fine  twigs,  leaves  and  feathers  is  constructed.  Clutch  size  varies 
from  2  to  4  pale  blue  eggs,  usually  3.  Incubation  takes  12-14  days  from 
the  laying  of  the  second  egg.  Steady  and  reliable  pairs  are  remarkably  tol¬ 
erant  to  having  their  nests  inspected,  but  new  and  uncertain  pairs  are  left 
entirely  alone.  The  behaviour  of  the  parents  usually  gives  away  the  pres- 


D.F.  JEGGO  -  ROTHSCHILD’S  MYNAHS 


31 


ence  of  young,  as  does  egg  shell  on  the  aviary  floor.  When  young  are  ex¬ 
pected,  we  start  to  provide  live  food,  which  is  taken  up  to  the  nest  if  there 
are  chicks  to  feed.  Mainly  mealworms,  but  some  crickets  are  given  seven 
times  a  day  between  08.00  and  19.00  hours,  i.e.  every  two  hours,  a  small 
handful  each  time. 

In  general,  fecundity  has  been  excellent,  but  rarely  have  complete 
broods  been  raised;  exceptionally  three  or  four  have  survived,  but  normal¬ 
ly  one  or  two  succumb,  leaving  only  one  or  two  to  fledge.  Up  to  four 
broods  can  be  reared  in  a  season  by  one  pair.  Chicks  found  to  be  lagging 
behind  have  been  taken  out  and  it  has  proved  relatively  simple  to  handrear 
these.  The  young  fledge  normally  between  twenty-five  and  twenty-eight 
days,  resembling  adults,  apart  from  their  pale  beak  coloration,  a  paler  hue 
to  the  skin  around  the  eye  and  the  legs,  a  wash  of  grey  on  the  crown  and 
mantle  and  only  a  rudimentary  crest,  assuming  adult  plumage  in  their 
first  year.  Young  are  removed  from  the  breeding  aviaries  usually  five  days 
post-fledging,  as  pairs  nest  again  remarkably  quickly. 

No  special  problems  have  been  encountered  in  maintaining  and  breed¬ 
ing  this  species.  However,  they  do  seem  susceptible  to  parasitic  infection, 
notably  to  gape  ( Syngamus  sp. )  and  tape  ( Cestodea )  worms  and  coccidio- 
sis.  With  their  habit  of  foraging  among  the  substrate  of  the  aviaries,  they 
are  prone  to  reinfection  from  invertebrate  secondary  hosts.  Faeces  are 
screened  twice  a  year,  in  October  before  the  onset  of  harsher,  stressful 
climatic  conditions,  and  in  February,  before  the  breeding  season,  followed 
each  time  by  routine  treatment  for  coccidiosis  and  worms.  Fatality  in  es¬ 
tablished  birds  has  been  low,  but  quite  large  numbers,  up  to  50%  in  some 
years,  of  chicks  have  been  lost,  the  greater  percentage  while  still  in  the 
nest.  Post  mortem  findings  often  reveal  parasites  as  causative.  We  are  now 
experimenting  with  treatment  of  chicks  while  in  the  nest,  but  it  is  too 
early  to  comment  on  results.  While  not  wanting  to  interfere  with  any  nat¬ 
ural  wastage,  we  feel  the  number  raised  could  be  increased.  Indeed,  in 
1977,  79%  of  young  hatched  were  reared. 

A  reserve  of  twenty  specimens  is  maintained  in  the  collection  to  ensure 
as  much  as  possible  of  the  genetic  variability  contained  in  the  foundation 
stock  is  preserved,  and  the  death  of  a  single  specimen  does  not  constitute 
a  loss  to  our  gene  pool.  Birds  surplus  to  requirements  are  sent  to  other 
potential  breeders.  Over  70  have  been  exported  to  21  different  collections 
endeavouring  to  dispose  of  small  groups  of  unrelated  individuals  in  the 
belief  that  new  captive  populations  can  best  be  established  by  this  policy. 


32 


D.F.  JEGGO  -  ROTHSCHILD’S  MYNAHS 


The  birds  are  sold  on  remarkably  reasonable  terms  so  that  dealers  cannot 
compete,  making  the  illegal  trade  in  wild-caught  specimens  economically 
unviable. 

Detailed  records  are  kept  on  the  birds’  parentage,  medical  history, 
behaviour  and  breeding  performance.  It  is  our  aim  to  manage  our  popula¬ 
tion  so  as  to  preserve  its  vigour  and  natural  fitness  to  survive.  To  this  end 
we  cannot  consider  our  individual  programme  in  isolation,  it  is  vital  that 
all  breeders  of  Rothschild’s  Mynahs  co-operate.  So  often,  though  once 
widespread  in  aviculture,  a  species  has  been  grossly  neglected  and  gone 
into  a  sudden  and  rapid  decline  so  that,  in  a  short  time,  it  has  been  allowed 
to  all  but  die  out. 

Today,  there  are  almost  certainly  more  Rothschild’s  Mynahs  in  capti¬ 
vity  than  in  the  wild  state.  Perhaps  no  other  endangered  species  presents 
such  potential  for  captive  breeding  to  contribute  significantly  to  aid  its 
conservation.  The  bird  trade  has  been  a  major  factor  in  the  demise  of  this 
species  and  still  remains  so;  we  hope  this  may  soon  ease.  However,  with 
continued  pressure  on  the  remaining  habitat,  its  future  in  the  wild  cannot 
be  assured.  Aviculture  must  act  responsibly  to  perpetuate  this  graceful 
species  in  our  aviaries  so  that,  should  the  ^ild  population  become  extinct, 
there  is  at  least  a  flourishing  captive  reservoir. 


33 


SOME  SOURCES  OF  LIVE  FOOD 
By  L.  GIBSON  (Burnaby,  British  Columbia,  Canada) 


The  major  problem  in  rearing  softbills  (and  some  other  birds), 
once  they  have  nested,  is  the  provision  of  sufficient  suitable  live  foods  for 
the  nestlings. 

These  notes  apply  mainly  to  cool  temperate  climates.  People  who  are 
fortunate  enough  to  live  in  warm  areas  have  access  to  a  greater  variety  and 
numbers  of  insects  and,  most  important,  they  are  available  the  year  round. 
In  cooler  climates,  getting  hold  of  any  insects,  especially  early  in  the  sea¬ 
son,  is  in  itself  a  problem,  in  addition  to  the  sheer  quantity  required. 

For  a  long  time  many  people  and  institutions  have  relied  rather  heavily 
on  mealworms  ( Tenehrio ).  This  is  because  they  are  relatively  easy  to  rear, 
and  are  among  the  least  objectionable  of  creatures  to  culture,  as  they 
neither  smell  nor  readily  escape.  Not  all  birds  use  them,  and  many  birds 
acquire  the  taste.  Chicks  fed  exclusively  on  mealworms  invariably  develop 
rickets  (Rachitis).  However,  I  have  had  a  number  of  healthy  chicks  raised 
almost  solely  on  mealworms,  provided  that  at  least  a  third  of  them  are 
smeared  daily  with  soft  margarine  (the  mealworms,  that  is,  not  the  chicks). 
Even  so,  a  good  variety  of  livefood  is  desirable,  and  supplying  the  huge 
quantity  required  is  often  the  hardest  task  of  the  critical  period  up  until 
the  fledgelings  are  self-supporting  on  a  prepared  diet. 

Beating  bushes  over  a  plastic  sheet  is  a  useful  and  well-known  collection 
method.  It  is  rarely  of  help  to  me,  except  perhaps  in  September,  when  it  is 
usually  too  late  to  be  of  any  use.  This  is  because  the  natural  flora  of  this 
area  is  coniferous  rain  forest,  with  a  consequent  paucity  of  insects,  both  in 
species  and  numbers,  at  least  at  ground  level.  The  forest  has  only  recently 
been  cut  down  in  the  city  surrounds,  and  still  covers  most  of  the  country¬ 
side,  so  few  alien  insects  have  moved  into  the  cleared  areas. 

In  September  large  quantities  of  spiders  appear.  They  have  been  there 
all  along,  but  only  become  big  enough  to  be  seen  and  collected  in  the  au¬ 
tumn.  On  a  few  occasions  I  have  had  softbills  nesting  late  enough  tqhnake 
use  of  these  spiders.  Spiders  stay  alive  for  at  least  four  weeks  in  a  paper 
bag  in  the  fridge.  All  the  birds  love  them. 


34 


L!  GIBSON  -  SOME  SOURCES  OF  LIVE  FOOD 


Grasshoppers  are  a  useful  food  but  are  not  found  everywhere.  When 
located,  they  are  best  collected  on  a  dull  day,  or  just  before  dusk,  if  the 
area  is  warm  and  dry.  Under  these  conditions  the  creatures  will  be  slow 
enough  to  be  captured  easily,  either  by  net  or,  with  practice,  by  hand. 
In  cool  areas  of  limited  sunshine,  as  found  locally,  grasshoppers  tend  to 
collect  in  dry  sheltered  areas,  such  as  the  bottom  of  south-facing  slopes. 
They  will  keep  for  up  to  three  weeks  in  a  well-ventilated  cage,  kept  out¬ 
side  in  a  shaded  area.  Fresh  herbage  should  be  supplied  every  few  days 
and  must  not  be  allowed  to  become  damp  or  rotten,  as  this  quickly 
causes  the  death  of  the  insects.  They  will  also  keep  alive  for  at  least  a 
week  and  up  to  two  weeks  in  the  fridge.  Use  a  dark  container  with  some 
ventilation. 

Because  grasshoppers  become  progressively  larger  as  the  summer 
advances,  this  limits  the  number  of  bird  species  that  can  use  them.  Remov¬ 
ing  the  large  rear  jumping  legs  of  the  insects  makes  them  more  acceptable 
to  some  smaller  birds.  Fully  grown  grasshoppers  are  at  least  1”  (25  mm) 
long. 

Aphids  have  been  ignored  by  most  of  my  birds,  except  for  waxbills. 
Even  then,  the  aphids  are  so  small  as  to  be  of  almost  negligible  value  in 
the  raising  of  a  brood.  Gold-breastedWaxbills  used  aphids  as  additional 
rearing  food,  but  these  were  really  incidental,  and  so  I  do  not  collect 
them  specifically. 

Moths  can  often  be  collected  in  large  numbers  (along  with  other  fly¬ 
ing  insects)  by  using  a  white  sheet  and  a  night  light.  Again  this  method  is 
not  useful  to  me  because  of  the  paucity  of  lepidopterae  in  the  area  due  to 
the  high  rainfall. 

Smooth  caterpillars  are  among  the  most  useful  creatures,  being  accep¬ 
ted  as  rearing  food  by  most  birds.  You  just  have  to  be  lucky  to  locate  a 
source,  and  people  with  oak  woods  nearby  are  luckier  than  most.  Here  I 
am  referring  to  European  oaks  which  support  a  large  variety  of  useful 
caterpillars.  I  have  no  idea  if  the  same  applies  to  North  American  oaks. 
There  are  scarcely  any  caterpillars  locally  except  for  occasional  outbreaks 
of  ‘tent-caterpillars’  (Tussock  moths),  which  are  unacceptable  to  the 
birds  because  of  the  irritating  hairs  covering  the  creatures.  I  can  also  get 
reasonable  numbers  of  alder  sawfly  larvae,  but  few  birds  will  touch  them. 
Sawfly  larvae  are  very  distasteful  to  birds  and  even  although  a  few  of  the 
tougher  birds  eat  them,  I  would  not  like  to  risk  chicks  being  fed  with 


L.  GIBSON  -  SOME  SOURCES  OF  LIVE  FOOD 


35 


them  in  case  they  got  sick.  The  older  sawfly  larvae  are  covered  in  a  white 
powder  and  they  seem  to  be  slightly  more  palatable  when  this  is  rubbed 
off.  The  sawfly  larvae  that  are  such  pests  of  gooseberry  and  currant  bushes 
are  most  distasteful,  and  I  do  not  remember  a  bird  trying  more  than  one.  I 
have  even  seen  Sticklebacks  spit  them  out.  The  larvae  appear  to  get  more 
distasteful  as  they  get  older,  and  may  be  eaten  when  very  small.  Ribes 
bushes  in  an  aviary  are  always  kept  clear  of  the  pests.  Possibly  the  birds  get 
the  flies  (which  are  also  distasteful)  before  they  propagate. 

Water  creatures  are  sometimes  available  in  large  numbers,  even  early  in 
the  season.  Dragonfly  larvae,  water  beetles  and  freshwater  shrimps  are  all 
acceptable.  Copsychus ,  for  example,  will  eat  all  of  these,  and  they  are  fond 
of  aquatic  snails,  which  they  gobble  down,  including  the  shell.  These  latter 
are  less  stickly  and  objectionable  than  land  snails,  in  which  few  birds  show 
any  interest.  Large  pond  snails  should  be  cracked  for  the  birds. 

All  these  creatures  can  be  collected  by  dredging  a  large  mass  of  water- 
weed  and  suspending  it  at  the  top  of  a  bucket,  half  filled  with  water.  The 
animals  will  soon  work  their  way  down  into  the  water,  where  they  will 
keep  alive  indefinitely  (with  some  water  weed),  providing  they  are  kept 
cool.  Pond  water  is  best.  Do  not  use  chlorinated  water  straight  from  the 
tap,  or  it  may  prove  fatal  to  the  collection.  To  avoid  certain  avian  para¬ 
sites,  it  is  best  to  collect  from  ditches  or  small  ponds,  which  do  not  have  a 
resident  bird  population.  Actually  I  can  get  enough  aquatic  snails  from 
aquariums  and  a  garden  pond  to  keep  my  Copsychus  in  titbits  the  year 
round.  Parasites  are  a  risk  from  any  wild  source  of  live  food,  but  it  is  not 
a  great  problem. 

Pond  creatures  can  be  fed  to  the  birds  in  a  shallow  dish,  barely  cover¬ 
ing  them  with  water.  Some  non-aquatic  birds  will  even  pick  out  fish  fry 
from  a  little  dish.  Use  only  fresh  water  fish.  A  large  flat  dish  of  water  is  a 
good  way  in  which  to  offer  spiders,  etc.,  which  would  otherwise  quickly 
escape  from  the  aviary.  Insects  will  float  for  a  while  until  the  birds  pick 
them  off.  Another  way  is  to  put  food  animals  in  a  plastic  pah  with  some 
herbage  on  the  bottom.  This  retains  the  creatures,  and  the  birds  quickly 
learn  to  fly  in  and  out.  Escapees  from  the  pah  tend  to  run  around  the  rim, 
unth  snapped  up.  A  glass  aquarium  is  also  useful,  as  certain  phototropic 
creatures,  like  spiders,  then  have  less  of  a  tendency  to  try  to  escape  out 
towards  the  light  source. 

I  have  tried  culturing  an  assortment  of  insects  and  ran  into  many  prob- 


36 


L!  GIBSON  -  SOME  SOURCES  OF  LH€  FOOD 


lems.  Maggot  cultures  are  objectionable  for  obvious  reasons,  and  there  is  a 
risk  of  birds  getting  enteritis  from  bacteria  that  abound  in  the  rotting 
flesh.  I  never  use  them  for  chicks,  and  rarely  offer  them  to  adult  birds. 

Wax  moth  larvae  are  not  too  difficult  to  rear  and  they  are  a  nice  size 
and  consistency  for  chicks.  They  have  proved  to  be  persistent  escapers 
when  kept  in  the  dark.  The  only  warm  place  in  my  house  is  dark,  and  is 
ideal  for  rearing  mealworms.  The  Wax  moth  larvae  are  very  active  when 
newly  hatched  and  can  get  through  the  finest  mesh.  The  cultures  must  be 
well  ventilated,  as  must  all  cultures,  or  the  substrate  becomes  moul¬ 
dy  .  So  there  is  no  way  of  keeping  the  larvae  contained  in  dark  conditions. 
I  do  not  think  they  come  out  in  the  light,  preferring  to  burrow  in  the  bran, 
but  they  may  wander  at  night.  I  have  not  experimented  with  this,  and  gave 
up  on  them,  as  more  of  them  were  outside  than  inside  the  containers  when 
kept  in  my  dark  furnace  room.  So  many  escaped  once  that  a  40  gallon 
water  tank  was  completely  covered  in  silk,  spun  by  the  larvae.  For  those 
interested,  the  growth  medium  is  made  by  boiling  100  ml  of  water,  100  ml 
of  glycerol  and  100  ml  of  sugar.  When  cool,  the  mixture  is  well  stirred  into 
1000-1200  ml  of  bran,  a  little  at  a  time.  Quantities  need  not  be  exact.  The 
original  recipe  called  for  vitamin  drops,  but  I  found  that  the  larvae  did  just 
as  well  without  them. 

Among  the  easiest  creatures  to  rear  are  earthworms.  These  are  not  used 
enough  in  aviculture.  Chicks  can  be  successfully  reared  almost  solely  on 
worms.  A  remarkable  number  can  be  maintained  in  a  small  compost  heap. 
Simply  add  all  organic  kitchen  waste  to  the  heap,  adding  a  layer  of  soil 
now  and  then.  Keep  it  moist  and  cool  in  hot  weather,  and  cover  it  with 
some  jute  sacking.  The  worms  can  be  gathered  from  under  the  sacks,  with 
a  minimum  of  disturbance,  which  is  best  for  maximum  production.  It  is 
preferable  that  the  heap  is  contained  in  a  wooden  frame,  etc.,  as  this 
retains  moisture  and  provides  breeding  areas  (the  worms  like  to  burrow 
alongside  some  solid  cover)  and  it  can  be  covered  to  keep  out  garden 
birds.  It  also  helps  to  retain  some  heat  and  prevents  excessive  freezing  in 
winter.  The  spot  used  should  not  be  subject  to  flooding.  Do  not  add  man¬ 
ure  to  the  heap. 

In  some  areas,  Crane  fly  larvae  ( Tipula  spp )  can  be  gathered.  These 
‘leatheijackets’  are  an  ideal  food  for  birds  that  will  take  them.  They  tend 
to  collect  in  turf  alongside  a  solid  path,  etc.  Probably  this  is  because  of  the 
moisture  retention  of  the  stonework  in  summer,  and  also,  in  a  small 
garden  this  area  is  usually  not  walked  on.  Just  peel  the  turf  back  from  the 
path  edge  and  pick  them  out.  They  will  keep  for  months  in  a  bucket  of 


L.  GIBSON  -  SOME  SOURCES  OF  LIVE  FOOD 


37 


damp  turf.  Many  worms  can  also  be  found  along  such  edges. 

It  would  be  nice  to  have  a  source  of  live  food  that  supported  itself  until 
ready  to  be  collected.  With  this  in  mind,  I  installed  a  beehive  in  the  garden 
particularly  for  an  attempt  at  raising  Chloropsis . 

The  bee  larvae  proved  rather  impractical  to  collect,  and  the  hive  was  so 
interesting  that  I  had  not  the  heart  to  use  the  inmates  as  bird  food.  I  was 
rewarded  by  a  huge  increase  in  the  garden  fruit  crop,  and  40  lb  (18  kg)  of 
honey  which  was  in  part  fed  to  the  nectivorous  birds.  However,  the  bees 
gave  me  an  idea. 

An  insect  that  can  be  found  just  about  everywhere  is  the  common 
wasp  (Vespula  spp).  The  larvae  will  keep  for  up  to  two  weeks  in  the  fridge, 
and  the  pupae  will  last  for  six  weeks  or  more.  They  are  conveniently  pack¬ 
aged  naturally  in  the  paper  combs,  and  these  can  be  refrigerated  in  paper 
bags  until  required.  Paper  bags  provide  suitable  ventilation  and  keep  the 
combs  dry.  Plastic  bags  retain  too  much  moisture,  which  allows  the  growth 
of  moulds. 

Collection  becomes  easier  after  some  practice  and  a  few  stings.  Free 
hanging  nests  are  the  easiest  to  deal  with.  Nests  that  are  attached  to  a 
beam,  etc.,  by  more  than  the  top  stem  are  best  left  until  you  are  more 
practised.  Collection  equipment  consists  of  a  large  plastic  bag,  a  bread 
knife,  gloves  and  some  acetone  and  tissues.  Nail  polish  remover  can  be 
used,  as  this  is  acetone.  Amateurs  are  advised  to  have  a  hat  and  a  veil,  espe¬ 
cially  if  the  nest  is  not  easily  accessible. 

The  best  places  to  seek  nests  are  in  old  barns  and  the  like.  Nests  are  best 
collected  in  the  dark  when  the  insects  have  stopped  flying.  Approach 
quickly  and  silently.  A  ladder,  if  used,  should  be  placed  very  gently.  Once 
the  approach  is  made  it  is  safer  to  proceed  than  to  retreat,  as  the  angry 
insects  will  even  fly  at  night  when  disturbed.  A  piece  of  tissue  is  soaked  in 
acetone  and  put  in  the  plastic  bag,  which  should  be  large  enough  to  drop 
the  nest  into.  A  small  piece  of  acetone-soaked  tissue  is  then  pushed  into 
the  nest  entrance.  At  night  there  are  usually  four  guards  sitting  just  inside, 
so  the  plug  must  be  pushed  in  without  any  hesitation.  The  acetone  imm¬ 
ediately  affects  the  wasps,  and  their  main  intention  is  to  get  away  from  it. 
lift  the  plastic  bag  up  around  the  nest  and  quickly  slice  the  holding  stem 
and  drop  the  nest  into  the  bag.  Close  it  for  at  least  half  an  hour.  The  wasps 
will  then  be  dead,  although  an  occasional  groggy  one  will  be  found  in  the 


38 


L.  GIBSON  -  SOME  SOURCES  OF  LIVE  FOOD 


depths  of  the  nest.  The  larvae  and  pupae  are  unaffected  by  the  acetone 
which  soon  evaporates  off  when  the  combs  are  removed  from  the  bag. 

Later,  with  conservation  in  mind  (and  a  little  sympathy)  I  took  nests  in 
the  daylight  and  immediately  after  bagging  them,  left  the  bag  open  in  the 
field.  Acetone  was  only  used  for  the  entrance  plug.  A  smart  retreat  was 
followed  by  a  five-minute  wait,  during  which  most  of  the  wasps  escaped.  It 
is  not  only  the  escape  of  the  queens  that  counts,  for  I  have  seen  several 
nests  rebuilt  on  the  remains  by  escapees  and  latecomers  who  were  out  at 
the  time  of  collection. 

Remove  the  outer  paper  cover  of  the  nest  and  separate  the  combs. 
Store  until  needed.  The  innermost  circles  of  cells  are  the  first  to  be  built, 
of  course,  so  they  usually  contain  more  pupae.  The  adult  larvae  occupy 
the  next  few  concentric  rings  and  the  smaller  outer  cells  contain  progres¬ 
sively  smaller  larvae,  down  to  eggs.  Work  from  the  outside  in,  using  the 
smaller  larvae  first,  then  the  larger  larvae,  then  the  pupae.  This  is  because 
the  pupae  keep  for  much  longer  than  the  larvae,  and  the  larger  larvae  keep 
better  than  the  smaller  ones.  The  larvae  can  be  pulled  from  the  cells  with  a 
jerk,  using  blunt  tweezers.  Sharp  tweezers  can  puncture  a  larva  and  spill  its 
contents  into  the  cell,  thus  wasting  much  of  it.  The  pupae  are  in  a  silk  en¬ 
velope  and  their  cells  are  capped  over.  This  silk  is  tough.  With  practice,  the 
cap  can  be  lifted  with  tweezers  and  the  pupa  lifted  out  in  one  movement. 
It  must  then  be  carefully  slid  out  of  its  envelope  without  breaking  the 
body,  or  again  much  of  the  contents  will  be  lost.  The  inside  of  both  larva 
and  pupa  is  a  pulp  that  is  of  ideal  consistency  for  young  chicks,  but  it 
must  be  kept  within  the  skin  or  the  birds  cannot  pick  it  up. 

The  larvae  go  black  after  about  two  weeks  in  the  fridge  but  the  pupae 
do  not.  I  think  this  is  mostly  due  to  the  liberation  of  the  intestinal  con¬ 
tents  of  the  larva  into  the  body  tissues.  These  larvae  are  unable  to  defae- 
cate  until  they  pupate,  so  the  gut  contents  are  retained  as  a  dark  brown 
solid  mass  in  the  body.  This  is  released  just  as  the  pupa  is  formed  and  so  is 
absent  from  the  latter.  There  may  be  no  connection  with  this,  but  at  any 
rate  the  pupae  do  not  discolour.  I  have  fed  a  few  of  the  black  larvae  to  ad¬ 
ult  birds,  but  have  not  risked  them  with  chicks.  The  pupae  also  keep  better 
because  they  are  sealed  in,  and,  of  course,  are  dormant  relative  to  the  lar¬ 
vae. 

Nests  do  not  get  very  large  here  because  of  the  cool  wet  climate,  but 
last  summer  was  quite  good,  and  I  collected  a  nest  of  six  combs  or  stories. 


L‘ GIBSON  -  SOME  (SOURCES  OF  LIVE  FOOD 


39 


These  paper  discs  are  largest  in  the  middle  of  the  nest  and  the  cell  openings 
are  on  the  bottom  side.  The  nest  and  contents  weighed  1  lb  9  oz  (710  g) 
and  contained  at  least  4,690  cells,  of  which  2,860  were  occupied  with  430 
eggs,  1,716  larvae  and  725  pupae.  Out  of  the  total  of  2,441  pupae  and  lar¬ 
vae,  2,000  were  usable,  the  remaining  441  larvae  were  too  tiny. 

There  were  457  wasps  with  three  queens,  in  the  nest  at  4  p.m.  on  a 
warm  July  evening,  and  I  estimate  that  this  was  at  least  half  of  the  colony 
strength.  Other  nests  have  shown  the  total  number  of  working  adults  to  be 
small,  always  under  a  thousand,  and  usually  about  three  to  five  hundred, 
with  a  ratio  of  one  worker  to  two  larvae.  The  weather,  of  course,  governs 
the  size  of  the  colony. 

Wasp  grubs  are  something  of  an  acquired  taste  and  not  all  birds  will  eat 
them  at  first,  but  usually  they  will  take  to  them  later.  The  pupae  seem  to 
be  more  acceptable,  and  these  are  better  to  start  with  if  the  birds  are  fussy. 
The  largest  grubs  and  pupae  are  3A”  (20  mm)  long,  but  they  are  of  a  con¬ 
sistency  such  that  even  newly-hatched  Zosterops  chicks  can  gulp  down  the 
pulp  after  the  parent  has  broken  the  grub’s  skin  with  a  few  bangs.  I  am  ex¬ 
perimenting  with  freezing  wasp  larvae  and  pupae  and  seeing  if  they  can  be 
used  after  a  year.  The  birds  eat  them  as  long  as  they  are  still  recognisable, 
and  they  do  not  have  to  be  moving  to  be  used  as  rearing  food.  The  pupae 
do  not  move  anyway,  and  the  larvae  only  wriggle  a  little  when  put  out. 
They  become  dormant  in  the  fridge.* 

Notwithstanding  the  collection  difficulties,  I  have  found  these  to  be 
among  the  most  storable  of  wild  live  foods,  and  about  the  most  trouble- 
free  food  for  newly  hatched  chicks. 

This  season  (1980)  I  have  no  intention  of  going  through  all  the  hazards 
of  previous  years.  I  have  now  discovered  relatively  inexpensive  commer¬ 
cial  sources  of  live  foods  and  if  the  breeding  season  is  not  more  success¬ 
ful  than  before,  it  will  at  least  be  easier,  thanks  to  Olympic  mealworms, 
and  also  Barrett’s  crickets  -  both  of  California.  There  is  no  way  that  I 
can  collect  or ‘raise  these  creatures  cheaper  than  I  can  import  them  from 
the  sunny  south! 


*Many  birds  shake  their  heads  and  drop  wasp  larvae.  On  the  other  hand, 
wasp  pupae  are  immediately  eaten.  Since  writing  the  above,  I  tasted  a  larva 
to  see  what  was  so  objectionable  -  and  found  it  to  be  completely  tasteless! 
Perhaps  the  pupae  are  flavoured,  but  I  have  not  got  around  to  trying  one. 


40 


BIRDS  OF  A  CANBERRA  GARDEN 
By  ALASTAIR  MORRISON  (Ainslie,  ACT,  Australia) 


Coming  to  live  in  Canberra  in  1967  has  provided  a  rich  experience  in 
bird  life  ,  some  of  it  familiar  to  me  from  avicultural  days  in  England 
fifty  years  ago.  I  have  never,  however,  established  an  aviary  in  Australia. 
My  wife  and  I  are  often  away  from  home  and  quite  apart  from  this,  the 
amount  of  pet  bird  theft  in  Australia  is  quite  astonishing.  What  might  be 
called  avicultural  larceny  seems  almost  a  national  sport.  Furthermore,  avi¬ 
culture  is  very  strictly  controlled  in  the  interests  of  wildlife  protection  and 
the  importation  of  birds  is  absolutely  forbidden.  The  ban  is  designed  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  Newcastle  disease  among  poultry.  The  penal¬ 
ties  for  illegal  bird  importation  are  draconian.  Anyone  foolish  enough  to 
buy  an  imported  bird  is  liable  not  only  for  heavy  financial  penalties,  but 
also  for  the  destruction  of  the  bird  imported  and  all  other  birds  in  his 
possession  and  as  many  of  the  birds  that  appear  on  his  property  as  special 
shooters  can  destroy  over  a  period  of  days.  The  Australian  aviculturist 
undeniably  has  problems. 

However,  in  practice  the  lack  of  an  aviary,  which  I  always  thought  I 
would  have  in  my  declining  years,  has  proved  to  be  no  great  hardship.  Our 
quarter  of  an  acre  garden  backs  onto  an  area  of  bushland  and  we  have  a 
constant  flow  of  bird  visitors. 

The  very  first  morning  after  our  arrival  we  saw  a  flock  of  Gang-gangs  in  a 
large  gum  tree  in  the  garden,  the  first  of  many  visits  by  this  species.  In  the 
wild  they  are  the  most  charming  birds  with  a  marvellously  buoyant, 
swerving  flight.  It  is  a  pity  that  their  voices  should  be  like  rusty  railway 
brakes.  They  are  abundant  in  the  forested  hills  of  S.E.  Australia  and  come 
into  Canberra  in  the  winter  where  they  have  learned  to  enjoy  the  seeds  of 
many  exotic  trees.  They  are  remarkably  tame. 

The  most  abundant  parrot  is  Pennant’s  Parrakeet.  They  are  constantly 
to  be  seen  and  if  food  is  put  out  for  them,  numbers  can  be  attracted.  At 
the  bird  table  they  are  surprisingly  quarrelsome.  Eastern  Rosellas  are  less 
common  but  very  elegant  and  possessed  of  charming  and  melodious  warb¬ 
ling  calls.  Only  occasionally  have  we  seen  King  Parrakeets  in  the  garden 
though  they  are  common  in  other  parts  of  Canberra.  A  friend  has  a  de¬ 
lightfully  tame  specimen,  rescued  with  a  broken  wing  as  a  juvenile.  As  a 
pet  its  behaviour  reminds  one  strongly  of  a  lorikeet.  We  have  never  seen 


ALASTAIRMORRISON  -  BIRDS  OF  A  CANBERRA  GARDEN 


41 


any  lorikeets  in  Canberra  though  some  do,  in  fact,  occur;  nor  do  we  see 
Redrumps  in  the  garden  though  they  are  common  in  neighbouring  grass¬ 
lands. 

Roseate  Cockatoos  (Galahs)  are  common,  especially  in  winter.  It  is 
one  of  the  birds  which  has  benefitted  from  human  settlement.  Although 
delightful,  gregarious,  playful  birds,  they  are  almost  too  common  for  their 
beauty  to  be  fully  appreciated.  Sulphur-crested  Cockatoos,  with  their 
beautiful  flight  and  terrible  voices,  are  an  occa  sional  winter  visitor.  They 
are  abundant  around  Canberra. 

The  only  Australian  finches  to  visit  the  garden  are  Bicheno’s  and  Syd¬ 
ney  Waxbills.  They  visit  in  winter  if  we  put  out  millet  but  most  of  the 
seed  is  taken  by  hordes  of  House  Sparrows,  one  of  the  many  unfortunate 
introductions  made  by  the  early  settlers.  We  sometimes  also  have  much 
more  welcome  Goldfinches.  The  only  other  Australian  finch  that  occurs 
regularly  in  Canberra,  the  handsome  Diamond  Sparrow  (a  pair  was  one  of 
my  most  treasured  possessions  as  a  schoolboy),  has  never  appeared  to  date. 

There  is  no  lack  of  insectivorous  birds.  The  most  conspicuous  are  the 
Magpies  or  Piping  Crows  -  delightful  and  comical  birds  with  a  most  melod¬ 
ious  song.They  become  very  tame  but  are  also  aggressive  during  the  nesting 
season  when  they  dive-bomb  human  beings  near  their  nests.  They  do  not, 
unfortunately,  distinguish  between  bird  lovers  and  others. 

Related  to  the  Piping  Crows  are  the  Currawongs.  The  common  Pied 
Currawong  is  a  crow-like  bird  with  white  markings  and  fierce  yellow  eyes. 
They  occur  in  great  flocks  in  winter,  constantly  calling  to  each  other  with 
loud  and  rollicking  cries.  The  slightly  larger  Grey  Currawong  is  compara¬ 
tively  rare  but  both  species  occur  in  our  garden. 

Infinitely  daintier  are  the  Blue  Wrens,  enchanting  little  birds  with  long 
tails  cocked  up  over  their  backs,  the  males  in  colour  largely  a  brilliant  blue. 
They  go  about  in  little  parties  and  would  be  more  common  if  it  were  not 
for  the  innumerable  cats  which  infest  Canberra.  Typically  Australian  are 
the  honey-eaters.  They  are  adapted  to  take  nectar  from  various  Australian 
flowers  but  they  are  also  largely  insectivorous.  Eight  species  have  occurred 
in  our  garden.  They  vary  in  size  from  the  Wattled  Honey-eater  and  Friar 
Birds,  which  are  as  big  as  Blackbirds,  to  the  Spine-billed  Honey-eater  about 
the  same  size  as  a  large  sunbird.  The  Wattled  Honey-eaters  are  long-tailed, 
grey  and  white  with  pendulous  red  wattles  and  loud,  harsh  cries  and  the 
Friar  Birds  have  bare  heads  and  knobby  protuberances  above  their  bills. 


42 


ALASTAIR  MORRISON  -  BIRDS  OF  A  CANBERRA  GARDEN 


Both  species  are  summer  visitors  but  the  Spine-billed  are  with  us  all  the 
year  round.  The  first  Spine-billed  I  ever  saw  belonged  to  Mr  Alfred  Ezra 
who  kept  one  in  his  bedroom  together  with  several  Nightingales.  In  spring 
Mr  Ezra  had  to  move  out  of  his  bedroom  because  the  Nightingales  sang  so 
loudly.  I  recollect  that  he  let  the  Spine-billed  out  of  its  cage  to  bathe 
under  the  tap  of  the  wash  basin. 

Australian  Robins  -  exceptionally  dainty  little  birds  -  are  occasional 
visitors.  Flame,  Scarlet  and  Red-capped  Robins  have  all  appeared  and  I 
hope  for  others.  Although  totally  unrelated,  they  do  resemble  the  Euro¬ 
pean  Robin  to  some  extent  in  their  ways  but  only  the  males  have  full  red 
breasts.  The  hens  are  dowdy  little  brown  birds.  Two  families  of  small  and 
specialist  insectivorous  birds  are  frequent  visitors.  There  are  two  kinds  of 
Pardalote  -  small  short-tailed,  thick-billed  birds  with  yellow  or  scarlet  mar¬ 
kings.  They  live  largely  on  the  scale  insects  to  be  found  on  some  eucalypts. 
The  other  family  consists  of  the  Thornhills  and  Weebills.  They  are  small, 
insignificant,  brownish,  quick  moving  birds.  I  have  seen  five  species  in  the 
garden  but  they  are  sometimes  difficult  to  identify  clearly.  They  are  con¬ 
stantly  on  the  move  and  my  hearing  is  no  longer  good  enough  to  pick  out 
the  differences  in  their  calls. 

Two  kinds  of  Whistler  are  regular  visitors;  like  rather  stoutly  built  fly¬ 
catchers,  the  males  are  handsome  fellows  with  dominant  yellow  or  chest¬ 
nut  markings  mixed  with  white  and  black.  With  Thornhills  and  Robins  and 
a  species  of  tree-creeper  and  the  little  grey  Fantail  -  the  tamest  of  birds  - 
they  make  up  feeding  groups  in  winter.  Another  visitor  is  the  Willie  Wag¬ 
tail,  a  large  pied  Fantail  which  reminded  the  early  settlers  of  the  Pied  Wag¬ 
tail  in  England.  There  is  a  certain  superficial  similarity  but  the  Australian 
Wagtail  wags  sideways  and  not  up  and  down. 

We  see  them  all.  In  summer  we  also  have  the  handsome  Masked  Cuc¬ 
koo-shrike,  large  pale  grey  birds,  the  male  with  a  black  mask.  In  their 
habits  they  do  indeed  share  some  of  the  characteristics  of  both  shrikes  and 
cuckoos.  European  Starlings  are  always  about  as  are  Blackbirds.  The 
elegant  Australian  Grey  Shrike-thrush  is  also  a  regular  visitor.  It  has  a  short 
but  sweet  song.  Another  bird  we  sometimes  see  is  the  Speckled  Warbler 
which  behaves  very  much  like  a  Hedge  Sparrow. 

Two  unusual  Australian  passerines  also  come  into  the  garden  at  times  - 
the  handsome  Magpie  Lark  and  the  larger  White-winged  Chough,  the  latter 
an  untidy,  gregarious  species  with  ruby-red  eyes  and  a  rather  sad  whistling 
call.  Both  species  build  peculiar,  bowl-shaped  mud  nests. 


ALAST  AIR  MORRISON  -  BIRDS  OF  A  CANBERRA  GARDEN 


43 


Apart  from  parrots,  we  have  comparatively  few  non-passerine  visi¬ 
tors.  The  most  conspicuous  is  the  Giant  Kingfisher  or  Kookaburra  which 
is  with  us  all  the  year  round.  Its  maniacal  laughing  calls  are  a  feature  of  the 
Australian  scene.  They  become  quite  tame  and  periodically  come  to  be 
fed  on  scraps  of  meat.  We  may  not  see  any  for  long  periods  but  then  a 
little  group  appears  on  the  garage  roof  and  watch  us  gravely  through  the 
kitchen  window  until  we  give  them  something  to  eat.  Blue  and  white 
Sacred  Kingfishers  occur  in  summer.  Both  species  are  dry  land  species 
which  are  not  dependent  on  the  availability  of  streams. 

A  species  of  cuckoo  is  an  occasional  summer  visitor  and  at  that  time  we 
often  see  Broad-billed  Rollers  with  their  aerobatic  flight  and  harsh  calls. 
They  nest  in  the  bushland  behind  the  house.  Sometimes  a  Goshawk  sweeps 
through  and  we  once  had  a  male  Sparrow-Hawk  take  a  Zosterops  in  the 
garden. 


We  never  lack  the  company  of  birds. 


44 


REPORT  ON  SOCIAL  MEETING  HELD  ON  16th  JANUARY,  1980 
By  ROSEMARY  LOW 


A  fascinating  discourse  on  waterfowl  in  Australia  was  heard  by  mem¬ 
bers  who  attended  the  cheese  and  wine  party  held  on  16th  January  1980, 
at  Burlington  House,  London. The  speaker  was  Michael  Lubbock,  Assistant 
Director  of  the  Wildfowl  Trust. 

During  the  twenty  years  he  has  spent  at  the  Wildfowl  Trust,  he  has 
been  on  waterfowl  collecting  expeditions  to  Alaska,  the  Canadian  Arctic, 
South  America  and,  last  October,  to  Australia.  The  latter  was  especially 
exciting  as,  due  to  the  fact  that  export  of  native  fauna  is  prohibited,  the 
indigenous  waterfowl  are  almost  unknown  outside  Australia. 

Mr.  Lubbock  obtained  special  permission  to  collect  eggs  of  four  species 
of  ducks  in  Western  Australia  -  Musk,  Pink-eared,  Blue-billed  and  Freckled. 
An  area  within  a  300-mile  radius  of  Perth  was  covered,  using  a  canoe  with 
an  outboard  motor. 

Of  especial  interest  is  the  Musk  Duck  Biziura  lobata,  a  bizarre  species 
which  has  a  lobe  below  the  lower  mandible  .  The  male  is  extremely 
aggressive  and,  extraordinary  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  twice  the  size  of  the 
female,  a  fact  which  was  used  to  advantage  in  the  Slimbridge  collection  as 
the  female  could  escape  the  male’s  attentions  by  disappearing  through 
specially  designed  “port  holes”. 

Mr.  Lubbock  discovered  that  Musk  Ducks  nest  in  clumps  of  reeds  and 
the  female  will  cover  the  nest  with  reeds  and  down  on  leaving.  The  average 
clutch  consists  of  only  two  eggs  which  are  green. 

As  the  result  of  collecting  eggs  which  were  hatched  at  Slimbridge,  some 
very  interesting  facts,  hitherto  unrecorded,  were  discovered  about  the 
ducklings.  They  are  so  aggresssive  that  one  at  Slimbridge  which  was  only 
24  hours  old  killed  a  younger  duckling.  Uniquely  among  waterfowl,  the 
ducklings  gape  for  food  (showing  orange  gapes)  and  are  fed  by  the  female 
for  two  to  three  weeks. 

Mr.  Lubbock  had  to  wade  about  in  several  feet  of  water  to  find  the 
nests  of  this  species.  If  there  are  no  rushes  in  the  vicinity,  Musk  Ducks 


ROSEMARY  LOW  -  SOCIAL  MEETING  ON  16th  JANUARY  1980 


45 


use  old  Coots’  nests.  One  egg  was  found  in  a  Black  Swan’s  nest. 

The  Pink-eared  Duck  Malacorhynchus  memhranaceus  is  also  of  unusual 
appearance,  having  a  large  beak  with  a  fleshy  flap  on  each  side.  Previously 
there  had  only  ever  been  one  pair  at  the  Wildfowl  Trust.  Mr.  Lubbock 
discovered  that  one  lake  might  yield  150  Grey  Teal  nests  but  only  seven 
Pink-eared  Ducks’  nests.  The  latter  nest  in  hollows  in  trees,  or  occasion¬ 
ally  in  the  crutch  of  two  branches.  For  reasons  unknown,  the  ducks  use 
a  lot  of  down  to  cover  the  eggs.  Due  to  the  fact  that  the  trees  are  dying 
off  in  the  saline  lakes  in  which  they  nest,  the  provision  of  nest-boxes 
would  greatly  assist  them.  Additionally,  gulls  also  nest  in  the  trees.  Pink¬ 
eared  Ducks  lay  nine  or  ten  eggs. 

They  were  found  nesting  on  only  two  lakes  of  the  many  searched  and 
one  of  these  was  in  a  metropolitan  area.  From  the  eggs  collected,  a  number 
of  ducklings  was  reared  at  Slimb ridge.  However,  initially  there  were  prob¬ 
lems  with  their  diet.  Wet  and  dry  foods  were  offered  but  only  wet  diets 
were  eaten.  When  chick  starter  crumbs  were  offered,  no  more  problems 
were  encountered. 

During  the  few  weeks  he  was  in  the  area,  Mr.  Lubbock  saw  150  Freck¬ 
led  Ducks  Stictonetta  naevosa  -  more  than  were  thought  to  be  in  the 
area.  He  believed  that  others  had  not  known  where  to  look  for  this  species 
which  is  rare  and  very  secretive  and  spends  a  lot  of  its  time  in  the  rushes. 

The  Freckled  Duck,  which  is  similar  in  appearance  to  the  extinct  Pink¬ 
headed  Duck,  has  never  previously  been  kept  in  captivity.  The  display  of 
this  species  is  unique,  the  birds  swimming  in  circles  with  their  bills  under 
water. 

The  Blue-billed  Duck  Oxyura  australis  is  not  unlike  the  Argentine 
Ruddy  Duck  O.  jamaicensis.  Only  four  eggs  of  the  Blue-billed  Duck  were 
collected  as  no  nests  were  found  until  the  last  day.  However,  all  the 
resulting  ducklings  proved  to  be  males.  It  is  hoped  to  be  able  to  obtain 
some  more  eggs  in  the  near  future. 

*  *  * 


Note:  Michael  Lubbock  has  written  a  most  interesting  article  on  the  method  of 
transporting  and  hatching  the  eggs  which  will  appear  in  the  next  issue  of  the  Maga¬ 
zine.  Ed. 


46 


MISS  PHYLLIS  BARCLAY-SMITH,  CBE. 


It  never  occurred  to  me  that  I  would  have,  one  day,  to  write  the  obit¬ 
uary  of  Phyllis  Barclay-Smith. 

Not  only  was  she  considerably  younger  than  I  am,  but  I  had  found  her 
in  a  good  state  of  health  during  a  long  visit  she  paid  to  Cleres  in  August 
1979.  When  she  left  to  return  to  England,  I  did  not  suspect  that  it  was 
the  last  time  I  would  see  her.  She  suddenly  collapsed  at  a  Christmas  dinner 
party,  and  she  never  came  out  of  a  coma.  She  died  on  2nd  January  1980. 

We  had  been  close  friends  and  associates  for  a  long  time.  When  I  first 
met  her,  she  was  a  young  assistant  to  her  uncle  and  aunt,  Mr  and  Mrs  F. 
Lemon,  who  in  those  days  managed  the  affairs  of  the  Royal  Society  for 
the  Protection  of  Birds  as  Secretary.  She  held  that  position  between  1929 
and  1935. 

Soon  after  the  organisation  of  the  International  Council  for  Bird 
Preservation  (1922),  of  which  I  am  the  only  founder  still  alive,  I  started  as 
its  Vice-President  for  Europe,  working  with  the  R.S.P.B.,  and  I  came  into 
contact  with  Miss  Barclay-Smith.  Here,  unusual  efficiency  was  already 
obvious.  Her  association  with  all  the  ornithologists  interested  in  preserving 
birds  all  over  the  world  developed  gradually,  and  in  1935  she  became  an 
Assistant  Secretary  of  the  I.C.B.P.  She  soon  took  over  a  number  of  the 
various  responsibilities  of  the  Council,  and  between  1938  and  1958,  while 
I  was  its  President,  she  actually  managed  our  activities  all  over  the  world, 
carrying  on  under  my  successor,  Professor  Dillon  Ripley,  until  1978  when 
she  relinquished  her  position  of  Secretary  to  become  a  Vice-President. 

All  that  pertains  to  birds  was  Miss  Barclay-Smith’ s  greatest  interest, 
not  only  their  conservation  in  a  hostile  and  ever  more  threatening  world, 
but  their  study  in  nature  and  their  observation  and  propagation  in  cap¬ 
tivity.  She  dedicated  herself  to  those  various  pursuits  with  an  energy  and 
a  relentlessness  that  were  a  guarantee  of  success.  She  became  the  Honorary 
Secretary  of  the  British  Ornithologists’  Union  (1945-1951)  and  later  on  a 
Vice-President. 

She  certainly  was  an  aviculturist  in  a  special,  restricted  way.  Living 
in  London,  she  could  only  keep  a  few  caged  pets,  which  she  did  with 
unusual  skill  and  devotion.  Her  old  friends  will  remember,  in  particu¬ 
lar,  a  pair  of  Yellow-winged  Sugar  Birds  which  she  possessed  for  a  very 


MISS  PHYLLIS  BARCLAY-SMITH 


47 


long  time.  No  birds  have  ever  been  kept  with  more  sentimental  and 
elaborate  care. 

The  Avicultural  Society,  just  before  the  Second  World  War,  was  in 
a  difficult  situation.  We  had  to  find  a  new  editor  for  the  Magazine. 
The  late  David  Seth-Smith,  who  had  been,  on  an  off,  its  editor  for  over 
thirty  years,  finally  had  to  retire.  There  was  no  suitable  replacement  in 
sight  and  our  President,  the  late  Alfred  Ezra,  and  I  endeavoured  to  per¬ 
suade  Miss  Barclay-Smith  to  accept  the  position.  She  was  reluctant  to 
assume  such  a  responsibility,  but  we  promised  her  all  the  possible  help 
and  she  finally  agreed  to  try.  She  edited  the  Avicultural  Magazine  for  the 
next  thirty-five  years  (1938-1973). 

Although  she  worked  full  time  for  the  government  throughout  the 
war,  she  succeeded  in  keeping  our  publication  going  during  those  anxious 
years,  remaining  in  touch  with  our  members  in  the  free  world  who  had 
something  to  contribute.  Her  activity  seemed  to  have  no  limits  as,  at  the 
same  time,  she  also  carried  on  with  the  work  of  the  I.C.B.P. 

After  the  war,  Miss  Barclay-Smith  greatly  improved  our  Magazine.  At 
the  same  time  she  developed  considerably  her  other  activities.  She  organi¬ 
sed  a  number  of  congresses  and  symposia.  She  also  published  several 
books,  pamphlets  and  bulletins  and  translated  others  from  the  French  and 
German.  Now  that  hard  work  appears  to  have  become  an  oddity,  it  is  diffi¬ 
cult  to  imagine  that  anyone  achieved  so  much,  for  so  many  years.  In  the 
course  of  her  incessant  activities,  she  had  met  all  the  prominent  ornitholo¬ 
gists  of  the  world,  and  many  became  close  friends.  She  was  able  to  interest 
them  in  her  pursuits  and  to  gain  their  support  for  international  bird  pres- 
servation.  She  travelled  extensively  and  promoted  with  a  special  winning 
eagerness  the  causes  she  had  at  heart.  She  practically  always  met  with 
success. 

For  practically  twenty  years,  after  the  end  of  the  war,  her  house  in 
Warwick  Avenue,  in  the  north  of  London,  became  the  gathering  centre  of 
ornithologists  from  many  countries.  A  number  of  them  stayed  there  dur¬ 
ing  their  visits,  and  there  were  innumerable  dinner  parties  of  which  she 
took  the  entire  care. 

Miss  Barclay-SmitlTs  singular  achievements  were  widely  recognised. 
She  was  made  a  Member  of  the  British  Empire  in  1958,  and  a  Commander 
in  1971.  She  was  awarded  the  gold  medal  of  the  R.S.P.B.  and  the  Delacour 
Medal  of  the  I.C.B.P.,  as  well  as  a  number  of  foreign  orders  and  awards. 


48 


MISS  PHYLLIS  BARCLAY-SMITH 


All  those  who,  like  myself,  have  long  worked  with  her,  realise  that  she 
was  extraordinarily  capable  and  completely  devoted  to  the  different  res¬ 
ponsibilities  she  had  assumed.  Her  sometimes-fiery  efforts  almost  invariab¬ 
ly  reached  their  goal.  Today,  when  not  only  birds,  but  nature  itself,  are 
threatened  with  destruction  by  man’s  senseless  over-exploitation  and  con¬ 
secutive  pollution,  she  will  be  missed  to  an  extent  still  difficult  to  evaluate. 

J.  Delacour 

President  of  the  Avicultural  Society, 
President  Emeritus  of  the  I.C.B.P. 


49 


NOTES  ON  THE  DENVER  ZOO  BIRD  COLLECTION  IN  1979 
By  EDWARD  C.  SCHMITT  (Curator) 

The  bird  collection  during  1979  experienced  one  of  the  most  productive 
years  since  the  opening  of  “Bird  World”  and  the  new  Pheasantry. 

The  waterfowl  area  continued  producing  a  variety  of  species,  the  most 
prolific  being  the  Hooded  Mergansers,  who  contributed  19  chicks  success¬ 
fully  reared.  An  important  species  hatched  for  the  first  time  was  the 
Bufflehead,  a  total  of  four  being  reared  to  adulthood. 

The  most  notable  pheasants  produced  were  a  pair  of  Satyr  Tragopans, 
9  Cheer  Pheasants  and  1 1  White  Eared  Pheasants.  Unfortunately  all  of  the 
White  Eared  Pheasants  were  placed  in  a  newly-constructed  rearing  facility 
when  they  were  6-8  weeks  old  and  a  freak  violent  thunderstorm  killed  9  of 
the  11,  resulting  in  only  two  being  successfully  reared.  As  in  the  past  our 
Black-footed  Penguins  hatched  and  reared  one  young.  We  also  continued 
to  produce  Stanley  Cranes,  with  one  being  reared  successfully. 

The  most  interesting  of  the  large  birds  hatched  was  the  Double-wattled 
Cassowary.  In  an  exceptional  year,  we  had  13  eggs  laid  by  a  single  female. 
All  were  artificially  incubated.  Eleven  of  the  13  were  fertile  and  8  were 
hatched.  Two  chicks  died  within  24  hours  of  hatching  and  6  were  success¬ 
fully  reared.  Unfortunately  all  6  turned  out  to  be  males. 

In  Bird  World,  a  number  of  species  continued  to  produce.  These  inclu¬ 
ded  the  Lilac-breasted  Roller,  Red  and  Yellow  Barbet,  Speckled  Mousebird 
(40  in  two  years),  Red  and  White  Crakes,  Green  Imperial  Fruit  Pigeon, 
Red-Legged  Honeycreeper,  Blacksmith  Plover  and  the  Blue-crowned 
Motmot. 

In  the  entire  collection,  55  species  were  hatched  and  220  individuals 
were  reared.  A  number  of  species  hatched  young  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Zoo  but  failed  to  rear  them  for  various  reasons.  These  included  African 
Green  White-eyes,  White-quilled  Black  Bustard  and  Superb  Starlings.  Two 
notable  species  laid  eggs  but  did  not  hatch;  these  were  the  Hooded  Vulture 
and  the  Cinereous  Vulture. 


50 


NEWS  FROM  THE  BERLIN  ZOO 
(October  -  December  1979) 

By  PROFESSOR  DR.  HEINZ  GEORG-KLOS  (Scientific  Director) 


New  Arrivals 
2  Indian  Tree  Ducks 

1.1  Magpie-Geese 

1.1  Andean  Geese 

1.1  Egyptian  Geese 
4  Bahama  Pintail 
4  Philippine  Ducks 

Birds  Hatched 

1  Bar- tailed  Cuckoo  Dove 
1  Iris  Lorikeet 
1 .0  Black  and  White 
Hombill 


Dendrocygna  favanica 
A  ns er anas  semipalmata 
Chloephaga  melanoptera 
Alopochen  aegyptiacus 
Anas  bahamensis 
Ams  luzonica 


Macropygia  unchall 
T richoglossus  iris 

Bycanistes  subcylindricus 


RED-BILLED  GROUND  CUCKOOS  ( Carpococcyx  renauldi) 

A  NEW  SPECIES  AT  THE  BERLIN  ZOO 

In  late  autumn  1979,  the  Berlin  Zoo  obtained  four  newly-hatched 
Red-billed  Ground  Cuckoos  -  a  most  interesting  species  from  South¬ 
east  Asia  -  from  the  Vogelpark  Walsrode,  West  Germany. 

These  birds  were  housed  in  our  spacious  tropical  free-flight  aviary  (360 
m  square).  They  are  the  most  admired  birds  there,  attracting  the  visitors 
because  of  their  unusual  size  and  tameness.  Their  total  length  measures 
about  70  cms,  half  of  which  is  the  dark  metallic-blue  tail. 


Due  to  their  extremely  strong  legs  these  Cuckoos  are  well  accustomed 
to  living  on  the  ground  of  the  jungle,  only  retiring  to  the  tree  tops  at 
night. 

A  firm  sex  determination  proves  to  be  problematical,  though  the 


PROF.  DR.  HEINZ  GEORG-KLOS  -  NEWS  FROM  BERLIN  ZOO 


51 


females  seem  to  be  somewhat  smaller  in  size,  but  then  again  this  may 
only  be  determined  with  certainty  should  they  happen  to  start  breed¬ 
ing,  which  we  are  hoping  for.  They  are  given  every  encouragement  to 
build  their  large  nests  on  the  ground:  they  lay  4  to  5  eggs,  each  of  which 
weighs  about  230  gs. 

Our  Red-billed  Ground  Cuckoos  are  fed  live  insects  as  well  as  newly- 
born  rodents. 

We  are  hopeful  of  being  able  to  start  a  series  of  scientific  studies  of 
this  species  enabling  us  to  record  facts  still  unknown  since  their  natural 
history  in  the  wild  is  virtually  unexplored. 


* 


*  * 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


Readers  of  early  avicultural  literature  will  know  of  the  fantastic  coll¬ 
ection  amassed  by  Lord  Lilford  at  his  estate  near  Oundle  during  the  early 
part  of  this  century.  After  many  years  of  disuse  a  number  of  the  aviaries 
and  paddocks  have  now  been  refurbished  and  contain  a  very  interesting 
collection  composed  mainly  of  the  larger  birds. 

The  enclosures  are  large  and  naturally  planted  and  great  care 
is  exercised  to  guard  against  overcrowding.  As  a  result,  breeding  successes  are 
numerous.  During  the  last  season,  amongst  others,  American  Kestrels 
Falco  sparverius ,  Buzzard  Buteo  buteo ,  Kestrel  Falco  tinnunculus,  Snowy 
Owl  Nyctea  scandiaca ,  Great  Eagle  Owl  Bubo  bubo  bubo ,  Little  Owl 
Athene  noctua ,  Tawny  Owl  Strix  aluco  sylvaticus  and  White-breasted  Barn 
Owl  Tyto  alba  alba  together  with  Common  Rhea  Rhea  americana  and 
many  species  of  waterfowl  and  pheasants  were  reared. 

Anthony  Turk,  the  Curator,  would  particularly  welcome  advice  about 
the  identity  of  rather  an  enigmatic  pair  of  Ravens  which  reared  four 
chicks.  These  birds,  which  are  of  uncertain  origin,  appear  to  be  noticeably 
smaller  than  the  birds  found  wild  in  Britain,  have  a  different  call  and  nest 
late  in  April  or  May.  They  have  no  distinctive  coloration  or  marking  so 
would  appear  to  be  a  subspecies  of  Corvus  corax . 


52 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


Five  of  the  six  full  species  of  peacock  pheasant  are  represented  in  the 
collection  of  the  Hong  Kong  Zoological  Gardens  and  all  breed  regularly, 
including  the  Palawan  Peacock  Pheasant  Polyplectron  emphanum . 

Writing  on  the  success  with  this  species,  Dr.  K.C.  Searle, 
Curator,  says:  “The  original  nucleus  was  2/3  wild-caught  birds  acquired 
in  1964.  In  1967  I  obtained  another  wild-caught  male  from  the  Philippines 
and  two  years  later,  a  zoo-bred  (Frankfurt)  male.  A  juvenile  male,  said  to 
have  been  bred  in  Japan  but  from  its  condition  on  arrival  and  behaviour, 
it  seemed  to  be  a  wild-caught  bird,  was  added  in  1972.  Young  were  first 
reared  in  1965  and  have  been  so  each  year  since.  A  total  of  258  chicks 
have  been  hatched  of  which  204  have  reached  maturity.  We  have  never 
had  more  than  five  breeding  pairs  “in  action”  in  any  one  year,  and  usually 
less  because  of  my  policy  of  not  going  on  indefinitely  with  old  birds  but 
keeping  up  replacements  in  young  pairs.  The  progeny  have  been  distribu¬ 
ted  to  28  collections  in  16  countries  including  seven  pairs  donated  to 
Jersey.  This  year  (1979)  we  reared  our  first  third  generation  captive-bred 
birds.” 


*  * 


* 


While  European  aviculturists  marvel  at  some  of  the  avian  gems  origina¬ 
ting  from  New  Guinea,  two  familiar  European  birds  recently  caused  some 
excitement  amongst  the  ornithologists  resident  in  Papua  New  Guinea. 
Both  the  Black-headed  Gull  and  Sand  Martin  were  observed  in  January 
1979  and  constitute  the  first  confirmed  sightings  of  these  species  for  that 
country. 


*  * 


* 


Much-travelled  Avicultural  Society  Council  member,  William  Timmis, 
departed  in  mid-January  for  a  three  month  study  trip  to  Sulawesi  as  part 
of  Operation  Drake.  The  main  theme  of  Mr.  Timmis’s  study  concerns  the 
complex  subject  of  pollination  and  the  role  certain  birds  play,  and  will 
examine  the  relationship  between  the  behaviour  of  foraging  nectar-eaters 
(Sunbirds,  etc.)  and  the  pattern  of  flower  presentation,  in  particular  the 
arrangement  and  positioning  of  the  flowers. 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


53 


Following  his  NOTES  FROM  A  KENYAN  COLLECTION  (AM  1979, 
p.95),  Malcolm  Ellis  heard  from  Mr.  Downey  that  his  Red-headed  Blue- 
bills  nested  again  in  March  1979,  and  were  doing  so  again  at  the  time  the 
letter  was  written  in  November.  In  December,  he  had  the  pleasure  of  visit¬ 
ing  Mr.  Downey  at  Langata,  Kenya,  and  was  shown  three  recently  fledged 
Blue-bills,  still  with  their  parents.  The  nest  was  constructed  in  a  large 
cardboard  carton  filled  with  dry  grass.  No  attempt  had  been  made  to 
screen  the  carton  which  had  been  placed  on  a  shelf,  about  waist-high 
above  the  ground,  in  the  sheltered  part  of  the  aviary.  The  aviary,  he 
estimates,  measures  about  15  x  8  x  6  ft  high,  or  a  little  larger.  It  has  a 
bare  earth  floor  with  practically  no  vegetation,  but  the  wire  is  covered 
by  thick  foliage;  therefore  the  inside  is  nicely  secluded. 


*  * 


* 


The  Falconry  Centre  at  Newent,  under  the  directorship  of  Philip 
Glasier,  continues  to  report  important  breeding  successes.  During  1979 
three  Egyptian  Vultures  Neophron  percnopterus  were  reared  success¬ 
fully,  together  with  a  Blyth’s  Hawk  Eagle  Spizaetus  alboniger  and  many 
other  raptors,  both  nocturnal  and  diurnal.  Although  the  Blyth’s  Hawk 
Eagle  is  a  small  species,  it  seems  to  have  a  very  protracted  breeding 
cycle,  both  incubation  and  fledging  taking  unusually  long  periods. 


* 


*  * 


Few  visitors  to  our  member  Keith  Bromley’s  collection  at  King’s 
Sombome  could  fail  to  be  impressed  both  by  the  size  of  his  collec¬ 
tion  of  waterfowl  and  by  the  manner  in  which  they  are  displayed. 
The  enclosures  are  landscaped  and  planted  to  give  the  impression  of 
a  vast  rock-garden  and  a  well-bore  at  the  highest  point  sends  crystal 
clear  water  down  cascades  and  waterfalls  to  feed  the  terraces  of  pools. 
Rarities  abound  and  many  have  bred  successfully.  These  include 
White-headed  Duck  Oxyura  leucocephala ,  Argentine  Ruddy  Duck 
Oxyura  vittata ,  Smew  Mergus  alhellus  and  Bronze-winged  Duck  Anas 
specularis.  A  pair  of  the  latter  species  had  proved  particularly  proli¬ 
fic  and  many  of  the  examples  of  this  large,  attractive  duck  now  in  this 
country  are  the  progeny  of  this  pair.  Three  further  Orinoco  Geese 
Neochen  jubata  have  now  been  obtained  to  go  with  the  lone  gander 


54 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


that  has  been  in  the  collection  for  some  time.  It  is  hoped  that  this 
species  may  breed  in  1980. 


*  * 


* 


Philip  G.  Schofield  writes  from  Suffolk:  “On  a  visit  to  the  Cotswold 
Wildlife  Park  in  September  (1979)  I  noticed  a  Grey-necked  Wood  Rail 
Aramides  cafanea  vigorously  attacking  something  on  the  floor  of  its  aviary. 
The  object  of  its  attention  proved  to  be  a  bath  plug,  complete  with  chain, 
which  the  bird  had  presumably  removed  from  the  pool  in  the  aviary.  I 
watched  the  bird  for  about  half  an  hour,  during  which  it  energetically 
hammered  the  plug  from  all  angles.  Probably  these  Rails  eat  a  certain 
number  of  aquatic  snails  and  similar  creatures  in  the  wild  state,  and  this 
individual  seemed  to  be  under  the  impression  that  its  bath  plug  was  such 
a  food  item.  On  several  occasions  it  was  seen  to  seize  the  chain  attached 
to  the  plug  and  carry  it  to  another  part  of  the  aviary  before  renewing  its 
onslaught  on  the  unproductive  piece  of  rubber.” 

*  *  * 


Members  of  the  Avicultural  Society  with  a  special  interest  in  soft- 
billed  birds  will  be  sorry  to  hear  that,  after  several  years  of  uncertainty, 
Winged  World  has  finally  closed  its  doors  to  the  public.  Over  the  last 
decade,  this  Lancashire  establishment  achieved  a  justifiable  reputa¬ 
tion  for  maintaining  and  breeding  the  less  frequently  kept  and  more 
exacting  species  of  insectivorous  and  frugivorous  birds.  Amongst  those 
reared  were  Little  and  White-fronted  Bee-eaters,  Hoopoe,  Green  Wood 
Hoopoe,  Red-billed  Hornbill,  Blue-crowned  Motmot,  Woodland  King¬ 
fisher,  Bristle-crowned  Starling,  Rothschild’s  and  Andaman  Grackles, 
Southern  Tree  Pie,  Kiskadee  Flycatcher,  Black  Bulbul,  Fairy  Bluebird 
and  four  species  of  barbet  -  Toucan,  Black-spotted,  Brown-throated  and 
D’Arnaud’s.  Many  represented  the  first  breeding  of  the  species. 

Breeding  had  been  much  reduced  over  the  past  three  or  four  years  but 
nevertheless,  some  noteworthy  results  were  achieved;  the  highlight  being 
the  successful  rearing  of  a  Sun  Bittern  in  1978,  a  success  which  was  al¬ 
most  duplicated  on  several  occasions  in  1979. 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


55 


Professor  J.R.  Hodges  writes:  “My  first  success  with  Blue-winged 
Grass  Parrakeets  Neophema  chrysostoma  occurred  in  1960  when  my  only 
pair  produced  two  young  (A.M.  I960,  p.  156).  I  have  bred  some  almost 
every  year  since.  In  the  period  1966  to  1973,  four  or  five  pairs  produced 
consistently  twenty  to  thirty  youngsters  a  year.  Since  reducing  the  number 
of  breeding  pairs  in  1974  they  have  been  less  prolific  but  six  to  ten  have 
been  reared  in  most  seasons.  This  year  (1979)  was  the  worst  year  with 
only  four  young  reared  from  three  proven  breeding  pairs  of  which  two  of 
the  hens  died.  The  total  reared  in  a  twenty-year  period  is  two  hundred  and 
eight,  some  of  which  are  now  of  the  twelfth  generation.” 


* 


*  * 


A  consignment  of  twenty  Yellow-faced  Parrotlets  Forpus  xanthops 
was  imported  into  England  during  the  latter  part  of  last  year  and  is  prob¬ 
ably  the  first  occasion  that  the  species  has  been  available  to  aviculture. 
As  most  are  believed  to  have  gone  to  one  collection,  it  is  hoped  that 
breeding  is  not  far  away.  The  importer,  Mr.  Woods  of  Cheltenham, 
experienced  no  difficulty  whatsoever  in  establishing  and  quarantining 
the  birds. 


$  sjs  s|5 

Since  1974  Bernard  Sayers  of  Chelmsford,  has  been  assembling  a 
reference  colection  of  eggs  laid  in  captivity.  Now,  as  a  result  of  the 
generous  co-operation  of  numerous  zoos,  bird  gardens  and  private  col- 
ectors,  over  1,000  species  and  subspecies  are  represented  in  the  total 
number  of  12,000  specimens. 


*  * 


* 


Correction 

AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE.  Vol.  85  (2)  1979.  “Citron-crested 
Cockatoos  in  Sumba”  by  S.B.  Kendal. 

P.94,  line  one:  “cockatoos”  should  be  “Eclectus”. 


56 


REVIEWS 

THE  BIRDHOUSE  BOOK:  BUILDING  HOUSES,  FEEDERS  AND 
BATHS.  By  Don  McNeil 


Published  by  Pacific  Research  Press,  Seattle,  USA,  1979.  Price  8.95 
dollars,  pp.  109. 

Although  designed  for  the  American  reader,  this  excellent  publication 
is  to  be  highly  recommended  to  anyone  wishing  to  provide  roosting  and 
nesting  facilities  for  wild  birds  visiting  their  property  and  who  have  a 
basic  knowledge  of  carpentry.  Despite  what  the  jacket  publicity  pro¬ 
claims,  I  doubt  if  the  novice  woodworker  would  make  much  impress¬ 
ion  on  the  six  compartment  martin  house  before  turning  his  attentions 
to  something  a  little  less  demanding  for  the  neighbourhood  wrens. 

The  nine  chapters  dealing  with  the  accommodation  requirements  of 
various  species  span  from  four  to  nine  pages  with  each  divided  into  four 
sections.  The  first  part  gives  an  interesting  and  informative  insight  into 
the  lifestyle  of  the  birds  whose  attentions  one  is  hoping  to  attract, 
while  the  others  tell  of  how  to  go  about  it.  The  materials  and  tools 
required  for  the  job  in  hand  are  listed  down  to  the  last  screw.  Instruc¬ 
tions  for  assembly  take  up  about  two-thirds  of  the  chapters  and,  besides 
being  extremely  comprehensive,  are  illustrated  with  detailed  explanatory 
diagrams  making  the  task  that  much  easier.  Among  the  species  catered 
for  are  swallows,  martins,  wrens,  chickadees,  nuthatches,  wood  duck, 
owls,  robins,  bluebirds  and  woodpeckers. 

An  extremely  ingenious  chapter  of  fourteen  pages  is  devoted  to  the 
exclusion  of  predators  and  competitors  from  nest  boxes,  while  others 
encompass  feeders  (bird  tables,  peanut  holders,  drinkers,  etc.)  and  con¬ 
structing  bathing  facilities.  On  this  latter  subject,  I  do  not  recommend 
the  use  of  a  light  bulb  and  exposed  lead  beneath  a  pan  of  water  which  is 
given  as  an  alternative  method  of  keeping  it  from  freezing.  Electrical 
equipment  not  properly  sealed  against  water  can  be  dangerous  should  a 
starling  decide  to  take  a  mid-winter  bath  as  they  are  apt  to  do  on  fine 
days. 

My  only  real  qualm  about  this  book  is  its  apparent  weak  spine.  It  is 
meant  to  be  a  working  book  and,  although  the  review  copy  has  not  seen 
much  action,  I  doubt  if  it  could  stand  up  to  much  use  in  the  workshop 


REVIEWS 


57 


before  joining  the  ranks  of  the  famous  with  broken  spines.  However,  this 
is  only  a  minor  failing  in  an  otherwise  excellent  book  which  is  expected 
to  get  a  certain  amount  of  rough  treatment  anyway. 


D.C. 


KOLIBRIS  -  HALTUNG  UND  PFLEGE  by  Dr.  Karl-L.  Schuchman 

Published  by  Biotropic  Verlag,  Kohlbrandstrasse  20,  6000  Frankfurt 
am  Main  60.  Germany.  1979.  Price  45  DM.  (ISBN  3-922465-00-5) 

Whilst  the  text  of  this  attractive  book  is  in  German  and  therefore 
of  limited  value  to  many  readers  of  the  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE, 
it  is  well  worth  having  for  the  beautiful  illustrations.  Forty-two  species 
of  hummingbird  are  described  by  the  author,  a  member  of  the  Avicul- 
tural  Society,  with  colour  photographs  of  many  of  them.  The  quality  of 
the  colour  is  excellent  and  these  plates  will  be  a  very  valuable  aid  to 
identification.  There  are  also  colour  and  black  and  white  photographs  of 
nests  and  habitats  as  well  as  some  very  attractive  line  drawings. 

This  book  can  be  obtained  direct  from  the  publishers  if  unobtainable 
in  local  bookshops. 


M.H. 


58 


REVIEWS 


WOODLAND  GROUSE  1978,  edited  by  T.W.I.  Lovel. 

Published  by  the  World  Pheasant  Association,  Daws  Hall,  Lamarsh, 
Bures,  Suffolk  C08  5 EX  (Price  £8.00  including  postage  &  packing) 

This  excellently  produced  little  book  (I  do  not  know  whether  a 
“paperback”  or  not  as  its  cover  seems  to  be  of  some  sturdy  material 
intermediate  between  cloth  and  paper)  reproduces  the  talks  and  discuss¬ 
ions  given  during  a  “Woodland  Grouse  Symposium”,  held  at  Culloden 
House,  Inverness,  in  December  1978  and  sponsored  by  t  he  World  Pheas¬ 
ant  Association,  the  International  Council  for  Bird  Preservation,  the 
Royal  Zoological  Society  of  Scotland,  and  the  Game  Conservancy. 
The  species  dealt  with  are  the  Capercaillie,  Black-billed  Capercaillie, 
Black  Grouse,  Hazel  Grouse,  Spruce  Grouse,  Blue  Grouse  and  Ruffed 
Grouse.  The  Caucasian  Black  Grouse  is  not  discussed,  whether  because 
it  is  less,  or  even  less  of  a  woodland  bird  than  its  relative  the  Black 
Grouse,  or  just  because  no  one  taking  part  had  any  information  on  it, 
is  not  stated. 


The  many  people  contributing  to  the  symposium  provide  between 
them  a  great  amount  of  information  on  the  ecology,  feeding  habits,  dis¬ 
tribution  and  some  aspects  of  behaviour  of  the  species  they  have  studied. 
Some  of  it  (though  not  much)  I  found  hard  to  believe.  Do  female  Black 
Grouse  eat  ‘the  saliva  spat  by  the  cocks’  (p.86)  at  the  lek?  Is  the  Jay 
really  the  primary  predator  on  the  eggs  and  young  of  the  Capercaillie 
(p.  175)? 

There  are  some  useful  distribution  maps  and  a  wealth,  well  anyway, 
a  great  number  of  graphs,  tables  and  mathematical  formulae  of  varying 
complexity.  There  is,  alas,  a  corresponding  dearth  of  illustrations  of  the 
birds  themselves.  A  welcome  exception  is  Dr.  A.V.  Andreev’s  interesting 
contribution  on  the  Black-billed  Capercaillie,  which  is  embellished  with 
two  photographs  (one  on  the  book’s  cover)  and  twenty  delightfully 
‘live’  black  and  white  drawings,  showing  the  bird  in  various  agonistic  and 
sexual  postures  (pp.  134-9).  A  great  pity  that  Dr.  Scherzinger’s  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  displays  of  the  Hazel  Grouse  is  not  likewise  illustrated. 

Most  of  the  species  discussed  seem  to  have  been  decreasing  in  most 
places  in  recent  decades.  These  declines  seem  primarily  due  to  habitat 
changes  brought  about  by  man,  although  earlier  alterations  wrought  by 


REVIEWS 


59 


man  in  the  past  may  have  been  favourable  for  species  like  the  Black 
Grouse.  Other  adverse  factors  include  birdwatchers  and  ramblers  (p.25, 
p.159  and  elsewhere).  They  are  implicitly  or  explicitly  condemned  but 

not  “Sportsmen . who  come  to  shoot  the  woodland  grouse  and  have 

a  great  affection  for  them”  (p.156),  “ commercial  shooting  of  Capercaillie 
(which)  has  expanded  rapidly  since  the  early  1970s  in  both  private  and 
Forestry  Commission  woods”  (p.140;  italics  mine)  or  even  the  sportsmen 
in  Czechoslovakia  who  sometimes  shoot  every  male  Black  Grouse  on  the 
lek  so  that  the  hens  lay  sterile  eggs  (p.74).  The  cynical  and  unsporting 
may  be  tempted  to  suspect  that  this  attitude  is  not  entirely  unconnected 
with  the  well-known  fact  (stated  on  p.63  of  this  work)  that  research  on 
gamebirds  is  mainly  financed  by  sportsmen,  and  reflect  on  the  old  Eng¬ 
lish  saying  about  paying  the  piper  and  calling  the  tune. 

Nowhere,  of  course,  is  there  any  recognition  of  the  fact  that,  were  it 
not  for  the  activities  of  the  shooters,  the  ‘disturbance’  caused  by  bird¬ 
watchers,  ramblers  and  others  who  can  enjoy  a  day  in  the  country  with¬ 
out  deliberately  killing  or  wounding  some  fellow  creature,  would  be 
much  less  disturbing  in  its  effects.  Alas!... ‘the  law  of  trespass  is  weak  in 
Scotland’  (pl59)  and  (same  page),  ‘We  need  a  legal  poison’  (for  crows, 
cats  and  foxes).  This  book  is  one  more  illustration  (not  that  more  are 
needed  for  the  fact  to  be  obvious)  of  the  very  different  attitudes  taken 
by  many,  and  among  them  the  most  influential  bird  protectionists  to¬ 
wards,  on  the  one  hand,  protein-hungry  Mediterranean  and  African  peas¬ 
ants  who  kill  relatively  abundant  warblers,  larks  and  terns  for  food, 
aviculturists  who  wish  to  handrear  and  keep  a  few  individuals  of  common 
species,  and  small  boys  who  take  the  eggs  of  ‘common  or  garden’  birds; 
and,  on  the  other,  towards  sportsmen  who  shoot  relatively  (as  compared 
with  warblers,  larks,  etc.)  scarce  ‘woodland  grouse’,  Woodcock  and  wild¬ 
fowl  and,  quite  legally,  destroy  as  Vermin’  the  Goosander,  one  of  our 
handsomest  and  far  from  common  ducks,  because  it  is  thought  to  en¬ 
danger  the  fly  fisherman’s  sport. 

Still,  this  is  a  book  that  anyone  particularly  interested  in  the  species 
involved  should  try  to  obtain.  Indeed,  it  is  worth  its  price  for  Dr.  Andre¬ 
ev’s  lively  drawings  of  the  Black-billed  Capercaillie  alone. 


D.G. 


60 


CORRESPONDANCE 
Breeding  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus 

I  was  very  interested  to  read  the  article  “Breeding  Laterallus  leuco¬ 
pyrrhus  in  the  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE  (Vol.  85,  2:  63-67)  by 

L.  Gibson  of  Canada. 

Last  year  I  also  bred  this  species  in  confinement  in  a  very  small  and 
open  indoor  aviary.  Gibson  refers  to  a  closely  related  species  which 
is  not  identified  in  his  article.  I  have  also  kept  a  bird  of  that  species 
and  a  French  friend  of  mine,  M.  Liano  (Clermon)  kept  it  for  quite  a 
long  time.  I  identify  these  birds  as  Laterallus  melanophaius ,  the  Rufous¬ 
sided  Crake.  This  species  seems  to  be  uncommon  in  its  native  country  and 
only  occasionally  reaches  our  country,  at  a  rate  of  one  melanophaius 
to  200  leucopyrrhrus .  These  shipments  generally  come  from  Argentina. 

A  reasonably  good  picture  of  this  species  can  be  found  in  E.R.  Blake’s 
MANUAL  OF  NEOTROPICAL  BIRDS,  Volume  1,  plate  11,  no.13. 
Unfortunately  the  plate  of  this  bird  in  Ripley’s  monumental  RAILS  OF 
THE  WORLD  is  not  so  good  as  it  does  not  show  the  white  on  the  breast 
and  belly.  Even  the  illustration  of  the  much  better  known  Laterallus 
leucopyrrhus  is  incorrect  as  the  bird  lacks  the  reddish-pink  feet.  Perhaps 
the  artist,  J.F.Lansdowne,  based  his  colours  on  museum  specimens  that 
often  change  colour  on  the  feet  and  bill.  The  black  and  white  photograph 
on  page  336  is  clearly  not  that  of  a  melanophaius ,  as  stated,  but  of  leuco¬ 
pyrrhus. 


L.  Van  Praet, 
Dorpstraat  42, 
9860  Zulte  (Machelen), 
Belgium. 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 

Founded  1894 

The  Avicultural  Society  was  founded  in  1894  for  the  study  of  British  and  foreign 
birds  in  freedom  and  captivity.  The  Society  is  international  in  character,  having 
members  throughout  the  world. 

Membership  subscription  rates  per  annum:  British  Isles  -  £8.00;  Overseas  -  £9.00 
(20.00  US  dollars).  The  subscription  is  due  on  1st  January  of  each  year  and  those 
joining  the  Society  later  in  the  year  will  receive  back  numbers  of  the  current  volume 
of  the  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is:  British  Isles  and  Europe  -  £9.00;  out¬ 
side  Europe  -  £10.00  (25  U.S.  dollars). 

All  overseas  rates  include  airmail  postage. 

Subscriptions,  changes  of  address,  orders  for  back  numbers,  etc.,  should  be  sent 
to:  THE  HON.  SECRETARY  AND  TREASURER,  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOC¬ 
IETY,  WINDSOR  FOREST  STUD,  MILL  RIDE,  ASCOT,  BERKSHIRE  SL5  8LT. 
ENGLAND. 


NEW  MEMBERS 

Miss  E.  Adcock,  Appletrees,  Abbots  Morton,  Worcester. 

Mr.  M. Albeit,  P  O  Box  13,  CH-6926,  Montagnola,  Switzerland. 

Mr.  D.  Arentsen,  11  Cherington  Road,  Henleaze,  Bristol  BS10  5BH. 

Mr.  J.F.G.  Arman, 3  Roman  Way,  Stilton,  Peterborough  PE7  3RU. 

Mr.  P.G.  Bell,  Windsor  Safari  Park,  Winkfield  Road,  Windsor,  Berks. 

Mr.  M.  Bird,  c/o  Tropical  Bird  Gardens,  Rode,  Bath,  Somerset. 

Mr.  H.  Bishop,  Tara,  Headcorn  Road,  Sandway,  Lenham,  Kent,  ME17  2PD. 

Mr.  P.J.  Booth,  No.  703,  1225, 14  Avenue  SW,  Calgary,  Alberta,  Canada. 

Mr.  T.R.  Bradley,  330  Victoria  Street,  Sudbury,  Ontario,  Canada  P3C  1K6. 

Mr.  W.S.  Brooks,  49  Aldersleigh  Crescent,  Hoghton,  Preston,  Lancs.  PR5  0BB 
Mr.  A.E.  Chaney,  261  Bolero  Ridge  Place,  Escondido,  Calif.  92025,  USA. 

Mr.  L.D.  Coe,  6  Vicarage  Way,  Harrow,  Middx.  HA2  7HX. 

Ms.  L.  Conner,  470  Irwin  Ln.,  Santa  Rosa,  Calif.  95401,  USA. 

Mr.  M.  Drucas,  17  Phillips  Beach  Avenue,  Swampscott,  Mass.  01907,  USA. 

Mr.  P.  Farthing,  199  Penhill  Drive,  Swindon,  Wilts. 

Mr.  H.A.  Gaberson,  234  Corsicana  Drive,  Oxnard,  Calif.  93030,  USA. 

Miss  H.G.  Hathorn,  Chantry  Grange,  Chantry,  Nr.  Frome,  Somerset. 

Ms.  E.A.  Hein,  3577-17  Pinao  Street,  Honolulu,  96822,  Hawaii,  USA. 

Ms  M.E.  Kerr,  1677A  20th  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Calif.  94122,  USA. 

Mr.  T.  Kleefisch,  Witterschlicker  Strasse  31,  5300  Bonn  I,  W.  Germany. 

Mr.  J.C.  Kung,  15  Rue  Tronchin,  CH-1202,  Geneva,  Switzerland. 

Mr.  C.P.  Lockhart,  P.O.Box  148,  Hearne,  Texas  77859,  USA. 

Mr.  J.  Mitchell,  4103  Alabama  Street,  San  Diego,  Calif.  92104,  USA. 

Mr.  B.E.  Peck,  6  Spenser  Avenue,  St.  Marks,  Cheltenham,  Glos.  GL51-7DX. 

Mr.  J.C.  Rignault,  13  Rue  Boieldieu,  95240  Cormeilles  en  Parisis,  France. 

Ms.  J.  Salan,  Pioneer  Bird  Farm,  P.O.  Box  2395,  West  Covina,  Calif.  91793,  USA. 

Ms  Cheryl  Sloan,  11440  SW  114  Ct,  Miami,  Florida  33176,  USA. 

Mr.  G.D.  Spackman,  Jr.,  Hill  Farm,  Coatesville,  Penna  19320,  USA. 

Ms  Virginia  Staley,  2706  North  Circle,  Anchorage,  Alaska  99507,  USA. 

Mr.  L.R.  Storey,  30  Lynch  Hill  Lane,  Brit  well  Estate,  Slough,  Bucks. 

Mr.  F.  Stowell,  3504  Louisiana  Street,  San  Diego,  Calif.  92104,  USA. 

Mr.  F.G.R.  Townsend,  Munak  Park,  P.O.  Box  30,  Mtoroshang^  Zimbabwe. 

Dr.  and  Mrs.  R.G.  Travnicek,  Wilber,  Nebraska  68465,  USA. 


CHANGE  OF  ADDRESS 


Ms.  Patricia  O.  Avery  to  1001  N.E.  22  Drive,  Fort  Lauderdale,  Florida  33305,  USA 
Mr.  R.S.  Bradshaw  to  37  Ashdown  Close,  Chandler’s  Ford,  Eastleigh,  Hants  SOS  1QF. 
Mr.  A.H.  Cohen,  to  P.O.  Box  554,  Casselberry,  Florida  32707,  USA 
Mr.  K.A.T.  Denham,  to  5  Redgate  Lane,  Sewards  End,  Saffron  Walden,  Essex. 

Mr.  P.  Duijzend,  to  Dreef  154,  3956  Leersum,  Holland. 

Mr.  M.W.  Ellis  to  c/o  Mr.  and  Mrs  K.  Paddock,  29  Treforest,  Wadebridge 
Cornwall,  PL27  7EN 

Mr.  I.A.S.  Harris  to  No.  3  Park  Avenue,  Rudlow,  Corsham,  Wilts.  SN13  GJT 
Mr.  K.  Lansdell  to  P.O.  Box  580,  Hill  Crest  3650,  Natal,  South  Africa. 

Mr.  C.  LaRue  to  P.O.  Box  50565,  Tucson,  Arizona  85703,  USA. 

Mr.  Stewart  Levinson,  to  Dept,  of  Zoology,  University  of  Florida,  Gainesville, 

Florida  32601,  USA. 

Mr.  B.C.  Lindhardt  to  Lundgaardsvej  62,  Donslund,  DK  6682,  Hovborg,  Denmark. 

Mr.  R.W.  Phipps  to  2  Bishop  Court,  Maidenhead,  Berkshire  SL6  4EX. 

Mr.  C.J.  Rowland  to  25  Elderdene,  Chinnor,  Oxon. 

Mr.  J.  Simmons  to  1  Holwell  Downs  Cottages,  Bradwell  Grove  Estate,  Burford, 
Oxon. 

CHANGE  OF  NAME  AND  ADDRESS 

Mrs.  J.  Wesley  Hughes  to  Mrs.  R.M.  Lockmyer,  1808  Hiawassee  Road,  Orlando, 
Florida  32808,  USA. 


DONATIONS 


The  Society  is  most  grateful  to  the  following  members  for  their  generosity: 


Mr.  J.A.  Anderson 

Mr.  L.  Gibson 

Mr.  B.  Riley 

Mr.  J.C.  Barlass 

Mr.  R.P.  Girdler 

Mr.  D.H.S.  Risdon 

Mr.  W.  Van  den  bergh 

Mr.  D.  Goodwin 

Mr.  A.  Rutgers 

Miss  Rosemary  Bissell 

Mr.  D.A.  Gooley 

Mr.  K.M.  Scamell 

Mr.  W.P.  Bonsai 

Miss  D.K.  Gurney 

Mr.  T.  Scott 

Mr.  R.P.  Brinkman 

Mr.  R.M.  Haigh 

Dr.  A.  Seitz 

Mr.  E.  Callaghan 

Mr.  W.C.  Hall 

Mr.  D.P.  Shearing 

Mr.  R.  Callaghan 

Prof.  J.R.  Hodges 

Mr.  F.L.  Smith 

Mr.  D.F.  Castle 

Mr.  F.S.  Hogg 

Mr.  N.E.  Stidolph 

Mr.  M.K.  Clark 

Dr.  J.  Ingels 

Mr.  A.A.J.  Stoodley 

Mrs.  D.  Cooke 

Mr.  H.  Kapyla 

Mr.  J.  Taylor 

Mrs.  J.F.  Domin 

Mr.  C.  Lindstrom 

Mr.  D.  Teasdale 

Mrs.  W.  Duggan 

Mr.  L.  Van  Praet 

Mr.  M.E.M.  TeU 

Mr.  Ostram  Enders 

Mr.  N.  0‘Connor 

Mr.  R.  Thomas 

Mr.  R.F.  D’Erlanger 

Mr.  A.J.  Mabille 

Mr.  J.  TroUope 

Lord  Gerard 

Mr.  W.S.  Peratino 

Mr.  H.W.  Wareman 

Dr.  S-H.  Raethel 

Mr.  C.K.  Wright 

Published  by  The  Aviculturdl  Society,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot, 
Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 

Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Unwin  Brothers  Ltd.,  The  Gresham  Press,  Old  Woking,  Surrey 


A^ICULTURAL 

MAGAZINE 


VOLUME  86 


CONTENTS 


Breeding  the  Griffon  Vulture  by  A.  Gardener  (with  plate) .  61 

Breeding  the  Cedar  Waxwing  by  D.  Lewis .  67 

Breeding  Zosterops  by  L.  Gibson .  70 

Breeding  the  Grey-headed  Lovebird  by  F.  C.  Barnicoat  . .  74 

The  Rearing  of  Pink-eared  Ducks,  Musk  Ducks  and 

Blue-billed  Ducks  by  M.  Lubbock  (with  2  plates)  .  81 

Further  Notes  on  Mousebirds  by  L.  Gibson .  85 

The  Geographical  Distribution  and  Description  of  the  Genus  Popelairia 

with  Observations  on  the  Wine-crested  ThorntailP.  popelairia .  91 

(with  six  line  drawings)  by  R.  Elgar. 

Birds  in  Lerwick  Harbour  by  D.  Goodwin .  99 

Members  Collections  -  Mr  J.  O.  D’Eath.  by  Rosemary  Low .  105 

(with  plate) 

A  Note  on  Javanese  Aviculture  by  A.  Morrison  (with  plates) .  108 

(Footnote  by  D.  F.  Jeggo) 

The  Use  of  Dung  and  Leaves  by  Nesting  African  Starlings  by  M.  Ellis .  Ill 

News  from  the  Berlin  Zoo  by  Prof.  Dr.  H.-G.  Klos .  113 

News  and  Views .  114 

Correspondence .  121 

THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE  welcomes  original  articles  that  have  not  been 
published  elsewhere  and  that  essentially  concern  the  aviculture  of  a  particular  bird  or 
group  of  birds,  or  that  describe  their  natural  history.  Articles  should  be  preferably 
typewritten,  with  double  spacing,  and  the  scientific  names  as  well  as  the  vernacular 
names  of  birds  should  be  given.  References  cited  in  the  text  should  be  listed  at  the 
end  of  the  article.  Line  drawings  should  be  in  Indian  ink  on  thick  paper  or  card; 
photographs  which  illustrate  a  particular  point  in  the  article  will  be  used  where 
possible  and  should  be  clearly  captioned. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


A.  Gardener 


Griffon  Vulture  Chick  and  Parent  in  Nest 


Avicultural  Magazine 


THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  A  VICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


VoL  86  -  No.  1  -  All  rights  reserved.  APRIL  -  JUNE  1 980 


BREEDING  THE  GRIFFON  VULTURE  Gyps  fulvus 
By  A.  GARDENER  (British  Isles) 


As  far  as  I  know  the  Griffon  Vulture  has  only  been  bred  once  before  in 
the  British  Isles  and  that  was  at  Chester  Zoo  in  1940  {Avicultural Magazine 
Fifth  Series,  Vol.  VI,  No.  5,  Sept. -Oct.  1941).  Mr.  Mottershead’s  ac¬ 
count  of  this  was  fairly  brief  and  so  I  thought  that  a  more  detailed  account 
of  my  own  experience  might  be  of  interest  to  members,  particularly  since 
I  keep  my  Griffon  Vultures  in  almost  wild  conditions. 


I  obtained  the  parents  from  Tarifa  in  southern  Spain  about  eighteen 
years  ago  and  they  are  approximately  19  years  old.  They  share  an  aviary 
with  two  Turkey  Vultures  and  a  pair  of  Batteleur  Eagles.  The  aviary  is 
approximately  one  acre  square  and  40  feet  high.  It  contains  a  pool  with 
running  water,  a  sand  pit  and  a  concrete  path  leading  to  two  large  feeding 
troughs  -  one  for  the  summer  and  one  for  the  winter  -  each  equipped  with 
running  water  for  cleanliness.  These  feeding  troughs  are  penned  in  to  stop 
the  birds  from  dragging  out  the  meat  and  the  concrete  floors  are  laid  at  an 
incline  to  facilitate  cleaning.  The  reason  for  the  two  troughs  is  that  their 
alternate  use  enables  the  surrounding  ground  to  regenerate  and  become 
free  of  germs  for  the  next  season. 

The  aviary  contains  many  large  shelters  on  various  levels,  each  one 
designed  for  a  different  species,  and  there  are  several  platforms,  divided 
into  two  sections.  On  the  more  secluded  side  are  the  breeding  platforms 
with  their  large  lorry  tyres  and  built-in  shelters;  each  one  is  a  separate  unit 
and  can  only  be  reached  on  the  wing  to  provide  maximum  privacy.  On  the 
outer  sides  the  platforms  are  arranged  to  assimilate  a  cliff-face.  The  re¬ 
maining  side  is  flanked  by  five  mature  poplar  trees  which  make  excellent 
perches.  The  middle  of  the  aviary  is  free  of  any  obstruction  so  that  if  a 
bird  takes  off,  it  may  fly  along  its  length  and  land  on  the  far  side.  More 


62 


A.  GARDENER  -  BREEDING  THE  GRIFFON  VULTURE 


often  the  birds  fly  around,  particularly  in  the  prevailing  windy  conditions 
as  the  aviary  has  been  built  on  a  plateau.  The  Bateleur  Eagles  are  forever 
on  the  wing,  noisily  yet  lazily  climbing,  diving  and  gliding.  The  Griffon 
Vultures  are  not  so  energetic  taking  off  only  some  six  times  a  day,  flapping 
their  wings  to  gain  speed  and  then  simply  gliding  halfway  through  the 
aviary,  often  performing  a  semicircle.  The  three  species  in  the  aviary 
appear  to  be  compatible,  and  generally  ignore  each  other,  remaining  exclu¬ 
sively  in  their  own  territories. 

The  ground  covering  of  the  aviary  consisting  of  heather,  moss  and 
grass,  which  not  only  looks  natural  but  has  the  advantage  of  absorbing 
immediately  all  the  birds’  droppings.  The  rest  of  the  aviary’s  interior  is 
made  up  of  an  orchard  with  hedges  and  evergreen  trees,  which  provide  an 
abundance  of  nest  material,  as  well  as  occupation  for  the  seven  birds.  I 
clean  the  aviary  and  feed  the  birds  myself  and  by  now  they  are  so  used  to 
this  that  it  causes  no  disturbance  or  stress  at  all.  When  they  see  me  coming, 
they  fly  away  one  by  one  and  watch  my  every  movement;  if  I  approach 
say,  five  steps  further  into  the  interior  of  the  aviary  they  are  off.  None  of 
them  is  tame. 

The  mature  birds  are  fed  on  a  variety  of  whole  carcasses;  one  day,  say, 
white  rats,  the  next  day  rabbits,  then  chickens  and  young  pigs,  etc.  There 
is  no  cleaning  up  to  be  done  after  that  as  the  birds  eat  bones,  skin  and  all. 
Sometimes  I  feed  them  on  much  bigger  carcasses,  such  as  calves,  sheep  and 
pigs.  One  carcass  is  fed  at  a  time,  the  rest  stored  in  deep  freezers  and 
fridges  near  the  aviary.  These  larger  carcasses  are  offered  to  the  birds 
unopened  and  in  no  time  the  Bateleurs  and  Turkey  Vultures  are  on  the 
scene,  but  make  little  or  no  headway.  The  adult  Griffons  always  arrive 
last  and  open  up  the  carcass.  Only  after  that  will  the  other  birds  actually 
get  to  the  food.  By  letting  the  birds  do  their  own  work  they  entertain 
themselves  for  hours  on  end  and  also  keep  their  beaks  and  talons  well 
polished.  The  following  day,  I  add  to  the  opened  carcass  some  multivit¬ 
amins  and  oystershell  grit,  on  other  days  minerals  with  fine  sand  to  help 
digestion.  Some  days  later,  when  the  skeleton  has  been  picked  clean, 
I  hack  into  many  pieces  and  the  birds  then  eat  the  bones  especially  the 
marrow  now  made  accessible.  The  next  day,  no  food  is  given  at  all  which 
enables  me  to  clean  the  feeding  trough  thoroughly,  using  a  brush-hose- 
pipe  and  Dettol. 

During  mid-December  1979  the  Griffon  Vultures  started  to  bring  twigs 
and  branches  from  the  poplar  trees  in  the  aviary  up  to  their  lofty  platform 
and  put  this  nesting  material  in  and  around  the  lorry  tyre.  During  this  time 
the  pair  mated  some  ten  times  a  day,  accompanied  by  loud  hissing.  As 


A.  GRIFFON  -  BREEDING  THE  GRIFFON  VULTURE 


63 


time  went  on  their  mating  activities  increased  and  the  birds  defended  their 
nesting  platform  from  intruders  more  vigorously.  Immediately  prior  to 
laying  the  female  was  mostly  seen  on  the  nest. 


On  the  morning  of  25th  February  1980  the  male  was  sitting  tight  on 
the  nest  and  screamed  to  warn  me  not  to  come  too  close;  the  female  beat 
her  wings  furiously.  I  realised,  with  much  joy,  that  the  expected  egg  had 
been  laid  during  the  previous  night.  For  some  time  after  I  watched  the 
nest  only  from  a  discreet  distance.  The  birds  settled  down  beautifully, 
tending  the  egg  at  all  times,  the  male  usually  sitting  during  the  day  and  the 
female  at  night.  The  male  was  generally  more  “houseproud”  than  the  fe¬ 
male,  rolling  the  egg  carefully  and  slowly  until  he  was  completely  sub¬ 
merged  inside  the  tyre  ,  completely  sheltered  from  the  prevailing  winds. 
Wien  the  pair  changed  over  during  the  morning,  they  greeted  each  other 
ceremoniously,  on  more  than  one  occasion  the  male  gave  her  a  gentle 
push  to  raise  her  from  the  nest.  She  always  stepped  out  of  the  nest  back¬ 
wards,  whilst  the  male  entered  from  the  front,  often  bringing  fresh  nest 
material  at  the  same  time.  This  routine  lasted  56  days,  and  on  the  57th 
day  (21st  April,  1980)  a  tiny,  but  very  healthy  chick  hatched. 


The  parents’  behaviour  changed  immediately  and  they  literally  com¬ 
peted  with  each  other  to  brood  the  newcomer;  sometimes  the  female 
crouched  jealously  over  the  chick  and  did  not  even  allow  the  male  to  see 
it.  On  the  very  first  day,  I  did  not  observe  any  feeding  but  on  the  second 
day  I  was  able  to  witness  two  attempts  at  feeding  when  the  female  ob¬ 
viously  fed  the  chick  with  regurgitated  liquids  from  her  stomach.  After 
two  days  the  male  was  finally  allowed  to  brood  the  young  one  for  a 
short  time,  when  the  female  went  down  to  feed  and  drink.  They  moved 
the  chick  eventually  by  slowly  rocking  sideways  over  it  until  it  was  in  a 
comfortable  position,  and  only  then  did  the  birds  slowly  lower  them¬ 
selves  into  the  nest.  If  the  chick  moved  they  got  up  immediately,  in¬ 
vestigated  and  then  the  whole  procedure  was  repeated.  All  this  took 
quite  some  time  and  was  executed  in  a  very  gentle  manner. 


On  13th  May,  after  22  days,  I  managed  to  see  the  chick’s  head  for 
the  very  first  time,  nibbling  the  female’s  beak.  The  head  appeared  grey, 
but  most  striking  were  its  huge  dark  eyes,  which  had  long  eyelashes. 
May  was  a  very  warm  month,  with  plenty  of  sunshine,  and  therefore 
the  parents  stopped  brooding  the  chick  intensively  after  some  23  days. 
They  did  not,  however,  leave  the  nest  itself  but  stood  on  the  rim  of  the 


64 


A.  GARDENER  -  BREEDING  THE  GRIFFON  VULTURE 


tyre  and  shielded  the  young  bird  from  the  intense  sun  with  their  enormous 
wings.  The  little  one  at  that  stage  kept  popping  its  tiny  head  and  neck  up 
and  down  and  I  could  observe  the  beginning  of  a  tiny  ruff  on  its  neck 
which  appeared  like  a  little  light  knitted  shawl. 

On  29th  May,  after  5 Vi  weeks,  the  chick  stood  up  just  for  a  moment 
but  soon  afterwards  sank  into  the  nest  again,  obviously  exhausted.  Also 
at  that  stage,  it  started  to  call  to  its  parents  when  it  could  not  see  them, 
when  they  appeared  immediately  and  reassured  the  chick  which  contin¬ 
ued  to  whimper.  It  was  soon  covered  by  the  parent  bird,  and  after  a 
satisfying  feed  all  was  well  and  it  went  happily  to  sleep.  Again  the  male 
brooded  during  the  day,  whilst  the  female  took  her  turn  at  night,  but  not 
before  she  regurgitated  food  for  the  young  vulture.  On  11th June,  after 
seven  weeks  and  2  days,  the  chick  was  well  on  its  feet  and  started  to  beat 
its  little  wings,  which  had  by  that  time  some  primaries  peeping  through 
the  quills,  but  not  a  single  secondary  or  tail  feather.  The  parents  were  no 
longer  brooding  the  chick  during  the  daytime  and  only  when  it  rained  or 
the  chick  was  distressed  and  called,  did  the  male  do  his  “day  duty”. 

But  by  a  week  later,  even  if  it  rained  heavily,  the  young  vulture,  which 
by  now  had  grown  considerably,  was  not  brooded  during  the  daytime  and 
all  its  whimpering  was  to  no  avail  though  the  parents  were  never  more  than 
a  couple  of  feet  away  from  the  nest.  On  19th June,  after  8  weeks  and  3 
days,  the  chick  was  still  brooded  at  night,  but  only  managed  to  put  its 
head,  neck  and  shoulders  under  the  female,  and  on  more  than  one  occas¬ 
ion  pulled  the  parent-bird  off  balance;  it  was  most  amusing  to  watch.  The 
chick  was  now  fed  twice  a  day  only,  generally  in  the  morning,  and  then 
again  in  the  evening.  On  4th  J  uly ,  after  1 0 Vi  weeks,  the  chick  was  very 
lively  and  suddenly  managed  to  hop  on  the  rim  of  the  tyre  but,  obviously 
bewildered,  it  hopped  back  inside  its  home  soon  afterwards  and  hid  itself 
from  prying  eyes. 

On  17th July  1980,  after  12  weeks  and  3  days,  the  chick  stood  up  in 
the  nest  for  at  least  two  hours,  and  beat  its  wings  frantically.  That  power¬ 
ful  exercise  lifted  the  bird  some  10  inches  in  the  air,  but  it  made  sure 
throughout  that  its  feet  stayed  fairly  central  above  the  nest.  It  was  by  now 
very  well-feathered,  and  looked  most  handsome.  It  often  struck  out  at  its 
parents’  beaks  in  order  to  show  its  hunger.  Now  the  parents  started  to 
renew  the  nest  interior,  by  constantly  bringing  new  leafy  branches  and 
beakfuls  of  fresh  straw.  The  male  obviously  enjoyed  preening  his  child  and 
these  procedures  took  place  often  and  lasted  at  least  an  hour.  The  chick 
often  protested  by  first  whimpering  and  if  that  had  no  effect,  by  striking 


A.  GARDENER  -  BREEDING  THE  GRIFFON  VULTURE 


65 


a  blow  at  his  feet.  Yet  a  gentle  knock  on  the  chick’s  head  would  persuade 
it  to  keep  still  until  the  tail  feathers  had  also  been  preened.  I  have  never 
observed  the  female  doing  similar  duties,  in  fact  the  male  showed  much 
more  interest  throughout  the  breeding  cycle,  often  feeding  the  chick  alone 
or  defending  the  site,  whilst  the  mother  was  bathing  or  preening  herself. 
On  the  2nd  August,  after  14  weeks  and  5  days,  the  chick  at  last  carefully 
left  the  rim  of  the  nest  and  balanced  with  outstretched  wings  on  the  nest 
platform  but  not  for  long.  It  rushed  back  into  the  nest,  stumbling  all 
over  the  place  and  losing  its  balance. 

The  chick  had  not  been  brooded  at  night  for  some  time  now  and  on 
6th  August,  it  did  not  roost  in  the  nest,  but  some  10  feet  away.  Feeding 
took  place  now  only  once  a  day,  chiefly  in  the  evenings.  During  feeding 
time  the  young  vulture  watched  its  parents  and  all  the  other  birds  com¬ 
peting  for  food,  often  running  up  and  down  the  square  platforms  to  get 
a  better  view,  head  and  neck  extended  to  the  full  and  its  beak  dribbling 
with  digestive  juices.  I  often  thought  that  it  was  about  to  take  the  plunge 
and  fly  down  to  join  its  parents,  but  it  held  back  at  the  very  last  second. 
Wien  the  parents  returned  with  full  crops  it  would  race  towards,  the  nest, 
often  taking  short  cuts  by  flying  or  rather  flapping  across  comers  to 
plunge  into  the  nest,  soliciting  for  food  with  loud  cries  and  wing  beating, 
until  it  eventually  got  its  fill.  Afterwards  it  generally  performed  a  long 
toilet,  and  shortly  afterwards  fell  asleep.  The  slightest  distraction  was 
enough  to  send  it  hopping  along  the  platform  to  investigate  but  having 
lost  interest,  it  resumed  its  sleep,  often  with  one  eye  open.  We  often 
played  a  little  game  with  me  watching  the  young  vulture  from  the  top 
floor  of  the  house,  and  the  bird  hiding  completely  in  the  nest.  I  would 
then  hide  myself,  and  the  small  head  of  the  bird  would  slowly  appear  but 
only  just  far  enough  to  see  me.  If  it  did,  it  would  vanish  again,  if  it  did  not, 
its  head  and  neck  would  pop  up  completely  until  it  was  literally  craning 
its  neck  to  see  my  whereabouts. 

The  parents  often  took  their  young  one  for  a  walk  with  the  female 
leading  the  way,  followed  by  the  male  and,  much  further  back,  the  chick. 
Their  excursion  took  them  from  platform  to  platform  via  trees,  etc.,  until 
they  reached  their  home  again.  The  chick  made  attempts  to  enter  the  nest 
but  the  female  simply  squatted  in  it  with  outstretched  wings  and  would 
not  budge  an  inch  which  kept  the  baby  out.  They  literally  starved  the 
chick  and  on  16th  August,  after  16  weeks  and  5  days,  it  finally  plucked 
up  enough  courage  to  fly  down  the  40  feet  to  join  its  parents  at  a  fresh 
carcass.  Unfortunately  it  changed  its  mind  halfway  down  and  flew  straight 
through  to  the  other  end  of  the  aviary  and  inevitably  crashed  into  the  wire 


66 


A.  GARDENER  -  BREEDING  THE  GRIFFON  VULTURE 


but  it  bounced  back  and  landed  on  a  platform  halfway  down.  No  harm 
was  done  and  after  some  10  minutes  making  up  its  mind,  it  flew  down  to 
feed  with  the  rest  of  the  birds.  This,  however,  was  no  easy  affair  as  it  had 
to  compete  for  food  now.  Yet  it  managed  to  obtain  some  meat  which  was 
tossed  away  by  others.  Afterwards  it  tried  desperately  to  return  back  to 
the  nest  but  only  just  managed  it  after  some  two  days.  During  that  time 
both  parents  watched  the  chick’s  movements  intensively.  It  made  many 
attempts  but  landed  in  all  the  wrong  places,  either  in  the  pool  or  in  a 
strange  nest  which  it  had  to  vacate  instantly.  Panting  heavily,  it  found 
shelter  in  an  apple  tree  where  it  stayed  for  the  rest  of  the  night.  All  these 
mistakes  helped  to  strengthen  the  chick’s  muscles.  When  it  finally  managed 
to  fly  up  to  the  aviary’s  top  platform  on  the  opposite  end  to  where  the 
nest  was  located,  both  parents  flew  at  once  to  their  chick  to  be  re-united; 
they  were  proud  of  their  offspring’s  achievements.  The  female  flew  back 
to  the  nest,  followed  by  the  male  and  some  minutes  later  by  the  Griffon 
chick.  I  have  never  observed  any  more  feeding  by  the  parents,  in  spite  of 
the  chick’s  constant  and  persistent  soliciting.  During  forthcoming  feeding 
times,  all  the  vultures  would  assemble  at  their  feeding  area,  except  the 
young  vultures  which  still  hoped  to  be  fed  as  usual.  When  the  parents 
finally  returned,  it  was  already  waiting  eagerly  in  the  nest,  but  in  vain, 
for  it  received  nothing.  In  fact  it  was  totally  ignored.  Some  hours  later 
the  parents  flew  down  again  to  the  feed  trough  and  called  the  chick  which 
then  followed  and  fed.  As  soon  as  the  parents  thought  it  time  to  return 
home  they  took  off  and  the  chick  went  with  them.  Unfortunately,  it 
could  not  have  had  much  to  eat  and  had  to  wait  until  the  next  day,  when 
it  was  led  down  again.  Yet  it  survived  and  grew  up  to  be  an  immaculate 
specimen  nut  brown  in  colour,  the  sure  sign  of  its  immaturity.  It  dis¬ 
played  a  long  brown  ruff  on  top  of  its  neck  which  was  heavily  covered 
with  woolly  short  feathers. 

The  young  vulture  is  now  24  weeks  old  and  takes  its  place  in  the 
“pecking”  order.  It  feeds,  flys  and  lands  as  well  as  all  my  other  birds. 
The  Griffons  still  live  contentedly  as  a  trio  but  the  time  must  come  when 
the  young  one  has  to  carve  out  a  little  territory  of  its  own.  The  parents 
have  started  mating  already,  and  therefore  a  new  breeding  cycle  will  be 
introduced. 


67 


BREEDING  THE  CEDAR  WAXWING 
Bombycilla  cedrorurn 

By  D.  LEWIS  (Upminster,  Essex) 


Like  the  other  two  species  in  this  genus,  the  Cedar  Waxwing  is  a  sleek, 
crested  bird  with  velvety  plumage,  mostly  of  a  fawn  colour  with  a  yellow 
tip  to  the  tail.  The  name  refers,  of  course,  to  the  red  sealing-wax-like  tips 
of  the  adults’  secondaries.  The  adult  Cedar  Waxwings  are  llA  ins.  long: 
their  call  is  a  rather  high  trill.  The  Cedar  Waxwing  nests  throughout  the 
woodlands  of  much  of  temperate  North  America  and  winters  irregularly 
southwards  to  northern  South  America. 

Over  a  period  of  time  I  have  obtained  two  Cedar  Waxwings;  I  could  not 
tell  if  they  were  a  pair  due  to  the  fact  that  both  sexes  are  almost  identical. 
They  are  housed  in  a  flight  9’  x  9’  x  6’  adjoining  a  birdroom  where  they 
have  access  to  an  inside  flight  measuring  6’  x  3’.  The  outside  flight  is  heavi¬ 
ly  planted  with  shrubs  including  Lonicera  nitida,  Privet,  Spirea 
Hedera,  etc. 

The  other  occupants  of  the  flight  are  a  pair  of  Lavender  Finches,  a  pair 
of  Pintailed  Nonpareils,  and  a  pair  of  Chinese  Painted  Quail. 

It  was  on  12th  June,  1979,  that  the  presumed  cock  (owing  to  the 
broader  yellow  tip  on  the  tail)  was  first  seen  feeding  the  hen;  later  in  the 
day  they  seemed  to  be  looking  for  a  suitable  site  for  nesting,  as  the  cock 
was  seen  flying  around  with  a  strand  of  hay  in  his  beak. 

In  the  flight  were  open-fronted  nest  boxes  and  a  disused  Blackbird’s 
nest:  these  were  ignored  and  instead  the  birds  built  their  own  nest  contain¬ 
ing  hay,  dried  crocus  leaves,  fine  roots,  twigs  and  sheep’s  wool.  The  nest 
was  built  in  a  large  bush  of  Lonicera  nitida’,  it  was  about  one  foot  from  the 
front  of  the  aviary  and  about  four  feet  from  the  ground.  It  was  in  sight 
which  made  it  easy  to  keep  a  regular  check  on  the  proceedings. 

Both  of  the  birds  started  to  take  mealworms  which  were  normally 
ignored  and  also  crushed  cuttlefish  “bone”.  On  19th  June  the  hen  was 
seen  sitting  on  the  nest  and  the  cock  brought  her  food.  On  22nd  June, 
when  both  birds  entered  the  birdroom  to  feed,  the  nest  was  examined 
and  three  blue-grey  eggs  with  red  markings  were  found.  On  7th  July, 
fifteen  days  later,  there  were  no  signs  of  young,  so  on  12th  July  the 


68 


D.  LEWIS  -  BREEDING  THE  CEDAR  WAXWING 


eggs  were  removed  from  the  nest  and  they  proved  to  be  clear. 

Two  days  later  the  hen  started  to  lay  again  in  the  same  nest  and  on 
17th  July  the  nest  was  examined  and  three  more  eggs  were  found.  She 
sat  for  a  further  thirteen  days  when  the  eggs  were  turned  out  of  the  nest; 
these  were  also  clear.  On  31st  July,  the  hen  started  to  lay  again,  three 
eggs  were  laid:  this  time  she  sat  tightly  on  the  nest,  with  the  cock  feeding 
her.  On  18th  August,  sixteen  days  later,  two  chicks  were  seen:  they  were 
about  the  size  of  a  newly-hatched  sparrow.  The  father  would  only  take 
mealworms  for  the  chicks;  I  tried  him  with  crickets  and  maggots  but  they 
were  ignored.  Luckily  I  keep  mealworm  cultures  and  was  able  to  sort  out 
the  soft  and  very  small  ones.  Regular  trips  to  some  fields  which  are  close 
were  made  to  collect  insects;  this  was  done  by  shaking  small  trees  and 
shrubs,  the  insects  falling  into  an  upturned  umbrella.  The  easiest  way  of 
feeding  them  to  the  birds  was  to  empty  them  into  a  glass  tank.  The  cock 
took  mainly  the  spiders  and  caterpillars.  While  the  hen  was  sitting  on  the 
nest,  he  did  all  of  the  feeding  by  regurgitating  the  food.  By  26th  August 
the  chicks  were  only  eight  days  old  and  had  already  started  to  feather,  and 
at  twelve  days  old  they  had  their  eyes  open.  The  hen  started  to  leave  the 
nest,  collecting  insects  with  the  cock  and  helped  him  with  the  feeding. 

When  the  chicks  were  sixteen  days  old,  both  of  them  were  standing  on 
the  rim  of  the  nest.  They  were  now  fully  feathered  and  fawn  in  colour 
with  two  black  stripes  going  from  the  base  of  the  beak  to  the  nape  of  the 
neck;  also  there  was  a  yellow  band  in  line  with  the  eye  and  the  yellow  tip 
on  the  tail  had  started  to  take  form.  On  3rd  September,  when  they  were 
seventeen  days  old,  both  chicks  left  the  nest.  The  cock  became  more  dom¬ 
inant,  feeding  the  young  himself,  and  seemed  to  be  keeping  the  hen  away 
from  them. 

The  next  day  he  was  not  taking  as  many  mealworms  as  he  had  previous¬ 
ly  done  and  when  some  chopped  grapes  were  put  into  the  aviary,  he  start¬ 
ed  to  feed  these  to  the  chicks  instead.  When  they  were  nineteen  days  old, 
they  were  close  rung  and  at  the  age  of  twenty-two  days  they  started  to 
feed  themselves,  but  the  father  was  still  partly  feeding  them. 

When  they  were  four  weeks  old,  they  started  to  change  colour;  they 
became  darker  like  the  adult  birds  but  had  speckled  chests.  The  chicks 
also  became  aware  of  the  food  being  put  into  the  aviary  and  fed  from  it 
straight  away,  the  diet  being  chopped  grape,  pear,  pyracantha  berries  and 
a  mixture  of  boiled  dates,  sultanas  and  apple  (a  great  favourite  with  my 
softbills)  as  well  as  a  softbill  food.  At  the  time  of  writing  (30th  October, 


D.  LEWIS  -  BREEDING  THE  CEDAR  WAXWING 


69 


1979),  both  young  are  doing  very  well.  I  believe  that  this  is  the  first  time 
that  this  species  has  been  bred  in  Great  Britain. 


*  * 


* 


As  described  above,  the  Cedar  Waxwing  Bombycilla  cedrorum  has  been 
bred  by  Mr.  D.  Lewis  and  this  is  believed  to  be  the  first  success  in  this 
country.  Anyone  knowing  of  a  previous  breeding  in  Great  Britain  or 
Northern  Ireland  is  asked  to  inform  the  Hon.  Secretary. 


70 


BREEDING  ZOSTEROPS 
By  L.  GIBSON,  (Burnaby,  British  Columbia) 


Zosterops,  or  White  Eyes,  are  widely  distributed.  They  range  all  over 
(sub)  tropical  Asia,  and  some  are  found  in  Africa,  Australia  (where  they 
are  called  Silvereyes),  New  Zealand  (where  they  are  called  Waxeyes)  and 
Hawaii,  where  they  are  called  a  few  other  things  by  fruitgrowers. 

Zosterops  with  an  “s”  is,  of  course,  the  scientific  name,  and  is  used  as 
the  singular  or  plural.  I  have  heard  of  a  single  bird  being  quaintly  referred 
to  as  a  “Zosterop”  (in  Britain!). 

As  they  are  small,  peaceful  and  easy  to  cater  for,  they  are  popular  with 
aviculturists.  Their  popularity  has  led  to  a  stream  of  sporadic  breedings 
over  the  years,  but  with  the  usual  limited  success  of  softbills.  As  they  have 
been  written  about  frequently,  I  will  confine  these  notes  to  brief  reviews 
of  the  nestings. 

A  pair  of  birds,  almost  certainly  Zosterops  palpebrosa,  nested  here  for 
the  past  three  years,  until  the  hen  died.  The  cock  is  alive  and  well  in  some¬ 
one  else’s  aviary. 

Sexing 

These  yellowish  Zosterops  can  be  sexed  by  appearance  during  the 
breeding  season.  The  cock  is  noticeably  brighter  than  the  hen,  especially 
about  the  head  and  breast  but  they  have  to  be  seen  together  for  this.  Prob¬ 
ably  most  of  the  numerous  species  could  be  sexed  this  way  too. 

The  birds  keep  in  constant  touch  by  uttering  a  long,  penetrating  whist¬ 
le,  the  hen  being  noticeably  higher  pitched  than  the  cock.  This  is  a  good 
way  to  pick  a  pair,  if  they  are  not  in  breeding  colour,  or  where  some  of  the 
greyer  species  may  look  alike.The  birds  should  be  separated,  when  they 
will  immediately  call  to  one  another. 

Nests 

The  secret  of  getting  these  birds  to  nest  is  to  supply  soft,  fluffy  mater¬ 
ials  and  cobwebs.  Horsehair  is  also  highly  utilised. 

The  nest  is  a  very  deep  cup,  the  depth  (4  cm  -  H4”)  almost  equalling 
the  diameter  (4.2  cm  -  1.5/8”). 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  ZOSTEROPS 


71 


All  the  nests  were  made  of  dog  fur,  polypropylene  aquarium  filter 
wool,  or  horsehair.  Horsehair  was  usually  used  as  a  basic  and  the  other 
materials  were  then  incorporated,  especially  to  pad  the  base.  Cotton  wool 
and  human  hair  were  also  used,  but  these  are  undesirable.  Some  lichen  was 
used,  but  only  a  very  few  grass  strands  were  ever  incorporated  in  the  struc¬ 
tures.  Cobweb  is  highly  desired  and  very  useful,  and  unfortunately  this  was 
only  supplied  in  the  last  nesting  season  (1978). 

The  earliest  building  commenced  on  7th  April  and  the  latest  on  22nd 
July.  One-third  of  the  nests  were  built  in  a  canary  basket,  and  the  rest 
were  slung  on  vegetation  with  no  bottom  support.  Most  of  the  latter  tilted 
to  some  degreee  and  were  shored  up  with  twigs. 

The  heights  at  which  the  nests  were  placed  ranged  from  3  ft  (1  m)  to  8^ 
ft  (2.59  m).  The  maximum  height  available  was  10  ft.  Second  clutches 
could  be  in  the  same  nest,  or  in  a  new  nest. 

Eggs 

The  nest  only  holds  three  eggs  comfortably.  A  fourth  egg  lies  on  top. 
Two  to  four  eggs  are  laid,  but  the  average  of  all  the  clutches  was  three. 
Five  clutches  were  laid  one  year,  with  a  total  of  15  eggs.  The  tiny  eggs  are 
very  pale  blue  and  measure  15  x  12  mm.  Of  all  my  birds,  the  Zosterops’ 
eggs  were  by  far  the  most  erratic  in  incubation  time  and  in  hatchability. 
They  were  the  only  species  that  regularly  produced  clear  eggs  along  with 
good  ones.  The  average  hatch  was  70%;  normally  I  get  100%  hatch  with 
softbills. 

Incubation  averaged  1 1  days,  with  a  few  strange  aberrations.  A  clutch 
of  two  eggs  took  14  and  15  days,  and  another  clutch  of  two  hatched  three 
days  apart.  A  normal  clutch  will  hatch  on  two  successive  days  at  the 
and  small  clutches  hatch  on  the  same  day.  Only  the  hen  was  seen  to  incu¬ 
bate. 

Chicks 

A  newly-hatched  chick  weighs  about  1  g  and  is  pink  and  downless.  A 
two-week  old  chick  weighed  6.25  g,  and  an  adult  of  this  species  is  about 
8.25  g  in  breeding  condition. 

The  chicks  are  fed  principally  on  live  food,  but  fruit  is  used  regularly 
from  5-7  days  on.  On  at  least  one  occasion  I  saw  a  one-day  old  chick 
getting  a  tiny  piece  of  orange. 


72 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  ZOSTEROPS 


Healthy,  well-fed  chicks  leave  the  nest  in  only  nine  or  ten  days,  just 
like  Pekin  Robin  chicks.  Occasionally  they  will  take  up  to  12  days,  but 
longer  than  this  means  serious  nutritional  defects. 

Zosterops  chicks  can  only  be  induced  to  beg  by  the  parents.  Their 
diminutive  size  makes  force  feeding  difficult.  The  result  of  this  was  that 
I  never  got  more  than  two  or  three  supplementary  feeds  into  any  chick, 
and  then  only  by  luck,  whereas  I  normally  handfeed  all  softbill  chicks 
every  day  from  day  two  at  least  until  their  eyes  open,  and  usually  longer. 
I  got  a  higher  proportion  of  poor  feathering  among  Zosterops  chicks  than 
with  others,  and  I  attribute  this  to  the  lack  of  supplementary  feeding. 
These  chicks  invariably  feathered  perfectly  within  four  months,  feeding 
by  themselves  on  the  normal  diet. 

When  they  fledge,  the  chicks  are  plain  grey  with  little  cream  coloured 
bibs.  They  cannot  fly,  but  can  climb  and  cling  well.  They  are  difficult 
to  see,  and  remain  still  to  avoid  detection.  They  also  keep  very  quiet  and 
only  cheep  softly  when  a  parent  lands  nearby  with  food.  At  first  they 
hide  very  low  down  but  work  up  higher  as  their  flying  ability  improves. 
They  remain  well  hidden  for  at  least  three  weeks,  but  change  hiding 
places  frequently.  By  25  days  they  can  fly  very  well  and  are  usually  found 
very  high  up,  and  can  be  seen  moving  around  more. 

Both  parents  feed  equally  when  the  chicks  are  in  the  nest,  and  the  cock 
takes  his  turn  to  brood  them.  The  cock  takes  over  the  feeding  until  the 
chicks  are  a  month  old,  when  the  hen  is  nesting  again. 

The  earliest  I  saw  a  chick  feed  itself  was  at  26  days.  The  chicks  moult 
gradually  into  the  adult  colour  by  three  to  four  months. 

The  mortality  amongst  very  young  chicks  was  extremely  high,  and  was 
from  undetermined  causes.  A  chick  that  died  at  eight  days  had  a  ball  of 
human  hair  in  its  stomach  (from  the  nest  lining).  Human  hair  was  not 
supplied  after  that.  Cotton  wool  is  also  bad  for  getting  into  beaks. 

Feeding 

Although  Zosterops  are  generally  lumped  in  with  fruit  and  nectar 
feeders,  they  are  mainly  insectivorous.  They  are  fond  of  soft  fruit  and  nec¬ 
tar,  but  the  consumption  of  these  drops  sharply  when  the  birds  are  nest¬ 
ing,  and  they  become  almost  wholly  insectivorous  if  given  the  chance.  I 
have  watched  flocks  of  wild  birds  work  their  way  up  the  trunk  of  small 
trees,  checking  for  insects  under  all  the  leaves  on  the  way  up.  They  flew 


L.  GIBSON  -  BREEDING  ZOSTEROPS 


73 


from  the  top  of  the  tree  down  to  the  trunk  of  the  next  one,  and  so  on. 
Most  soft  sweet  fruits  are  eaten,  but  the  tiny  beak  limits  the  scope  of  this. 
They  can  damage  fruit  crops  by  piercing  fruits  such  as  papaya  or  pear, 
making  them  unmarketable,  rather  than  inedible.  The  birds  are  seldom 
present  in  sufficient  numbers  to  do  any  great  damage.  They  take  nectar 
from  flowers,  but  are  not  dependent  on  this. 

The  adults  were  maintained  on  rice  pudding,  banana,  orange  and  milk 
nectar.  Pear  was  popular,  as  were,  of  course,  any  small  insects.  Mealworms 
were  eaten,  but  they  are  on  the  tough  side  for  these  little  birds. 

By  far  the  most  successful  nestings  came  after  I  started  giving  wasp 
grubs.  These  are  ideal  in  consistency  for  the  chicks,  and  the  adults  scarcely 
ate  anything  else  when  they  were  available.  Smooth  caterpillars  and  spiders 
were  also  favoured,  and  the  chicks  also  got  a  few  fruitflies. 

One  report  ( Avicultural  Magazine ,  Vol  84,  No.  I,  pp.  2-4)  stated  that 
Zosterops  fed  small  earthworms  to  their  chicks.  This  was  not  only  unusual 
but  very  lucky,  as  earthworms  are  an  excellent  food,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
ease  with  which  they  can  be  obtained.  I  tried  feeding  worms  to  a  number 
of  Zosterops  after  reading  this,  but  there  was  no  response  whatsoever,  as 
might  be  expected  from  an  arboreal  bird.  It  would  be  interesting  to  hear  if 
others  have  tried  this. 

General 

When  nesting  is  over,  the  parents  will  happily  live  with  the  chicks.  All 
the  birds  sleep  in  a  tight  bunch  side  by  side.  However,  chicks  should  be 
removed  at  a  month  old,  if  the  parents  are  re-nesting.  Nesting  adults  will 
not  tolerate  other  Zosterops  in  the  aviary  but  will  flock  outside  of  the 
breeding  season.  They  do  not  bother  other  nesting  birds,  except  to  pilfer 
nest  material.  The  Zosterops  nested  along  with  the  following  species, 
which  were  also  nesting:  Gouldians,  Pekin  Robins,  Honeycreepers  ( Cyan - 
erpes)  and  Blackcaps  Sylvia  atricapilla  .  None  of  these  interfered  with  the 
other. 

The  song  is  a  long  and  pretty,  though  quiet  warble.  The  male  sang 
throughout  the  incubation  period,  and  he  did  this  as  far  away  from  the 
nest  as  possible.  He  was  quiet  (and  busy)  when  the  chicks  hatched. 

Zosterops  are  not  good  homers.  Two  fairly  tame  males  got  out  one 
day  and  they  did  not  even  hang  around.  They  were  never  seen  again. 
In  general,  they  are  easily  kept  birds  with  many  virtues  and  no  vices. 


74 


BREEDING  THE  GREY-HEADED  LOVEBIRD 
Agapomis  earn 

By  F.C.  BARNICOAT  (Johannesburg,  South  Africa) 


It  now  seems  wise  to  call  this  delightful  lovebird  by  the  above  name 
rather  than  ‘Madagascar’  Lovebird.  The  latter  name  is  the  usual  one  with 
fanciers  in  South  Africa  and  probably  elsewhere,  yet  one  gets  an  uncom¬ 
fortable  feeling  that  the  name  should  be  up-dated  to  ‘Malagasy’  Lovebird! 
‘Grey-headed’  is  the  current  term  with  ornithologists  and  is  entirely  appro¬ 
priate,  being  the  direct  translation  of  the  Latin  scientific  name  cam,  which 
was  given  to  this  species  of  the  genus  Agapomis  by  Gmelin  in  1788. 

My  pair  was  bought  in  Natal  at  the  end  of  1977  shortly  after  they  had 
left  the  nest.  The  young  of  this  species  show  the  marked  sexual  dimor¬ 
phism,  which  characterises  it,  while  in  the  nest  at  the  early  stage  when  the 
feathers  on  their  heads  first  start  to  open  out.  This  is  a  great  advantage 
not  shared  by  the  more  commonly  kept  and  bred  species  of  lovebird,  i.e., 
the  Peach-faced  and  the  four  “eye-ring  species”,  in  which  there  is  no 
reliable  external  difference  between  the  sexes  even  in  the  fully  adult  bird; 
or  to  the  two  species  that  are  readily  sexable  after  they  have  assumed  adult 
plumage,  i.e.  Red-faced  (Angolan)  and  Black-winged  (Abyssinian).  The 
number  of  species  in  the  bird  world  that  have  the  advantage  of  being  easily 
sexed  before  they  leave  the  nest  is  minimal. 

The  Grey-headed  Lovebird  has  figured  in  aviculture  for  over  100  years. 
One  of  the  earliest  English  writers  on  aviculture,  C.W.  Gedney,  in  his 
“Foreign  Cage  Birds ”  (around  1875)  has  a  chapter  on  Lovebirds,  obviously 
referring  to  the  Red-faced,  but  says  in  passing:  “Recently  English  dealers 
have  received  a  lavender-headed  lovebird  from  New  Guinea  (sic)  and  these 
have  realised  good  prices  and  shown  themselves  able  to  bear  the  severity  of 
our  climate.”  It  is  virtually  certain  that  the  Grey-headed  was  the  second  of 
the  lovebirds  to  be  kept  in  captivity.  It  was  one  of  the  famous  Dr.  W.T. 
Greene’s  “Birds  I  have  kept  in  years  gone  by ”  (1885).  He  found  it  “Much 
nicer,  more  interesting  and  hardier  than  the  Red-faced”  and  mentions  no 
other  lovebird.  Cassell’s  “ Illustrated  Book  of  Canaries  and  Cagebirds, 
British  and  Foreign”  has  its  foreign  section  contributed  by  that  very 
widely  experienced  and  accurate  observer,  A.F.  Wiener,  who  kept  birds  on 
an  extensive  scale  in  Germany  before  moving  to  England  and  who  was  a 
Vice  President  of  the  Avicultural  Society  from  1899  to  1906.  Writing  in 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  BREEDING  THE  GREY-HEADED  LOVEBIRD 


75 


this  book  in  the  edition  of  the  late  1880s,  Wiener  says  of  Agapomis  earn  : 
“Until  about  five  years  ago,  they  were  rare,  but  notwithstanding  their  con¬ 
siderable  price  found  willing  purchasers,  and  as  a  consequence  they  are 
now  imported  in  large  numbers.  Although  I  have  not  been  fortunate 
enough  to  breed  this  parrakeet  successfully,  I  obtained  from  various  pairs 
numerous  eggs,  and  other  amateurs  have  bred  them  freely.”  In  the  same 
book  a  mere  four  lines  are  devoted  to  the  Rosy-faced  Lovebird  to  the 
effect  that  they  had  been  bred  on  the  Continent  with  remarkable  ease  by 
Dr.  Russ  and  others,  but  none  were  as  yet  to  be  seen  in  England.  This 
third  lovebird  species  was  about  to  burst  on  the  avicultural  scene  and  to 
oust  the  Grey-headed  mainly  because  of  the  ease  with  which  it  repro¬ 
duced. 

The  Grey-headed  Lovebird  is  by  no  means  rare  in  its  natural  habitat 
and  they  were  certainly  “imported  in  large  numbers”.  A  dealer’s  advertise¬ 
ment  in  the  journal  Bird  Notes ,  of  1909,  states:  “Madagascar  Lovebirds  - 
3/6d.  per  pair”,  a  far  cry  from  the  occasional  advertisement  for  this  species 
by  a  present  day  dealer  in  Cage  and  Aviary  Birds  of  1980  which  puts  the 
price  at  £100!  It  is  obvious  that  despite  substantial  importations  in  the 
past  this  lovebird  species  has  not  prospered  in  Europe  as  most  of  the  other 
species  have  done,  which  made  sensational  first  appearances  on  the  avicul¬ 
tural  scene  many  years  afterwards,  all  well  described  and  depicted  with 
consummate  skill  in  the  pages  of  the  Avicultural  Magazine :  the  Black¬ 
cheeked  (April  1908),  the  Abyssinian  (March  1909),  the  Nyasa  (11  Feb. 
1926),  the  Masked  (June  1927)  and  lastly  the  Fischer’s  (October  1927). 
With  the  exception  of  the  Abyssinian  they  all  soon  proved  to  be  among 
the  easiest  of  all  wild  birds  to  propagate  in  captivity.  This  continues  to  be 
so,  and  today  several  species  are  being  bred  in  an  ever  increasing  number 
of  colour  mutations.  Exceptions  to  this  pattern  are  the  Grey-headed,  the 
Black-winged  and  that  extraordinarily  problematical  breeder,  the  Red¬ 
faced.  These  latter  are  more  challenging  avicultural  subjects,  and  it  seems 
that  the  Grey-headed  has  never  done  well  in  Europe,  where  it  is  said  to 
dislike  the  indoor  conditions  that  must  be  employed  for  much  of  the 
year  and  it  has  never  caught  on  like  the  more  easily  bred  species,  or 
become  properly  established. 

Agapornis  cana  has  figures  in  South  African  aviculture  for  many  years, 
but  it  has  only  been  available  sporadically  and  is  comparatively  expensive. 
They  are  much  prized  on  the  show  bench,  though  steady  examples  are 
few  and  far  between,  most  of  them  having  the  habit  of  scuttling  into  a 
corner  of  the  show  cage  especially  when  exhibited  in  pairs.  In  his  book 


76 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  BREEDING  THE  GREY-HEADED  LOVEBIRD 


“ Aviculture  in  South  Africa ”  (1959)  Herbert  Hambly  Parker  reported  that 
the  two  pairs  he  had  kept  were  prolific  breeders,  the  secret  being  that  they 
did  not  fancy  a  box  but  readily  hollowed  out  a  sisal  stump.  The  proximity 
of  Malagasy  to  South  Africa  has  enabled  quite  a  number  of  South  African 
fanciers  to  obtain  pairs  of  these  lovebirds  in  the  past  and  breeding  suc¬ 
cesses  have  occurred  in  many  collections,  especially  in  Natal  and  the  East¬ 
ern  Cape  coastal  districts  where  climatic  conditions  most  approximate  to 
those  of  their  natural  habitat  in  Malagasy.  There  is  a  particular  need  for 
some  enterprising  South  African  aviculturists  to  specialise  in  this  species 
and  build  up  sound  stocks  because  it  is  becoming  increasingly  unlikely 
that  any  more  wild-caught  birds  will  be  forthcoming  from  present  day 
Malagasy. 

Subspecies 

There  is  the  nominate  race  Agapomis  earn  cana  and  one  subspecies, 
Agapomis  cam  ablectanea ,  which  comes  from  the  drier  south-western 
corner  of  Malagasy.  Ablectanea  shows  a  rather  darker  and  more  bluish 
green  in  both  sexes,  but  especially  on  the  back  and  wings  of  the  male, 
which  then  gives  a  stronger  contrast  with  the  lighter  green  of  the  body. 
The  green  on  the  body  is  also  less  yellowish  than  in  the  nominate  race, 
and  the  grey  head  of  the  male  is  paler  and  more  lavender  in  tone.  My  own 
pair  definitely  belongs  to  the  nominate  race,  but  I  reckon  that  I  have  seen 
both  forms  in  recent  times  and  prefer  ablectanea.  The  only  meaning  I  am 
able  to  find  for  ablectanea  is  “selected  or  gathered  away  from”.  It  is 
desirable  that  breeders  should  follow  this  advice,  anyway,  and  develop 
separate  strains  of  the  two  subspecies  if  possible,  rather  than  mingle  them 
indiscriminately. 

Feeding 

Mine  live  mainly  on  the  various  millets  and  plain  canary  seed,  showing 
preference  for  the  smaller  types  and  in  particular  for  spray  millet.  Sun¬ 
flower  seed  appeared  to  be  too  large  for  them,  and  their  beaks  are  con¬ 
siderably  smaller  than  those  of  other  lovebirds  commonly  kept.  After 
much  perseverance  I  have  got  them  to  enjoy  soaked  canary  seed  and 
eventually  they  have  begun  to  take  germinating  sunflower  seed.  They 
might  be  fond  of  hemp,  but  that  is  not  available  in  South  Africa. 

I  have  not  succeeded  in  getting  mine  to  take  apple  or  other  fruit  or 
softfood  of  any  sort,  but  they  are  passionately  fond  of  greenfood  pegged 
at  perch  level.  Chickweed  is  their  favourite.  Seeding  grasses  just  at  the 
ripening  stage  surpasses  all  other  foods  in  popularity.  The  grass  that 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  BREEDING  THE  GREY-HEADED  LOVEBIRD 


77 


bears  the  scientific  name  Panicum  kevifolium  grows  here  in  the  late 
summer  and  is  usually  permitted  a  place  in  my  garden.  It  is  when  a 
bunch  of  this  grass  is  fastened  up  that  the  Grey-headed  Lovebirds  really 
come  to  life  and  excitedly  nibble  the  tiny  seeds  with  exquisite  daintiness 
of  movement. 

Oyster  shell  grit  and  grated  cuttlefish  supply  their  calcium  require¬ 
ment  and  my  pair  adores  to  be  sprayed  with  a  hose  set  very  fine.  They 
ruffle  their  feathers  and  swing  round  on  the  perch,  often  pausing  upside 
down  and  opening  out  their  wings  to  let  the  water  reach  their  bodies. 

Breeding 

I  housed  my  pair  in  an  aviary  2.3  m  long  and  2  m  wide,  and  1.3  m  of 
the  length  was  taken  up  by  the  shelter,  which  has  a  fibre  glass  front  to 
ensure  it  is  relatively  light.  By  using  the  large  door  of  the  shelter  to  close 
the  birds  in  at  night  these  lovebirds  were  soon  trained  to  sleep  under 
cover,  and  unlike  many  other  birds  they  do  not  revert  to  sleeping  in  the 
flight  if  given  the  chance.  They  like  the  flight  in  the  late  afternoon  but 
never  fail  to  retire  into  the  shelter  as  the  last  of  the  light  fades.  Their 
aviary  flight  contains  a  weeping  mulberry  tree  to  which  they  do  sur¬ 
prisingly  little  damage.  They  make  some  of  their  nesting  material  from 
its  leaves  by  nibbling  around  the  outline  of  each  leaf  several  times  to 
form  pieces  of  greenery  shaped  like  a  large  letter  C.  Most  of  these  pieces 
are  taken  into  the  nest  boxes,  but  some  are  dropped  on  the  ground. 
The  skill  they  show  in  cutting  out  these  regular  shapes  is  amazing. 

Before  I  got  around  to  building  them  some  larger  nest  boxes  they  went 
down  in  the  L-shaped  boxes  I  normally  use  for  Gouldians,  and  they  have 
continued  to  find  these  attractive.  In  these  boxes  I  have  tried  a  few  centi¬ 
metres  of  peat  and  wood  shavings,  which  so  far  they  have  for  the  most 
part  removed.  When  mulberry  leaves  were  not  available  they  carried  lawn 
clippings  into  their  box,  though  not  in  sufficient  quantity  to  prevent 
their  eggs  from  lying  on  the  bare  wood.  My  most  successful  nest  was  pro¬ 
duced  when  the  pair  took  over  a  box  that  I  had  filled  with  grass  for  a 
pair  of  Gouldians.  They  enlarged  the  hollow  I  had  shaped,  and  gradually 
the  grass  was  reduced  to  very  tiny  pieces  and  the  remains  were  eventually 
scratched  into  a  tiny  pile  in  the  corner  by  the  chicks. 

The  pair  nested  twice  in  1978,  in  May  and  August.  The  hen  disappears 
into  the  box  and  must  surely  be  fed  by  the  cock.  She  will  remain  in  the 
box  when  it  is  taken  down  for  inspection  and  will  have  to  be  lifted  out  or 


78 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  BREEDING  THE  GREY-HEADED  LOVEBIRD 


moved  aside  if  the  eggs  are  to  be  seen.  The  hens  I  have  had  also  appear  to 
pluck  some  of  their  feathers  when  they  nest,  so  that  they  appear  a  sorry 
sight.  Despite  the  closeness  with  which  the  hen  incubated  in  her  first  year, 
none  of  the  eggs  hatched.  They  all  contained  embryos  which  had  perished 
at  various  stages.  At  the  time  I  was  tempted  to  deduce  theories  as  to  why 
the  eggs  had  failed  to  hatch,  but  subsequent  events  seem  to  indicate  that 
it  was  merely  a  case  of  the  hen  being  inexperienced  and  addling  her  eggs 
one  by  one. 

Success  came  under  the  same  conditions  in  1979.  The  first  egg  was 
laid  on  5th  April,  followed  by  another  three  on  alternate  days.  On 
28th  April  I  heard  a  soft  chattering  sound  coming  from  the  nest  box 
and  at  noon  the  hen  left  the  nest  briefly,  enabling  me  to  look.  There  was 
one  baby  covered  in  short  white  down  lying  quietly  between  three  eggs. 
This  would  give  an  incubation  period  of  22  or  23  days.  Of  the  extras 
provided,  soaked  spray  millet  was  the  only  one  accepted.  The  other  eggs 
hatched  and  through  the  ensuing  month  the  babies  developed  in  four 
distinct  sizes,  indicating  that  incubation  commences  from  the  laying 
of  the  first  egg.  As  they  reached  the  stage  of  acquiring  head  feathers 
they  could  be  sexed  as  a  hen,  then  a  cock,  then  a  second  hen  and  finally 
a  second  cock.  Within  six  weeks  all  four  had  left  the  nest  and  could  fly 
well,  although  some  of  them  were  somewhat  lacking  in  body  feathers, 
having  possibly  been  plucked.  These  feathers  quickly  grew  once  the 
youngsters  were  flying. 

With  the  coming  of  spring,  the  hen  took  over  the  nest  box  filled  with 
grass  for  the  Gouldians  (described  above)  and  laid  six  eggs,  the  first  of 
which  hatched  on  9th  September,  followed  by  all  the  others  at  about 
two-day  intervals.  This  large  family  was  notable  for  the  different  stages 
of  development  its  members  showed  -  “steps  and  stairs”,  as  the  saying 
runs.  All  went  well  for  a  month,  when  the  hen  suddenly  lost  the  use  of 
her  legs  and  deteriorated  rapidly  to  the  stage  where  she  had  to  be  placed 
in  a  small  cage.  All  treatment  failed  and  she  died  five  days  later.  I  faced 
up  to  the  prospect  of  handfeeding  the  six  babies.  However  it  was  soon 
obvious  that  the  father  was  continuing  to  feed.  I  was  able  to  stop  giving 
any  assistance  at  all,  and  this  time  there  was  no  plucking,  so  that  the 
babies  left  the  nest  in  perfect  feather,  the  last  one  on  29th  October. 
Their  father  was  wonderfully  devoted  and  would  always  carefully  shep¬ 
herd  all  six  -  four  daughters  and  two  sons  -  into  the  shelter  each  evening. 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  BREEDING  THE  GREY-HEADED  LOVEBIRD 


79 


This  year  I  have  been  attempting  to  establish  another  breeding  pair, 
but  the  young  hens  have  so  far  addled  their  clutches  of  four  eggs.  Perhaps, 
like  their  mother,  they  will  do  better  in  their  second  year. 

Most  of  the  ten  offspring  were  spread  around  amongst  friends  and  more 
than  half  of  these  have  already  died,  which  seems  to  support  the  words  of 
G.A.  Smith:  “Once  the  Madagascar  Lovebirds  stopped  coming  in  from  the 
wild,  despite  their  supposed  prolificacy,  they  became  extremely  scarce, 
unequivocally  proving  that  Madagascar  Lovebirds  die  with  a  much  greater 
enthusiasm  than  ever  they  breed.”  It  is  now  unlikely  any  more  will  be 
coming  in  from  the  wild  and,  therefore,  all  the  more  to  be  hoped  that  this 
delightful  species  will  find  aviculturists  willing  to  concentrate  on  it  and 
build  up  viable  stocks  before  the  door  of  opportunity  finally  closes.  From 
what  I  can  gather  many  Grey-headed  Lovebirds  succumb  somewhat 
suddenly  and  unexpectedly  when  in  good  health,  and  they  seem  to  me  to 
be  particularly  nervous  and  sensitive  birds  which  panic  at  the  slightest 
disturbance.  This  causes  a  high  proportion  to  be  lost  as  a  result  of  night 
frights.  No  doubt  there  are  other  reasons,  too,  why  they  are  hard  to  es¬ 
tablish. 

Compatibility  with  other  birds 

As  aviary  space  for  my  collection  is,  alas,  at  a  premium,  I  have  been 
tempted  to  try  to  find  suitable  aviary  companions  for  my  pair  so  that 
more  than  one  species  might  live  and  prosper  in  the  same  aviary.  In  this 
matter  I  knew  that  I  was  being  optimistic,  because  the  whole  lovebird 
family  is  notorious  for  biting  off  the  toes  of  other  birds.  E.N.T.  Vane  in 
Guide  to  Lovebirds  and  Parrotlets  (1958)  says  of  the  Madagascar:  “they 
are  spiteful  and  dangerous  companions  for  any  bird  approaching  anything 
near  their  own  size.”  My  experiments  have  caused  me  not  a  little  grief. 
A  pair  of  Gouldians  did  well  with  them  for  a  time,  but  when  their  babies 
left  the  nest  the  lovebirds  bit  their  feet,  so  that  all  lost  at  least  one  toe  and 
two  died  as  a  result  of  their  injuries,  including  the  adult  cock.  Yet  Bengal¬ 
ese  have  lived  and  bred  with  them  for  two  years,  and  apart  from  some  of 
their  babies  having  once  been  plucked  of  the  tail  feathers  during  the  first 
few  days  after  leaving  the  nest,  no  other  damage  was  done  to  them.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  Violet-eared  Waxbills,  Cuban  Finches  and  Cape  Can¬ 
aries  which  have  been  housed  with  them  from  time  to  time.  Yet  every 
young  Gouldian  I  bred  in  the  aviaries  on  either  side  of  the  lovebirds  had 
at  least  one  missing  toenail,  which  must  have  been  nipped  off  when  they 
were  clinging  to  the  wire.  This  necessitated  double-wiring  the  partitions 
on  both  sides.  It  seems  probable  that  certain  species  are  quick  enough  to 


80 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  BREEDING  THE  GREY  HEADED  LOVEBIRD 


escape  injury  from  the  lovebirds,  whereas  the  Gouldian  is  not;  or  the 
lovebirds  could  be  aggressive  to  the  colour  green  in  which  they  see  a  rival. 
I  certainly  doubt  that  they  could  be  kept  with  similar  small  parrot-like 
birds. 

This  year,  being  short  of  space,  I  risked  leaving  the  father  and  two  of 
his  daughters  in  their  aviary.  I  was  warned  and  feared  that,  once  the  pros¬ 
pect  of  breeding  arose,  violent  quarrels  might  result.  However  they  seemed 
to  prosper  as  a  trio.  The  cock  fed  both  hens,  and  each  selected  a  nest  box 
on  opposite  sides  of  the  shelter  wall,  laid  and  incubated  four  fertile  eggs, 
within  a  fortnight  of  each  other.  As  recorded  above,  these  eggs  seem  to 
have  been  addled  one  by  one.  Interesting  though  the  experiment  was,  I 
remained  nervous  of  this  trio  living  together,  though  all  evidence  recom¬ 
mended  a  continuance  of  such  an  arrangement.  I  might  have  removed  one 
of  the  hens  as  spring  approached,  but  the  decision  was  not  left  in  my 
hands.  In  June  one  of  the  hens,  which  I  had  watched  fly  in  to  roost  in 
perfect  health  the  previous  night,  was  found  dead  early  next  morning  and 
probably  died  of  concussion  caused  by  a  night  fright.  Several  fanciers  to 
whom  I  have  spoken  maintain  that  this  lovebird  breeds  best  when  several 
pairs  are  kept  separately  but  in  nearby  aviaries  where  they  can  hear  each 
other,  and  that  a  single  pair  seldom  breeds.  My  experience  does  not 
support  this  view,  of  course,  but  the  whole  genus  is  gregarious  and  I  can 
well  believe  that  breeding  pairs  might  be  stimulated  by  the  presence  of 
others  in  the  vicinity. 


REFERENCES 

PARKER,  H.H.  1959.  Aviculture  in  South  Africa.  Afrikaanse  Pers,  Johannesburg. 
SMITH,  G.A.  1979.  Lovebirds  and  Related  Parrots.  Paul  Elek,  London. 
GEDNEY,  C.W.  1875  (approx.).  Foreign  Cage  Birds.  L.  Upcott  Gill,  London. 
GREENE,  W.T.  1885.  Birds  I  have  kept  in  Years  Gone  By.  L.Upcott  Gill,  London 
VANE,  E.N.T.  1958.  Guide  to  Lovebirds  and  Parrotlets.  Cage  Birds,  London. 
WIENER,  A.F.  (1880s).  The  Illustrated  Book  of  Canaries  and  Cage  Birds,  British 
and  Foreign.  Cassell,  London. 


81 


THE  REARING  OF  PINK-EARED  DUCKS  Malacorhynchus  membrana- 
ceus,  MUSK  DUCKS  Biziura  lobata  AND  BLUE-BILLED  DUCKS  Oxyura 
australis 

By  M.  LUBBOCK  (Assistant  Director  -  Aviculture  - 
The  Wildfowl  Trust,  Gloucestershire. 

Expeditions  to  collect  waterfowl  from  foreign  countries  are  becoming 
more  difficult  as  years  go  by,  not  only  in  getting  permission  to  collect,  but 
also  in  the  amount  of  money  needed.  An  expedition  to  catch  adult  birds  is 
almost  prohibited  by  the  expense,  the  bird  losses  that  occur  and  the  time 
required  to  establish  the  adult  birds  in  their  new  environment  to  breed 
(two  or  three  years).  In  recent  years,  expeditions  involving  the  Wildfowl 
Trust  have  favoured  collecting  hatching  eggs  and  transporting  them  in 
portable  incubators.  The  advantage  of  egg  collection  is  that  the  young  are 
hatched  and  reared  in  the  environment  in  which  they  will  be  living  and 
breeding.  In  nearly  all  cases,  the  young  which  have  been  reared  in  this 
manner  are  bred  from  much  quicker  than  any  wild-caught  bird.  The  only 
disadvantage  from  eggs  is  that  the  sexes  of  the  young  which  hatch  are 
unpredictable  and  it  is  possible  to  end  up  with  all  the  same  sex.  Taking 
eggs  from  the  wild  is  not  necessarily  depleting  the  adult  population  for 
the  sake  of  the  expedition.  Only  one  or  two  eggs  are  taken  from  each 
clutch  to  keep  the  blood  lines  different.  Due  to  the  mortality  that  occurs 
in  the  wild,  the  parent  bird  would  probably  raise  the  same  number  of 
young  whether  one  took  two  eggs  or  left  them  to  hatch.  Some  of  the 
unique  waterfowl  of  Australia  have  always  been  of  great  interest  to  the 
Wildfowl  Trust  and  when  permission  was  granted  for  us  to  collect  in 
Western  Australia,  we  were  delighted.  Egg  collection  seemed  the  best 
method  for  the  expedition. 

The  trip  proved  successful,  with  the  planning  and  delicate  timing 
working  well.  Although  it  was  a  very  dry  year  and  not  considered  a  very 
good  breeding  season,  most  of  the  required  eggs  were  found.  The  trip 
was  made  much  easier  by  the  invaluable  help  from  the  personnel  of  the 
Fisheries  and  Wildlife  Department  of  Western  Australia  and  the  Director 
of  the  Perth  Zoo.  The  eggs  had  to  be  individually  wrapped  in  the  incubator 
as  there  was  great  size  difference  between  the  Pink-eared  and  Musk  Ducks. 
The  eight  Blue-billed  Duck  eggs  collected  were  fresh,  so  did  not  need  to 
be  packed  in  the  incubator.  I  accompanied  the  eggs  by  Boeing  747  from 
Perth  to  London  with  one  stop  at  Bombay.  Before  my  trip,  the  airline 
found  that  there  was  only  one  seat  on  the  747  with  enough  room  by  my 
side. 


82 


M.  LUBBOCK  -  REARING  RARE  DUCKS 


On  arrival  at  Slimbridge,  the  eggs  were  transferred  from  the  portable 
incubator  to  forced  air  incubators.  All  40  of  the  Pink-eared  Duck  eggs 
hatched  and  10  out  of  the  12  Musk  Duck  eggs  hatched.  The  fresh  Blue¬ 
billed  Duck  eggs  did  not  do  as  well  and  only  four  out  of  the  eight  hatched. 
Owing  to  strict  regulations,  the  eggs  had  to  be  hatched  and  the  young 
reared  in  the  new  quarantine  facilities  which  had  recently  been  built  at 
Slimbridge.  The  most  up-to-date  methods  of  rearing  difficult  species  of 
waterfowl  were  incorporated  in  building  the  quarantine  station. 

The  Pink-eared  Duck 

The  Pink-eared  Ducks  proved  the  most  difficult  birds  to  rear.  They 
were  very  small  and  delicate,  looking  like  miniature  adults,  especially 
their  bills  with  skin  flaps  on  each  side.  Tom  Spence,  Director  of  the  Perth 
Zoo,  had  experience  in  rearing  Pink-eared  and  had  told  us  how  difficult 
it  was.  His  only  successful  diet  was  a  wet  mixture  of  trout  pellets.  The 
young  ducklings  wanted  to  sift  everything  through  the  water  and  dried 
food  seemed  totally  unpalatable. 

Not  all  the  ducklings  hatched  at  the  same  time.  Some  were  over  three 
weeks  apart.  The  diet  was  obviously  insufficient  for  the  first  ducklings 
being  reared  and  their  growth  rates  were  slow.  The  wet  mixture  was  given 
to  them  in  a  small  chick  drinker,  with  the  jar  in  the  middle  of  the  pan, 
only  allowing  a  small  area  around  the  jar  for  food.  This  stopped  the  duck¬ 
lings  from  becoming  completely  caked  with  food,  as  there  was  only  room 
for  their  bills  to  reach  the  food.  The  trout  pellets  contained  enough  oil  to 
hinder  their  waterproofing,  which  alone  caused  considerable  stress  and 
discomfort.  The  diet  caused  constipation,  so  various  other  foods  were 
added  to  the  trout  pellets,  even  blood  worms  and  daphnia. 

After  many  frustrating  trials  and  experiments  with  diets,  some 
losses  occurred.  A  basic  diet  of  chick  crumbs  proved  the  best  balanced  diet 
with  the  correct  proteins,  but  even  the  chick  crumbs  varied  between  manu¬ 
facturers.  Many  marketed  crumbs  contained  too  much  husk  and  roughage, 
causing  impaction  of  the  gizzard.  Only  after  grinding  each  brand  of  chick 
crumb  and  sieving  did  we  find  one  free  from  husks.  The  starter  cmmb  was 
fed  in  a  shallow  pan  very  close  to  their  drinker  and  the  ducklings’  method 
was  not  to  take  the  crumbs  to  the  water,  but  the  water  to  the  crumbs,  so 
that  they  would  puddle  the  food. 

The  post  mortem  showed  the  experimental  diets  of  trout  pellets,  etc., 
were  unbalanced  in  proteins  and  lacking  in  calcium  and  vitamin  B.  The 
bone  of  some  of  the  3-4  week  old  ducklings  was  very  soft  and  flexible. 


Pink-eared  Ducklings  hatched  at  the  Wildfowl  Trust,  Slimbridge 


Musk  Ducklings  hatched  at  the  Wildfowl  Trust,  Slimbridge 


M.  LUBBOCK  -  REARING  RARE  DUCKS 


83 


From  the  40  eggs  collected,  20  birds  have  been  reared  to  maturity. 

The  Musk  Duck 

The  Musk  Duck  proved  very  hardy  and  the  most  unusual  of  the  water- 
fowl  family  to  rear.  The  duckling  is  fairly  large,  very  robust  and  aggressive. 
The  down  is  black  apart  from  a  white  chest  and  stomach  and  acquires  a 
texture  more  like  fur  than  feather.  The  enormous  bill  seems  nearly  out  of 
proportion  to  the  head.  The  bill  is  dark  grey  to  black,  but  underneath  it  is 
a  light  orange  with  an  orange  mandible.  A  similar  colour  inside  the  beak 
proved  to  be  significant  in  rearing  the  young. 

The  aggressiveness  of  the  young  soon  proved  a  great  difficulty  in  rear¬ 
ing.  A  newly-hatched  Musk  Duck  was  set  upon  and  killed  by  a  three  day 
old  bird.  This  meant  that  all  the  young  Musk  Ducks  had  to  be  reared  in 
separate  compartments  .  They  also  had  to  be  hand-fed  for  several  weeks 
before  they  would  feed  themselves  out  of  a  dish.  However,  if  food  was 
dropped  in  the  water,  especially  mealworms  or  crickets,  they  would  soon 
devour  them.  Chick  crumbs  were  difficult  to  hand-feed  and  soaked  trout 
and  dog  pellets  were  preferred.  The  young  Musk  Ducks  were  raised  in 
much  the  same  way  as  we  raise  Stiff-tailed  Ducks  at  Slimbridge,  on  water 
with  access  to  a  small  sloping  area  under  an  overhead  heater. 

The  young  Musk  Ducks  were  very  vocal  and  they  have  a  very  large 
range  of  peculiar  sounds  compared  to  other  waterfowl.  Many  waterfowl 
authorities  who  heard  the  recorded  tapes  of  the  young  Musk  Duck  mis- 
identified  them  and  thought  they  were  of  an  animal,  usually  a  cat. 
From  watching  Musk  Duck  feeding  in  the  wild,  I  learnt  that  the  young 
are  reared  separately  and  not  in  a  brood.  Clutch  size  seems  to  be  only 
two,  occasionally  three,  and  one  is  not  uncommon.  A  fourth  duckling 
would  rarely  survive. 

After  the  young  hatch,  they  are  kept  in  the  nest  territory  in  clumps 
of  rash  and  sedge,  but  apart  from  one  another.  The  female  takes  food  to 
the  young  which  beg,  their  orange  mandibles  very  plainly  directing  the 
female’s  delivery  of  food.  Their  tremendous  vocal  range  helps  to  lead 
the  female  to  the  position  of  the  young. 

From  the  12  Musk  Duck  eggs  brought  back,  10  hatched  successfully, 
and  six  have  been  reared  to  maturity.  The  four  which  died  as  they  were 
becoming  adolescent  were  lacking  in  vitamins,  like  the  Pink-eared  Ducks, 
so  the  dog  biscuits  and  trout  pellet  diet  was  soon  altered  to  a  rearers’  or 


84 


M.  LUBBOCK  *  REARING  RARE  DUCKS 


growers’  pellet  on  which  they  thrived.  They  still  get  moist  dog  biscuit, 
but  trout  pellet  has  been  removed  from  their  diet. 

The  Blue-billed  Duck 

Fresh  eggs  never  seem  to  travel  as  well  as  incubated  eggs  so  it  was  no 
surprise  that  only  four  out  of  the  eight  Blue-billed  Duck  eggs  hatched. 
These  young  were  raised  very  easily  on  a  diet  of  millet,  canary  seed  and  a 
few  of  the  same  brand  of  chick  crumbs  that  we  had  found  good  for  the 
Pink-eared  Ducks.  Duckweed  normally  makes  up  a  good  proportion  of  the 
diet  for  rearing  stiff-tailed  ducks,  but  it  was  very  difficult  to  obtain  in 
midwinter  in  England.  However,  small  amounts  were  found  and  given  as 
well.  Unfortunately  all  the  Blue-billed  Ducks  were  males. 

One  of  the  important  factors  to  emerge  from  the  rearing  of  these 
three  species  is  that  various  forms  of  food  such  as  trout  pellets  are  inade¬ 
quate  in  vitamins  for  waterfowl.  During  manufacture  of  the  pellets,  many 
of  the  vitamins  said  to  be  in  the  end-product  are  destroyed  by  heating  to 
200°F,  although  they  were  added  at  the  beginning  of  the  process.  The 
only  adequate  foods  are  those  that  have  been  developed  for  the  poultry 
industry,  a  big  universal  concern,  which  has  spent  much  time  and  money 
in  developing  the  best  food  to  grow  a  healthy  chick.  Even  these  have  to  be 
scrutinised  as  certain  drugs  added  to  some  foods  can  be  harmful  to  ducks. 
The  labels  on  the  food  bags  give  this  warning. 

No  matter  how  difficult  the  ducklings  seem  to  be  in  the  initial  rearing 
stages,  if  they  can  be  weaned  onto  chick  crumbs  at  the  earliest  opportun¬ 
ity,  a  healthy  duck  with  all  the  required  vitamins  will  result.  The  subse¬ 
quent  switch  from  crumbs  to  rearer  pellets  will  be  easier,  and  on  to 
breeder  pellets  when  the  bird  is  adult.  More  of  the  Pink-eared  Ducks  would 
have  been  reared  if  we  had  fed  chick  crumbs  only,  without  husks,  from  the 
beginning. 


85 


FURTHER  NOTES  ON  MOUSEBIRDS  C  macrourus 
By  L.  GIBSON  (Burnaby,  British  Columbia) 

Blue-naped  Mousebirds  were  again  bred  in  1979  and  some  additional 
information  was  noted,  as  well  as  some  interesting  differences  in  breeding 
behaviour  from  that  seen  in  the  1978  season.  It  is  fairly  certain  that  a 
reliable  sex  difference  has  been  found. 

Three  of  the  original  four  adult  birds  were  brought  back  from  the  local 
zoo  on  the  16th  June.  As  they  had  nested  late  in  1978  (September)  it  was 
thought  that  they  might  produce  some  chicks  during  the  quiet  end  of  the 
season.  As  it  turned  out  there  was  no  quiet  period,  and  at  one  point  there 
were  three  species  on  eggs  at  once.  The  Mousebirds  nested  from  July  to 
September  and  Chloropsis  continued  to  nest  later  than  colius.  In  spite  of 
long  though  intermittent  observation,  there  remain  unresolved  questions 
about  the  Mousebirds. 

General 

Observations  were  made  in  the  same  aviary  as  last  year  ( Avicultural 
Magazine  Vol.  85,  No.  3)  and  the  birds  were  seen  to  have  a  water  bath  for 
the  first  and  only  time.  The  aviary  was  hosed  frequently  during  a  pro¬ 
longed  dry  spell.  Some  large  phlox  plants  were  thoroughly  wetted.  All  the 
birds  jumped  on  to  the  wide  flower  heads,  and  with  wings  outstretched, 
they  wriggled  in  the  wet  flowers.  They  only  succeeded  in  getting  their 
underparts  slightly  wet,  and  the  whole  thing  was  rather  brief.  They  con¬ 
tinued  to  bathe  regularly  in  dry  earth.  A  bird  would  wriggle  itself  into  a 
depression,  then  it  shuffled  forward  for  an  inch  or  two.  It  then  backed  up 
and  repeated  this  several  times.  Like  most  other  activities,  this  was  carried 
out  in  a  group.  Birds  denied  access  to  dry  earth  or  sand  get  quite  tacky, 
especially  on  their  long  tails.  The  birds  were  still  not  seen  to  drink  water, 
but  they  took  copious  draughts  of  milk  nectar,  which  they  sucked  up  in 
pigeon  fashion. 

When  the  first  eggs  were  laid,  the  two  non-brooding  birds  roosted  to¬ 
gether  on  the  aviary  wire.  However,  after  the  first  chicks  had  fledged,  one 
of  the  adults  slept  beside  the  next  nest,  just  like  last  year.  At  night,  one 
fledged  chick  was  seen  sleeping  cushioned  between  the  wire  and  the 
adult’s  breast.  It  was  sitting  crosswise  on  top  of  the  adult.  At  other  times 
all  the  non-nesters  were  hanging  in  a  tight  bunch  at  night.  They  always 
slept  at  the  highest  point,  and  beneath  a  narrow  beam.  Plastic  sheeting 


86 


L.  GIBSON  -  FURTHER  NOTES  ON  MOUSEBIRDS 


was  put  above  the  spot.  They  never  used  the  shelter  or  vegetation. 

Sexing 

The  careful  comparisons  of  tail  lengths  made  last  year  were  all  in  vain. 
All  the  adults  produced  new  tails  of  identical  length  and  4  cm.  longer  than 
the  old  ones,  being  now  24  cm  When  the  birds  were  being  caught 

up  at  the  zoo,  one  was  picked  as  a  possible  hen  because  of  a  slightly  smal¬ 
ler  beak  and  feet.  However,  this  “smaller”  bird  proved  to  be  the  heaviest 
at  52.8  g,  the  other  being  49.1-50.2  g.  Also  at  this  time  one  bird  was  seen 
to  have  a  very  prominent  cloaca,  and  we  thought  “this  is  it”.  By  the  time 
all  the  birds  were  caged,  that  one  could  not  be  found.  It  was  noticed  later 
that  when  a  Colius  defaecates,  the  cloacal  area  protrudes  considerably, 
then  it  goes  back  to  normal  usually  immediately,  but  may  protrude  for  a 
little  while  before  or  after.  This  left  the  higher  pitched  whistle  as  a  means 
of  picking  a  hen.  While  this  comparison  still  applies,  it  is  difficult  to  do 
and  is  further  complicated  by  the  fact  that  juveniles  also  have  a  higher 
pitched  call.  When  the  birds  were  caught  to  be  returned  to  the  zoo  in 
October,  the  adults  were  banded  to  enable  them  to  be  distinguished  from 
the  chicks.  They  were  examined  closely,  then  suddenly  a  difference  be¬ 
came  apparent.  The  same  one  as  before  was  thought  to  be  a  hen  because 
its  beak  had  slightly  less  depth  than  the  other  two,  which  had  identical 
beaks.  The  colour  was  the  same  in  all.  Then  it  was  seen  that  the  hen  had 
different  eyes!  It  was  the  only  bird  to  have  a  narrow  greyish  band  around 
the  outside  of  the  brown  iris.  The  two  other  adults  and  all  the  chicks  had 
identical  dark  reddish-brown  irides.  This  was  only  obvious  when  the  birds 
were  hand  held.  The  birds  were  caged  indoors  prior  to  being  taken  to  the 
zoo  the  next  day.  That  night  their  roosting  arrangements  further  con¬ 
firmed  the  above  idea.  The  hen  and  one  cock  slept  in  one  comer  of  the 
flight  cage,  while  the  other  cock  and  all  the  chicks  bunched  in  another 
comer.  Surely  more  than  a  coincidence,  for  when  not  breeding  all  the 
birds  slept  in  one  big  group.  However,  after  being  disturbed  for  examina¬ 
tion,  they  did  just  that.  The  fourth  adult  and  the  1978  chick  at  the  zoo 
were  also  examined.  As  was  now  suspected,  the  remaining  adult  was  in¬ 
deed  a  hen.  The  year-old  chick’s  eyes  were  at  a  halfway  stage,  so  the 
light  band  must  take  more  than  a  year  to  develop  fully.  Because  of  the 
band,  a  hen’s  eye  looks  both  smaller  and  lighter  than  the  eye  of  a  male. 
The  birds  will  later  be  examined  outside  of  the  breeding  season  to  see  if 
the  eye  difference  is  permanent. 

Nesting 

The  aviary  was  initially  shared  by  a  pair  of  Babblers  Turdoides  jardinei 
who  had  a  nest  and  a  chick  in  the  bushy  shelter.  They  kept  the  Colius  to 


L.  GIBSON  -  FURTHER  NOTES  ON  MOUSEBIRDS 


87 


the  sparsely  planted  outer  half.  As  there  were  no  suitable  nesting  sites  for 
the  Colius ,  a  wicker  canary  basket,  4”  (10  cm)  in  diameter,  by  2”  (5  cm) 
deep,  was  wired  to  three  vertical  rambling  rose  canes.  The  nest  was  at  a 
height  of  only  40”  (1  m),  and  hard  against  a  stone  wall.  It  was  half  filled 
with  dry  turf,  and  a  slight  depression  was  made  in  the  centre.  The  next 
morning,  a  bird  had  obligingly  deposited  an  egg  in  the  nest,  which  was 
left  exactly  as  I  made  it.  The  Babblers  were  taken  out  that  day.  By  the 
following  day  the  basket  had  been  filled  to  well  above  the  brim  with  more 
turf,  and  the  egg  mysteriously  remained  on  top.  At  least  1W’  (3  cm)  of 
turf  had  been  added  and  only  one  egg  was  laid.  The  other  two  nests  were 
built  on  top  of  an  old  birch  trunk  in  the  shelter,  at  the  maximum  height 
available  (T,  2m).  Last  year  the  trunk  had  been  hollowed  out  slightly, 
specifically  for  the  Mousebirds,  and  it  was  gratifying  that  they  finally 
used  it.  The  nest  was  just  under  the  clear  acrylic  roof.  A  basket  on  the 
original  nesting  site  in  the  weigela  bush  was  ignored.  The  birds  ate  scar¬ 
cely  any  of  the  weigela  leaves  this  year. 

The  Mousebirds  remained  secretive  about  nesting.  When  they  decide 
to  build,  it  is  done  quickly  and  discreetly.  The  construction  of  the 
second  nest  was  not  seen,  and  it  disappeared  after  the  chicks  left.  By 
this  time,  the  aviary  was  being  shared  by  a  pair  of  Silver-beaked  Tanagers 
R.  carbo ,  a  sham  a  chick  and  three  Chloropsis  aurifrons.  The  nest  was 
probably  dismantled  by  the  latter,  as  they  had  been  observed  to  do  this 
before  in  their  constant  search  for  insects.  The  third  nest  was  built  on 
the  same  spot,  in  just  one  afternoon,  and  an  egg  was  laid  the  following 
morning.  The  nests  were  made  of  dry  turf,  but  the  third  nest  had  a 
number  of  dry  grass  stems  incorporated  in  the  shallow  walls. 

Eggs  and  Incubation 

The  eggs  averaged  20  x  16  mm,  which  is  small  for  a  50  g  bird.  By 
comparison,  Shama  eggs  are  22.5  x  17  mm.  The  markings  were  dark 
chocolate  brown  and  rather  heavier  than  the  red-brown  marks  on  last 
year’s  eggs,  so  perhaps  a  different  hen  was  involved.  The  three  clutches 
of  one,  two  and  three  eggs  were  laid  in  July,  August  and  September,  and 
all  hatched.  The  exact  incubation  time  of  Colius  eggs  has  been  missed 
by  just  about  everyone  because  of  the  secretive  and  speedy  nesting,  and 
I  fared  no  better  last  year.  This  year,  however,  it  was  finally  established 
at  WA  days.  This  is  the  shortest  incubation  I  have  come  across.  It 
would  seem  that  nests  are  traditionally  examined  in  the  morning  only, 
if  they  are  examined  at  all.  Thus  eggs  are  invariably  reported  as  hatch¬ 
ing  early  in  the  morning,  and  incubation  times  are  based  on  this.  One  has 
to  define  incubation  time,  of  course,  and  I  measure  it  as  being  the  time 


88 


L.  GIBSON  -  FURTHER  NOTES  ON  MOUSEBIRDS 


taken  for  the  last  egg  to  hatch,  providing  a  normal  healthy  chick  emerges. 
This  last  part  is  important,  as  occasionally  the  last  egg  in  a  clutch  will 
hatch  prematurely,  but  the  chick  usually  dies  quickly.  Actually  the  second 
last  egg  gives  consistent  timing,  but  the  eggs  then  have  to  be  marked  in 
case  some  are  infertile.  Of  course,  if  some  do  not  hatch,  this  also  precludes 
timing  the  last  egg,  if  they  were  not  marked.  It  is  pointless  to  base  incuba¬ 
tion  periods  on  anything  other  than  the  last  two  eggs,  if  more  than  two 
are  laid.  Hatching  times  for  softbills  are  often  given  as  12-14  days,  but 
there  is  never  this  much  variation  in  one  species.  Delayed  incubation  on 
the  first  two  eggs  is  the  reason  for  the  apparent  spread.  This  season  (1979) 
all  nests  were  examined  at  least  twice  a  day,  either  at  8  a.m.  or  noon 
(usually  both),  and  again  between  5  and  7  p.m.  Incubation  times  were  thus 
narrowed  down  to  12-hour  rather  than  24-hour  periods.  Surprisingly  all 
species  (5)  had  additional  hatchings  after  the  morning  ones.  The  times 
varied  from  11  a.m.  to  6  p.m.  It  now  remains  for  nests  to  be  checked  at 
night  for  additional  eggs,  but  this  has  the  problems  of  disturbing  the  birds. 
Mousebirds  go  about  nesting  so  quickly  that  they  may  indeed  be  capable 
of  laying  two  eggs  in  a  day.  This  would  explain  the  sudden  appearance  of 
hitherto  unsuspected  clutches  that  have  made  incubation  times  so  hard  to 
check.  Of  course,  one  would  have  to  rule  out  the  use  of  the  nest  by  more 
than  one  hen. 

There  was  one  major  departure  from  last  year’s  incubation  procedure. 
Whereas  the  sitting  bird  was  previously  relieved  regularly  by  another,  it 
was  not  seen  to  be  relieved  at  all  this  year.  The  nest  was  observed  every 
day  and  on  three  consecutive  days  was  watched  for  spells  of  two,  two  and 
five  hours.  The  sitting  bird  never  came  off  to  feed,  and  was  seen  voluntari¬ 
ly  off  only  once,  on  the  eighth  day  after  the  chick  hatched.  The  weather 
was  hot  and  dry  from  laying  to  fledging. 

Chicks 

The  brooding  adult  was  far  more  reluctant  to  be  flushed  from  the 
chicks  than  from  the  eggs.  The  single  chick  in  the  first  nest  was  observed 
daily  until  it  left  the  nest.  A  hole  was  cut  in  the  bush  to  give  a  clear  view 
of  the  nest.  The  thorns  had  been  removed  from  the  adjacent  stems,  but 
this  was  hardly  necessary,  as  all  the  birds  spent  a  good  deal  of  time  in  the 
rose  bush  with  apparent  familiarity  -  thorn  bushes  are  widespread  in  the 
natural  habitat  of  this  species.  The  nest  was  watched  with  12X15  binocu¬ 
lars  from  a  distance  of  36’  (11  m).  Fortunately,  the  weather  was  fine  for 
the  two  weeks  that  I  spent  almost  entirely  out  in  the  garden.  A  Chloropsis 
nest  was  being  watched  conveniently  from  the  same  spot,  and  a  local  robin 
Turdus  migratorius  was  nesting  in  full  view  just  behind  me,  so  I  was  kept 


L.  GIBSON  -  FURTHER  NOTES  ON  MOUSEBIRDS 


89 


busy  the  whole  day.  The  Colius  chick  was  fed  on  crop  milk,  and  only  by 
the  brooding  bird.  The  parent  must  have  fed  heavily  early  in  the  morning 
as  it  never  did  so  all  day  or  in  the  evening,  and  no  other  bird  brought  food 
to  the  nest.  The  mother  (a  reasonable  presumption)  fed  the  chick  while 
remaining  seated.  As  the  chick  constantly  changed  position,  she  searched 
around  for  its  head,  raising  herself  very  slightly  to  check  underneath. 
Sometimes  the  chick  stuck  its  head  out  from  under  the  parent.  The  hen 
regurgitated  fluid  up  into  her  beak  then  let  the  chick  lap  it  out  as  from  a 
spoon,  the  chick  was  fed  about  eight  times  an  hour  and  the  minimum  feed 
lasted  20  seconds.  Sometimes  the  chick  got  prolonged  feeds  lasting  1  Vi 
minutes.  This  was  the  only  way  the  chick  was  fed.  None  of  the  1979 
chicks  came  out  of  the  nest  to  sit  nearby,  as  did  the  previous  chicks.  The 
1979  nests  were  all  very  broad  and  roomy  and  perhaps  the  cramped  1978 
nests  induced  the  chicks  to  sit  out  before  fledging.  The  chicks  all  left 
the  nest  at  13  or  14  days,  and  the  15-16  day  fledging  of  the  1978  chicks 
was  indeed  due  to  the  colder  weather  and  shorter  days.  When  the  chicks 
left  the  nest  they  were  fed  by  a  combination  of  regurgitation  and  by  hav¬ 
ing  lumps  of  food  handed  to  them.  At  least  two  adults  were  seen  to  feed 
one  chick.  Once  an  adult  took  a  very  long  draught  of  milk  nectar,  then 
immediately  pumped  some  down  the  throat  of  a  begging  24  day-old 
chick.  One  three  week-old  chick  from  the  last  nest  was  rather  weak  and 
sickly  looking.  It  could  not  keep  up  with  the  others  and  was  always  being 
left  on  its  own.  This  made  it  really  miserable.  It  dropped  from  the  aviary 
roof  on  to  my  ear,  then  ran  down  my  arm.  It  was  taken  indoors.  Nothing 
obvious  could  be  seen  wrong,  other  than  it  being  hungry  and  rather  scruf¬ 
fy.  It  would  not  feed  by  itself,  but  took  mash  readily  from  a  spoon,  or 
lumps  of  food  from  a  toothpick.  It  was  put  out  daily  with  the  adults  who 
fed  it,  but  as  it  still  could  not  keep  up  with  the  clock,  it  was  probably  not 
being  fed  enough.  It  decided  to  become  tame  all  by  itself,  and  would 
come  down  and  beg  if  anyone  entered  the  aviary.  It  was  brought  in  each 
night  and  it  proved  most  interesting  and  entertaining. 

Colius  are  very  sociable  birds  and  the  chick  much  prefers  human  com¬ 
pany  to  being  on  its  own.  Its  unusual  clinging  propensities  prove  ideal  for 
befriending  people,  as  it  can  stick  on  wherever  it  lands.  This  can  be  sore  on 
the  face.  It  has  less  trouble  than  most  birds  in  finding  perching  spots  in¬ 
doors.  Often  it  will  fly  on  to  a  towel  or  curtain  for  a  nap.  When  sleeping 
it  does  not  tuck  its  head  in,  but  withdraws  it  to  the  shoulders  or  stretches 
its  neck  out  and  lets  its  head  flop.  This  was  rather  disconcerting  at  first, 
as  the  chick  looked  as  if  it  had  just  died.  It  is  surprisingly  vocal  and  con¬ 
stantly  makes  quiet  chortling  noises,  when  it  is  in  company.  These  noises 
have  not  been  heard  from  the  others,  but  no  doubt  they  are  made  to  each 


90 


L.  GIBSON  -  FURTHER  NOTES  ON  MOUSEBIRDS 


have  not  been  heard  from  the  others,  but  do  doubt  they  are  made  to  each 
other  in  private.  They  could  not  be  heard  outside  the  aviary  anyway.  The 
chick  loves  to  get  its  head  scratched,  and  if  in  a  warm  spot  on  clothing, 
will  drop  off  to  sleep,  chirping  long  after  its  eyes  have  closed.  Five  days 
after  the  chick  was  brought  in,  all  the  others  went  to  the  zoo.  The  chick 
remains  as  one  of  the  few  pet  birds  ever  kept  here,  and  if  all  goes  well,  it 
may  be  useful  in  revealing  some  of  the  more  intimate  habits  of  the  wary 
Mousebird. 

Being  able  to  sex  all  of  the  birds,  albeit  in  retrospect,  provides  an  ex¬ 
planation  for  some  of  the  differences  noted  in  the  two  breeding  seasons, 
and  makes  strong  probabilities  of  the  following  points.  More  than  one  hen 
may  lay  in  the  one  nest;  only  the  hens  incubate  the  eggs,  and  brood  and 
feed  the  nestlings;  other  hens  (not  necessarily  layers)  may  share  these 
activities  at  the  same  nest.  Although  cocks  do  not  participate  in  the  above, 
they  do  feed  the  chicks  once  they  have  left  the  nest.  If  circumstances 
permit,  I  hope  to  be  able  to  check  on  these  things  next  year. 


91 


THE  GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION  AND  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE 
GENUS  Popelairia  WITH  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE 
WIRE-CRESTED  THORNT AIL  Popelairia  popelairii 


By  R.  J.  ELGAR  (Manchester) 

Introduction 

The  genus  Popelairia ,  of  which  ther  are  four  species,  are  small,  robust 
hummingbirds.  The  males  have  elongated  tails  and  one  member  has  a  crest. 
When  flying  they  carry  themselves  in  an  upright  position.  The  male  Wire- 
crested  Thorntail  is  reminiscent  of  a  small  Sea-horse  Hippocampus.  The 
females  are  small,  round-bodied  birds  with  short  tails,  and  both  sexes  have 
large,  strong  feet  compared  to  hummingbirds  of  a  similar  size.  When  ob¬ 
served  from  several  yards  away,  their  fight  and  behavious  are  very  insect¬ 
like. 

Since  the  mid-sixties  to  the  present  day,  small  numbers  of  the  Green 
Thorntail  P.  conversii  and  the  Wire-crested  Thorntail  have  been  imported 
into  the  United  Kingdom;  three  males  and  one  female  of  the  Black-bellied 
Thorntail  P.  langsdorffi  melanosternon  have  been  imported  by  Mr.  M. 
Clifford. 

THE  WIRE-CRESTED  THORNTAIL  P.  popelairii 
Distribution  and  Status 

Tropical  to  subtropical  zones  as  high  as  8,500  feet  in  the  Eastern  Andes 
from  eastern  Colombia,  eastern  Ecuador  to  north-east  Peru.  It  is  found 
in  wooded  regions  where  it  frequents  the  edges  at  natural  breaks  such  as 
clearings,  tracks,  edges  of  streams,  etc.  where  it  visits  flowering  vegetation, 
either  hovering  for  nectar  of  perching  on  fine  twigs,  and  sometimes  cling¬ 
ing  to  the  blossom  with  its  strong  legs.  The  vertical  distribution  is  usually 
from  ground  level  to  a  height  of  six  feet,  but  it  is  most  frequently  observed 
feeding  below  three  feet.  The  nest  is  very  small,  cup-shaped  and  usually 
placed  on  an  exposed  twig  above  a  stream  or  dense  vegetation. 

Description 

The  adult  male  is  a  small  bodied  (4.5  ins)  hummingbird  with  a  long 
V-shaped  tail  and  wire-like  crest  reminiscent  of  the  Lapwing.  The  crown 
and  throat  are  glittering  emerald  green,  the  sides  of  the  head,  back  and 
upper  tad-coverts  are  bronze-green.  There  is  a  white  band  on  the  upper 
mmp,  the  rump  being  blue-black;  the  underparts  are  black  turning  to  dark 


92 


R.  ELGAR  -  THE  GENUS  Popelairia 


Wire  Crested  Thorntail 


R.  ELGAR  -  THE  GENUS  Popelama 


93 


brown  with  white  tufts  on  the  flanks  and  rufous  tufts  on  the  thighs.  The 
tail  has  long  steel-blue  feathers  with  white  shafts,  the  outer  ones  being  the 
longest  (see  Figures  1  and  4).  Immature  males  resemble  the  female.  In  the 
first  moult  they  attain  postadult  plumage  which  is  identical  to  the  adult 
male  in  all  but  the  tail.  The  postadult  tail  is  much  shorter  and  more  black 
in  colour,  the  outer  feathers  are  tipped  white,  lacking  elongated  shafts  of 
the  adult.  The  central  feathers  are  tipped  white  and  the  lower  webbing  is 
edged  white  (Figure  2).  On  some  occasions  captive  birds  may  attain  the 
adult  tail  with  their  first  moult. 

The  female  is  only  3  inches  long.  The  upper  plumage  is  bronze-green 
with  a  white  band  across  the  rump.  The  underpaits,  throat,  breast  and 
centre  of  the  belly  are  black.  The  moustachial  streaks,  flanks  and  thighs 
are  white,  the  tail  is  steel  blue  crossed  by  a  grey  band  and  tipped  white 
(Figure  3). 

Display  of  Male 

The  airborne  display  of  the  male  usually  takes  place  in  the  morning 
or  in  good  light ;  usually  he  tries  to  face  the  sun,  probably  to  show  the 
iridescent  green  to  the  best  advantage.  The  display  can  be  divided  into 
two  phases.  In  the  first  phase  (Figure  5)  the  male  will  take  flight  and 
position  himself  approximately  four  inches  from  the  female,  slightly  above 
her  to  show  his  iridescent  plumage  to  its  best  advantage,  with  body  jerking 
up  and  down  and  head  nodding  to  show  the  iridescent  green  feathers  of 
the  crown,  chin  and  throat.  Immediately  on  completion  of 
the  first  phase,  which  lasts  only  seconds,  he  will  go  into  the  second  phase 
(Figure  6).  With  head  positioned  to  show  the  crest  and  crown,  there  is  a 
rapid  movement  of  the  tail  while  making  a  mechanical  type  sound.  (Note 
the  position  of  the  feet  in  the  drawings  of  both  phases.)  After  the  second 
phase  he  will  either  copulate  or  retreat  to  a  nearby  perch  for  several  sec¬ 
onds,  then  return  to  the  female  and  reverse  the  display  cycle  by  repeating 
the  second  phase  and  then  the  first  phase.  The  display  cycle  can  take  place 
two  or  three  times,  the  male  getting  closer  to  the  female  each  time.  Then 
either  copulation  takes  place  or  the  female  takes  flight  or  the  male  loses 
interest. 

THE  BLACK-BELLIED  THORNTAIL  R  langsdorffl 
Distribution 

P.  langsdorffl  Is  found  only  in  eastern  Brazil  in  the  states  of  Bahia, 
Espirito  Santo  and  Rio  de  Janeiro. 


94 


R.  ELGAR  -  THE  GENUS  Popelairia 


P.l  melanostemon  is  found  in  tropical  zones  of  eastern  Ecuador,  east¬ 
ern  Peru  and  Western  Brazil,  southern  Venezuela  and  the  Amazonian 
region  of  Colombia, 

Description 

The  male  is  5.7  inches,  the  female  3  inches  long.  The  male  is  similar  to 
the  Wire-crested  Thorntail  without  the  crest;  the  throat  and  breast  are 
glittering  emerald  green,  bordered  below  by  a  band  of  red  in  P  b  kings- 
dorffi  and  of  golden-copper  in  R  L  melanostemon.  The  underparts  are 
mainly  black  with  tail  much  longer  than  the  Wire-crested.  The  outer  fea¬ 
thers  are  greyish,  narrowing  to  shafts  near  the  tip.  The  rest  of  the  tail  is 
dark  blue  with  white  shafts  on  the  underside.  The  female  is  similar  to  the 
female  Wire-crest  but  the  throat  and  breast  are  white  with  green  discs 
bordered  below  with  golden-copper,  the  tail  is  forked  and  tipped  with 
white. 


THE  COPPERY  THORNTAIL  P.  letitiae 


Distribution 

Bolivia. 

Description 

The  male  is  4  inches  long.  The  head,  throat  and  breast  are  glittering 
golden-green  with  the  upper-parts  reddish  coppery-brown  and  a  white 
band  across  the  rump.  The  short  tad-coverts  are  a  reddish-purple  and  the 
longer  tail-coverts  over  the  tail  are  a  golden-green.  The  underparts  are 
green  with  a  white  patch  on  the  breast,  the  tail  is  similar  to  that  of  the 
Black-bellied  Thorntail  but  shorter.  The  description  of  the  female  is  not 
known  -  only  two  males  have  been  recorded  . 

THE  GREEN  THORNTAIL  P.  conversii 


Distribution 

The  tropical  zones  of  Costa  Rica  and  Panama  to  the  Canal  Zone  and 
Colombia  to  western  Ecuador. 

Description 

The  male  measures  4  inches,  the  female  2.5  inches  long.  The  male 
upperparts  are  shining  grass  green  with  a  white  band  on  the  rump.  The 


95 


D.  Alker 


Wire-tailed  Thorntail  -  Phase  one  of  Display  of  Male 


96 


Wire-tailed  Thorntail  -  Phase  two  of  Display  of  Male 


D.  Alker 


R.  ELGAR  -  THE  GENUS  Popelairia 


97 


upper  tail-coverts  are  coppery-green,  as  are  the  underparts  with  a  steel  blue 
spot  in  the  centre  of  the  breast.  The  tail  is  extremely  long  with  three  outer 
pairs  of  feathers,  greatly  elongated  and  narrow,  curving  inwards  and  cross¬ 
ing.  The  female  is  green  above  with  a  white  rump  band;  the  throat, 
breast  and  underparts  are  black.  The  lower  cheeks  are  white.There  is  a 
white  patch  on  the  sides  of  the  belly.  The  tail  is  grey  with  a  broad  black 
subterminal  band  and  tipped  white. 


Ideally  members  of  the  genus  Popelairia ,  like  all  small  hummingbirds, 
should  be  housed  in  a  box  cage  -  minimum  dimensions  45”  x  16”  x  16”  - 
singly  or  in  true  pairs.  If  a  pair  is  housed  together,  their  condition  should 
be  monitored  daily  in  case  of  stress.  Several  years  ago,  I  housed  a  male  in 
an  indoor  flight  which  was  8’  long  x  5’  high  x  T  wide  and  had  a  number 
of  houseplants  on  the  back  wall.  The  other  occupants  were  two  male 
and  one  female  Frilled  Coquettes  Lophomis  magnifica,  one  male  Racket¬ 
tailed  Coquette  Discosura  longicauda  and  one  male  Amethyst  Woodstar 
Calliphlox  amethystina. 

The  nectar  solution  should  contain  no  more  than  10%  cane  sugar,  as  a 
higher  concentration  of  sugar  causes  fungus  ( Candida )  to  grow  on  the 
tongue,  bill  and  digestive  tract.  At  present  the  nectar  diet  I  use  is  1,000 
mis  sugar  water  to  which  I  add  10  grams  of  brewer’s  yeast,  10  grams  of 
pollen  and  10  mis  of  Min  amino  Compound  (an  amino  acid  vitamin  and 
mineral  food  supplement).  The  only  addition  to  the  nectar  is  an  abundant 
supply  of  fruit  fly  ( Drosophila ).  Popelairia  prefer  to  glean  insects  either 
from  the  walls  of  the  cage  or  wire  fronts,  taking  the  fly  in  the  tip  of  the 
beak,  tossing  it  into  the  air  and  flying  at  it  with  beak  open  so  as  to  enable 
the  fruit  fly  to  be  taken  into  the  rear  of  the  gape. 

It  is  essential  for  all  hummingbirds  to  have  adequate  bathing  facilities, 
a  small  saucer  of  clean  water  is  sufficient.  I  have  found  thorntails  to  be 
avid  bathers. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

D.  ALKER  -  for  his  fine  drawings  which  illustrate  this  paper.  K.L.  SCHUCHMANN  - 
for  information  on  the  status  in  the  wild. 

REFERENCES 

MEYER  DE  SCHAUENSEE,  R.  1971.  A  Guide  to  the  Birds  of  South  America. 


98 


R.  ELGAR  -  THE  GENUS  Popelairia 


MEYER  DE  SCHAUENSEE,  R.  and  PHELPS  WILLIAM,  H.  Jni.  1978.  A  Guide  to 
the  Birds  of  Venezuela.  PETERS,  J.L.  1945.  Checklist  of  the  Birds  of  the  World, 
VoL  5.  RIDGELY,  R.S.  1976.  A  Guide  to  the  Birds  of  Panama.  SCHUCHMANN, 
K.L.  1976.  Beitrag  zur  Biologie  des  Haubenfadenkolibris.  ZEITSCHRIFT  DES 
KOLNER  ZOO.  SLUD,  P.  1964.  The  Birds  of  Costa  Rica.  WETMORE,  A.  1968. 
The  birds  of  the  Republic  of  Panama.  Part  2. 


99 


BIRDS  IN  LERWICK  HARBOUR 
By  DEREK  GOODWIN  (Herne  Hill,  London) 


My  friend,  Eric  Knowles,  and  I  spent  a  week  in  Shetland  in  June  1973. 
Knowing  our  interest  in  birds,  friends  and  acquaintances  whom  we  told 
where  we  had  been  almost  invariably  said,  “Did  you  go  to  Fetlar  and  see 
the  Snowy  Owls?”,  or,  in  Army  charge  sheet  wording,  “words  to  that 
effect.”  When  we  replied  that  we  did  not,  our  interrogator  was  usually  at 
a  loss  for  words  but  we  could  hear  our  stock  fall  with  an  audible  bump.  It 
is  abundantly  clear  that  even  people  who  never  look  at  a  bird  in  their 
backyards  have  made  pilgrimage  to  Fetlar  to  see  the  Snowy  Owls  and  that 
if  “good”  bird  watchers  stay  in  Lerwick  they  use  it  only  as  a  base  whence 
to  invade  the  far-famed  sanctuary  of  Noss,  before  setting  out  for  the  wilds 
of  Fetlar  (Snowy  Owls,  Whimbrels,  and  Red-necked  Phalaropes)  and 
Hermaness.  We,  however,  were  bad,  idle,  middle-aged  bird  watchers  who 
got  no  further  from  Lerwick  than  Bressay  on  one  side  and  the  moors  a  few 
miles  beyond  the  refuse  tip  on  the  other. 

Six  months  before,  watching  Black  Vultures  on  a  refuse  tip  in  northern 
Brazil,  I  had  thought  how  lucky  we  in  Britain  are  to  have  the  beautiful 
gulls  and  pigeons  in  our  towns  as  scavengers  instead  of  vultures  or  kites, 
which  are  no  more  interesting  and  far  less  lovely.  I  thought  so  again  when 
watching  the  multitudinous  gulls,  the  many  Fulmars  and  the  rather  few 
feral  pigeons  in  Lerwick  Harbour.  All  these  and  also  the  impressive  and 
darkly  handsome  Great  Skua  were  there  because  man  supplied  food  for 
them,  sometimes  at  “second  hand”  and  often  unwillingly.  Observing  the 
different  strategies  of  the  various  species,  their  interactions  with  each 
other  and  with  the  sometimes  dangerous  but  on  the  whole  remarkably 
tolerant  fishermen,  provided  some  of  the  most  interesting  birdwatching  of 
my  life.  All  within  a  few  moment’s  walk  of  our  hotel  too! 

By  far  the  commonest  gull  about  the  harbour  was  the  Herring  Gull.  At 
a  rough  estimate  it  outnumbered  all  others  by  at  least  15  to  1.  Lesser 
Black-backed  Gulls  were  much  less  numerous,  although  common  enough. 
In  the  harbour  the  feeding  behaviour  of  these  two  species  was  identical. 
They  were  by  far  the  boldest  birds  present.  Quick  to  snatch  any  bit  of  fish 
or  other  edible  offal  dropped  on  land  or  water,  they  did  not  restrict  them¬ 
selves  to  food  dropped  or  thrown  away.  They  sidled  into  outbuildings 
where  fish  were  stored,  alighted  on  loaded  lorries  (even  those  in  motion 
when  not  going  very  fast)  and  pressed  close  among  men  at  work,  watching 


100 


D.  GOODWIN  -  BIRDS  IN  LERWICK  HARBOUR 


for  a  box  of  fish  to  be  left  uncovered  and  unguarded.  Surprisingly  often 
this  happened.  When  the  boxes  were  covered  they  pulled  fish  out  of  the 
handgrip  holes.  Some,  at  least  two  Herring  Gulls  and  one  Lesser  Black- 
backed  Gull  being  involved,  cleverly  “flutter-slid”,  apparently  grappling 
with  their  feet  just  sufficiently  to  stay  put  for  the  moment  needed  to 
pull  a  fish  from  the  one  exposed  handgrip  hole  in  an  otherwise  tarpaulin- 
covered  back  of  a  lorry. 

One  morning  a  Danish  herring-salting  boat  was  in.  The  factory  con¬ 
veyor  belt-like  process  of  salting  the  fresh  herrings  ended,  or  at  any  rate 
reached  a  temporary  hiatus,  with  the  headless,  salt-covered  fish  being 
packed  into  large  barrels  stacked  on  deck  and  covered  with  wooden  lids 
which  were  not,  at  that  point,  fastened  down.  The  gulls,  swarming  round 
in  a  clamouring,  jostling  throng  never  got  the  idea,  as  I  think  a  crow  or  a 
dog  would  quickly  have  done,  to  try  to  remove  the  lids  themselves.  They 
could,  however,  see  fish  exposed  between  the  edge  of  a  lid  and  the  edge  of 
a  barrel  and  any  such  fish  was  soon  seized  and  pulled  out.  Sometimes  the 
gull  would  succeed  in  turning  the  fish  headless  head-end  first  (they  mostly 
seemed  to  be  pulled  out  tail  first)  as  it  lifted  it  and  gulp  it  down  before 
others  could  prevent  it,  sometimes  the  fish  was  too  heavy  and  the  press 
too  hindering  and  the  fish  fell  to  the  deck  where  half  a  dozen  gulls  tugged 
and  wrenched  at  it.  All  this  was  punctuated  by  frequent  panic  flights 
when  one  or  other  of  the  men  rushed  angrily  at  the  gulls.  One  Herring 
Gull,  engaged  in  a  melee  over  a  fish,  was  too  slow.  It  was  caught  before 
it  could  get  clear,  roughly  handled  and  thrown  into  the  air.  It  fluttered 
weakly  down  to  the  water  and  floated  there,  apparently  with  serious 
internal  injuries,  ignored  by  and  ignoring  the  bustle  around  it. 

This  was,  however,  the  only  instance  I  saw  of  an  attempt  to  do  any 
serious  harm  to  a  gull.  Indeed  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  fishermen’s  con¬ 
siderable  tolerance  of  the  gulls  in  spite  of  much  provocation  struck  me  as 
a  very  pleasing  contrast  with  the  attitude  of  shooters  and  fly-fishers  to 
the  birds  and  beasts  that  they  consider  may  possibly  interfere  with  their 
avicidal  and  piscicidal  pleasures. 

Although  when  we  fed  the  gulls  on  the  harbour  immature  individuals 
were  among  the  hungriest  and  tamest,  all  the  rather  clever-seeming  “steal¬ 
ing”  of  fish  was  done  by  fully  adult  birds. 

Greater  Black-backed  Gulls  were  abundant  and,  although  less  afraid  of 
man  than  I  have  seen  them  elsewhere,  would  not  come  so  close  as  the 
Herring  and  Lesser  Black-backed  Gulls.  They  appeared  decidedly  unwilling 


D.  GOODWIN  -  BIRDS  IN  LERWICK  HARBOUR 


101 


to  take  any  risks,  or  perhaps  they  were  more  aware  of  what  was  risky. 
When  food  was  in  the  offing  they  hung  about  as  near  as  they  dared  waiting 
for  some  lump  of  offal,  chunk  of  bread  or  a  fish  too  large  for  a  Herring 
Gull  to  swallow  quickly  to  fall  on  land  or  water  at  a  safe  distance  from. 
When  that  happened  the  Greater  Black-backed  at  once  lunged  into  the 
melee.  Usually  it  succeeded  in  getting  a  grip  on  the  food  and  if  it  did  the 
result  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  The  contesting  gulls  exerted  all  their 
strength,  bracing  their  webbed  feet  and  jerking  back  with  all  their  force. 
At  this  tug  of  war  superior  weight  told,  unless  the  booty  tore,  giving  each 
a  mouthful,  it  would  sooner  or  later  be  tugged  free  of  the  weaker  birds  and 
gulped  down  by  the  Greater  Black-backed. 

On  two  occasions  we  saw  a  Greater  Black-backed  chase  a  gorged  Herr¬ 
ing  Gull,  harrying  it  until  it  cast  up  its  just-swallowed  meal  in  fear.  Prob¬ 
ably  the  same  individual  was  involved  each  time  and  this  direct  form  of 
“robbery”  was  clearly  not  usual.  What  very  many  Greater  Black-backed 
Gulls  habitually  did,  however,  was  to  let  the  Great  Skua  perform  its 
“highway  robbery”  technique  and  then  intercept  its  hoped-for  booty.  As 
soon  as  a  Great  Skua  started  to  chase  a  Herring  or  Lesser  Black-backed 
GuU,  one  or  more  Greater  Black-backed  Gulls  would  usually  see  and  at 
once  follow  fairly  close  behind  the  Skua.  After  its  fruitless  and  pitiful 
attempts  to  escape,  the  hunted  gull  would,  more  often  than  not,  disgorge 
in  flight.  At  once  the  Skua  would  check,  turn  and  plunge  down  after  the 
food  but  the  second  or  so  this  took  would  usually  be  enough  to  enable  the 
following  Greater  Black-backed  Gull,  swooping  smoothly  down  without  a 
check,  to  get  there  first.  Much  the  same  usually  happened  if  the  poor  gull 
was  seized  in  flight  and,  together  with  its  persecutor,  crashed  into  the  sea. 
When  this  happened  it  regurgitated  as  it  hit  the  water,  or  a  second  or  so 
before,  and  usually  before  the  Skua  could  let  go  of  the  gull  and  grab,  the 
closest  following  Greater  Black-backed  Gull  had  snatched  the  food  literally 
from  “under  its  nose”.  Even  under  such  provocation  the  Great  Skua, 
belying  its  ill-deserved  reputation  for  courage,  never  ventured  to  attack 
the  Greater  Black-backed  Gull. 

The  Common  Gull,  one  of  the  loveliest  gulls  in  breeding  dress  when  its 
dark  eye,  set  in  a  snow  white  head,  gives  it  a  gentle  look  lacking  from  its 
congeners,  we  never  saw  in  the  harbour.  It  bred  abundantly  only  two  miles 
away  and  a  few  were  seen  hovering  around  a  sewage  outfall  at  the  other 
end  of  the  town  but  it  did  not  attempt  to  compete  around  the  fishing 
boats. 


102 


D.  GOODWIN  -  BIRDS  IN  LERWICK  HARBOUR 


The  Black-headed  Gull,  the  Common  Gull’s  companion  and  rival  else¬ 
where,  did,  however,  try  its  luck  in  the  harbour.  In  numbers  not  much  if 
any  less  than  the  Greater  and  Lesser  Black-backed  Gulls,  although  not  near¬ 
ly  so  abundant  as  the  Herring  Gulls  and,  because  of  its  small  size,  it  gave  an 
impression  of  being  less  numerous  than  it  actually  was.  Its  role  in  the  har¬ 
bour  was  that  of  picker-up  of  unconsidered  trifles,  dipping  down  to  pick 
up  some  small  morsel  unnoticed  by  the  larger  gulls  or  suddenly  wafted  up 
to  the  surface.  When  we  fed  the  gulls  with  large  lumps  of  food  thrown 
down  onto  the  ground  the  Black-headed  did  not  try  to  compete.  If,  how¬ 
ever,  we  threw  smallish  scraps  of  bread  into  the  water  one  or  more  Black¬ 
headed  Gulls  would  often  be  among  the  first  on  the  scene  and,  by  their 
much  greater  agility,  manage  to  get  some  of  the  food.  Once  a  large  mob  of 
Herring  Gulls  had  gathered,  as  usually  happened  very  quickly  when  food 
was  distributed,  they  were  no  longer  able  to  get  a  share.  Among  their 
larger  congeners  they  gave  the  impression  of  being  nervous  and  shy,  very 
different  from  their  species’  bombastic  aggressiveness  when  competing 
with  ducks  and  feral  pigeons  in  London  parks. 

The  Great  Skua,  with  its  thickset  head  and  body,  bird-of-prey  type 
colour  pattern,  powerful  flight  and  spectacular  wing-raised  displays,  looks 
courageous  but  is  in  fact  no  more  so  than  the  despised  gulls.  It  appears 
bold  enough,  chasing  a  Herring  or  Lesser  Black-backed  Gull  with  a  larger 
wingspan  than  itself,  but  these  have  no  more  chance  of  self-defence  than 
has  a  worm  seized  by  a  Blackbird  or  a  pigeon  seized  by  a  Peregrine.  As  I 
have  described,  it  consistently  feared  to  tackle  the  Greater  Black-backed 
Gulls  in  spite  of  much  provocation. 

When  there  was  much  food  in  prospect,  several  Great  Skuas  would 
usually  soon  be  in  evidence.  If  a  large  lump  of  food,  such  as  the  remains 
of  a  large  joint  of  meat,  bone  and  all,  was  flung  overboard,  a  Skua  would 
often  alight  and  hurl  itself  into  the  throng. 

All  but  the  Greater  Black-backed  Gulls  would  give  way  before  it;  in 
this  situation  the  Great  Skua  and  the  Greater  Black-backed  Gull  appeared 
equally  matched  or  equally  lacking  sufficient  foolhardiness  to  provoke  a 
showdown  with  the  other,  whichever  laid  hold  of  the  prize  first  retained 
it.  On  three  occasions  we  saw  a  Great  Skua  tugging  at  a  large  chunk  of 
meat  and  bone,  with  a  ring  of  envious  but  respectful  Herring  Gulls  and, 
nearer  to  the  Skua,  one  or  more  Greater  Black-backed  Gulls  letting  “I 
dare  not  wait  upon  I  would”  and  on  two  others  the  reverse  situation, 
with  an  adult  Greater  Black-backed  Gull  tearing  and  tugging  at  the  prize 
and  a  Great  Skua  sitting  very  near  to  it  on  the  water,  watching  hungrily 


D.  GOODWIN  -  BIRDS  IN  LERWICK  HARBOUR 


103 


but  not  daring  to  do  more.  Admittedly  too  few  incidents  to  be  “statis¬ 
tically  significant” 5  but  suggestive  for  all  that;  in  bird  watching  as  in  other 
things  one  is  far  more  likely  to  see  the  usual  than  the  exceptional. 

The  Fulmar  is  known  to  be  amazingly  bold  when  feeding  around  fish¬ 
ing  boats  far  out  at  sea  and  there  are  many  eyewitness  accounts  of  it  get¬ 
ting  the  upper  hand  of  Herring  Gulls  in  disputes  over  food.  The  Fulmars 
about  Lerwick  Harbour  did  not,  however,  display  these  attributes  of  their 
species.  Their  role  seemed  to  parallel  that  of  the  Dunnock  on  the  lawn, 
diligently  searching  for  and  consuming  morsels  so  small  that  they  had  been 
overlooked  or  ignored  by  other  species. 

Much  of  their  feeding  was  done  in  quieter  periods  rather  than  when  fish 
was  being  moved  about  or  garbage  actually  thrown  overboard.  Then,  par¬ 
ticularly  in  the  evening,  but  also  at  other  times,  Fulmars  would  alight,  one 
after  the  other,  until  there  were  often  several  dozen  on  the  water.  Their 
plump  bodies  floating  high,  they  would  paddle  rapidly  about  with  their 
pale  lilac  feet,  looking  down  into  the  water  and  every  now  and  then  pick¬ 
ing  up  a  morsel.  Usually  these  were  taken  on  or  (more  often)  an  inch  or 
two  below  the  surface,  rather  rarely  a  Fulmar  would  plunge  head  and 
shoulders  under. 

Often  the  birds  were  near  enough  to  see  quite  clearly  the  objects 
taken.  These  were  most  usually,  in  about  60%  of  cases  perhaps,  small 
flattish,  off-white  objects  about  the  size  (except  for  being  flat)  of  a  lentil. 
They  were  numerous,  usually  suspended  in  the  water  near  the  surface, 
sometimes  at  it.  We  came  to  the  conclusion  that  they  must  be  the  scales  of 
fish,  probably  Herring,  because  there  did  not  seem  to  be  anything  else 
they  could  be.  Besides  these  the  Fulmars  took  small  whitish  or  greyish 
white  shreds  of  what  we  presumed  to  be  fish  tissue.  The  only  time  that  we 
saw  anything  larger  taken  was  when  a  Fulmar  pulled  off  an  inch-long  shred 
of  bloodstained  fish  that  was  sticking  to  the  underside  of  a  floating  herring 
barrel  top.  Occasionally  what  appeared  to  be  small  pieces  of  bread  were 
picked  up,  apparently  in  mistake  for  animal  food,  as  the  Fulmar  invariably 
dropped  them  again  at  once.  Some  recognisable  pieces  of  biscuit  were  simi¬ 
larly  treated  and  almost  immediately  afterwards  were  seen  and  eaten  by 
a  Lesser  Black-backed  Gull. 

When  a  Great  Skua,  well  out  from  the  hurly-burly  around  the  ships, 
began  plucking  an  adult  Herring  Gull  which  it  had  brought  down  and 
killed,  several  Fulmars  alighted  near,  swam  to  the  lengthening  trail  of 
floating  feathers  and  appeared  to  pick  up  small  morsels  among  them,  al- 


104 


D.  GOODWIN  -  BIRDS  IN  LERWICK  HARBOUR 


though  what  these  consisted  of  it  was  impossible  to  see. 

Two  land  birds  regularly  fed  on  and  about  the  harbour.  These  were 
those  widespread  and  successful  species,  the  Feral  Pigeon  and  the  House 
Sparrow.  Unlike  their  London  contemporaries,  on  Shetland  harbour 
neither  could  benefit  from  any  large  or  even  moderately  sized  bits  of  bread 
or  other  food  (although  they  did  elsewhere  in  the  town  by  coming  down 
into  narrow  streets  where  the  gulls  either  did  not  venture  or  only  did  so 
if  there  was  some  very  obvious  and  tempting  prize  to  be  had  thereby). 
On  the  harbour  they  only  obtained  such  very  small  fragments  of  bread, 
cooked  fish  or  other  food  as  had  been  overlooked  by  the  gulls  or  had  been 
dropped  or  rolled  beneath  or  behind  boxes,  crates  or  other  objects  so 
that  the  gulls  either  had  not  seen  or  could  not  reach  it. 

On  one  occasion  (at  least)  while  we  were  there  grain  was  handled 
on  the  harbour.  A  considerable  amount  of  it  was  spilled.  This  was  ignored 
by  the  gulls  (although  I  have  seen  Herring  Gulls  flocking  to  feed  on  newly 
sown  oats  in  Shetland)  but  many  of  the  House  Sparrows  and  Feral  Pigeons 
found  it  and  fed  to  repletion.  Collared  Doves  appeared  to  be  less  numerous 
in  Lerwick  than  when  we  had  been  there  previously  in  1970.  Then  they 
had  been  seen  occasionally  feeding  in  the  streets  and  on  the  harbour,  appa¬ 
rently  on  very  minute  fragments  of  food,  but  this  time  the  only  Collared 
Dove  we  saw  feeding  was  with  House  Sparrows  at  a  window  sill  where 
crumbs  had  been  placed. 

In  addition  to  all  this  avian  interest  and  beauty,  Lerwick  Harbour  also 
produced  one  rarity  for  us,  a  Glaucous  Gull.  Not  in  the  Snowy  Owl  class 
admittedly  but  equally  no  everyday  bird  to  us  southerners. 


105 


MEMBERS’  COLLECTIONS 
Mr.  J.O.  D’EATH  -  BARNET,  HERTFORDSHIRE 

By  ROSEMARY  LOW 


A  broad  expanse  of  lawn  sweeps  away  from  the  terrace  of  the  Georgian 
house,  leading  the  eye  into  the  distance  -  a  pastoral  scene  of  trees  and  roll¬ 
ing  fields.  No  other  house  is  in  sight.  The  lawn  leads,  surprisingly,  to  an 
avenue  of  limes  which  have  stood  for  200  years.  But  first  one  encounters  a 
small  lake  occupied  by  diving  ducks  and  flamingoes  and  set  amid  a  profus¬ 
ion  of  azaleas  and  rhododendrons  of  delicate  and  starling  tints  -  pink,  flam¬ 
ing  red,  white  and  pale  orange  -  and  pink  and  white  c amelias  laden  with 
blooms. 

Is  this  a  stately  mansion,  set  amid  a  huge  parkland  estate  many  miles 
from  any  city?  No,  it  is  the  home  of  Council  Member  Mr.  Jack  D’Eath, 
only  thirteen  miles  from  the  centre  of  London. 

Many  times  I  had  passed  the  mellow,  yellow  brick,  green-shuttered 
exterior  of  his  home,  behind  high  brick  walls  and  wrought-iron  gates, 
without  guessing  what  lay  behind  them. 

Mr.  D’Eath,  a  member  of  the  Society  since  1953,  over  the  years,  often 
asked  me  to  visit  his  collection  but  it  was  not  until  a  sunny  Saturday  in 
May  this  year  that  I  walked  through  those  wrought-iron  gates.  I  could 
scarcely  have  been  more  surprised  for  here,  literally  a  few  hundred  yards 
from  the  serried  rows  of  homes  which  testified  that  the  locality  was  a 
built-up  London  suburb,  I  found  a  25-acre  haven  for  waterfowl  and  wild 
birds. 

This  is  the  oldest  private  waterfowl  collection  in  Britain,  established 
nearly  fifty  years  ago  by  Jack  D’Eath  as  a  young  man.  During  the  inter¬ 
vening  years  he  has  kept  90  species  of  waterfowl  and  has  achieved  out¬ 
standing  breeding  results  with  many  of  them. 

If  the  ducks,  geese  and  cranes  are  a  joy  to  behold,  their  natural  setting 
is  equally  delightful.  Some  of  the  ponds  are  man-made  but  the  two  largest 
are  natural  and,  even  in  times  of  drought,  filled  with  the  clearest  water,  the 
source  of  which  is  entirely  unknown.  The  largest  lake  is  encircled  by 


106 


ROSEMARY  LOW  -  MR  J.  D’EATH’S  COLLECTION 


shrubs  and  ancient  trees,  some  of  which  have,  for  more  than  200  years, 
shed  their  leaves  on  the  lake’s  surface.  Beautiful  flowering  trees  such  as 
Malm  floribunda  and  Prunus  sargentii ,  a  mass  of  white  blossoms,  enhance 
the  scene.  Ne-Nes  enquiringly  followed  our  progress  along  the  path; 
over  the  years  many  have  been  reared  here  and  some  were  returned  to 
Hawaii  for  release. 

Black-necked  Swans  swim  among  the  Eiders  -  another  species 
which  has  proved  prolific  here  -  in  company  with  numerous  species  of  teal, 
pintail,  golden-eyes  and  scaup.  The  numbers  are  reduced  now  but  never¬ 
theless  the  total  is  in  the  region  of  300. 

Ross’s  Geese,  their  snow-white  plumage  contrasting  with  the 
deep  pink  azaleas,  keep  company  with  the  most  attractive  and  sought-after 
Pacific  Brent  Geese,  which  reared  young  last  year.  An  errant  New  Zealand 
Scaup  or  Black  Teal,  was  persuaded  back  into  the  main  paddock,  protec¬ 
ted  by  fox-proof  fencing  which  is  scarcely  noticeable  among  the  shrubs. 
Maned  and  Red-breasted  Geese,  the  latter  another  successful  breeder  here, 
share  the  enclosure. 

All  the  birds  are  delightfully  tame,  none  more  so  than  a  magnificent 
female  Stanley  Crane,  reared  here  five  years  ago.  When  Mr.  D’Eath 
is  alone,  she  will  approach  him  with  the  regal  walk  of  her  species, 
and  allow  him  to  scratch  her  neck.  I  believe  that  this  was  only  the 
second  collection  to  breed  this  elegant  grey  crane  in  Britain.  Demoiselle 
and  West  African  Crowned  Cranes  can  also  be  seen. 

Mandarin  Ducks  were  occasionally  sighted  winging  their  way 
into  the  distance.  These  full- winged  birds  have  colonised  the  dis¬ 
trict  and  Mr.  D’Eath  occasionally  receives  reports  of  a  pair  on 
local  goldfish  ponds!  Prior  to  the  breeding  season,  15  or  so  drakes 
can  be  seen  about  his  grounds.  Females  are  in  short  supply  but  a 
few  return  each  year  with  their  broods  of  ducklings. 

Of  course,  all  the  other  birds  breed  in  the  grounds  but  their  nests 
are  sometimes  difficult  to  locate.  I  saw  two  pairs  of  Barnacle  Geese 
nesting  under  holly  trees;  they  will  be  allowed  to  rear  their  goslings, 
while  the  ducks’  eggs  are  removed  and  placed  under  broody  bantams. 

One  duck  nest-box  on  a  tiny  island  contained  a  brood  of  Pied 
Wagtails.  The  property  provides  a  sanctuary  for  native  birds.  I 
watched  a  Tree-creeper  working  its  way  up  the  trunk  of  a  tall  tree, 
and  Nuthatches,  Bullfinches  and  Woodpeckers  find  a  safe  haven 
within  the  walls  of  the  ancient  grounds. 


Mr.  J.  O.  D’Eatli  with  some  Members  of  his  Collection. 


Stanley  Crane  in  the  Collection  of  Mr.  J.  O.  D’Eath 


ROSEMARY  LOW  -  MR  J.  D’EATH’S  COLLECTION 


107 


As  I  admired  an  attractive  White-faced  Whistling  Duck,  Mr.  D’Eath 
told  me  that  all  the  whistling  ducks  ( Dendrocygna ),  except  the 
Spotted,  are  represented  here.  A  pair  of  out-of-colour  Hooded 
Mergansers  shared  this  pond  with  some  Hawaiian  Ducks,  also  known 

as  Koloas. 

What  a  pleasure  it  was  to  visit  this  collection!  All  the  birds  looked 
tame  and  contented.  I  feel  that  the  secret  of  Mr.  D’Eath’s  success  can 
be  attributed  in  no  small  measure  to  his  ability  to  resist  the  temptation 
to  overstock  his  areas  of  water.  This  is  a  point  some  waterfowl  enthu¬ 
siasts  would  do  well  to  consider. 

His  interest  in  horticulture  goes  hand  in  hand  with  that  in  waterfowl 
breeding  and  the  birds  live  in  a  setting  whch  includes  some  of  the  love¬ 
liest  flowering  trees  and  shrubs  I  have  seen  in  an  English  garden. 


108 


A  NOTE  ON  JAVANESE  AVICULTURE 
By  A.  MORRISON  (Ainslie,  ACT,  Australia) 


As  visitors  to  Java  will  quickly  notice,  the  people  of  that  island  are 
very  fond  of  the  company  of  cage  birds.  They  are  certainly  the  most  in¬ 
veterate  aviculturists  of  my  acquaintance.  Cages  are  to  be  seen  everywhere. 
They  hang  outside  shops  and  houses  and  many  are  suspended  from  poles 
standing  high  above  the  roof  tops.  The  Javanese  believe  that  birds  like  a 
view  and  a  breeze.  Such  suspended  cages,  usually  containing  doves  -  are 
complete  with  cloth  shades  over  the  top  to  provide  some  shelter  from  the 
tropical  sun.  They  are  hoisted  into  position  in  much  the  same  way  as  one 
hoists  a  flag. 

Much  the  most  common  cage  birds  are  doves.  The  Javanese  enjoy 
their  cooing.  Zebra  Doves  are  especially  numerous  but  numbers  of  the 
two  local  Turtle  Doves  -  the  Javanese  and  Necklaced  Doves  -  are  also 
kept. 

Unfortunately  the  Javanese  cages  are  small,  often  round  and  always 
much  higher  than  they  are  long.  Despite  this,  household  cage  birds  are 
usually  in  quite  good  condition  though  regrettably  the  mortality  in  the 
bird  markets  is  appalling. 

While  doves  are  the  most  numerous  cage  birds,  a  visit  to  one  of  the  bird 
markets,  which  are  to  be  found  in  every  city,  shows  that  there  is  a  demand 
for  many  other  species  and  families  of  birds  -  almost  every  kind  of  bird,  in 
fact,  that  can  be  kept  in  a  cage.  Those  particularly  favoured  are  Magpie 
Robins  (including  all-black  forms  which  I  do  not  ever  recollect  having  seen 
in  Britain)  and  Shamas,  Orange-headed  Thrushes,  bulbuls,  starlings  (Black¬ 
winged  and  Pied  Grackles  and  Jungle  Mynahs)  and  orioles.  A  particularly 
attractive  little  bulbul  which  is  seen  quite  often  is  the  Orange-spotted  Bul¬ 
bul.  The  big  Gold-crowned  Bulbul,  which  has  a  fine  loud  bubbling  song,  is 
also  often  kept. 

But  all  sorts  of  other  birds  are  to  be  seen  in  the  markets  -  the  odd  phea¬ 
sant  or  jungle  fowl;  woodpeckers  and  barbets;  lories,  lorikeets  and  cocka¬ 
toos  from  Eastern  Indonesia;  the  pretty  blue-eyed  Bronze  Tree  Pie;  an 
occasional  Friar  Bird;  munias,  Zosterops  and  Tailor  Birds;  the  odd  owl 
and  an  occasional  unhappy  pitta  and  many  others.  These  are  all  Indonesian 
birds  but  in  addition  Mongolian  Larks  and  Spectacled  Laughing  Thrushes 


Bird  Market  Scenes,  Java 


Hedda  Morrison 


Hedda  Morrison 

View  in  north-western  Bali,  habitat  of  the  disappearing  Rothschild’s  Starling 


Hedda  Morrison 

A  badly  limed  Rothschild’s  Starling  impounded  by  the  protection  authorities 
It  was  unlikely  to  survive 


A.  MORRISON  -  JAVANESE  AVICULTURE 


109 


are  imported  from  China.  In  a  visit  to  the  Semarang  Market  on  the  north 
coast  of  Java  I  counted  36  species  in  half  an  hour.  While  the  squalor  and 
brutality  and  mortality  in  the  bird  markets  is  terrible,  the  birds  which 
survive  to  become  household  pets  are  generally  well  cared  for  and  the 
insectivorous  species  in  surprisingly  good  condition.  I  think  that  this  is 
largely  attributable  to  the  quantities  of  fresh  ants’  eggs  which  they  are 
given.  These  are  obtained  from  the  nests  of  a  common  species  of  red  tree 
ant  which  builds  parchment-like  nests  in  low  trees  and  bushes.  There  is  a 
regular  traffic  in  such  ants’  eggs.  The  contents  of  the  nests  are  kept  on 
bamboo  trays  covered  with  a  few  leaves.  The  ants  still 
with  the  eggs  seem  too  shocked  and  bewildered  to  do  anything  about 
moving  the  eggs.  You  are  liable  to  come  away  from  a  bird  market  with 
ants  crawling  all  over  you. 

Java  itself  is  a  singularly  birdless  island.  It  is  densely  populated  and 
nearly  all  its  original  forest  cover  has  long  been  destroyed.  Some  of  the 
commoner  birds  -  starlings,  manias  and  doves  -  are  no  doubt  caught  in 
Java  and  find  their  way  to  the  bird  markets  but  most  of  the  birds  to  be 
seen  must  be  caught  in  the  other  islands.  I  am  afraid  that  aviculture  is 
a  major  source  of  bird  destruction  in  Indonesia.  There  is  an  enormous 
demand  and  a  very  high  mortality  rate  while  at  the  same  time  bird  habi¬ 
tats  are  continually  being  destroyed  for  forestry  and  agriculture. 

The  worst  example  of  avicultural  damage  to  a  species  in  Indonesia 
concerns  the  unique  and  beautiful  Rothschild’s  Starling  or  Grackle.  It 
has,  and  always  has  had,  an  extraordinarily  limited  distribution  being 
confined  to  a  small  area  in  north-western  Bali.  Habitat  reduction  has 
played  a  part  in  reducing  its  numbers  but  its  survival  is  now  most  acutely 
threatened  by  illegal  trapping.  It  is  a  fully  protected  species  and  not 
readily  available  to  Indonesian  bird  keepers  though  it  is  to  be  seen  in 
zoos  there.  But  many  are  smuggled  out  of  Indonesia  to  satisfy  the  demand 
from  European  and  American  aviculturists.  I  saw  a  whole  aviary  full 
containing  about  30  birds  in  the  Singapore  Bird  Park  in  1972  and  in  May 
last  year  (1979)  I  saw  19  for  sale  in  one  Singapore  bird  shop. 

When  the  species  does  finally  become  extinct  in  its  native  habitat 
European  and  American  aviculturists  will  bear  a  heavy  load  of  guilt  for 
its  disappearance.  Aviculturists  will  then  no  doubt  claim  that  by  encour¬ 
aging  the  illegal  traffic  in  the  bird  they  were  really  protecting  it  -  an  argu¬ 
ment  akin  to  that  of  the  man  who  murdered  his  parents  and  then  pleaded 
for  mercy  on  the  grounds  that  he  was  an  orphan.  The  fact  is  that  the 
importation  of  this  species  should  long  ago  have  been  totally  banned  by 
every  civilised  country. 


110 


A.  MORRISON  -  JAVANESE  AVICULTURE 


In  the  last  issue  of  the  Avicultural  Magazine  (VoL  86,  No.  1:  30-31),  David  Jeggo, 
Deputy  Curator  of  Birds  at  Jersey  Wildlife  Preservation  Trust,  described  the  Trust’s 
programme  to  establish  and  maintain  a  captive  population  of  Rothschild’s  Mynahs 
which  has  resulted  in  over  a  hundred  specimens  having  been  successfully  reared  there 
since  1971. 

Mr.  Jeggo  was  asked  to  comment  on  the  last  two  paragraphs  of  Alistair  Morrison’s 
article  and  he  replied  as  follows: 


The  situation  for  the  Rothschild's  Mynah  is  worsening  and  there  may 
now  be  only  200  or  less  in  the  wild.  There  is  a  great  obligation  upon  the 
avicultural  world  to  redress  the  balance.  That  avicultural  demand  has  con¬ 
tributed  to  the  demise  of  the  Rothschild’s  Mynah  cannot  be  denied.  In  the 
early  seventies,  hundreds  found  their  way  into  the  American  and  European 
markets  alone.  The  number  of  birds  that  end  up  in  the  hands  of  bona  fide 
aviculturists  and  zoos  is  only  the  tip  of  the  iceberg  of  the  consumer  mar¬ 
ket.  It  is  clear  that  something  had  to  be  done  and  vast  improvements  are 
still  required. 

Today  the  situation  is  changing,  and,  since  the  establishment  of  the 
Convention  on  International  Trade  in  Endangered  Species  (CITES),  trade 
is  severely  restricted.  CITES  has,  to  date,  been  ratified  by  over  sixty  coun¬ 
tries,  including  Britain  and  the  United  States,  and  it  is  illegal  to  trade  in 
all  species  listed  under  Schedule  1,  which  includes  the  Rothschild’s  Mynah. 
It  is,  of  course,  going  to  take  time  for  the  controls  to  filter  through  to  the 
trappers  themselves.  Aviculturists  must  not  put  undue  demands  on  threat¬ 
ened  species  and  should  establish  self-sustaining  populations  of  those  en¬ 
dangered  species  in  their  aviaries. 

On  the  positive  side,  Rothschild’s  Mynahs  are  now  being  bred  in  in¬ 
creasing  numbers  in  captivity.  Indeed,  a  number  of  years  ago,  the  Jersey 
Zoo,  which  has  reared  over  100,  received  a  complaint  from  a  dealer  that 
they  were  making  it  economically  unviable  for  him  to  trade  in  wild- 
caught  Rothschild’s  Mynahs. 

We  must  ensure  that  the  captive  population  of  the  species  continues 
to  prosper  and  that  no  wild-caught  birds  enter  into  trade.  It  is  also  im¬ 
portant  to  help  and  encourage  the  Indonesian  government  to  fully  protect 
Bali’s  only  endemic  bird  in  its  last  remaining  habitat,  the  Barat  Reserve. 


D.J. 


Ill 

THE  USE  OF  DUNG  AND  LEAVES 
BY  NESTING  AFRICAN  STARLINGS 

By  MALCOLM  ELLIS  (Wadebridge,  Cornwall) 


Last  winter  I  made  a  return  visit  to  Kenya  and  spent  a  good  deal  of 
time  with  the  Bamleys,  whose  home  is  roughly  midway  between  Kitale 
and  Kapenguria,  on  the  Cherengani  Hills  in  western  Kenya.  While  I  was 
there,  Tim  Barnley  told  me  some  interesting  facts  concerning  the  nesting 
of  the  Violet-backed  Starling,  sometimes  also  known  as  the  Amethyst  or 
Hum-coloured  Starling  Gnnyricindus  leucogaster. 

One  of  Tim  Barnley’s  staff,  Mr.  Keke  Chebus,  a  good  naturalist  and 
highly  skilled  observer,  who  is  regularly  employed  on  work  with  birds,  has 
examined  many  nesting  holes  used  by  this  species  of  starling.  He  has  found 
that,  usually  at  the  bottom  of  the  hole,  there  is  a  bed  of  dry  dung.  The 
dung  is  that  of  larger  game  animals,  among  them  buffalo  and  eland,  or 
domestic  stock,  depending  upon  which  is  locally  available  to  the  birds.  On 
top  of  the  dung  are  fresh  green  leaves.  Little  or  no  other  nesting  material 
is  used. 

He  has  noticed  that  whether  the  nest  site  is  in  the  highlands  or  low, 
semi-arid  bush  country,  the  Violet-backed  Starling  seems  to  use  leaves  of 
Euclea  keniensis  or  allied  species  of  this  small  tree,  which  grow  also  in 
southern  Africa.  Tim  Barnley  kindly  collected  for  me  some  of  the  leaves, 
which  when  fresh  are  shiny  green.  I  was  surprised  by  their  large  size  -  they 
measure  (not  counting  the  stems)  100  mm  long  and  38  mm  at  the  broad¬ 
est  part.  They  closely  resemble  bay  leaves. 

When  I  returned  home  and  began  to  write  this  note,  I  checked  the 
reference  sources  available  to  me,  and  found  that  most  state  that  the 
Violet-backed  Starling’s  nest  is  lined  with  wool,  hair  or  leaves.  The  excep¬ 
tion,  I  found,  is  Roberts’  Birds  of  South  Africa  (Third  Edition,  First 
Impression,  1970),  where  it  is  stated:  “The  cavity  is  lined  with  dung 
and  perhaps  a  little  dry  grass,  but  always  some  fresh  green  leaves.”  Roberts 
also  records  that  the  Cape  Glossy  Starling  Lamprotornis  (Lamprocolius) 
nitens  uses  dung  when  lining  its  nesting  hole.  In  what  seems  a  possible 
explanation  for  the  use  of  dung,  Tim  Barnley  likened  it  to  the  local 
people  who  will  plaster  dung  on  the  floors  of  their  homes  to  keep  away 
fleas,  lice  and  termites  (white  ants). 


112 


M.  ELLIS  -  NESTING  MATERIAL  OF  AFRICAN  STARLINGS 


Re-reading  “Breeding  the  Amethyst  Starling  at  the  Keston  Foreign  Bird 
Farm,  1958”  ( Avicultural  Magazine ,  Vol.  65,  No.  2,  pp.  44-45),  the 
account  of  the  first  breeding  of  this  species  in  Britain,  I  found  that  W.D. 
Cummings  wrote:  “I  provided  the  normal  nesting  materials,  hay,  feathers, 
moss,  etc.,  but  they  were  completely  ignored.  She  calmly  stripped  three 
small  privet  bushes  of  all  their  green  leaves,  and  started  on  a  box  bush  and 
phlox  plants  growing  in  the  aviary.  She  Filled  up  the  nestbox  to  a  depth  of 
one  and  a  half  inches  with  these  fresh  green  leaves.” 

When  Tim  Bamley  told  me  about  this  species  using  leaves,  I  was  re¬ 
minded  how  Emerald  Starlings  Coccycolius  iris  brought  from  Sierra 
Leone  to  London  Zoo  in  1954,  often  carried  green  privet  leaves,  which 
sometimes  they  took  into  the  nestboxes.  Unfortunately,  this  did  not  lead 
to  any  serious  nesting  activity  and  so  far  as  I  know  at  the  time  of  writing, 
this  species  has  not  bred  in  captivity.  Indeed  it  seems  that  the  nest  and 
eggs  remain  undescribed.  However,  with  the  numbers  of  Emerald  Starlings 
lately  imported  and  now  in  aviaries,  it  is  hoped  that  this  will  not  be  for 
much  longer  and  that  an  account  of  the  first  breeding  success  will  soon 
be  published  in  the  Avicultural  Magazine . 

To  encourage  nesting,  the  above  would  appear  to  suggest  that  it  may 
be  helpful  to  provide  suitable  leaves  for  both  species,  together  with 
dryish  cow  dung  or  similar  dung  in  the  case  of  the  Violet-backed  Star¬ 
ling,  and  perhaps,  even  the  Emerald  Starling. 


113 

NEWS  FROM  THE  BERLIN  ZOO 

(January-March  1980) 

By  PROFESSOR  DR.  HEINZ-GEORG  KLOS  (Scientific  Director) 


Ne  w  arrivals 

1  Palm  Cockatoo 

2  Jendaya  Parrakeets 
3.3  Bullfinches 

4  Bicheno’s  Finches 

Birds  hatched 
1  Iris  Lorikeet 


Probosciger  aterrimus 
Aratinga  jandaya 
Pyrrhula  pyrrhula 
Poephila  bichenovii 


Trichoglossus  iris 


CORRECTION: 

Avicultural  Magazine,  Vol.  86,  No.  1  (January-March  1980).  “Rothschild’s  Mynah 

at  Jersey  Zoological  Park”,  by  D.F.  Jeggo. 


2nd  paragraph,  tenth  line:  “. 


x  1.15  m  high”  should  read“. 


x  1.75  m  high” 


114 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


In  conjunction  with  the  Primley  Trust  which  now  operates  the  Paign¬ 
ton  Zoological  and  Botanical  Gardens  on  a  charitable  and  educational 
basis,  Jack  Herbert  is  researching  with  a  view  to  publishing  the  life  and 
times  of  the  late  Herbert  Whitley,  founder  of  the  Gardens.  If  any  readers 
have  memories  or  anecdotes  concerning  this  great  character,  Jack  Herbert 
would  be  most  grateful  to  hear  from  them.  His  address  is:  “Ceres”, 
Clennon  Drive,  Paignton,  Devon. 


*  * 


* 


Christopher  Marler  reports  that  his  very  rare  Blakiston’s  Fish-Owl 
Ketupa  blakistoni  has  now  died.  This  bird  was  found  as  an  adult  in  Japan 
apparently  suffering  from  some  form  of  poisoning.  It  had  lived  in  Flam¬ 
ingo  Gardens,  Weston  Underwood,  for  ten  years. 

Some  interesting  birds  were  reared  in  Flamingo  Gardens  during  the 
1979  season.  Black-crowned  Night  Heron  Nycticorax  nycticorax,  Rosy 
Flamingo  Phoenicopterus  ruber ,  Scarlet  Ibis  Eudocimus  ruber,  Whistling 
Swan  Cygnus  columbianus  columbianus,  Bewick’s  Swan  Cygnus  colum- 
bianus  bewickii  and  Whooper  Swan  Cygnus  cygnus  cygnus  continue  to 
breed  well  and  great  interest  centres  on  a  young  Black  Swan  Cygnus 
atratus.  One  of  the  parent  birds  is  an  unusual  grey  mutation  and  it  was 
noticed  that  some  of  the  clutch  of  eggs  were  cream  instead  of  the  custom¬ 
ary  greenish.  One  of  these  cream  eggs  hatched  and  the  cygnet  was  found  to 
have  an  unusually  pale-coloured  down.  It  is  hoped  that  this  bird  will  prove 
to  be  a  grey  mutant. 

Other  rarely  bred  species  laid  eggs  in  this  extensive  collection  but  failed 
to  produce  chicks.  These  include:  Maguari  Stork Euxenura  maguari ,  Paint¬ 
ed  Stork  Ibis  leucocephalus,  Black  Vulture  Coragyps  atratus,  King  Vulture 
Sarcorhamphus  papa  and  Andean  Condor  Vultur  gryphus. 

The  breeding  results  might  have  been  even  better  had  not  fate  played  a 
hand.  The  stream  feeding  the  chain  of  lakes  in  the  breeding  valley  became 
polluted  and,  as  a  result,  Mr.  Marler  lost  a  number  of  birds  and  others  suf¬ 
fered  severe  illness.  Indeed,  the  Trumpeter  Swans  Cygnus  cygnus  buccina¬ 
tor,  which  bred  regularly  had  to  be  carefully  nursed  back  to  health  and 
probably,  as  a  result,  failed  to  breed. 


NEWS  &  VIEWS 


115 


Malcolm  Moy,  at  Wroxham  in  Norfolk,  is  best  known  as  a  breeder  of 
waterfowl  specialising  in  the  larger  geese  and  swans.  Last  year  he  took  part 
in  a  rescue  operation  which  involved  him  in  handrearing  two  Marsh  Har¬ 
riers  Circus  aeruginosus.  Two  nests  in  the  reed  beds  close  to  Mr.  Moy’s 
home  were  deserted.  One  contained  a  clutch  of  eggs  and  the  other  a  brood 
of  small  chicks.  The  nests  were  left  alone  in  the  desperate  hope  that  the 
parents  would  return  and,  after  this  delay,  only  one  egg  proved  viable  and 
all  except  one  of  the  chicks  had  died.  The  egg  was  successfully  hatched 
and  the  resulting  chick  handreared.  The  second  chick  was  also  reared.  The 
diet  employed  was  composed  mainly  of  laboratory  reared  rats  and  mice, 
together  with  a  small  amount  of  poultry  chicks.  No  supplements  or  addi¬ 
tives  were  used  and  the  chicks  grew  well  and  matured  as  strong  birds. 


*  * 


* 


In  the  same  part  of  the  world,  Trevor  Lay,  at  Bungay  in  Suffolk,  is  at 
present  engaged  in  constructing  a  vast  complex  dedicated  to  the  rearing  of 
large  numbers  of  ducks,  geese  and  swans.  Breeding  on  a  more  restricted 
scale  has  been  in  practice  for  several  years,  but  the  new  facilities  should 
permit  much  greater  numbers  of  birds  to  be  reared.  Many  labour  saving 
and  ingenious  ideas  have  been  incorporated  in  this  layout  and,  already, 
some  800  stock  birds  are  housed  in  the  enclosures. 


*  * 


* 


In  the  National  Museums  of  Kenya,  Section  of  Ornithology,  News¬ 
letter  No.  42,  the  question  is  posed  -  are  Von  der  Decken’s  and  Jackson’s 
Hornbill  separate  species,  or  is  it  that  Von  der  Decken’s  is  polymorphic  in 
plumage?  Jackson’s  has  extensive  white  spotting  on  the  wing-coverts  and 
the  possibility  is  that  Von  der  Decken’s  is  merely  a  phase  which  is  without 
spots  on  the  coverts.  The  National  Collection  has  typical  Von  der  Decken’s 
and  Jackson’s,  but  also  all  sorts  of  intermediate  spotted  forms.  Observa¬ 
tions  of  behaviour  and  cads,  etc.,  which  would  be  helpful  in  making  com¬ 
parisons  between  the  two,  also  any  information  about  intermediate  forms, 
would  be  welcomed. 


116 


NEWS  &  VIEWS 


Newsletter  No.  45,  included  a  report  from  a  correspondant  living  close 
to  Nairobi,  who  from  mid-December  regularly  saw  a  small  flock  of  Fisch¬ 
er’s  Lovebirds,  which  were  paired  and  inspecting  holes  for  nesting.  The 
Editor  stated  that  the  dispersal  and  distribution  should  be  monitored,  for 
it  is  clear  that  flocks  are  now  increasing  and  dispersing  far  and  wide. 
At  present,  living  mainly  in  the  suburbs  of  Nairobi,  around  Lake  Naivasha 
and  along  the  Kenyan  coast,  they  have  in  some  instances  hybridised  with 
Masked  Lovebirds.  The  general  opinion  is  that  these  lovebirds  all  origina¬ 
ted  from  captives  which  escaped  or  were  released.  There  is,  however,  some 
doubt  about  whether  this  is  entirely  so. 


*  * 


* 


The  White-naped  Crane  Grus  vipio  is  the  subject  of  a  concentrated 
breeding  programme  at  the  Bronx  Zoo,  New  York,  where  a  total  of  23 
young  have  been  reared  since  1971. 

Don  Bruning  writes:-  “Prior  to  1978  only  one  pair  had  produced  regu¬ 
larly  since  1971.  In  1978  an  adult  female  successfully  paired  with  a  male 
reared  at  the  Zoo  in  1971.  Last  year  a  young  home-bred  pair  produced 
their  first  chick  and  another  young  pair  laid  several  infertile  eggs.  So  at  the 
moment  the  Bronx  Zoo  have  three  breeding  pairs  and  a  potential  fourth 
pair.  In  September  last  we  received  a  young  bird  reared  at  the  Hong  Kong 
Zoo  and  are  currently  awaiting  the  arrival  of  three  birds  confiscated  by 
Hong  Kong  officials.  The  addition  of  these  four  birds  will  greatly  broaden 
our  genetic  base  and  improve  our  long  term  breeding  prospect. 

We  remove  any  eggs  laid  in  April  or  May  but  allow  them  to  incubate 
their  last  clutch  which  is  usually  laid  in  early  June.  Eggs  from  the  early 
clutches  are  artificially  incubated  and  we  handrear  all  chicks  except  the 
last  one  hatched  by  the  parents.  These  are  reared  by  them  and  removed 
the  following  winter  and  placed  with  the  other  young  cranes. 

Two  males  are  now  on  loan  to  the  Denver  Zoo  and  seven  young  birds 
were  recently  sent  to  the  National  Zoo’s  Breeding  and  Research  Centre  at 
Royal  Front.” 


NEWS  &  VIEWS 


117 


The  rearing  of  hybrid  Violet-ear  Hummingbirds  seems  to  be  an  almost 
annual  occurrence  in  England  these  days.  The  latest  report  comes  from  the 
Wildlife  Park  at  Cricket  St.  Thomas  in  Somerset,  with  parentage  on  this 
occasion  being  Sparkling  Colibri  coruscans  x  Green  Colibri  thalassinus.  Of 
the  breeding,  curator  Peter  Lowe  writes:  “A  nest  constructed  of  camel 
hair,  feathers,  moss  and  lichen  was  found  on  March  16th  containing  two 
eggs.  The  fust  hatched  on  the  morning  of  the  23rd  followed  thirty-six 
hours  later  by  the  second.  Both  chicks  did  well  for  a  week  when  the 
younger  disappeared.  The  hen  fed  large  numbers  of  fruit  flies  together 
with  nectar.  She  was  also  seen  to  visit  a  nectar  pot  intended  for  Zosterops 
and  carry  away  small  lumps  of  sponge  cake  but  was  not  observed  to  take 
any  up  to  the  nest.  The  remaining  chick  grew  rapidly  and  left  the  nest  on 
the  twenty-second  day.  The  male  showed  little  interest  in  the  youngster 
but  it  was  well  cared  for  by  the  hen  who,  at  times,  was  seen  driving  away 
birds  as  large  as  glossy  starlings.” 


*  *  * 

Two  books  published  recently  are  of  interest.  The  first,  released  by 
Heinemann  (New  Zealand)  is  one  of  the  most  spectacularly  beautiful  bird 
books  to  appear  for  many  years.  Geoffrey  Moon,  the  author,  is  a  veterin¬ 
arian  by  profession  and  spends  much  of  his  leisure  time  photographing 
New  Zealand’s  unique  avifauna.  His  book  entitled  The  Birds  Around  Us 
does  not  pretend  to  be  a  detailed  text  book  but  is,  more  particularly,  a 
vehicle  for  displaying  357  superb  colour  plates.  These  plates  are  brilliant 
technically  and  artistically  are  of  great  beauty.  However,  probably  the 
most  impressive  feature  is  that  almost  all  of  the  subjects  are  captured 
during  moments  of  activity.  The  plates  depict  birds  pouncing  on  prey, 
displaying,  copulating,  incubating,  feeding  chicks,  etc.  Including,  as 
it  does,  many  plates  of  very  rare  species  this  book  will  be  greatly  admired 
by  everyone  with  an  interest  in  birds. 

A  second,  less  specialised  publication  is  a  “best-of”  compilation  put  out 
by  Air  Niugini  and  features  selected  articles  from  the  airline’s  in-flight 
magazine.  Simply  titled  Best  of  Paradise,  it  provides  a  brief  but  fascinating 
insight  into  the  history,  culture  and  wildlife  of  Papua  New  Guinea  and 
devotes  three  articles  to  birds.  These  cover  migrants,  kingfishers  and  birds 
of  paradise,  and  while  fairly  general  in  content  are  illustrated  with  many 
excellent  photographs  depicting  species  such  as  Crested  and  Emperor  Birds 
of  Paradise;  Dwarf,  Yellow-billed,  Common  Paradise  and  White-tailed 
Paradise  Kingfishers. 


118 


NEWS  &  VIEWS 


Two  collections  in  1979  report  the  breeding  of  Count  Raggi’s  Bird  of 
Paradise  Paradisaea  raggiana.  One  was  reared  at  Baiyer  River  Sanctuary 
where  a  small  collection  of  native  fauna  is  maintained  by  the  Papua 
New  Guinea  National  Parks  Board.  The  other  was  reared  at  the  Hong  Kong 
Zoo  after  previous  attempts  yielded  only  eggs.  Dr.  K.C.  Searle,  writing 
of  the  success,  informs  me  that  the  youngster  fledged  the  afternoon  of 
June  10th,  and  despite  having  to  endure  111.5  mm  of  torrential  rain  in 
its  first  twenty-four  hours,  has  developed  into  a  fine  bird.  Once  the  female 
commenced  building,  the  male  was  removed  to  a  separate  flight  and  she 
undertook  the  14/15  days  of  incubation  alone.  Mealworms  and  grass¬ 
hoppers  were  offered  ad  lib  to  the  chick  which  vacated  the  nest  in  about 
three  weeks. 


* 


*  * 


An  apparent  decline  in  the  population  of  the  Orange-bellied  Grass 
Parrakeet  Neophem  chrysogaster  is  causing  some  concern  amongst  con¬ 
servationists  in  Australia,  for  it  seems  the  latest  estimate  puts  the  total 
population  at  less  than  a  hundred.  Monitoring  of  winter  populations  in 
Victoria  has  been  in  progress  for  several  years  but  the  plight  of  the  birds 
only  became  more  generally  known  when  I.C.I.  disclosed  its  intention  of 
building  a  multi-million  dollar  petrochemical  plant  at  Point  Wilson,  the 
main  wintering  locality  on  mainland  Australia  for  what  is  probably  the 
country’s  third  rarest  parrot.  Detailed  observations  in  known  wintering 
haunts  yielded  important  if  somewhat  depressing  statistics.  A  project, 
started  last  October,  to  locate  breeding  grounds  in  the  button  grass  plains 
of  south-west  Tasmania  has  met  with  some  success  for“evidence  has  been 
found”  of  some  breeding  activity  amongst  the  forty  or  so  birds  under 
constant  surveillance. 

Could  captive  breeding  prove  an  aid  in  conserving  this  species?  Other 
Neophema  lend  themselves  to  captive  conditions  and  most  are  now  well 
established  (see  note  above  about  Professor  J.R.  Hodge’s  record),  but  only 
three  aviculturists  have  reported  breeding  this  species.From  several  pairs 
“materialising”  in  Europe  during  the  1970s,  von  Brummelen  bred  three  in 
1971  and  J.  Postern  reported  rearing  one  the  following  year.  Sustained 
breeding  was  achieved  in  Australia  by  the  late  Fred  Lewitzka  at  his  collec¬ 
tion  in  Adelaide.  Nine  were  reared  during  a  seven-year  period.  The  pair 
proved  no  more  difficult  to  coax  into  nesting  than  others  of  the  genus 
but  results  were  found  to  be  below  expectations  due  to  infertility.  This, 


NEWS  &  VIEWS 


119 


he  put  down  to  their  tendency  of  becoming  obese.  Chicks,  once  hatched, 
proved  no  trouble  to  rear. 

I  well  remember  discussing  the  possibility  of  this  species  becoming 
established  in  captivity  with  Fred.  He  was  optimistic  that  it  could  be 
achieved  in  Australia  provided  attitudes  towards  aviculture  changed  in 
the  various  Wildlife  Departments  within  the  country,  attitudes  which 
later  caused  him  to  release  his  young  birds  in  the  Coorong  region  of 
South  Australia.  The  ageing  adults  later  died,  and  in  all  probability  this 
distinctive  green  parrakeet  no  longer  exists  in  Australian  aviculture. 


*  * 


* 


Dr.  Carl  Naether,  writing  from  Encino  in  California,  says:  “Members 
of  the  Avicultural  Society  may  be  interested  to  learn  that,  after  many 
years’  absence  from  captivity,  so  to  speak,  the  Golden-heart  Pigeon  Galli- 
columba  rufigula ,  the  beautiful  Bleeding  Heart  Pigeon  with  the  yellowish- 
golden  breast  patch,  has  once  again  found  its  way  into  American  and 
British  Columbian  aviaries  by  way  of  imports  from  Holland,  where  it  is 
now  successfully  being  raised. 

Another  item  of  some  interest:  Gary  Landry,  a  foreign  dove  enthus¬ 
iast  living  in  Baton  Rouge,  Louisiana,  discovered  an  unusual  mutation 
among  the  offspring  of  his  Indian  Green-winged  Doves  Chalcophaps 
indica  -  in  place  of  the  usual  green  wings,  this  dove  has  bluish  wings. 
Meanwhile,  Mr.  Landry  has  succeeded  in  raising  six  “Blue-winged”  Doves  - 
one  male  and  five  females.  He  hoped  to  establish  a  strain  of  Blue- wings!” 


*  * 


* 


A  most  successful  and  enjoyable  event  was  organised  by  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Michael  Curzon  at  Rode  Tropical  Bird  Gardens  in  Somerset  on  22nd 
March,  1980,  by  kind  permission  of  the  owners,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Donald 
Risdon.  Nearly  100  members  and  their  guests  walked  around  these 
most  attractive  gardens  in  the  afternoon  and  then  enjoyed  a  very 
delicious  wine  and  cheese  party.  During  the  evening  Betty  Risdon  showed 
a  fascinating  and  amusing  film  describing  the  history  of  Rode  Tropical 
Bird  Gardens  from  its  inception  to  the  present  day  and  Cliff  Wright 


120 


NEWS  &  VIEWS 


showed  a  most  interesting  collection  of  slides  of  parrots  painstakingly 
amassed  from  birds  in  his  own  collection  and  in  those  of  others. 

The  proceeds  from  this  most  pleasant  occasion  amounted  to  £126.00 
which  was  donated  to  the  Society’s  funds  for  which  we  are  most  grateful. 


*  *  * 

D.  C. 


Members  are  asked  to  forward  any  items  of  avicultural  interest  to  me,  David 
Coles,  at  Padstow  Bird  Gardens,  Padstow,  Cornwall,  England.  The  “News  and 
Views”  column  can  only  be  as  interesting  and  informative  as  members  care  to 
make  it  so  please  do  take  the  time  to  write  a  note  to  me.  I  am  most  grateful 
to  Bernard  Sayers  for  providing  several  interesting  items  in  this  and  the  last 
issue. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


121 


A  Wild  Mallard  Problem 

Most  articles  in  the  Avicultural  Magazine  are  stories  of  successful 
breeding  of  some  birds.  Mine  is  a  problem  story  which  is  very  difficult 
to  solve.  I  have  most  of  the  year  about  sixty  Mallards  coming  to  the 
pond  where  I  have  my  collection  of  wildfowl.  They  come,  of  course, 
to  feed  with  my  birds  and  when  wheat  is  £100  per  ton  and  pellets  also 
very  expensive,  it  is  not  a  very  amusing  state  of  affairs. 

Most  people  recommend  shooting  them  but  I  know  this  would  spell 
disaster  to  the  fullwinged  birds  of  my  collection.  I  lost  seven  fullwinged 
geese  one  year  entirely  due  to  a  helicopter  flying  nearby;  I  had  had  these 
geese  flying  for  about  twelve  years  but  they  went  for  good.  I  was  not  at 
home  at  the  time  but  the  next  time  the  helicopter  was  due,  I  was  fore¬ 
warned  and  I  got  to  the  pond  just  as  the  machine  was  starting  up  and  my 
remaining  fullwinged  geese  were  strutting  about  in  their  usual  upright 
attitude  when  alarmed,  but  I  called  to  them  and  they  settled  down  and 
began  to  feed,  but  I  am  sure  that  I  would  have  lost  these  birds  had  I  not 
been  there  to  reassure  them  that  all  was  well. 

The  only  way  to  see  that  the  Mallard  do  not  eat  all  the  food  is  to  stand 
by  the  dishes  in  which  one  puts  the  pellets  and  the  Mallard  will  seldom  - 
brave  coming  near;  any  that  do  approach,  I  can  pick  up.  We  eat  them,  of 
course. 

Another  good  point  about  staying  with  the  duck  whilst  they  feed  is 
that  one  gets  to  know  them  as  individuals  and  they  are  so  different  in  their 
eating  habits.  Old  “Greedy-guts”  is  always  bulldozing  his  way  through  the 
others,  he  cannot  shovel  his  food  down  quickly  enough  whereas  the  Ring¬ 
ed  Teal  would  not  get  any  food,  they  are  far  too  polite.  The  diving  duck 
present  a  problem  as  they  seldom  come  to  land:  “Charlie”,  the  Barrow’s 
Golden-Eye,  is  greedy  beyond  belief  and  though  he  dives  for  some  of  his 
food,  he  prefers  to  get  it  the  easy  way  and  shovels  pellets  out  of  a  dish  but 
perhaps  one  of  my  readers,  if  I  now  have  one,  would  have  an  answer  to  my 
problem,  and  it  is  a  real  problem  in  the  winter  for  during  a  severe  spell 
there  can  be  200  Mallard  coming  to  the  pond. 


Mrs.  P.V.  Upton, 
Park  Lodge, 
Margaretting, 
Ingatestone, 
Essex,  CM4  OEN. 

The  Editor  does  not  accept  responsibility  for  opinions  expressed  in  articles,  notes 
or  correspondence . 


122 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY  OF  QUEENSLAND 
Welcomes  new  members 

An  Australian  Society  catering  for  all  birds  both  in  captivity  and  in  the  wild.  We 
put  out  a  bi-monthly  magazine  on  all  aspects  of  aviculture  and  conservation. 

Anyone  interested  in  becoming  a  member,  please  contact: 

Ray  Garwood,  19  Fahey’s  Road,  Albany  Creek,  4035  Queensland,  Australia. 

Annual  subscription  rates  are:  12.00  Australian  dollars  surface  mail 

18.00  Australian  dollars  air  mail 


BOOKS  ON  BIRDS 


New ,  Second-handy  Old  and  Rare 


CATALOGUE  ON  REQUEST 

WHELD0N  &  WESLEY  LTD. 

C0DIC0TE,  HITCHIN,  HERTS,  SG4  8TE 

Stevenage  (0438)  820370 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


The  Avicultural  Society  was  founded  in  1894  for  the  study  of  British  and  foreign 
birds  in  freedom  and  captivity.  The  Society  is  international  in  character,  having 
members  throughout  the  world. 

Membership  subscription  rates  per  annum:  British  Isles  -  £8.00;  Overseas  -  £9.00 
(20.00  US  dollars).  The  subscription  is  due  on  1st  January  of  each  year  and  those 
joining  the  Society  later  in  the  year  will  receive  back  numbers  of  the  current  volume 
of  the  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is:  British  Isles  and  Europe  -  £9.00;  out¬ 
side  Europe  -  £10.00  (25  U.S.  dollars). 

All  overseas  rates  include  airmail  postage. 

Subscriptions,  changes  of  address,  orders  for  back  numbers,  etc.,  should  be  sent 
to:  THE  HON.  SECRETARY  AND  TREASURER,  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOC¬ 
IETY,  WINDSOR  FOREST  STUD,  MILL  RIDE,  ASCOT,  BERKSHIRE  SL5  8LT. 
ENGLAND. 


NEW  MEMBERS 

Mr.  Elias  R.  Ason,  B  36  A  Street,  Ext.  La  Alameda,  Rio  Piedras,  Puerto  Rico  00926, 
USA. 

Mr.  K.  Bronze,  90  Worthing  Road,  Basildon,  Essex  SSI 5  6JU. 

Mr.  E.N.  Diebold,  5412  Fern  Beach  Road,  St.  Louis,  Mo.  63128,  USA. 

Ms.  Venetia  G.  Fregni,  25  E  Stewart  Road,  Columbia,  Mo.  65201,  USA. 

Mr.  W.  Ganey,  1560  Dolores  Street,  San  Francisco,  Calif.  94110,  USA. 

Mr.  A.W.  Gibbard,  6  Chartfield  Road,  Reigate,  Surrey. 

Mr.  J.W.  Goddard,  418  Francisco  Street,  San  Francisco,  Calif.  94133,  USA. 

Mr.  G.R.  Greed,  Bristol  Zoo,  Clifton,  Bristol  BS8  3HA. 

Mr.  R.  Kennedy,  502  Altura  Circle,  Sandy,  Utah  84070,  USA. 

Dr.  E.F.  Luzzati,  6620  North  Greenwich  Road,  Wichita,  Kansas  67226,  USA. 

Mr.  K.  McConnell,  Route  1,  Box  218M,  Red  Bluff,  Calif.  96080,  USA. 

Ms.  Mary  M.  Menser,  41  N.W.  45th  Avenue,  Plantation,  Fla.  33317,  USA. 

The  Rev.  B.C.  Persson,  420  West  Conference  Drive,  Boca  Raton,  Fla.  33432,  USA. 
Mr.  A.J.  Swales,  Manor  Lodge  Farm,  Steeple  Gidding,  Huntingdon,  Cambs. 


CHANGE  OF  ADDRESS 


Dr.  H.W.  Clarke  to  Via  Della  Storta,  No.  808  bis,  Rome,  Italy. 

Mr.  C.  Dacus  to  46  Merlyn  Park,  Ballsbridge,  Dublin  4,  Eire. 

Mr.  K.  Evans  to  Caughall  Manor  Farm,  Caughall  Road,  Upton  by  Chester,  Cheshire. 
Mr.  P.G.  Schofield  to  57  Malians,  Portland,  Dorset. 

Ms  Caryn  Schrenzel  to  512  W.  Belden  1G,  Chicago,  Ill.  60614,  USA. 

Dr.  K.C.  Searle  to  604-608  Gloucester  Tower,  The  Landmark,  11  Pedder  Street, 
Hong  Kong. 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  J.M.  Spenkelink  to  36  Kampweg,  3769  DG  Soesterberg,  Holland. 

Mr.  P.A.M.  Timmermans  to  Hooghuisstraat  40,  Bergen  op  Zoom,  4611  JT,  Holland. 


DONATIONS 


The  Society  is  most  grateful  to  the  following  members  for  their  generosity: 

Mr.  E.S.  Andersen, 

Mr.  R.  Basso 
Mr.  T.R.M.  Brosset 
Mr.  R.F.  D’Erlanger 
Mr.  J.C.  Kung 
Mr.  O.D.  Long 
Mr.  W.K.  Macy,  Jr. 

Captain  W.  Mountain 


Published  by  The  Avicultural  Society,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Berkshire, 
SL5  8LT,  England. 


Fr.  Rosalia  Muller 
Mr.  N.  O’Connor 
Mr.  F.  Shaw  Mayer 
Mr.  G.A.  Smith 
Mr.  W.  Todd,  III. 
Mr.  M.E.E.  Warren 
Mr.  J.D.  Willmott 
Mr.  J.J.  Yealland 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Unwin  Brothers  Ltd.,  The  Gresham  Press,  Old  Woking,  Surrey 


/m 

Birds 


^CULTURAL 

MAGAZINE 


1980 


CONTENTS 


Breeding  Beechey’s  Jays  at  the  Houston  Zoological  Gardens 

by  William  Todd  (with  plate) . 123 

Breeding  the  Red  and  Yellow  Barbet  at  the  Denver  Zoological  Gardens 

by  Edward  C.  Schmitt . 128 

Problems  and  Progress  in  the  Captive  Breeding  of  Great  Bustards  in  Quasi-Natural 
Conditions  by  N.J.  Collar  and  P.D.  Goriup  (with  plates) . 131 

Steller’s  Jay  by  L.  Gibson . 141 

Observations  on  the  Display  of  the  Blue- tailed  Emerald  by  R.  J.  Elgar 

(with  line  drawings) . 147 

Personal  Observations  on  Stock  Doves  by  Derek  Goodwin 

(with  line  drawings) . 151 

Notes  on  Lonchura  bicolor  by  F.  C.  Barnicoat  (with  distribution  map)  . 164 

A  Few  Days  in  Adelaide  by  G.  A.  Smith . 170 

Important  News  Concerning  Rock  Pigeons  by  Professor  C.  Naether . 176 

News  and  Views . 179 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE  welcomes  original  articles  that  have  not  been 
published  elsewhere  and  that  essentially  concern  the  aviculture  of  a  particular  bird  or 
group  of  birds,  or  that  describe  their  natural  history.  Articles  should  be  preferably 
typewritten,  with  double  spacing,  and  the  scientific  names  as  well  as  the  vernacular 
names  of  birds  should  be  given.  References  cited  in  the  text  should  be  listed  at  the 
end  of  the  article.  Line  drawings  should  be  in  Indian  ink  on  thick  paper  or  card; 
photographs  which  illustrate  a  particular  point  in  the  article  will  be  used  where 
possible  and  should  be  clearly  captioned. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


R.  Michael  Bowerman 


Avicultural  Magazine 

THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Vol.  86  -  No.  3  -  All  rights  reserved  JULY  -  OCTOBER  1980 


BREEDING  BEECHEY’S  JAYS  Cissilopha  beecheii  AT  THE 
HOUSTON  ZOOLOGICAL  GARDENS 
By  WILLIAM  TODD  (Senior  Keeper,  Bird  Department) 


Two  Beechey’s  Jays  have  been  maintained  at  the  Houston  Zoo  since 
1972,  but  despite  their  frequently  engaging  in  courtship  feeding,  we  were 
uncertain  of  their  gender  until  the  spring  of  1979  when  they  nested  and 
produced  young.  Some  months  before  this  they  had  been  moved  into  one 
of  a  newly  completed  group  of  off-exhibit  aviaries.  Their  construction  was 
of  wood  frame  and  poultry  wire  seven  feet  by  nine  feet  by  six  feet  high 
with  a  partially  enclosed,  roofed  shelter  four  feet  deep  at  one  end  of  the 
flight.  Two  shallow  wooden  produce  flats  13  inches  by  17  inches  by  five 
inches  deep  were  affixed  just  under  the  shelter  roof  to  serve  as  nesting 
platforms.  Sticks  and  hay  were  accepted  as  nesting  material  and  the  birds 
arranged  these  loosely  in  the  box  immediately  above  the  shelter  entrance. 

The  birds’  diet  consisted  of  a  tray  of  diced,  mixed  fruit  (papaya,  apple, 
melon,  grapes),  soaked  raisins,  soaked  Purina  Dog  Chow,  Zu/Preem  Bird 
of  Prey  Diet,  and  finely  chopped  endive  and  spinach  offered  once  a  day. 
In  addition  live  crickets  and  mealworms  were  tossed  into  the  cage  several 
times  a  day  and  mice,  ranging  from  new-born  to  adult  were  provided  at 
least  once  a  day  during  the  nesting  season,  the  numbers  given  increasing 
with  the  chicks’  hatching. 

Two  eggs  were  reported  in  the  nest  on  22nd  May  1979.  One  chick  hat¬ 
ched  on  12th  June.  The  parents  became  quite  defensive  and  did  not 
hesitate  to  attack  with  beak  and  claws  anyone  entering  their  flight.  On 
30th  June,  at  17days  old,  the  chick  was  found  on  the  aviary  floor.  The 
feather  sheaths  had  just  begun  to  break  open  and  it  was  of  course  incap¬ 
able  of  even  fluttering.  The  presence  of  fire-ants  (, Solenopsis  sp.  -  a  highly 
carnivorous  form)  near  the  aviary  and  the  threat  of  predaceous  rodents 
left  no  alternative  to  handrearing.  The  bird  weighed  125.0  g  (see  table  of 
weights).  Soaked  Purina  Cat  Chow  was  readily  accepted  and  the  food  was 


124 


WILLIAM  TODD  -  BREEDING  BEECHEY’S  JAY 


offered  once  an  hour.  Following  each  feed,  the  chick  would  initiate  a  tail- 
shivering  motion  and  elevate  the  anus  before  producing  a  fecal  sac.  The 
newly  emerging  feathers  where  sooty  black  on  the  head  and  breast,  and 
dark  blue-grey  on  the  back.  The  hides  were  dark  brown  and  the  legs  and 
beak  a  pinkish-horn  colour. 

Within  several  days  the  chick  had  become  quite  active  and  could  easily 
jump  from  the  box  in  which  it  was  taken  home  each  evening.  During  the 
day  it  was  housed  in  a  large  brooder  to  provide  exercise  space.  Although 
it  seemed  to  seek  a  low  perch,  it  did  not  have  the  ability  to  balance  well. 
It  exhibited  no  interest  in  moving  objects,  live  food,  or  water.  The  weight 
of  the  growing  primaries  caused  the  rnetacarpals  to  droop.  Zu/Preem  Bird 
of  Prey  Diet  had  been  mixed  with  the  Cat  Chow  and  this,  formed  into  pel¬ 
lets,  was  the  staple  diet,  supplemented  with  a  few  mealworms.  Its  response 
to  feeding  was  a  soft,  musical  piping. 

On  3rd  July,  its  feeding  response  seemed  somewhat  diminished  and  its 
behaviour  depressed.  On  the  following  day  a  slight  weight  loss  was  noted. 
Having  had  no  previous  experience  with  jay  chicks,  we  became  concerned 
and  administered  stimulants  to  enhance  its  appetite.  Its  weight  continued  to 
fluctuate  from  day  to  day,  its  feeding  response  remained  low,  and  at  one 
point  force-feeding  was  resorted  to,  probably  unnecessarily.  We  than 
determined  to  leave  the  bird  in  the  brooder  over-night  in  the  event  that  the 
stress  of  transport  was  affecting  its  behaviour.  A  tray  of  food  was  provided 
to  encourage  its  independence.  Whether  as  a  direct  result  of  this  action 
or  not,  the  bird’s  condition  did  begin  to  improve  and  it  was  soon  eating 
on  its  own.  At  the  time  of  writing  (September  1980),  this  bird’s  beak  has 
developed  dark  patches  and  the  eyes  have  acquired  a  greenish-tint  transi¬ 
tory  to  the  black  beak  and  greenish-yellow  eyes  of  the  adults.  Lacking 
conspecific  companionship,  it  has  unfortunately  remained  imprinted  on 
humans. 

In  the  spring  of  1980,  a  clutch  of  five  eggs  was  laid  between  1st  June 
and  5th  June  in  the  same  nest-box.  Four  of  these  hatched  between  20th 
and  22nd  June;  the  fifth  egg  was  clear.  Summer  temperatures  were  ex¬ 
ceptionally  hot;  in  excess  of  100°F  every  afternoon,  and  we  were  appre¬ 
hensive  about  the  chicks’  ability  to  withstand  the  even  higher  temperatures 
in  the  nest  just  below  the  sizzling  tin  shelter  roof.  On  29th  June,  one  of 
the  chicks  had  disappeared,  and  we  decided  to  remove  the  remaining  three 
the  following  day.  As  evident  from  the  table,  there  was  an  appreciable 
difference  in  size,  and  the  smallest  chick  appeared  slightly  dehydrated. 
Their  eyes  were  not  yet  open,  and  only  the  wing  quills  were  at  all  de¬ 
veloped. 


WILLIAM  TODD  -  BREEDING  BEECHEY’S  JAY 


125 


After  failing  to  elicit  a  feeding  response  by  various  local  stimuli,  I  was 
suddenly  and  dramatically  successful  with  a  loud  quacking  sound  rather 
like  that  of  a  Mallard  hen.  Until  the  chick’s  eyes  were  open  it  was  neces¬ 
sary  to  give  this  call  at  each  feeding  session  to  induce  gaping.  During 
the  first  days  in  my  care  they  were  fed  soaked  Purina  Cat  Chow  or  an 
equal  mixture  of  soaked  Cat  Chow  and  Zu/Preem  rolled  into  pellets  and 
proffered  with  forceps.  Occasionally  a  drop  of  water  might  be  given  to  aid 
swallowing.  Feeding  took  place  approximately  once  an  hour  from  6.00  am 
to  9.00  pm  and  the  chicks  usually  produced  a  fecal  sac  at  each  feeding. 
They  were  housed  in  a  ceramic  bowl  lined  with  paper  towels  and  sticks 
and  placed  on  a  heating-pad.  Temperature  on  the  pad  was  maintained  at 
90°  -  95°F  but,  after  three  days,  artificial  heat  no  longer  appeared  neces¬ 
sary,  the  birds  showing  no  discomfort  at  85°F. 

By  4th  July,  the  birds  were  very  vocal  while  feeding,  producing  a  soft 
whistling.  The  eyes  of  the  largest  chicks  were  beginning  to  open  and  the 
wing-quills  had  grown  quite  long.  The  smallest  chick  was  sloughing  skin, 
probably  as  a  result  of  dehydration  in  the  nest,  and  a  light  coating  of 
mineral  oil  was  applied  to  the  bird’s  body.  This  bird  was  inclined  to  be  less 
responsive  than  its  siblings. 

Although  stereotyped  preening  motions  were  noted  the  following  day, 
the  alar  feather-sheaths  had  not  yet  begun  to  rupture,  so  I  carefully  began 
to  expose  the  ends  of  the  feathers. 

Feeding  vocalization  had  now  become  a  soft  whimpering,  and  this  was 
complemented  on  6th  July  with  a  single-syllable  metallic  note.  On  the 
same  day  rudimentary  beak-cleaning  motions  were  observed,  and  wing- 
fluttering  at  times  accompanied  feeding.  Wing-flapping,  as  if  for  excercise, 
was  also  noted.  All  feather  tracts  had  begun  to  erupt  from  the  skin  and  the 
birds  could  apparently  see,  though  their  eyes  were  only  partly  open. 

The  chicks  seemed  thin,  and  Purina  Dog  Chow  was  substituted  for  Cat 
Chow,  the  former  offering  lower  protein,  higher  fat  content.  This  was 
powdered  then  mixed  with  the  Zu/Preem  and  formed  into  pellets  which 
were  dipped  into  water  before  being  fed  with  the  fingers.  Like  the  first 
chick,  the  weight  of  the  growing  feathers  caused  the  wings  to  droop,  but 
no  twisting  was  noted,  and  no  correctional  measures  were  taken. 

The  birds  became  increasingly  active  during  the  days  that  followed  and 
were  soon  capable  of  hopping  out  of  the  nest.  By  11th  July,  the  eyes  of 
the  largest  chick  were  fully  open.  The  capital  feathering  was  still  encased 
in  sheaths.  In  cases  of  weak  feeding  response,  a  quick  but  gentle  tug  on  the 
bill  was  often  found  to  enhance  gaping.  Shortly  before  mid-July,  the 
feeding  responses  of  all  the  chicks  seemed  to  decrease,  particularly  that  of 


126 


WILLIAM  TODD  -  BREEDING  BEECHEY’S  JAY 


BEECHEY’S  JAY  -  Table  of  Weights 

(in  grams) 


Age  in  days 

Chick  1 

Chick  2 

Chick  3 

Chick 

6.12.79 

6.20.80 

6.21-22.80 

6.21-22. 

9 

_ 

_ 

35.4 

10 

- 

37.0 

41.6 

11 

41.8 

47.3 

45.4 

12 

50.6 

51.5 

52.6 

13 

57.1 

58.3 

55.2 

14 

64.4 

61.9 

59.1 

15 

68.7 

68.7 

65.6 

16 

72.1 

73.5 

67.8 

17 

81.5 

77.5 

73.2 

18 

84.0 

84.5 

80.01 

19 

125.0 

90.3 

94.0 

81.1 

20 

- 

97.5 

95.2 

80.2 

21 

- 

99.8 

95.8 

81.4 

22 

127.7  a.m. 

129.7  p.m. 

101.8 

98.5 

80.0 

23 

127.7  a.m. 
133.2  p.m. 

102.1 

95.5 

78.3 

24 

128.8  a.m. 
129.2  p.m. 

99.0 

96.2 

79.9 

25 

127.9  a.m. 
130.5.p.m. 

102.6 

106.9 

82.7 

26 

122.9  a.m. 
128.0  p.m. 

107.5 

113.0 

84.2 

27 

113.3 

111.2 

- 

28 

114.0 

- 

- 

29 

- 

- 

89.2 

30 

- 

126.7 

96.4 

31 

136.6 

136.9 

100.2 

32 

139.2 

- 

- 

33 

- 

- 

106.0 

34 

139.5 

- 

35 

!4o.4 

- 

- 

36 

- 

- 

122.4 

37 

142.2 

120.6 

38 

146  2 

135.0 

124.7 

39 

155.5 

140.0 

122.9 

40 

158.7 

- 

120.0 

41 

- 

- 

122.0 

WILLIAM  TODD  -  BREEDING  BEECHEY’S  JAY 


127 


the  smallest,  and  a  slight  weight  loss  was  detected.  A  drop  of  standard 
infant  vitamins  was  added  to  the  smallest  chick’s  food,  and  by  1 5th  July 
the  bird  had  begun  to  gain  weight  once  more.  As  evident  from  the  table, 
all  the  chicks’  weights  began  to  fluctuate  about  this  time,  but  began  to 
increase  again  within  a  few  days.  Possibly  this  corresponds  to  the  fledgling 
stage  of  parent-raised  birds.  The  first  bathing  attempt  by  one  of  the  chicks 
was  observed  on  16th  July. 

By  22nd  July,  the  birds  had  begun  to  pick  at  food  items  on  a  tray  in 
their  brooder  and  they  were  no  longer  taken  home  at  night.  On  the  fol¬ 
lowing  day,  the  smallest  chick  was  discovered  to  have  a  severely  twisted 
neck.  Vitamin  B-complex  injections  failed  to  bring  about  any  improve¬ 
ment  and  radiographs  were  inconclusive  as  to  the  cause  of  the  deformity. 
The  bird  was  separated  from  the  others  with  which  competition  would 
have  been  impossible.  It  did  not  begin  eating  independently  until  30th 
July,  and  the  nature  of  its  injury  made  flight  impossible.  Finally  it  was 
moved  to  a  more  spacious  cage  with  a  variety  of  perches  and  has,  at  this 
time  of  writing,  made  some  improvement.  Its  nestmates,  now  fully  inde¬ 
pendent  and  adult  size,  have  also  been  moved  to  a  larger  outside  flight. 
Unlike  the  single  chick  raised  the  previous  year,  they  do  not  appear  to  be 
imprinted  on  humans  and  may  perhaps  contribute  to  a  second  generation 
breeding  of  this  attractive  species. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 

Special  mention  should  be  made  of  keepers  Peter  Bauml  and  David  Grubbs  who 
cared  for  the  parent  birds  during  their  successful  breeding.  Scott  McK night  provided 
invaluable  assistance  in  rearing  the  chicks  and  compiling  data.  The  zoo  clinic  staff, 
particularly  Dr.  Gary  Harwell,  provided  excellent  medical  care  for  the  growing 
chicks. 

PRODUCTS  MENTIONED  IN  THE  TEXT: 

Purina  Dog  and  Cat  Chows:  Ralston  Purina  Co.,  General  Offices  Checkerboard 
Square,  St.  Louis,  Missouri  63188. 

Zu/Preem  Bird  of  Prey  Diet:  Riviana  Foods,  Inc.,  Hill’s  Division,  Topeka,  Kansas 
66601. 


128 


BREEDING  OF  THE  RED  AND  YELLOW  BARBET 
AT  THE  DENVER  ZOOLOGICAL  GARDENS 

By  EDWARD  C.  SCHMITT,  (Curator)  and  PAUL  A.  LYVERE  (Keeper  II) 
Denver  Zoological  Gardens 


The  Red  and  Yellow  Barbet  Trachyphonus  erthyrocephalus  is  a  med¬ 
ium  sized  (22.0  cm)  bird.  It  inhabits  semi-arid  bush  country,  favouring  areas 
containing  termite  mounds,  which  when  abandoned,  are  utilized  as  nesting 
sites.  It  is  brightly  coloured  with  yellow  and  red  predominating.  The 
tail,  wings  and  upperparts  are  black  and  heavily  spotted  white.  The  under 
parts  are  mostly  pale  yellow  with  a  small  spotted  black  band  across  the 
chest.  Males  are  distinguished  by  a  fairly  large  black  streak  down  the 
throat,  and  a  solid  black  cap  on  the  head.  The  Red  and  Yellow  Barbet  is 
widely  distributed  in  central  east  Africa. 

History 

In  August  1976  four  birds  were  purchased  from  a  dealer.  These  were 
tentatively  sexed  as  three  males  and  a  female,  based  upon  colour  differen¬ 
tiation.  A  fifth  bird  was  purchased  to  try  to  obtain  an  even  sex  ratio,  one 
of  the  extra  males  being  shipped  to  another  zoo.  The  additional  bird 
turned  out  to  also  be  a  male. 

The  four  birds  were  initially  placed  in  a  small  1.67  m  x  1 .8  m  x  2.3  m 
high  enclosure  in  the  Bird  World.  The  cage  had  a  sand  and  tanbark  mixture 
on  the  floor  and  was  decorated  with  various  plastic  shrubs  and  vines.  A 
wooden  nest  box  25.4  cm  x  25.4  cm  x  35.6  cm  high  with  a  5.0  cm  open¬ 
ing  was  placed  in  an  upper  back  corner  of  the  exhibit.  In  April  of  1977 
courtship  and  attempted  breeding  was  observed  but  nothing  resulted. 
In  July  of  that  year  a  keeper  accidentally  disturbed  the  nest  box  while 
cleaning  the  cage  and  four  eggs  were  discovered.  The  nest  was  abandoned 
and  the  eggs  disappeared  within  a  week  of  the  clutch  being  laid.  It  was 
decided  at  this  time  to  create  a  new  exhibit  for  the  birds  and  provide  them 
with  a  more  suitable  habitat. 

A  fairly  large  exhibit  2.7  m  x  1.5  m  x  3.1  m  high  was  decorated  with  a 
sandy  bottom,  a  large  hollow  log  and  appropriate  rocks  and  shrubs. 
Included  in  the  decorations  was  a  large  fibreglass  termite  mound  con¬ 
structed  by  the  keepers.  The  termite  mound  is  hollow,  being  0.9  m  in 
circumference  and  1.8  m  high  with  a  typical  15.2  cm  x  15.2  cm  x  25.4  cm 
high  wooden  nest  box  installed  directly  behind  the  only  bird  entrance  to 


EDWARD  C.  SCHMITT  -  BREEDING  THE  RED  AND  YELLOW  BARBET  129 


the  mound.  Bird  access  to  the  nest  box  is  through  a  25  cm  long,  6.25  cm 
wide  tunnel.  The  nest  box  top  is  hinged  to  facilitate  observations.  The 
box  was  filled  with  approximately  7.6  cm  of  wood  shavings.  Keeper  access 
to  the  nest  box  is  accomplished  through  a  small  door  located  at  the  back 
of  the  termite  mound.  An  additional  nest  box  was  provided  and  located  on 
top  of  a  hollow  log  out  of  the  public  viewing  area.  The  hollow  log  has  a 
window  cut  in  it,  the  window  being  covered  with  a  red  transparent  plastic, 
hopefully  to  provide  public  viewing  of  the  nest  activities. 

In  early  June  1978  one  of  the  males  died  leaving  2.1.  On  18th  October 
1978,  two  eggs  were  observed  in  the  nest  box  located  in  the  termite 
mound,  and  by  the  21st,  four  eggs  were  present  and  incubation  began.  All 
four  eggs  hatched  on  the  2nd  of  November  and  the  young  fledged  on  the 
30th  of  November. 

The  three  parent  birds  have  nested  successfully  three  times  since  the 
initial  success  and  have  produced  a  total  of  13  chicks.  All  of  the  nestings 
have  taken  place  in  the  termite  mound  except  once  when  the  nest  box 
was  used.  All  chicks  have  been  produced  from  the  termite  mound  nest 
site  and  the  birds  have  never  been  observed  using  the  hollow  log  for 
nesting  purposes. 

Barbets  are  mainly  fruit  eaters  in  the  wild,  feeding  occasionally  on 
small  insects.  Our  diet  consists  of  a  variety  of  chopped  fruit  spread  over  a 
softbill  mix  to  which  a  ground  meat  mixture  is  added.  The  softbill  mix 
consists  of  the  following:  dry  dog  food,  Spanish  peanuts,  high  protein 
baby  cereal,  monkey  chow,  all  ground  to  a  fme  consistency,  to  which 
we  added  ground  carrots,  whole  hard  boiled  eggs,  vitamins,  minerals  and 
grit.  Crickets  and  mealworms  are  offered  on  a  regular  basis  and  are  relished 
by  the  adults. 

Courtship 

Both  males  court  the  female  simultaneously.  They  will  pursue  the 
female  around  the  enclosure,  hopping  from  branch  to  branch  but  never 
alighting  next  to  her.  After  a  period  of  five  to  ten  minutes  a  male  will 
settle  next  to  the  female  and  begin  a  head  bobbing  and  slight  neck  pecking 
courtship.  The  male  will  then  again  settle  next  to  the  female  and  hover 
over  her,  and  start  rubbing  his  throat  over  the  entire  top  surface  of  the 
female’s  head.  This  behaviour  continues  as  the  male  hops  over  the  female 
and  repeats  the  procedure  on  the  other  side.  If  the  female  is  unreceptive 
the  other  male  will  replace  the  original  male  and  continue  courting  until 
the  female  is  receptive  and  mating  takes  place  with  only  one  of  the  males. 
Male  dominance  has  not  been  observed. 


130  EDWARD  C.  SCHMITT  -  BREEDING  THE  RED  AND  YELLOW  BARBET 


The  female  prior  to  and  during  the  courtship  will  be  busy  cleaning  out 
the  nest  box.  She  very  diligently  removes  all  the  larger  pieces  of  wood 
shavings,  with  the  help  of  the  males,  until  a  2.5  cm  layer  of  fme  sawdust 
remains  on  the  nest  box  floor.  At  this  time  mating  and  egg-laying  com¬ 
mence.  The  eggs  are  laid  and  incubated  on  this  fine  sawdust  layer.  We  have 
discovered  that  we  can  artificially  induce  the  courtship  -  laying  process 
simply  by  placing  a  new  layer  of  wood  chips  on  the  bottom  of  the  nest 
box.  Eggs  will  be  laid  within  a  14  day  period  after  the  introduction  of  the 
wood  chips. 

Incubation  and  hatching 

Generally  four  white  eggs  measuring  29.5  mm  x  24  mm  are  laid  in  a 
clutch.  Clutches  have  varied  between  three  and  four  eggs.  The  average  of 
ten  clutches  has  been  3.6  eggs  per  clutch  with  a  typical  pattern  of  a  clutch 
of  four  followed  by  a  clutch  of  three.  Generally  three  to  four  clutches  are 
laid  per  year  with  forced  resting  necessary  to  stop  production.  This  is 
accomplished  by  not  furnishing  wood  chips  in  the  bottom  of  the  nest 
box.  Infertility  has  been  a  problem  resulting  in  55%  (20)  of  the  eggs  laid 
being  infertile.  37%  (13)  of  all  eggs  laid  have  been  hatched  and  reared 
resulting  in  13  chicks,  and  8%  (3)  of  all  eggs  laid  were  fertile  and  failed 
to  hatch. 

Incubation  lasts  13  days  from  the  date  the  last  egg  is  laid,  and  is  accom¬ 
plished  by  both  sexes.  Once  the  chicks  have  hatched  all  adults  share  in 
the  feeding.  As  the  chicks  develop,  the  parents  begin  removing  the  remain¬ 
ing  sawdust  in  the  process  of  cleaning  the  nest.  When  the  chicks  are  ready 
to  fledge  the  bottom  of  the  nest  box  is  completely  bare.  Of  the  13  chicks 
hatched  and  reared  the  sex  ratio  has  been  approximately  3 : 1  in  favour  of 
males,  resulting  in  ten  males  and  only  three  females  being  produced.  This 
however,  corresponds  with  our  observed  courtship  patterns  of  more  than 
one  male  courting  a  single  female.  The  chicks  fledged  in  28  days  and  are 
fully  feathered,  capable  of  flight,  and  the  colour  pattern  established  well 
enough  for  sexing.  All  chicks  are  sexed,  using  the  black  cap  on  the  head 
as  a  determinant,  and  banded  before  leaving  the  nest. 


131 

PROBLEMS  AND  PROGRESS  IN  THE  CAPTIVE  BREEDING  OF 
GREAT  BUSTARDS  Otis  tarda  IN  QUASI-NATURAL  CONDITIONS 

By  N.  J.  COLLAR  and  P.  D.  GORIUP 


The  Great  Bustard  Trust’s  experiment  on  Porton  Down,  Wiltshire, 
England,  is  one  of  several  current  projects  to  breed  the  Great  Bustard 
Otis  tarda  in  captivity  in  Europe,  but  in  two  respects  it  is  unique:  it  is  the 
only  scheme  to  aim  at  reintroduction  long  after  the  birds  have  become 
extinct  as  a  native  breeding  species,  and  it  is  the  only  one  to  keep  its  stock 
in  a  manner  that  approximates  to  conditions  in  the  wild.  In  this  paper  we 
present  the  history  of  the  experiment,  discuss  some  of  the  attendant 
problems  and  their  solutions,  and  report  on  the  progress  achieved  in  the 
first  ten  years. 

1970-  1978 

The  Great  Bustard  Trust  was  founded  in  1970  as  a  private  scheme  by 
the  Hon.  A.  D.  Tryon,  a  Wiltshire  naturalist  who  runs  the  Tryon  Wildlife 
Gallery  in  London.  Stock,  consisting  of  wild-caught,  unfledged  chicks, 
was  acquired  from  Portugal,  and  a  four  hectare  fox-proof  pen  erected  on  a 
wide  expanse  of  remote  and  ancient  grassland  at  Porton  Down,  where 
public  access  is  restricted.  The  chicks  were  quarantined,  acclimatised 
and  allowed  to  grow  to  full  size  at  a  private  bird  collection  before  being 
pinioned  and  released  into  the  pen.  A  hide  was  constructed  from  which  to 
observe  the  birds  and,  although  for  periods  (especially  in  the  summer) 
they  can  be  self-sufficient  in  their  foraging,  food  is  put  out  for  them  in 
feeding  trays  every  afternoon  by  the  local  farmer.  Apart  from  this,  disturb¬ 
ance  at  the  site  is  minimal,  as  it  is  several  kilometres  from  any  human 
habitation.  Under  these  conditions,  the  birds  -  apart  from  one  precocious 
male  (A)  -  soon  lost  any  trust  for  man  that  they  had  acquired  as  chicks, 
and  reverted  to  the  wariness  typical  of  wild  birds.  This  is  considered 
essential,  since  it  is  intended  that  a  proportion  of  the  chicks  should  be 
reared  by  their  parents  in  circumstances  which  as  closely  as  possible 
resemble  those  in  nature,  so  that  the  new  generation  will  behave  (and 
can  be  considered)  as  genuinely  wild  birds.  The  pen  is  situated  near  the 
top  of  a  shallow  slope,  overlooking  a  broad  valley  of  similar  grassland, 
which  is  bordered  by  cereal  farmland.  It  is  in  this  valley  that  a  wild  drove 
is  hoped  to  become  established  when  offspring  are  ultimately  allowed  to 
fly  free  of  the  pen. 


132 


N.J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


Several  disadvantages  arise  as  a  result  of  employing  this  method  of 
keeping,  the  most  crucial  of  which  concerns  the  birds’  welfare.  The  pen  is 
big  enough  for  any  bird  -  but  particularly  the  females  -  to  ‘disappear’  for 
several  days,  and  this  may  cause  anxiety  for  its  safety.  Should  a  bird  die, 
the  fact  need  not  be  immediately  apparent,  and  we  may  thus  miss  the 
opportunity  to  perform  a  post-mortem  examination  of  the  fresh  and  intact 
body.  In  cases  of  injury  or  disease,  it  is  often  impossible  to  give  proper 
treatment  to  the  suffering  individuals,  since  they  cannot  be  caught  without 
causing  considerable  stress  not  only  to  themselves,  but  to  the  whole  stock 
as  well.  The  same  factor  largely  blocks  the  full  implementation  of  plans  to 
improve  sexual  condition.  The  very  fact  that  such  improvement  is  needed 
may  indeed  be  the  result  of  the  birds’  semi-captive  state:  pinioning  is 
generally  recognised  to  decrease  fertility  (mere  wing-clipping  was  dis¬ 
counted  because  it  would  have  entailed  annual  catching  and  handling), 
diet  itself  cannot  be  fully  regulated  and  checked,  the  birds  cannot  be 
driven  into  shelter  at  critical  periods,  and  so  on.  Finally,  of  course,  the 
quasi-natural  conditions  at  Porton  create  exceptional  difficulties  for  us 
when  we  are  attempting  to  guard  and  monitor  nests. 

The  pen  encloses  an  area  of  chalk-based,  herb-rich  Festuca  ovina 
grassland,  grazed  locally  by  rabbits  Oryctolagus  cuniculus.  This  grassland 
has  not  been  ploughed  for  at  least  a  century  (Wells  et  al.  1976),  so  the 
turf  is  very  close  and  highly  developed,  but  we  have  no  indication  that  this 
kind  of  habitat  (which  was  always  scarce)  was  ever  used  by  the  extinct 
British  stock  of  Great  Bustards.  Our  experience  at  Porton  is  certainly  that 
the  dense  sward  of  Festuca  tends  to  be  ignored  as  a  feeding  area  (and 
would  be  entirely  unsuitable  for  nesting),  the  birds  preferring  the  patches 
of  ranker  Helich  to  trichon  grass.  The  Trust  has  experimented  with  vari¬ 
ous  crops  over  the  years  to  diversify  this  habitat.  A  central  area  of  the 
pen  has  been  sown  with  rape  Brassica  napus,  barley  Hordeum  vulgare, 
wheat  Triticum  aestivum,  oats  Avena  sativa,  and  a  leguminous  mixture. 
These  all  failed,  largely  because  of  the  poor  quality  of  the  flinty  soil,  and 
through  grazing  by  pigeons,  corvids,  rabbits  and  the  bustards  themselves. 
Nevertheless,  the  tilling  of  the  soil  has  produced  a  succession  of  taller 
weeds  and  grasses  which  is  clearly  attractive  to  the  birds  as  a  source  of 
food  and  cover,  since  a  great  proportion  of  their  time  is  now  spent  fre¬ 
quenting  this  area. 

From  the  autumn  of  1977,  following  research  by  NJC  (Trust  Officer 
1975  -  1978),  now  being  continued  by  PDG,  measures  were  taken  to 
improve  management  of  the  birds  and  the  pen  (see  Figure  1).  First,  a  part 
of  the  tilled  central  area  (the  ‘central  plot’),  measuring  0.22  ha,  was  fenced 


in  pen,  with  feeder,  at  Porton  Down,  summer  1979. 


Embryo  of  Great  Bustard  -  the  Trust’s  first  The  Trust’s  first  chick  at  one  day  old, 

fertile  egg,  10th  June,  1979.  29th  June  1979  (late  p.m.) 


N.J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


133 


off  against  rabbits  and  the  bustards,  and  successfully  sown  for  the  1978 
season  with  a  mixture  of  legumes  and  mustard  Sinapis  alba.  Small  ‘pop- 
holes’,  big  enough  for  only  female  bustards  to  get  through,  were  posi¬ 
tioned  along  the  fencing,  so  that  if  any  breeding  activity  took  place,  the 
holes  could  be  opened  and  the  females  would  be  able  to  move  into  the 
central  plot  to  be  free  of  males  and  have  a  good  cover  of  nutritious  vege¬ 
tation  in  which  to  make  their  nests.  The  second  step  taken  was  to  con¬ 
struct  a  dividing  fence  across  the  centre  of  the  pen  and  to  separate  the 
sexes.  This  was  done  in  response  to  the  exceptionally  disappointing 
results  of  the  very  rainy  1978  spring,  when  all  four  males  signally  failed, 
despite  their  ages  (V  eight  years,  A,  H  and  R  six  years),  to  give  any  true 
display,  and  when  the  females  appeared  to  be  at  risk  from  a  debilitating 
stiffness  of  the  leg-joints  (which  was  affecting  one  bird  and  had  already 
preceded  the  deaths  in  the  1977  -  78  winter  of  two  others)  and  were  not 
being  allowed  near  the  feeders  by  the  males.  Separation  of  the  sexes  pro¬ 
vided  the  opportunity  (1)  to  ensure  that  the  females  obtained  sufficient 
food  (quality  and  quantity  increased  in  late  autumn,  winter  and  early 
spring  and  consisting  of  grain,  a  commercial  zoo-feed  for  omnivores, 
cabbage  and  young  rats),  not  only  to  recover  normal  fitness  but  to  come 
into  full  breeding  condition  in  due  course;  (2)  to  supply  doses  of  methyl- 
testosterone  to  the  males  (see  below)  without  the  risk  that  any  might 
be  taken  by  the  females;  and  (3)  to  simulate  conditions  found  in  wild 
populations,  where  males  and  females  tend  to  form  single-sex  flocks 
throughout  the  year.  This  last  consideration  was  reinforced  by  the  know¬ 
ledge  that  birds  of  certain  species  if  reared  and  kept  together  never  develop 
sexual  behaviour  towards  each  other. 

1979 

At  the  start  of  the  1979  season,  the  Trust  held  four  males  (nine,  seven, 
seven  and  seven  years  old)  and  four  females  (three  of  seven  and  one  of 
unknown  age  since  she  was  obtained  as  a  wild  vagrant  -  see  Dennis  1970). 
For  eight  years,  our  stock  had  lived  amicably  together  with  no  real  indi¬ 
cation  of  any  form  of  breeding  activity:  no  courtship,  no  display,  and 
apparently  (from  searches  made  after  each  spring)  no  scrapes.  The  situ¬ 
ation  was  clearly  unsatisfactory,  and  it  was  decided  to  attempt  to  boost 
sexual  activity  in  the  males  by  the  use  of  artificial  treatment. 

We  considered  three  types  of  treatment.  First,  chorionic  gonadotrophin 
could  be  used  to  stimulate  the  natural  production  of  testosterone,  and  is 
effective  in  improving  libido  in  birds  without  depressing  fertility.  It  must, 
however,  be  administered  by  injection,  and  for  best  results  requires  repe- 


134 


N.  J.  COLLAR  AND  P.  D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


tition  twice  a  week  for  several  weeks.  Second,  male  sex  hormone  (manu¬ 
factured  as  methyltestosterone)  could  be  administered  orally.  Third,  a 
small  25  mg  pellet  of  testosterone  could  be  implanted  under  the  skin  of 
the  neck  for  slow,  steady  release  into  the  body  over  a  period  of  some  sixty 
days.  Both  these  two  last  ought  certainly  to  increase  sex  drive,  but  there 
is  no  guarantee  that  sperm-production  will  be  initiated  or  even  increased, 
and  in  some  instances  use  of  testosterone  may  actually  depress  fertility. 
However,  chorionic  gonadotrophin  had  to  be  ruled  out  because  of  prob¬ 
lems  of  administration.  Use  of  methyltestosterone  was  adopted  for  the 
three  ‘wild’  males  (V,  H  and  R),  while  an  implant  was  given  to  the  tame 
male  (A),  who  could  be  caught  easily  and  without  excessive  stress.  Hor¬ 
monal  treatment  of  the  females  was  not  contemplated,  since  the  male’s 
display  is  probably  at  least  partly  responsible  for  triggering  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  female  reproductive  condition. 

On  10th  February  1979,  A  was  captured  and  implanted;  we  thus  anti¬ 
cipated  the  implant  effect  to  build  up  alongside  his  own  natural  hormone 
increase,  leaving  him  in  strong  condition  by  mid-April.  In  the  course  of 
February  H  jumped  the  dividing  fence,  so  could  not  be  subject  to  the 
treatment  planned  for  V  and  R.  Careful  observation  of  the  feeding  habits 
of  these  two  birds  established  their  regular  pattern  of  feeding,  and  hol- 
lowed-out  zoo-feed  pellets,  each  holding  a  5  mg  methyltestosterone  pill, 
were  positioned  accordingly.  Four  dosed  pellets  were  left  out  every  even¬ 
ing  between  1st  and  27th  March,  the  object  being  to  give  two  to  each 
male.  Male  A  was  fed  by  hand  prior  to  positioning  the  pellets,  to  prevent 
him  wanting  to  eat  them,  but  in  any  case  his  feeding  station  was  well 
away  from  the  other  two  birds’.  The  rate  of  hormonal  intake  by  V  and  R 
was  highly  variable,  despite  these  measures:  sometimes  one  of  them  would 
take  all  four  pellets,  but  more  usually  neither  took  any.  Up  to  the  end  of 
March,  there  were  no  obvious  signs  of  the  hormone  having  any  effect  in 
terms  of  aggression  between  males  or  preliminary  display  activity.  The 
relationship  of  the  birds  was  much  as  it  had  always  been:  A  was  dominant, 
and  was  deferred  to  by  V  (even  though  V  is  the  older  bird),  and  V  was 
dominant  over  R,  refusing  him  room  at  the  feeder;  interestingly,  A  was 
tolerant  of  R,  and  even  let  him  feed  alongside. 

The  position  by  April  1979  stood  as  follows: 

Male  Homione  Dose  (mg)  Administration 


A 

25 

implant 

V 

105 

in  diet 

R 

95 

in  diet 

H 


N.J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


135 


PDG  was  abroad  from  April  to  June,  and  NJC  had  little  time  to  visit 
Porton  during  this  period;  we  rely  here  on  the  Trust’s  log  for  April,  and  on 
the  notes  made  by  Ms.  K.  Fitzherbert,  who  carried  out  detailed  watches  at 
dawn  and  dusk  at  the  pen  for  five  weeks  from  May  to  early  June. 

The  birds  were  allowed  to  rejoin  each  other  on  8th  April,  and  the  first 
displays  by  males  were  recorded  a  week  later.  Apart  from  male  A,  the 
only  other  male  to  show  any  display  was  V;  although  his  performances 
were  complete,  they  were  seen  on  only  eight  occasions  in  five  weeks. 
A’s  displays  were  intensive  and  frequent,  delivered  in  periods  of  5  -  45 
minutes,  within  which  he  displayed  many  times  at  different  sites.  In  the 
course  of  May,  he  gradually  increased  the  mean  length  of  individual  dis¬ 
plays  from  117  to  447  seconds,  and  developed  a  pattern  of  movement 
between  six  regular  and  four  other  sites.  On  his  own  his  displays  were 
generally  short,  stationary  and  non-directional,  but  in  the  close  presence 
of  a  female  they  grew  longer,  and  he  would  direct  them  at  her  by  follow¬ 
ing  her  around;  however,  no  copulation  was  ever  observed.  In  the  last  week 
of  recording  (5th  to  12th  June)  very  little  display  was  seen,  partly  perhaps 
owing  to  poor  weather  conditions.  However,  as  we  later  ascertained,  at 
least  two  females  had  by  this  time  begun  to  nest  and  sit,  and  it  is  probable 
that  the  decline  in  display  activity  was  a  direct  consequence  of  the  change 
in  the  behaviour  of  these  females,  who  would  more  or  less  have  “disap¬ 
peared”. 

Initially,  the  females  showed  no  particular  attachment  to  any  one  spot, 
bui  would  spend  time  sitting  at  various  places  in  the  grass.  For  three  days, 
from  23rd  May,  however,  KF  observed  a  female  that  repeatedly  sat  for 
long  periods  in  the  same  place  near  the  pen’s  outer  fence:  unfortunately 
she  was  disturbed  by  people  disregarding  the  Trust’s  warning  notices,  and 
abandoned  the  site.  In  the  following  week,  two  females  were  seen  to  be 
frequenting  the  central  plot,  and  in  the  first  week  of  June  clearly  began 
sitting  at  particular  spots.  It  is  not  known  if  one  of  these  birds  was  the 
female  that  had  previously  been  disturbed  from  her  site  near  the  fence. 

As  it  was  Trust  policy  to  restrict  all  disturbance  to  the  birds,  not  to 
enter  the  pen  except  to  feed  them,  and  to  hope  that  the  full  breeding 
cycle  would  take  place  there  without  any  intervention,  we  could  not 
expect  to  know  whether  eggs  had  been  laid  until  such  time  as  we  might 
see  a  young  bird  following  its  mother  around.  However,  on  10th  June, 
ADT  spent  the  afternoon  with  a  local  aviculturist,  Mr.  F.  K.  Bromley, 
watching  the  two  sitting  hens.  After  a  time,  one  of  the  birds  stood  up  and 
left  her  presumed  nest  to  feed,  whereupon  a  Rook  Corvus  frugilegus 
flew  down  to  the  spot  and  began  hacking  at  something  on  the  ground. 
ADT  and  FKE  instantly  intervened,  causing  severe  panic  to  all  the  bustards, 


136 


N.J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


and  particularly  to  the  two  females  who  were  trapped  inside  the  central  plot. 

Where  the  rook  had  landed  they  found  a  nest  with  two  eggs,  one  with 
a  large  hole  in  it,  and  at  the  other  site  a  scrape  filled  only  with  egg-shell 
fragments.  It  seemed  probable  that  the  female  would  desert  her  nest  after 
such  a  disturbance,  and  inevitable  that  even  if  she  did  not,  she  would  soon 
lose  her  one  intact  egg.  Gewalt  (1959)  considered  that  “since  the  hen 
bustard  remains  only  a  short  distance  from  the  nest  during  her  break  from 
incubation  .  .  .  crows  .  .  .  can  rarely  have  much  success”  (NJC’s  trans¬ 
lation);  unfortunately,  the  Porton  birds  have  to  live  with  large  numbers  of 
Rooks  coming  to  the  pen  to  take  food  from  the  hoppers  and  are  therefore 
perhaps  too  familiar  with  them  to  regard  them  as  enemies.  However,  even 
wild  cranes  Grus  grus  have  been  known  to  stand  and  watch  while  crows  C 
corone  attacked  their  eggs  (England  1963).  It  was  decided  to  remove  both 
eggs  for  artificial  incubation  in  FKB’s  facilities  some  20  miles  away. 

The  punctured  egg  was  fertile,  as  blood  vessels  could  be  seen  through 
the  hole;  but  after  one  night  in  the  incubator  it  was  removed  as  the  yolk 
had  begun  bubbling  out  from  under  the  seal.  The  embryo  it  contained  was 
in  a  very  early  stage  of  development,  and  indeed  the  degree  of  putre¬ 
faction  in  the  egg  raised  the  suspicion  that  it  might  have  died  in  the  shell 
some  time  before  the  Rook  attacked.  The  egg  was  certainly  small,  measur¬ 
ing  71.8  x  51.1  mm;  the  empty  shell  weighed  11.55  g.  These  dimensions 
agree  exactly  with  captive-laid  non-fertile  eggs  from  Spain  in  the  Oxford 
Museum  (mean  70.2  x  51.9  mm,  1 1.2  g;  n  =  4),  but  very  poorly  with  the 
dimensions  of  wild-laid  eggs  in  the  British  and  Oxford  Museums  (mean 
79.0  x  55.9  mm,  14.7  g;  n  =  122).  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  the  egg’s 
volume  was  insufficient  for  the  embryo  to  survive. 

The  intact  was  not  measured,  to  reduce  handling.  It  was  kept  in  the 
self-turning  incubator  until  a  domestic  hen  turned  reliably  broody  on  13th 
June,  and  was  then  placed  under  her,  together  with  a  similar  sized  dummy 
egg  to  discourage  sitting  too  tightly.  FKB  considered  the  use  of  broody 
hens  preferable  to  mechanical  incubation,  since  in  his  experience  the  latter 
method  produces  a  considerably  lower  hatching  success.  However,  the 
hen  immediately  and  emphatically  rejected  the  egg,  rolling  it  from  the  nest 
and  cracking  it.  After  being  cleaned  and  sealed,  it  was  replaced  in  the 
incubator,  where  it  eventually  began  pipping  at  05.30  on  28th  June  (so  it 
was  almost  certainly  laid,  as  suspected,  during  the  first  week  of  June).  By 
10.30  it  was  chipped  half-way  round,  but  the  chick  seemed  to  be  in  diffi¬ 
culties  and  was  finally  helped  from  the  shell  at  1 1.30  and  placed  in  a  drier. 
The  next  morning,  the  chick  was  moved  to  a  small  rearing-box  with  a  heat 
lamp,  and  fed  on  house  crickets  Acheta  domesticus  with  some  liquid  (milk 
and  water)  and  grit,  largely  in  accordance  with  Gewalt  and  Gewalt  (1966). 


N.  J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


137 


After  a  promising  start,  on  the  morning  of  1st  July  it  began  showing  signs 
of  weakness  in  the  legs,  and,  despite  a  temporary  recovery,  died  during  the 
night  of  2nd  July.  Post-mortem  examination  revealed  the  presence  of 
enteritis  caused  by  Escherichia  coli  bacteria;  and  it  seems  likely  that  this 
disease  developed  as  a  consequence  of  physical  stress,  partly  caused  by 
our  inability  at  that  vital  stage  to  obtain  a  keeper  exclusively  to  look 
after  the  bird  and  answer  its  distress  (‘lost’)  calls,  which  all  bustard  chicks 
immediately  and  repeatedly  give  when  they  lose  sight  and  sound  of  their 
keepers.  The  stress  may  also  have  been  the  result  of  a  difficult  hatching, 
and  we  must  now  establish  the  body  temperature  of  an  adult  bustard  in 
order  to  adjust  the  incubator  accordingly,  since  too  high  a  temperature 
may  cause  hardening  of  the  shell  membranes.  As  a  further  precaution, 
we  would  give  small  doses  of  antibiotic  to  any  future  chicks  from  the  day 
of  hatching  to  ensure  that  E.  coli  bacteria  are  controlled. 

The  death  of  our  first-ever  chick  was  an  unfortunate  event  within  what 
must  still  be  regarded  as  a  very  satisfactory  development.  As  far  as  we  are 
aware,  the  Trust  has  become  only  the  fifth  establishment  experimenting 
with  the  captive  breeding  of  Great  Bustards  to  achieve  fertile  eggs,  the 
others  being  the  Scampston  Aviaries  in  1901  (St.  Quintin  1904),  West 
Berlin  Zoo  in  1962-64  (Gewalt  1964),  East  Berlin  Zoo  in  1972  (Grummt 
1977)  and  Oberweiden,  Austria  in  1975  (R.  Lutkens  in  litt).  We  must 
now  consider  the  measures  to  be  taken  in  future  to  maximise  the  breeding 
chances  of  our  now  reproductive  stock. 

1980  and  beyond 

Apart  from  the  points  made  above  concerning  the  care  of  eggs  and 
chicks,  we  should  increase  our  chances  of  future  successful  breeding  by 
attending  to  the  following  key  issues: 

(a)  libido  of  the  males; 

(b)  condition  of  the  females; 

(c)  availability  of  suitable  nest  sites; 

(d)  development  of  procedures  for  safeguarding  eggs  and  minimising 
foreseeable  risks  to  chicks. 

(a)  Libido  of  the  males 

It  seems  certain  that  the  hormonal  implant  administered  to  A  dramati¬ 
cally  improved  his  display  performance;  V,  who  received  testosterone 
orally,  may  also  have  been  influenced.  R’s  long-standing  subordination  to 
the  other  males  probably  explains  his  lack  of  display,  and  it  is  perhaps 
significant  that  H,  who  received  no  hormone,  gave  no  display  either.  A 


138 


N.J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


will  therefore  receive  another  implant  in  the  coming  season,  and  the  oral 
treatment  via  the  diet  of  the  other  males  may  also  be  repeated,  although 
we  shall  probably  seek  a  more  effective  medium  than  solid  tablets  (e.g.  a 
liquid  in  gelatin  capsules,  to  improve  absorption  of  the  hormone  into  the 
bloodstream). 

(b)  Condition  of  the  females 

Hens  will  only  be  responsive  to  the  males  if  they  are  in  good  health  and 
have  high  reserves  of  energy.  The  best  way  to  achieve  this  is  to  keep  them 
separate  from  the  males  so  that  they  can  have  free  access  to  high-quality 
foodstuffs.  In  addition  it  is  intended  this  autumn  (1979)  to  sow  the 
central  plot  with  winter  rape  to  which  the  females  alone  will  have  access 
and  where  they  can  forage  under  more  natural  conditions. 

(c)  Availability  of  nest  sites 

Studies  in  Portugal  and  elsewhere  indicate  that  great  bustards  favour 
broken-soil  conditions  with  high  cover  for  nesting,  and  that  nesting  density 
is  relatively  low.  To  simulate  these  requirements  at  Porton,  the  rape  in  the 
central  plot  will  be  allowed  to  run  to  seed,  and  two  additional  patches 
will  be  rotovated  close  to  the  hide  and  a  mixed  rough  herbage  of  winter 
barley  and  weeds  encouraged  to  grow  on  them.  Thus  there  will  be  a  set  of 
choices  open  to  the  females:  mature  rape,  rough  cereal  crop,  and  the 
present  close,  rank  turf  surrounding  both.  By  spacing  these  areas  out, 
females  will  have  the  opportunity  to  avoid  each  other. 

(d)  Procedure  with  eggs  and  chicks 

The  danger  constituted  by  the  present  high  density  of  Rooks  frequent¬ 
ing  the  pen  must  be  reduced.  The  attraction  of  food  has  now  been  mini¬ 
mised  by  the  introduction  of  specially  designed  hoppers  that  prevent 
access  to  Rooks  and  other  species  such  as  pheasants  Phasianus  colchicus 
and  Grey  Squirrels  Sciurus  carolinensis.  The  central  plot  has  been  covered 
over  (roof  and  sides)  with  10  cm  mesh  polythene  netting,  to  prevent 
access  by  large  flying  birds  (the  bustards  can  continue  to  enter  by  the 
‘pop-holes’.  To  maximise  breeding  success,  we  have  moreover  to  consider 
the  following  points:  (i)  conditions  at  Porton  probably  do  not  favour  the 
successful  rearing  of  more  than  one  chick  per  year  by  any  one  female; 
(ii)  where  we  can  guarantee  nest  security  against  predation,  nests  should 
as  a  general  rule  be  left  alone,  but  (iii)  we  might  make  it  standard  practice, 
where  no  disturbance  will  be  caused,  to  take  away  a  proportion  of  eggs 
from  each  known  clutch,  first  to  secure  them  against  predation,  desertion, 


gate 


N.J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D,  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS  139 


Fig.  1.  Plan  of  the  Bustard  Pen  at  Port  on 


140 


N.  J.  COLLAR  AND  P.D.  GORIUP  -  GREAT  BUSTARDS 


We  might  therefore  remove  both  eggs  of  two-egg  clutches  and  two  eggs  of 
three-egg  clutches  laid  outside  the  guaranteed  area  (i.e.  the  central  plot), 
substituting  dummy  eggs  that  will  permit  the  female  to  continue  to 
incubate;  when  the  artificially  incubated  eggs  show  signs  of  pipping  in 
the  two-egg  clutches,  one  could  be  replaced  and  both  substituted  eggs 
removed,  so  that  the  female  has  the  chance  to  rear  this  young.  There  are 
further  permutations  which  might  prove  helpful,  but  all  that  we  say  on 
this  topic  is  hypothetical  and  strictly  dependent  on  minimising  risks  of 
disturbance;  this  is  why  alternative  strips  of  cereal  will  be  made  near  the 
hide,  so  that  we  can  observe  when  females  have  left  the  nest  to  feed  and 
then  intervene  quickly  and  safely. 

We  should  like  to  conclude  by  inviting  comments,  ideas  and  advice 
from  anyone  interested  in  the  Trust’s  project,  and  by  asking  any  British 
aviculturalist  who  keeps  any  species  of  bustard  to  write  to  us  with  details. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 

We  are  particularly  grateful  for  the  help  of  Ms  K  Fitzherbert,  Mr.  A.  J.  Parsons 
and  Mr.  A.  Trollope,  who  all  made  their  notes  and  comments  available  to  us. 

REFERENCES:  Dennis,  R.  H.  1970.  Great  bustard  at  Fair  Isle.  Scott.  Birds  6,  171-3. 
England,  M.  D.  1963.  Studies  of  less  familiar  birds.  143.  Crane.  Br.  Birds 
56,  375-7.  Gewalt,  W.  1959.  Die  Grosstrappe.  Wittenberg  Lutherstadt. 

Gewalt,  W.  1964.  The  first  success  in  zoo-breeding  Great  Bustards.  Avic.  Mag.  70, 
218-9. 

Gewalt,  W.  and  Gewalt,  I.  1966.  Uber  Haltung  und  Zucht  der  Grosstrappe  Otis  tarda 
L.  Zool.  Garten  (NF)  32,  265-322. 

Grummt,  W.  1977.  Erfahrung  bei  der  Haltung  und  Zucht  von  Grosstrappen  Otis 
tarda  im  Tierpark  Berlin.  A  II  Nemzetkozi  Tuzokvedelmi  Szimpdzium  Eloadasai,  Sar- 
kadremete,  28-30  September  1976.  Bekescsaba  (69-75). 

St.  Quintin,  W.  H.  1904.  The  Great  Bustard.  Avic.  Mag  2,  188-91. 

Wells,  T.  C.  E.,  Sheail,  J.,  Ball,  D.  F.  and  Ward,  L.  K.  1976.  Ecological  Studies  on  the 
Porton  Ranges:  relationship  between  vegetation,  soils  and  land-use  history.  J.  Ecol. 
64,589-626. 


N.  J.  Collar 


P.  D.  Goriup 


Edward  Grey  Institute  of  Field  Ornithology  c/o  The  Great  Bustard  Trust 


Department  Of  Zoology 
South  Parks  Road 
Oxford  0X1  3 PS 


The  Tryon  Gallery 
41  Dover  Street 
London  W1X3RB 


141 


ST  ELLER’S  JAY  Cyanocitta  stelieri 
By  L,  GIBSON  (Burnaby,  British  Columbia,  Canada.) 

This  handsome  bird  is  scarcely  known  outside  its  natural  range,  which 
is  mainly  the  whole  Pacific  coast  of  North  America.  It  is  found  from 
Alaska  to  as  far  south  as  Nicaragua.  The  further  south  it  goes,  the  higher 
up  it  stays,  so  that  it  is  still  a  bird  of  cool  coniferous  forests,  even  in  the 
tropics. 

These  notes  are  on  the  nominate  race,  and  there  are  at  least  two  other 
types  described.  One  is  a  darker,  slightly  larger  race  on  British  Columbian 
coastal  islands  and  another  is  a  lighter  coloured,  slightly  smaller,  Rocky 
Mountain  race,  distinguished  by  a  white  eyebrow.  There  is  a  fourth  dis¬ 
puted  race. 

One  of  the  larger  jays,  it  weighs  around  145  g.  In  the  book  Ravens, 
Crows ,  Magpies  and  Jays  by  Tony  Ange'll,  Steller’s  Jay  is  listed  at  84.75  g. 
The  weights  in  grams  are  quaintly  given  up  to  four  decimal  places  and  are 
obviously  calculated  from  the  original  ounces.  So  the  Steller’s  weight  of 
three  ounces  is  probably  a  misprint  for  five.  Because  of  this,  I  checked  the 
weights  of  some  corvids  in  my  records.  These  were  as  follows,  with  the 
book’s  figures  in  brackets. 

Pica  pica  -  Magpie  185  (170)  tame  adult. 

Nucifraga  columbiana  -  Clark’s  Nutcracker  127  (113.  4).  This  bird  was 
only  five  to  six  months  old,  so  could  be  expected  to  put  on  some  weight. 

Cyanocorax  yncas  -  Green  Jay  79.5  (99.225).  This  was  an  adult  male  in 
breeding  condition.  The  hen  was  lighter. 

Although  of  course  there  will  be  some  variation  with  circumstances, 
it  would  appear  that  the  weights  in  the  book  were  roughly  measured  with 
insensitive  scales,  to  the  nearest  half  ounce  or  so. 

The  wings,,  tail  and  back  of  the  Steller’s  is  a  beautiful,  darkish  metallic 
blue.  The  rest  of  the  body  is  dark  grey,  being  almost  black  on  the  head 
and  neck  and  lighter  grey  on  the  underside.  In  the  forest,  it  appears  all 
black.  It  has  a  permanent  crest  which  adds  to  its  exotic  appearance  and 
I  have  always  thought  that  it  looks  out  of  place  in  temperate  climates . 
In  the  breeding  season  the  birds  can  be  sexed  from  close  quarters.  The 


142 


L.  GIBSON  -  STELLER’S  JAY 


cock  becomes  very  dark  about  the  head  and  shoulders,  while  the  hen  is 
greyer,  although  both  look  black  from  any  distance.  I  think  the  cock  is 
larger,  but  have  not  checked  on  this  much  as  there  is  not  a  great  incentive 
to  breed  them.  The  birds  have  turquoise  stripes  on  the  forehead,  and 
there  might  be  a  sex  difference  in  these,  as  was  noted  on  the  forehead  of 
C.  yncas.  This  will  be  checked. 

Steller’s  is  a  typical  jay  in  every  way.  At  one  point  1  had  two  other 
species  as  well.  These  were  the  common  Eurasian  G.  glandarius  and  the 
Green  Mexican  C  yncas.  All  three  had  the  same  mannerisms  and  behaviour 
and  they  all  communicated  freely  with  one  another  in  the  same  language. 
I  think  this  shows  a  closer  relationship  than  the  various  generic  classi¬ 
fications  would  suggest. 

A  decade  ago,  these  birds  were  not  too  common  in  the  greater  Van¬ 
couver  area.  They  were  found  in  the  adjacent  forests  above  the  city,  and 
only  showed  up  during  heavy  snow.  For  five  years  1  distributed  orphans 
and  injured  birds  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  my  home,  and  now  these 
jays  are  quite  common  locally. 

At  about  the  same  time  there  was  a  slow  spread  into  the  suburbs 
and  farmlands  from  the  forested  heights.  However,  I  like  to  think  that  the 
local  population  is  mostly  due  to  the  released  birds.  Some  of  these  came 
from  the  S.P.C.A.  and  some  later  from  the  Parks  Department  “Nature 
House”,  which  operates  a  temporary  bird  and  small  animal  rescue  pro¬ 
gramme  in  the  summer.  Lately,  baby  jays  came  to  be  prominent  in  the 
collection.  Perhaps  they  are  just  more  obvious  than  most  other  chicks. 
Robins  are  overwhelmingly  the  commonest  foundlings,  as  there  is  a 
robin’s  nest  in  every  garden.  Steller’s  chicks  are  rather  prone  to  leaving 
(or  falling  from)  the  nest  at  an  early  age.  Then  their  greatest  danger  is 
from  the  hordes  of  cats  that  are  kept  by  the  hordes  of  unimaginative 
suburbanites.  If  cats  were  licenced,  they  would  disappear  overnight. 

Even  although  jays  will  come  to  a  feeding  station,  especially  in  hard 
weather,  they  are  always  wary.  Usually  they  are  in  pairs,  and  one  will  stay 
on  watch  in  a  tree,  while  the  other  eats.  Sometimes  the  food  gatherer  will 
take  food  to  the  watcher,  or  they  will  change  places.  The  throat  is  packed 
first  and  then  the  bill  is  crammed  to  capacity.  Food  is  brought  to  the  nest 
this  way,  and  in  winter  it  is  carried  off  in  this  manner,  and  stored  in 
nooks  and  crannies. 

If  food  is  not  scarce,  as  in  the  summer,  they  content  themselves  by 
carrying  a  large  piece  from  the  feeding  table  to  a  nearby  branch,  where 
the  food  is  held  under  a  foot  and  consumed  at  leisure. 

Their  reserve  about  humans  is  both  their  salvation  and  downfall. 


L.  GIBSON  -  STELLER’S  JAY 


143 


They  usually  persist  in  nesting  high  up,  away  from  people,  and  I  have 
never  seen  a  nest  anywhere  other  than  in  a  conifer.  This  situation  makes 
them  vulnerable  to  their  constant  enemy  and  only  major  predator  -  the 
Common  Crow.  The  crows,  which  themselves  are  too  wary  to  come  down 
much  below  roof  height  in  suburban  areas,  have  no  trouble  in  picking 
off  nestlings  or  eggs  from  the  treetops.  The  jays  are  frustratingly  helpless 
before  the  crows,  and  simply  hop  around  and  make  a  lot  of  noise.  By  con¬ 
trast,  the  robin  T.  migratorius  will  not  hesitate  to  strike  a  crow,  and 
yet  the  robin  is  just  over  half  the  weight  of  a  Steller’s.  Robins  will  viol¬ 
ently  drive  crows  away.  Even  a  humming  bird  chased  a  crow  from  the 
garden  by  buzzing  furiously  round  its  head.  The  crow  had  been  staking 
out  the  hummer’s  nest,  and  they  watch  with  endless  patience  to  locate 
one  nest. 

Across  the  road  are  three  tall  old  conifers,  which  have  now  been  top¬ 
ped  at  about  50-60  feet.  The  original  name  of  the  small  stream  beneath 
them  is  Eagle  Creek,  so  called  by  the  Indians  because  Bald  Eagles  were 
said  to  have  nested  regularly  in  these  trees.  For  five  years  in  a  row,  a  pair 
of  Steller’s  Jays  nested  just  below  the  top  of  one  of  the  trees.  In  that  time 
they  only  succeeded  in  raising  two  chicks,  one  in  each  of  two  seasons. 
Crows  disposed  of  all  the  other  chicks  and  eggs.  Often  the  marauder  was 
just  a  single  crow,  foraging  for  its  own  chicks.  Sometimes  a  pair  came,  and 
on  at  least  one  occasion  a  pair  of  crows  brought  a  juvenile  and  proceeded 
to  stuff  it  with  Steller’s  chicks,  while  the  jays  did  nothing  but  scream. 
These  jays  were  probably  the  same  two  birds  all  the  time  as  they  mate  for 
life,  and  they  were  then  the  only  pair  of  Steller’s  within  miles  of  here. 

In  the  sixth  year,  one  bird  (the  cock)  went  missing  in  the  late  winter. 
Early  in  the  spring,  I  released  three  young  adults,  which  were  found  as 
injured  chicks  the  previous  summer.  One  bird  was  easily  recognisable  by 
the  way  it  stood  with  one  leg  slanting  sideways,  as  it  had  not  been  set  too 
straight  when  it  was  a  chick.  This  scarcely  inconvenienced  the  bird  at  all. 
This  cock  bird  was  the  tamest  of  the  three  which  all  remained  in  the 
vicinity.  They  showed  up  at  ever  lengthening  intervals,  then  two  never 
came  back.  Crooked  leg  (C.L.)  came  back  regularly  and,  especially  when  it 
was  wet,  he  would  shelter  in  his  old  aviary  which  was  left  open  and  sup¬ 
plied  daily  with  food.  In  March  I  began  to  build  a  large  new  aviary,  and 
the  jay  often  sat  on  the  structure  and  I  fed  him  snacks.  A  thick  row  of 
evergreen  Chamaecyparis  formed  one  side  of  the  aviary.  Progress  was 
slow  because  it  rained  a  lot,  and  also  because  I  am  a  slow  builder. 

One  day,  C.L.  showed  up  with  a  companion  trailing  at  a  discreet 
distance.  The  old  wild  hen  was  still  around  and  I  think  it  was  this  bird,  as 


144 


L.  GIBSON  -  STELLER’S  JAY 


there  were  no  others  in  the  area  except  the  released  birds,  all  of  which  I 
could  recognise.  The  new  bird  would  not  come  down  for  food  until  I 
left,  but  it  became  used  to  my  presence  on  the  aviary  beams  and  would 
come  as  close  as  the  far  end  of  the  aviary.  One  day  I  noticed  both  birds 
going  in  and  out  of  a  particular  tree,  just  about  the  height  of  the  aviary 
roof.  Sure  enough,  there  was  a  nest  base  made  in  it.  I  continued  to  slowly 
build  the  aviary  around  them  in  the  evenings  and  weekends,  and  at  the 
same  time  managed  to  watch  the  birds.  The  nest  itself  could  just  be  seen 
from  a  side  window  in  the  house.  A  platform  of  large  twigs  was  laced  to¬ 
gether  with  some  dry  grass.  Then  a  slightly  elliptical  earthen  bowl  was 
built  on  this.  It  contained  about  1000  g.  of  earth  and  was  unlined.  It 
measured  5 Vi  in.  (14  cm)  across  one  way  and  53A  in.  (14.5  cm)  across 
another,  as  it  was  not  quite  round.  The  depth  was  2Vi  in.  (6.5  cm). 
These  are  the  inner  sizes  of  the  bowl.  The  weight  of  earth  is  only  very 
approximate,  as  no  account  was  taken  of  the  moisture  content.  Perhaps 
the  volume  should  have  been  measured. 

I  could  only  positively  identify  C.L.  if  I  saw  him  at  a  convenient  angle, 
but  he  was  definitely  a  cock.  From  limited  viewing,  I  think  the  hen  did 
most  of  the  building  while  the  cock  brought  most  of  the  material.  I 
almost  finished  the  aviary  then  left  it  when  the  birds  were  on  four  eggs. 
The  laying  date  was  not  noted,  but  I  checked  the  hatching  and  fledging 
time.  The  eggs  were  greenish  with  brown  spots.  For  three  weeks,  from 
the  time  the  chicks  hatched,  it  poured  almost  every  day.  The  hen  incu¬ 
bated  steadily  and  the  cock  brought  food.  When  the  chicks  hatched,  this 
system  continued  for  about  a  week,  then  both  parents  went  off  for  food. 
When  the  chicks  were  a  week  old  I  enclosed  the  aviary,  but  a  bit  was  left 
off  the  roof  for  the  birds.  By  the  time  the  chicks  were  eight  days  old, 
it  was  so  wet  that  the  parents  were  getting  waterlogged  going  in  and  out 
of  the  sodden  trees.  They  were  reluctant  to  fly  out  in  the  downpour 
and  were  getting  desperate,  as  the  chicks  were  clamouring  for  food.  I 
had  been  feeding  C.L.  sporadically  until  now  and  he  had  been  taking 
the  food  to  his  mate,  and  later  to  the  chicks.  I  decided  to  close  the  birds 
in  at  this  point,  as  the  nest  was  in  the  aviary  shelter  area.  The  hen  was 
not  too  nervous  about  this  at  all.  She  only  became  disturbed  if  I  appro¬ 
ached  the  nest,  but  I  seldom  did  this  as  it  could  be  seen  from  the  window. 
The  birds  were  given  a  large  bowl  of  soaked  dog  chow  as  a  staple,  with 
leftover  egg  and  bread  from  the  other  aviaries.  This  was  fed  to  the  chicks 
who  thrived  on  it.  The  chicks  were  also  fed  budgie  grit  by  the  parents. 
They  may  also  have  used  eggshell.  Grit  is  used  by  all  my  omniverous 
birds  and  I  would  not  be  surprised  it  it  is  used  universally  by  birds  of 
similar  habits. 


L.  GIBSON  -  STELLER’S  JAY 


145 


At  15  days,  the  nest  was  completely  filled  by  three  chicks,  and  the 
fourth  had  to  sit  on  the  rim  until  they  fledged  at  21-22  days 
(not  necessarily  the  same  chick  of  course).  This  is  probably  why  so  many 
chicks  are  found  prematurely  out  of  the  nest.  When  they  left  the  nest  on 
16th  May,  they  were  all  let  out  of  the  aviary.  The  chicks  could  only  flap 
a  few  feet  and  were  surprisingly  unafraid.  I  could  almost  pick  them  up. 
Obviously  they  learn  their  wariness.  Within  3-4  days  they  could  fly  quite 
well  and  were  just  as  shy  as  wild  birds.  They  then  left  with  the  parents 
and  stayed  in  the  customary  family  group.  The  pair  never  returned  to 
the  nesting  site.  I  do  not  think  that  they  are  normally  double-brooded, 
as  family  groups  can  be  seen  all  summer.  They  will,  of  course,  attempt 
several  nests  if  they  do  not  succeed  in  raising  chicks.  These  groups  are 
a  good  way  of  judging  nesting  success.  Usually  there  are  one  or  two  (or 
no)  chicks,  rarely  three.  I  have  never  seen  four,  although  this  is  the  usual 
clutch  number.  The  family  usually  splits  up  with  the  onset  of  cold  wea¬ 
ther,  and  I  suspect  the  young  then  pair  off  for  the  coming  nesting  season, 
and  indeed  for  life.  One  rarely  sees  a  single  bird,  and  pairs  are  the  rule 
at  winter  feeding  stations. 

Steller’s  Jay  flies  weakly,  with  a  few  wing-beats  followed  by  a  long 
glide.  They  usually  travel  from  tree  to  tree  and  are  reluctant  to  cross 
wide  open  spaces.  If  they  are  forced  to  cross  a  space,  they  never  fly 
above  the  height  of  the  cover  they  are  heading  for.  Twelve  successive 
wing-beats  were  the  most  I  noted,  but  3-5  is  more  usual,  even  in  a  long 
flight. 

Steller’s  in  the  aviary  or  garden  made  exactly  the  same  calls  as  the 
other  two  species  mentioned,  with  an  obvious  “accent”  difference.  All 
three  species  responded  in  the  same  way  to  a  call  made  by  any  one.  The 
common  call  is  the  harsh  repetitive  caw  which  cannot  be  transliterated. 
North  American  bird  watchers  tend  to  anthropomorphise  and  have  a  pen¬ 
chant  for  trying  to  transliterate  all  bird  calls,  and  come  up  with  some 
really  useless  efforts.  The  call  of  the  jay  is  commonly  rendered  as  “shook- 
shook-shook”  which  is  as  bad  an  example  as  any.  The  mating  “song”  is 
a  double  call  like  the  teeth  of  a  comb  being  run  together.  The  first  one  is 
level  and  the  second  one  lower  and  slightly  descending.  This  is  usually 
followed  by  a  metallic  “plink”.  This  “burring”  call  is  usually  recognisable 
in  all  corvids.  The  cock  “burrs”  incessantly  in  spring,  and  the  hen  calls 
too,  but  with  less  persistence.  The  Steller’s  Jay  has  a  beautiful  subsong, 
and  tame  birds  have  sung  for  many  minutes  on  end.  This  cannot  be  heard 
unless  you  are  standing  beside  the  bird.  The  variety  and  tones,  however 
quiet,  compare  with  the  best  avian  songsters. 


146 


L.  GIBSON  -  STELLER’S  JAY 


The  Steller’s  (and  possibly  others)  have  a  wild  loud  babble  which  few 
people  have  heard,  and  is  commonest  in  spring.  I  thought  it  was  a  mating 
call,  until  1  heard  some  young  birds  make  it,  although  it  still  may  be.  It 
is  very  reminiscent  of  a  laughing  thrush.  These  jays  are  excellent  mimics. 
One  day  when  I  came  home  1  got  a  bad  scare  when  I  heard  a  Garrulax 
leucolophus  call  from  a  tree.  Both  thrushes  were  still  in  the  aviary,  and 
the  perfect  call  was  being  made  by  a  tame  three-month  old  Steller’s.  This 
bird  came  and  went  freely,  but  one  day  it  jumped  into  a  shallow  fish 
tank,  and  although  rescued,  it  died  from  exhaustion  or  chilling.  It  was 
not  known  how  long  it  was  in  the  water,  but  was  found  swimming  along 
with  its  wings,  and  its  feet  could  almost  touch  the  bottom. 

At  first  it  was  thought  that  it  jumped  in  after  goldfish  fry,  but  at  least 
two  other  drownings  of  Steller’s  chicks  were  noted,  and  in  one  case  the 
bird  went  to  great  lengths  to  squeeze  under  some  safety  netting,  and 
drowned  in  a  fish  pond.  They  seem  to  have  a  fatal  attraction  to  water. 

Although  fledglings  make  excellent  tame  pets,  every  bird  that  was 
released  gradually  reverted  to  the  wild.  This  was  probably  helped  by 
wild  birds  with  which  they  inevitably  teamed  up.  If  over  four  weeks 
old,  they  won’t  tame. 

The  Steller’s  is  very  unaggressive  for  a  jay  and  I  have  kept  a  variety  of 
smaller  birds  with  them.  Although  reported  as  nest  robbers,  they  are  not 
troublesome  around  this  area.  In  fact  it  is  the  only  large  bird  kept  here 
that  has  not  caused  any  trouble  for  smaller  cage  mates.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  will  fight  if  pushed,  and  I  once  had  to  rescue  a  young  one  from  five 
White -crested  Garrulax.  Two  were  under  the  jay  and  three  on  top.  Like 
other  jays  it  eats  anything,  and,  as  noted,  will  feed  the  chicks  on  non-live 
food.  Vegetable  material  forms  a  large  part  of  the  natural  diet,  and  even 
fledglings  are  fed  a  good  deal  on  this.  One  25-day  old  chick  was  seen  to 
feed  a  17-day  old  chick.  These  babies  were  in  wjth  the  Mexican  jays, 
from  which  there  was  no  response,  other  than  curiosity,  to  the  begging 
chick. 

They  are  rather  hard  on  aviary  plants,  and  are  prone  to  peeling  off 
green  bark,,  otherwise  they  are  very  easy  to  cater  for.  They  bathe  freq¬ 
uently,  like  all  my  other  softbills.  They  will  occasionally  stab  the  perch 
hard  as  do  other  jays.  The  Yncas  did  this  much  more  frequently  than  the 
Steller’s.  I  think  this  is  more  an  expression  of  nervousness  than  aggression. 

There  are  now  at  least  six  resident  pairs  of  Steller’s  Jays  in  this  area, 
which  is  well  wooded  with  stands  of  tall  conifers.  Probably  six  of  these 
are  released  birds.  A  further  seven  chicks  were  saved  in  1979  and  five 
were  successfully  rehabilitated.  Two  others  with  badly  set  wings  are  in 


147 


the  zoo  -  in  the  same  cage  as  my  Arrow  Babblers. 

When  I  checked  in  at  the  rescue  centre  in  the  summer,  it  was  with 
mixed  feelings  that  I  heard  the  bird  lady,  Miss  Chandler,  say  “Nothing 
unusual  today;  only  three  robins  and  a  Steller’s”. 


OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  DISPLAY  OF  THE 
BLUE-TAILED  EMERALD  Chlorostilbon  mellisugus 

By  R.  J.  ELGAR  (Manchester) 


The  Blue-tailed  Emerald  is  a  small  humming  bird  being  under  3  inches 
in  total  length  and  an  average  weight  of  only  three  grammes.  With  this 
wide  ranging  species  there  are  noticeable  variations  in  plumage  and  bill 
colour  of  both  male  and  female.  The  pair  I  have  observed  originated  from 
Ecuador. 

Description: 

Male:  All  underparts  glittering  emerald  green,  forehead,  crown  and  lores 
glittering  golden  green.  All  other  upper  plumage  including  lesser  middle 
and  greater  wing-coverts  shining  bronze  green,  tail  steel  blue  and  slightly 
forked.  Femoral,  feathers  dark  grey,  bill,  feet  and  claws  black. 

Female:  All  underparts  pale  grey;  all  upper  plumage  shining  green,  bronze 
green  on  forehead  and  crown,  black  band  across  ear-coverts  bordered 
above  by  pale  grey  streak  behind  eye.  Femoral  feathers  white.  Tail  is  blue- 
black  tipped  pale  grey,  bill,  feet  and  claws  black. 

The 


148 


R.  J.  ELGAR  -  BLUE-TAILED  EMERALD 


The  Blue-tailed  Emerald  ranges  from  Costa  Rica,  south  to  Colombia, 
west  Ecuador,  Peru  and  Bolivia,  through  the  Amazon  Valley  to  Aruba 
and  Trinidad  where  it  inhabits  the  tropical  to  sub-tropical  zones,  from  sea 
level  to  an  altitude  of  8,500  feet,  preferring  open  areas  and  the  edges  of 
deciduous  woodlands,  hedgerows,  open  savanas  and  cultivated  areas.  It 
regularly  visits  town  gardens  feeding  from  flowers  and  ornamental  hedges. 

The  pair  observed  were  housed  indoors  in  a  small  flight  84  inches 
long,  36  inches  high  and  18  inches  wide.  They  spent  most  of  the  day  at 
opposite  ends  using  separate  nectar  tubes,  but  roosted  together  at  night. 
Once  both  Emeralds  completed  their  moult  the  male  began  displaying 
regularly  to  the  female.  Although  at  times  he  was  very  persistent  he  was 
never  aggressive,  so  the  female  could  cope  with  his  attention  without 
getting  stressed. 

I  have  divided  the  display  into  four  phases. 

1.  The  male,  usually  singing  on  his  resting  perch  will  cease  singing,  become 
tight  feathered  and  make  several  agitated  movements  from  side  to  side 
while  still  perched.  He  will  then  take  flight  making  several  passes  over  the 
female.  He  will  then  take  up  position  in  front  of  her  (see  pos.  A)  approxi¬ 
mately  ten  inches  and  slightly  below  her.  Continually  uttering  a  buzzing 
song  he  will  slowly  advance  till  almost  touching  her  then  quickly  revert 
to  his  starting  position  in  front  of  her.  He  makes  rapid  arc  shaped  move¬ 
ments  from  side  to  side  taking  position  in  front  of  her  once  more.  If  the 
female  remains  perched  the  male  will  go  into  phase  two. 

2.  This  consists  of  the  male  hovering  in  front  of  her  as  in  phase  one  but 
instead  of  making  the  arc  shaped  flight  he  will  fly  completely  over  her 
before  presenting  himself  in  front  of  her  once  more.  The  male  will  do  this 
circular  flight  between  one  and  three  times  during  the  display,  taking  it 
into  phase  three. 

3.  The  male  takes  up  the  frontal  position  then  flies  over  the  female 
in  the  circular  movement  but  instead  of  arriving  in  front  of  her  he  will  take 
hold  of  her  vent  feathers  (see  Pos.  B)  -  singing  continually.  This  usually 
makes  the  female  take  flight,  though  if  she  still  remains  passive  the  male  will 
release  his  hold  on  her,  taking  up  position  A.  once  more. 

4.  In  the  last  phase  instead  of  a  circular  flight  or  vent  pecking  he  reverts 
back  to  phase  one,  but  then  flies  over  the  female  and  copulates.  If  the 
female  is  willing  this  is  usually  indicated  by  the  female  vibrating  her  wings. 
The  whole  of  the  display  only  takes  a  matter  of  seconds.  If  the  female  is 
not  receptive  to  the  male’s  attention  she  will  usually  take  flight  during 
any  part  of  the  display. 


R.  J.  ELGAR  -  BLUE-TAILED  EMERALD 


149 


DISPLAY  AND  .mjmi6  OF  THE 

BLUE -TAILED  EA/\ERAL  D  HU/AM/N^  -  B/RD 
(chlorost/l  bon  mell/surus) 


150 


R.  J.  ELGAR  -  BLUE-TAILED  EMERALD 


Summary: 

It  is  not  until  after  the  completion  of  their  moult  that  captive 
humming  birds  start  displaying  regularly.  The  male  humming  bird  is 
usually  the  instigator  of  the  display  -  though  it  is  not  unusual  for  a 
female  in  breeding  condition  to  fly  over  to  the  male  and  persuade  him  to 
start  displaying. 

I  found  the  Emerald  to  be  tolerant  of  each  other  and  the  male  only 
used  his  display  to  that  purpose  and  not  for  aggression. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Meyer  de  Schauensee,  R.  1964.  The  Birds  of  Colombia.  Wynnewood. 

Meyer  De  Schauensee  and  Phelps,  W.  H.  1978.  A  Guide  to  the  Birds  of  Ven- 
zuela.  Princton. 

Peters,  J.  L.  1945.  Check-list  of  Birds  of  the  World  Vol.  V.  Cambridge. 

Westmore,  A.  1968.  The  Birds  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  Vol.  II.  Washington. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 


David  Alker  who  produced  from  my  rough  sketches  on  the  display  of  the  Blue-tailed 
Emeralds  the  fine  pen  and  ink  drawings  that  complement  this  article. 


151 


PERSONAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON  STOCK  DOVES 
By  DEREK  GOODWIN  (Herne  Hill,  London) 


Introduction 

Of  the  five  species  of  pigeons  that  now  occur  in  Britain,  the  Stock  Dove 
Columba  oenas  is  the  one  least  known  to  the  general  public.  I  think  this  is 
mostly  due  to  the  fact  that,  although  smaller  than  either,  the  Stock  Dove 
is  in  some  respects  oddly  intermediate  between  the  Wood  Pigeon  and  the 
Rock  Pigeon  (and  its  feral  descendents).  Though  smaller  in  size,  its  color¬ 
ation  is  very  much  what  one  would  expect  to  get  in  a  hybrid  between 
Rock  Pigeon  and  Wood  Pigeon,  while  in  its  habits  it  is  in  some  respects 
intermediate  also. 

Those  of  my  readers  who  are  familiar  with  the  bird  can  skip  this  bit, 
but  for  those  who  are  not,  I  will  briefly  describe  it.  A  little  smaller  than 
a  Rock  Pigeon,  or  feral  pigeon  of  dovecote  pigeon  ancestry,  and  appre¬ 
ciably  smaller  than  a  racing  pigeon  or  Wood  Pigeon.  It  resembles  a  Rock 
or  feral  pigeon  in  shape  but  is  a  little  more  compact,  its  wings  are  pro¬ 
portionately  a  shade  shorter  and  its  tail  longer  than  a  Rock  Pigeons  but 
nearer  to  that  bird  in  proportions  than  to  a  Wood  Pigeon.  Its  general 
coloration  is  a  slightly  darker  and  bluer  grey  than  a  Wood  Pigeon’s. 
There  is  a  paler  grey  central  area  to  the  wing  which  is  not  noticeable  when 
the  wings  are  folded  and  not  very  noticeable  if  one  spreads  a  Stock  Dove’s 
wing  in  one’s  hand  yet,  when  the  bird  is  in  flight  at  a  little  distance,  this 
pale  central  area  is  very  conspicuous  and,  contrasting  strongly  with  the 
black  ends  of  the  primaries  and  secondaries,  forms  a  good  field  character. 
Two  short  black  bars  (see  sketches)  cross  the  upper  parts  of  the  folded 
wings.  There  is  a  shining  green  and  mauve  patch  either  side  of  the  neck. 
The  breast  is  mauve-pink  but  not  so  extensively  so  as  in  the  wood  Pigeon. 
The  tail  is  similar  (but  not  identical)  in  pattern  to  that  of  a  Rock  Pigeon 
or  blue  feral  pigeon.  The  bill  is  yellowish  or  dull  white  with  a  pink  base 
and  powdery  white  cere  but  looks  entirely  pinkish  at  a  little  distance.  The 
irides  are  very  dark  brown  so  that  the  eye  appears  black  and  lustrous  and 
gives  the  bird  a  gentle  expression  which  rather  belies  it. 

As  I  have  dealt  in  previous  works  (Goodwin  1955  and  1970)with  its 
ecology  and  habits,  I  shall  here  just  briefly  recapitulate  except  for  certain 
aspects  not  or  not  so  fully  dealt  with  before.  The  Stock  Dove  feeds  almost 
entirely  on  the  ground,  taking  mainly  seeds  of  various  wild  plants.  Among 
the  seeds  it  takes  in  quantity  are  many  that  are  considered  weeds  of  culti- 


152 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


vation  such  as  Sinapsis,  Brassica,  Polygonum,  Stellaria,  Chenopodium  and 
especially  those  of  vetches  Vicia  when  available.  It  also  takes  cultivated 
grains  and  pulses  but  as  it  does  not  alight  on  growing  plants  nor  dig  deeply, 
it  probably  does  little  if  any  harm  to  man’s  interest.  This  has  not  pre¬ 
vented  it  from  being  clased  as  “vermin”  in  Britain  and  placed  on  the 
“black  list”,  along  with,  among  others,  all  its  congeners  and  the  rather 
uncommon  and  beautiful  Goosander  Mergus  merganser. 

The  Stock  Dove  nests  in  holes  in  trees,  sea  or  inland  cliffs  and  old 
buildings.  I  shall  discuss  further  some  aspects  of  its  nesting  habits  and 
of  possible  competition  with  other  hole  nesters.  Like  other  hole  nesting 
birds  it  has  suffered  from  the  continually  increasing  destruction  of  old 
trees  and  plastering  up  of  the  holes  in  live  ones.  This  is  done  not  only 
by  forestry  interests  but  also,  less  justifiably,  by  tidy-minded  councils 
and  other  busybodies  whose  idea  of  natural  beauty  does  not  apparently 
extend  further  than  a  close-mown  official  lawn  (no  playing  on  it,  no 
treading  on  it,  no  lying  on  it)  with  an  exotic  tree  planted  at  one  end  of 
it  and  a  geometrical  bed  of  flowers  (new  monthly  at  the  taxpayer’s  ex¬ 
pense)  at  the  other.  It  is,  I  believe,  because  of  this  ever  increasing  de¬ 
struction  of  so  many  of  its  nesting  sites  that  the  Stock  Dove,  although 
it  to  some  extent  recovered  from  its  population  “crash”  of  20  years  ago, 
is  nothing  like  as  numerous  as  it  was  when  I  was  a  boy  and  has  now  gone 
from  some  areas  where  it  was  found  even  about  six  years  or  so  ago. 

When  it  cannot  find  a  hole  to  nest  in,  the  Stock  Dove  will  make  do 
with  the  old  nests  of  Wood  Pigeons  or  other  birds,  masses  of  debris  in 
trees  or  (so  it  is  said  but  I  have  never  seen  a  nest  in  such  a  place)  with  the 
ground  under  thick  bushes.  It  is  likely  that  such  sites  are  less  successful 
thn  hole  nests.  Other  and  often  overlooked  side  effects  of  the  present 
day  shortage  of  nesting  holes  for  many  birds  are  increased  competition 
for  such  holes  as  there  are  and  (because  there  are  fewer  for  them  to  search 
in  vain)  the  greater  likelihood  of  predators  robbing  the  nest.  Of  these 
latter  the  Tawny  Owl  Strix  aluco  and  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  also 
the  Beech  Marten  Martes  foina  sometimes  catch  and  kill  the  hen  Stock 
Dove  at  night  in  her  nest  hole. 

Avicultural  Recollections 

From  the  age  of  12  to  the  age  of  16,  the  Stock  Dove  was  to  me  some¬ 
thing  of  a  mystery  bird.  It  was  common  enough;  indeed  in  the  1930’s  it 
was  much  commoner  in  many  parts  of  Surrey  and  Middlesex  (and  pro¬ 
bably  elsewhere)  that  it  is  now.  Flocks  of  up  to  100  or  more  could  often 
be  seen  in  the  fields  near  our  house.  Yet  neither  I,  nor  any  of  my  bird- 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


153 


nesting  contemporaries,  had  ever  found  a  Stock  Dove’s  nest.  I  knew  from 
my  bird  books  what  sort  of  nesting  sites  the  Stock  Dove  chose  but  they 
seemed  never  to  have  chosen  those  that  I  climbed  to!  Once,  indeed, 
climbing  with  difficulty  up  a  gnarled  old  oak,  I  heard  a  pigeon  fly  out 
from  a  hollow  just  above  me.  Never  having  been  close  to  a  Stock  Dove  I 
did  not  then  know  its  distinctive  light  and  whistling  wing  sound,  could 
not  look  up  because  all  my  efforts  had  to  be  momentarily  devoted  to 
keeping  my  footing  and  handage,  but  my  heart  leapt  with  excitement 
as  I  felt  sure  that  my  long  held  ambition  to  find  a  Stock  Dove’s  nest  had 
at  last  been  fulfilled.  Alas!  to  my  bitter  disappointment,  the  two  squabs 
in  the  large  and  rather  “open”  hollow  were  not  the  never-yet-seen  and 
long-hoped-for  young  of  Columba  oenas  but  the  familiar  young  of  the 
Wood  Pigeon  C  palumbus.  None  of  my  books  had  told  me  that  the  Wood 
Pigeon  sometimes  nests  in  hollows  in  trees  nor  had  I  ever  found  it  doing 
so  before  but  I  was  not  at  the  time  at  all  pleased  with  my“new”  discovery. 

Then,  in  June  1936,  some  four  months  after  my  16th  birthday,  things 
changed.  A  lad  of  my  age,  whom  I  knew,  had  found  the  nest  of  a  Tawny 
Owl  earlier  in  the  year  in  a  large  hole  in  an  ancient  and  enormous  conifer. 
He  was  a  practical  lad  who  classed  such  wildlife  as  came  into  his  hands  in 
one  of  three  categories:  creatures  that  could  be  eaten  by  himself  or  his 
family;  creatures  that,  although  not  regarded  as  edible  to  humans,  could  be 
fed  to  his  ferrets;  and  (best  of  all  in  his  view)  creatures  that  could  be  sold, 
if  only  at  very  low  prices,  to  his  schoolmates.  The  three  young  Tawny 
Owls  had  come  into  this  latter  category  so  taken  and  sold  they  had  been. 

I  was  at  that  time  looked  upon  as  something  of  a  local  bird  expert 
by  those  who  knew  me,  an  honour  due  more  to  their  ignorance  than  to  my 
knowledge.  Hence,  about  two  weeks  after  the  young  owls  had  been  sold, 
their  seller  called  on  me  one  day  with  an  excited  query.  He  had  re-visited 
the  Tawny  Owl’s  late  nesting  hole  and  to  his  surprise,  a  pigeon  such  as 
he  had  never  seen  before,  had  flown  off  two  eggs  therein.  It  had  perched 
on  a  bough  quite  near  and  he  had  had  a  good  view  of  it  (it  did  the  same 
when  I  visited  the  nest,  the  only  wild  Stock  Dove  I  have  ever  known  to 
behave  in  such  a  manner),  it  was  not  a  “woody”  C.  palumbus  nor  an 
“ordinary”  C  livia  ...  By  this  time  my  heart  was  fairly  thumping  with  a 
heady  mixture  of  excitement  and  envy.  I  knew  what  he  had  found  even 
before  he  went  on  to  describe  his  mystery  pigeon  as  “like  a  little  blue-bar 
but  with  short  bars  and  a  pale  beak”. 

A  few  days  later  we  visited  the  nest  together  and,  when  the  bird  again 
perched  near  on  being  flushed,  I  had  my  first  close  view  of  a  Stock  Dove. 
How  I  lusted  after  the  as  yet  unhatched  squabs!  In  our  youthful  sub- 


154 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


culture,  the  contents  of  any  bird’s  nest  was  held  to  belong  absolutely  and 
irrevocably  to  the  boy  who  first  found  it,  so  I  had  to  bargain  with  my 
companion.  He  drove  a  hard  bargain  but  never  profited  from  it  for,  on  our 
next  visit,  we  found  the  Stock  Dove’s  eggs  gone  and  a  great  deal  of 
plumage  from  one  of  the  parents  in  their  place.  Presumably  one  of  the 
pairs  of  bereaved  Tawny  Owls  had  come  at  night,  caught  the  female 
Stock  Dove  on  the  nest  and  probably,  something  else,  attracted  by  the 
feathers,  had  investigated  and  taken  the  eggs. 

However,  disappointing  as  this  was,  the  curse  of  the  unfindability  of 
Stock  Doves’  nests  had  evidently  been  lifted.  A  week  or  so  later,  when 
I  was  walking  at  the  edge  of  a  wood,  a  Stock  Dove  flew  from  a  hole 
low  in  a  beech  tree  at  the  side  of  the  path.  It  was  a  hole  well  known  to 
me,  one  that  for  many  years  had  “never  been  any  good”.  Now,  when  I 
investigated  it,  I  found  a  young  Stock  Dove  just  beginning  to  “feather”; 
the  ideal  age  to  take  for  hand-rearing.  My  first  feeling  was  of  sheer  ecstasy, 
my  second  tinged  it  with  regret  that  there  was  only  one  squab  instead  of 
the  more  usual  two.  Home  with  my  prize,  I  took  a  blue  chequer  domestic 
pigeon  a  little  (but  not  much)  older  than  the  Stock  Dove,  to  keep  it  warm 
enough  and  because  two  young  birds  are  usually  easier  to  rear  and  thrive 
better  than  one,  and  put  them  together.  I  have  described  before  (Goodwin 
1955)  the  methods  I  used  to  handrear  young  wild  (and  domestic)  pigeons 
so  will  not  repeat  them  here. 

Nor  was  this  Stock  Dove  long  the  only  one  of  its  kind  in  my  possession. 
By  the  time  it  was  fully  feathered,  I  had  two  more.  Obtaining  them  was  a 
piquant  adventure  or  criminal  effrontery  according  to  how  you  look  at  it. 
About  two  miles  from  my  home  was  the  country  seat  of  a  nobleman 
(actually  one  interested  in  ornithology,  now  unfortunately  dead,  who  was 
amused  when  I  “confessed”  this  “robbery”  to  him,  very  many  years 
after  it  occured).  At  the  back  of  the  house,  in  front  of  a  sort  of  enormous 
conservatory-cum-lounge  or  something,  lawns  ran  down  to  an  ornamental 
pond  on  the  other  side  of  which  was  an  old  walnut  tree.  Now  whatever 
may  be  the  case  with  women  and  dogs,  walnut  trees  are  never  better  (at 
least  for  the  would-be  Stock  Dove  keeper)  than  when  they  have  been  long 
left  alone  to  suffer  the  manifold  ills  which  trees  of  their  kind  are  heir  to 
and  which  result  in  the  development  of  a  profusion  of  holes,  hollows  and 
crannies  unsurpassed  by  any  other  trees  except  the  Australian  eucalyptus. 
This  walnut  tree  had  long  been  left  to  its  own  devices  and  diseases; 
though  I  had  never  seen  it  from  nearer  than  the  public  road  that  ran  past 
about  200  yards  or  more  away.,  it  “looked  good”  even  from  that  distance. 
Anyway,  to  get  to  the  meat  of  the  matter,  one  day,  soon  after  getting  my 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


155 


one  young  squab,  I  was  cycling  along  this  road  when  I  saw  a  Stock  Dove 
fly  out  of  the  walnut  tree.  Somehow  I  knew  that  it  had  been  there  to  feed 
nestlings  in  one  of  the  hollows.  It  was  one  of  the  very  few  times  in  my  life 
when  I  have  felt  a  sort  of  sixth  sense.  There  could  have  been  many  other 
reasons  for  a  Stock  Dove  flying  out  of  the  tree  at  that  particular  moment 
and  I  was  quite  aware  of  this.  The  rational  part  of  my  brain  told  me  I 
was  being  a  fool,  wishful  thinking  etc.  etc.,  but  to  no  avail;  I  knew  there 
were  young  Stock  Doves  somewhere  in  the  walnut  tree. 

How  to  get  them?  Trespass  by  daylight  was  just  not  on,  the  tree’s 
position  made  discovery  almost  certain.  Especially  as  I  did  not  know 
how  many  holes  there  were  in  it  or  where  they  were  and  should  have  to 
find  and  explore  them  all.  But  by  night?  Was  that  possible?  I  decided, 
with  help,  it  might  be.  The  next  day  I  was  going  to  the  theatre  with  a 
friend  a  few  years  older  than  me.  In  these  days,  when  even  “well-to-do” 
people  have  to  think  twice  about  a  once-yearly  theatre  visit,  that  may 
sound  as  if  I  was  a  very  wealthy  young  man.  Far  from  it,  at  that  time  I 
earned  £1  a  week  but  it  bought  considerably  more  than  £50  a  week  would 
today.  I  suggested  to  my  friend  that,  with  his  help,  I  could  go  and  try 
to  get  the  young  Stock  Doves  that  night  after  we  had  returned  from  the 
theatre.  He,  very  reasonably,  doubted  the  likelihood  of  there  being  any 
Stock  Doves  in  the  tree  or  of  my  being  able  to  find  them  in  the  dark  if 
there  were,  nor  did  he  much  like  the  whole  unlawful  project.  However, 
a  joint  appeal  to  his  better  nature  (  couldn’t  do  it  without  his  help)  and 
his  pride  (was  he  scared?)  suceeded  and  he  promised  to  accompany  me, 
only  stipulating  that  I  must  climb  the  tree. 

I  was  myself  (though  I  did  not  admit  it)  nervous  about  the  whole 
enterprise.  This  increased  after  we  had  managed  to  get  our  bicycles  over 
the  fence  bordering  the  road  (lest  a  passing  policeman  should  see  them 
and,  succumbing  to  the  vice  of  curiosity,  investigate  further)  and  had 
tramped  through  the  wet  grass  to  the  edge  of  the  pond.  The  tree  was, 
fortunately,  ideal  for  my  purpose.  In  full  light  it  would  have  been  easy 
to  climb  and  even  in  the  near  darkness,  I  managed  it  somehow.  As  I 
was  being  pushed  helpfully  up  towards  the  first  branches,  a  loud  splash 
in  the  pond  made  both  our  hearts  “leap  into  our  mouths”  but  the  sound 
was  not  repeated  and  our  worst  fears,  that  it  was  some  human  being,  were 
soon  allayed. 

Once  fairly  in  the  tree,  I  almost  began  to  doubt  my  “sixth  sense”, 
especially  after  the  first  hollow  that  I  found,  more  by  touch  than  by 
sight,  merely  rewarded  my  groping  hand  with  some  unpleasantly  damp 
substrate  at  the  bottom.  But  second  time  was  lucky.  After  some  vain 


156 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


and  rather  frightening  clambering  about,  I  was  almost,  but  not  quite,  in 
a  mood  to  accede  to  my  comrade’s  repeated  sot  to  voce  urgings  to  give 
up  the  whole  risky  escapade  and  go  home,  when  I  found  another  hole, 
groped  blindly  into  its  depths  and  -  joy  of  joys  -  felt  the  warm  feathered 
bodies  of  two  young  Stock  Doves! 

When  I  got  back  home  I  found  the  young  birds  were  fully  feathered 
although  not  yet  able  to  fly.  They  behaved  as  is  usual  with  young  wild 
pigeons  taken  at  that  age;  that  is  they  were  at  first  shy  and  resisted  hand 
feeding,  within  a  day  or  so  appeared  to  have  accepted  me  as  substitute 
parent,  and  eagerly  cooperated  in  hand  feeding,  but,  as  soon  as  they  were 
well  able  to  pick  up  food  for  themselves  became  shy  again.  This  in  spite 
of  the  good  example  of  the  other  Stock  Dove  and  the  young  domestic 
pigeon.  These  latter,  which  were  kept  with  them,  having  been  taken 
at  the  right  age  were,  of  course,  absolutely  tame  and  remained  so  in  adult¬ 
hood.  When  I  tried  to  “settle”  all  four  birds,  the  Stock  Doves  that  had 
been  taken  from  the  Walnut  tree  soon  disappeared.  No  doubt  they  joined 
their  wild  kindred.  The  first  one,  a  hen,  stayed  with  me,  flying  free  by 
day  and  coming  in  to  the  shelter  of  her  aviary,  together  with  the  domestic 
pigeon,  with  which  she  had  been  reared,  to  roost  every  evening.  He  proved 
to  be  imprinted  on  Stock  Doves,  at  least  he  showed  no  sexual  interest 
in  the  many  domestic  pigeons  I  then  kept  (his  parents  among  them), 
except  for  feeding  and  resting  by  day  with  them,  as  did  the  little  hen 
Stock  Dove,  with  whom  he  paired  the  following  year. 

I  was  puzzled  (  and  still  am)  that  I  never  saw  them  bill  or  copulate 
and  they  may  not  have  actually  mated  at  all  as  their  first  clutch  of  eggs, 
on  which  they  both  shared  incubation  spells  in  the  usual  and  typical 
manner,  were  apparently  sterile.  Unfortunately  the  cock  pigeon  was  acci¬ 
dentally  killed  and  the  Stock  Dove  never  bred  again.  I  think  she  might 
have  accepted  another  domestic  pigeon  but  none  courted  her  and  she 
made  no  attempt  to  “set  her  cap”  at  any  of  them.  On  the  contrary  it  now 
became  clear  that  she  also  regarded  humans  as  social  companions  and  she 
“set  her  cap”  at  me.  She  clearly  regarded  me  as  her  mate,  greeting  me 
with  the  bowing  display  whenever  I  entered  the  aviary  shelter  (her  nesting 
territory).  I  have  not  seen  other  Stock  Doves  that  I  knew  or  thought  to 
be  hens  give  the  bowing  display  (although  hen  Rock  and  Speckled  Pigeons 
give  defensive  and  hostile  versions  of  their  species’  bowing  displays)  so 
this  may  have  been  a  piece  of  masculine  behaviour  that  was  shown  only 
because  she  had  no  adequate  mate  to  suppress  it.  She  would  swoop  down 
off  the  roof  or  out  of  the  air  onto  my  hand  when  I  raised  it  and  called  to 
her  and  this  gave  me  a  great  deal  of  pleasure  and,  it  must  be  confessed, 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


157 


opportunity  for  a  certain  amount  of  vain  exhibitionism  among  my  con¬ 
temporaries. 

Human  memory  is  an  odd  thing.  Although  I  can  remember  this  Stock 
Dove  vividly,  I  cannot  recall  how  long  I  had  her  or  what  became  of  her.  I 
conclude  that  she  must  have  “come  to  a  bad  end”  and  memory  of  this 
sad  event  has  been  (unconsciously)  expunged  from  my  mind.  I  can  see 
her  now,  as  I  write,  as  clearly  as  if  she  were  sitting  on  my  hand  now  as 
she  did  so  many  years  ago.  She  was  a  small  and  very  neat  looking  Stock 
Dove  and  had  beautifully  clear  bright  pinkish  red  legs  and  feet,  unlike 
some  females  which  have  the  legs  and  feet  tinged  with  a  dusky  grey, 
hers  were  as  bright  as  those  of  any  male  Stock  Dove  I  have  since  seen. 

Several  more  young  Stock  Doves  were  handreared  in  the  next  few 
years  and  most  lost  when  trying  to  settle  them.  A  pair  which  I  kept 
captive  bred  in  1939  though  their  young,  having  been  reared  by  their 
own  parents,  were  wild,  soon  disappeared  when  liberated  and  were  not 
really  regretted.  This  pair  of  Stock  Doves  were  among  the  birds  which 
I  left  to  the  care  of  others  when  I  was  called  up  into  the  army  early  in 
1940,  they  were  not,  alas,  among  the  few  left  when  I  returned  in  1946  but 
I  thought  it  pointless  to  make  enquiries  about  the  absentees. 

Clearly  as  I  remember  the  nest  sites  that  I  took  my  first  Stock  Doves 
from,  all  I  can  recall  of  where  I  got  the  young  Stock  Doves  that  I  hand- 
reared  in  1947  was  that  they  came  from  the  land  of  a  farmer  friend  of 
mine.  There  were  three  of  them  (so  two  nests  at  least  must  have  been 
involved)  and  a  pair  was  kept  and  bred  the  following  year.  Then,  partly 
because  I  felt  it  would  be  more  interesting  and  more  aesthetically  pleasing 
to  have  them  at  liberty,  they  were  let  out.  The  hen  disappeared,  whether 
of  her  own  volition  or  due  to  some  mischance,  I  don’t  know.  The  cock 
stayed  around  but  after  some  months  began  to  absent  himself  for  longer 
and  longer  periods.  Not  having  been  “trained”  when  young  to  roost  inside 
four  walls  and  under  a  roof,  he  had  never  come  home  to  roost  at  night. 
Soon,  from  coming  twice  every  day  when  my  domestic  pigeons  were  fed, 
he  began  to  come  at  irregular  intervals.  Time  and  again  I  thought  some¬ 
thing  had  happened  to  him  when  several  days,  and  towards  the  end,  weeks, 
passed  without  sight  of  him.  When  I  last  saw  him  I  had  not  done  so  for 
over  a  month  and  was  astonished  when  he  suddenly  dropped  down  among 
the  pigeons  I  was  feeding.  He  looked  in  good  condition  and  though  ready 
enough  for  the  corn  he  was  clearly  not  very  hungry.  I  never  saw  him  again. 

Stock  Doves  in  a  London  Garden 

When  In  1958  I  bought  a  small  terrace  house  in  south-eastern  London 
with  a  very  small  back  garden,  I  was  pleasantly  surprised  to  find  that 


158 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


besides  the  expected  House  Sparrows,  Starlings  and  Blackbirds,  it  was 
visited  occasionally  or  regularly,  by  Great  and  Blue  Tits,  Song  Thrushes, 
Dunnocks,  Robins,  Wrens,  Greenfinches,  and,  best  of  all,  Wood  Pigeons. 
(The  past  five  or  six  years  have  seen  a  sad  decline  in  the  numbers  of  most 
of  these  species  and  the  complete  disappearance  of  others  but  that  is 
another  story).  However,  though  I  knew  Stock  Doves  were  present  (and 
probably  breeding  in  some  old  trees)  around  larger  buildings  with  more 
spacious  gardens  not  far  away,  I  assumed  that  they  fed  in  nearby  parks 
or  wasteland  and  never  in  my  wildest  dreams  expected  to  see  one  in  my 
garden. 

One  morning,  I  think  it  was  in  1968, 1  was  breakfasting  with  my  friend, 
Eric  Knowles,  having  just  put  out  food  in  the  garden  for  the  Wood  Pigeons, 
when  he  said  “There’s  a  Stock  Dove  in  the  garden!”  “You  mean  a  feral 
pigeon”.  I  replied.  “No,  look  yourself!”  I  did  and,  to  my  astonishment,  it 
was  a  Stock  Dove.  I  feared  this  might  be  a  “one-off’  phenomenon  but 
happily  it  was  not.  For  the  next  six  years  Stock  Doves  were  regular  visi¬ 
tors.  Usually  their  visits  dropped  off  in  the  summer  when  the  garden  got 
a  bit  cluttered  with  more  vegetation  than  they  liked  and,  in  all  probability 
there  were  plentiful  supplies  elsewhere  but  from  autumn  till  spring  they 
came  daily.  At  least  I  think  they  did  although,  of  course,  during  the 
short  days  of  winter  I  saw  them  only  at  weekends.  Feeding  them  was  a 
bit  of  a  problem  as  there  were  also  Wood  Pigeons,  one  or  two  of  which 
were  tame  and  about  much  of  the  time.  Any  food  edible  to  House  Spar¬ 
rows  was,  of  course,  soon  cleared  up  by  those  birds  if  the  pigeons  did  not 
come  down  quickly  for  it.  So,  although  when  I  was  home,  I  put  out 
soaked  bread,  corn  and  sometimes  peanuts,  shortly  before  I  knew  the 
Stock  Doves  were  likely  to  arrive,  when  I  was  going  to  be  away  all  day 
I  scattered  the  cheapest  sorts  of  dried  peas  (even  then  more  expensive 
than  corn  or  bread,  though  a  lot  less  expensive  than  they  are  now)  widely 
about  the  garden,  hoping  that  the  Wood  Pigeons  would  not  find  them 
all  before  the  Stock  Doves  came  and  secure  in  the  knowledge  that  the 
House  Sparrows  would  not  touch  them. 

The  Stock  Doves  used  to  come  flying  from  one  of  two  directions,  in 
both  of  which  there  were  large  parks  (Dulwich  Park  and  Brockwell  Park) 
as  well  as  some  open  waste  ground.  The  first  year  usually  two  or  four  came 
together,  the  second  year  eight  came  all  together  on  one  memorable  occa¬ 
sion,  but  except  for  that  occasion  I  never  saw  more  than  six  at  any  one 
time.  They  would  come  flying  over,  circle  once  or  twice  and  then  drop 
neatly  into  the  garden,  very  rarely  alighting  on  the  fence  or  on  the  apple 
trees  as  Wood  Pigeons  often  did.  Commonly  but  not  always  they  would 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


159 


come  when  one  or  more  Wood  Pigeons  were  laready  feeding.  The  great 
danger  was  of  their  being  frightened  early  on.  I  had  found  with  Wood 
pigeons,  a  bird  badly  frightened,  as  it  might  be  if  one  suddenly  burst  out 
of  the  back  door  on  top  of  it,  was  a  bird  gone  for  weeks  and  perhaps 
for  good.  Feral  Pigeons,  at  least  those  that  scavenge  in  towns,  have  of 
necessity  become  inured  to  disturbance  and  will  return  time  and  again 
even  if  deliberately  scared  away  but  wild  species,  generally  speaking,  will 
not.  Once  they  have  become  used  to  getting  fed  in  a  particular  garden  or 
other  place,  however  they  gain  more  confidence  and  will  then  often 
return  within  an  hour  or  less,  if  frightened  away.  As  a  rough  estimate, 
with  Wood  pigeons,  one  can  say  that  if  the  accidentally  scared  bird  alights 
on  a  roof  or  tree  within  50  or  60  yards  of  where  it  was  put  up,  it  is  not 
too  badly  upset  and  will,  if  it  had  obtained  food  before  it  fled,  soon  be 
back,  but  if  it  flies  away  till  it  is  out  of  sight,  you  have  probably  seen 
the  last  of  it. 

Anyhow  ,  so  far  as  I  know,  none  of  the  Stock  Doves  was  frightened  off 
permanently,  in  spite  of  one  or  two  accidental  scarings  by  myself  and  their 
quite  often  being  unable  to  drop  down  because  of  people  in  nearby 
gardens.  After  some  time  indeed,  a  few  of  the  Stock  Doves  used  to  perch, 
like  Wood  Pigeons, on  nearby  houses  to  wait  “till  the  coast  was  clear”. 
But,  unlike  some  (though  not  all)  of  “my”  Wood  Pigeons,  none  of  “my” 
Stock  Doves  became  tame.  At  that  time  there  were  two  very  tame  Wood 
Pigeons  who  would  come  down  and  feed  within  a  few  feet  of  me  but 
neither  the  Stock  Doves,  nor  the  several  more  timid  Wood  Pigeons  that 
also  came  daily,  followed  their  example.  Though  it  is  certainly  true  that 
timid  birds,  both  wild  and  captive,  sometimes  become  tame  as  a  result  of 
seeing  and  associating  with  conspecifics  that  are  already  tame,  they  do  not 
by  any  means  always  do  so.  Indeed  in  50  years  of  keeping  and  observing 
birds  of  various  species,  I  have  been  more  impressed  by  how  very  often 
timid  birds  become  not  the  least  degree  tamer  through  association  with 
tame  conspecifics  nor  the  latter  lose  any  of  their  tameness  through  con¬ 
stantly  associating  with  timid  individuals. 

However,  by  poking  a  telephoto  lens  through  my  kitchen  window,  I 
did  manage  to  get  a  few  nice  (well,  nice  by  my  photography  standards, 
Eric  Hosking  would  probably  have  wept  over  them)  colour  slides  of  the 
Stock  Doves  in  my  garden.  It  was  as  well  I  did  so,  for  after  two  or  three 
years  their  numbers  declined,  till  in  the  winter  of  1973  and  1974,  only 
one  male  Stock  Dove  (who  once  ate  62  peanuts  for  his  breakfast)  was 
visiting.  Since  then  none  have  come  to  my  garden  and  I  have  seen  none  in 
the  neighbourhood. 


160 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


Nest  Sites:  some  aspects  and  problems. 

Although  in  some  parts  of  its  range  the  Stock  Dove  is  said  to  nest  only 
in  holes  in  trees,  in  Britain  it  very  commonly  nests  also  in  maritime  and 
inland  cliffs  and  quite  often  in  buildings.  So  also  do  the  Starling,  Jackdaw 
and  Kestrel,  and  some  of  what  is  said  here  will  or  may  apply  also  to  them 
but  my  remarks  and  speculations  will  have  reference  only  to  the  Stock 
Dove,  except  in  so  far  as  mention  is  made  of  other  species  that  may 
impinge  upon  it. 

If  one  visualises  two  of  the  most  typical  types  of  nesting  habitat  that 
are  likely  to  harbour  several  or  many  pairs  of  Stock  Doves,  an  old  (but  not 
extensive)  wood  with  many  hole-bearing  trees,  and  a  sea  cliff  such  as  one 
finds  on  say  the  Welsh  coast  or  in  some  part  of  southern  England,  one  is 
struck  with  how  different  they  are.  Obviously  once  a  nest  site-seeking 
Stock  Dove  explores  a  cliff  face  or  an  old  beech  tree,  it  will  soon  notice 
the  holes  (and  also  dark  shadowed  patches  that,  to  both  bird  and  man, 
look  like  holes  but  prove  not  to  be  on  investigation).  But,  if  the  species 
originally  nested  in  trees  how  did  it  occur  to  the  first  Stock  Dove  to  do  so, 
to  fly  over  the  open  tree-less  land  to  the  cliff  edge  and  then  go  down  and 
investigate  it?  Or  conversely,  if  the  species  was  originally  a  cliff  nester 
(which  I  do  not  think  it  was)  what  prompted  the  first  individual  to  fly  into 
the  shadowed  wood  and  look  for  holes  in  the  trees?  I  have  seen  no  evi¬ 
dence  that  the  Stock  Dove  feeds  on  the  sea  shore,  so  there  would  seem  to 
have  been  little  likelihood  of  this  leading  it  to  discover  nesting  sites  in  the 
cliffs. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  to  what  extent  modern  Stock  Doves 
are  or  are  not  influenced  by  the  type  of  site  in  which  they  were  reared. 
Certainly  there  is  now  apparently  complete  social  integration  between 
cliff  nesting  and  tree  nesting  Stock  Doves.  In  some  places,  such  as  the 
Isle  of  Wight,  Stock  Doves  nest  in  dense  (though  not  extensive)  stands  of 
(partly  old)  trees  in  deep  sheltered  valleys  within  a  mile  or  less  of  others 
nesting  in  wind-swept  sea  cliffs,  and  all  feed  on  arable  land  between. 

In  some  places  many  pairs  of  both  Stock  Doves  and  feral  pigeons 
breed  in  the  same  cliffs.  Where  I  have  seen  this,  in  Portland,  South  Wales 
and  North  Wales,  there  seems  to  be  some  ecological  segregation,  the 
Stock  Doves  nesting  in  holes  or  narrow  (often  horizontal)  fissures  in  the 
cliff  face  and  the  feral  pigeons  on  ledges  in  caves  or  geos  and  in  nooks  and 
hollows  in  or  immediately  in  the  vicinity  of  such  caves  or  other  large 
openings.  The  equivalents  of  both  types  of  sites  in  buildings  are  used  by 
both  species,  but,  so  far  as  I  know,  one  does  not  find  both  species  nesting 
in  the  same  building.  It  seems  likely  that  one  must  exclude  the  other 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


161 


from  the  type  of  site  it  most  favours. 

Wild  Rock  Pigeons  will  (as  I  have  seen  on  South  Uist)  sometimes  use 
both  types  of  cliff  sites,  and  both  species  use  the  equivalents  of  both  types 
of  cliff  sites  when  nesting  in  buildings.  I  have  once,  on  the  Isle  of  Wight, 
seen  both  Stock  Doves  and  feral  pigeons  on  a  cliff  about  a  third  of  a  mile 
back  from  the  sea,  were  there  were  only  “Stock  Dove  type”  nest  sites. 
Here,  however,  the  feral  pigeons  were  very  few  in  number,  the  whole  cliff 
was  swarming  with  breeding  Jackdaws  and  I  did  not  manage,  in  the  hour 
or  two  I  was  there,  to  locate  any  definite  nesting  site  of  a  pigeon  of  either 
species.  When  I  have  seen  Stock  Doves  nesting  on  or  inside  buildings  they 
have  always  been  the  only  pigeons  present.  Hudson,  in  1903,  noticed  to 
his  surprise  that  about  thirty  pairs  of  Stock  Doves  (and  no  feral  pigeons) 
were  breeding  on  Salisbury  Cathedral. 

From  the  above  it  looks  as  if,  where  both  species  are  present,  they 
may  compete  for  nest  sites  and  since  the  sites  then  used  by  feral  pigeons 
are  those  (in  caves)  which  they  prefer,  it  seems  likely  that  they  exclude 
Stock  Doves.  I  have,  however,  no  evidence  as  to  whether  this  is  so.  Most 
bird  watchers,  especially  those  who  go  to  coastal  areas,  are  little  interested 
in  any  pigeons  and  often  ignorant  about  them.  One  I  met  in  Wales,  whom 
I  tried  to  interest  in  the  problem,  informed  me  that  I  was  mistaken  as 
the  two  species  interbred  freely!  I  hope  that  any  of  my  readers  who  live 
near  a  cliff  inhabited  by  both  feral  (or  Rock)  Pigeons  and  Stock  Doves 
will  try  to  observe  how  they  interact  and  which  species  (if  either  regularly) 
wins  when  they  both  want  the  same  site.  Although  the  Stock  Dove  is  not 
a  colonial  breeder,  many  pairs  often  nest  very  close  to  each  other  if  plenty 
of  suitable  holes  are  “clumped”  in  a  small  area.  Very  many  years  ago, 
Dr.  Bruce  Campbell  showed  me  “his”  famous  old  barn 
(alas,  long  since  demolished)  which  had  a  veritable  “flock”  of  Stock 
Doves  nesting  in  it,  each  pair,  of  course,  in  a  separate  hole  or  niche. 

That  the  Jackdaw  competes  with  the  Stock  Dove  for  holes  both  in 
cliffs  and  in  trees  seems  certain  but  I  have  read  no  published  account  of 
its  evicting  or  failing  to  evict  the  latter  from  any  particular  site.  Dr.  A.  S. 
Richards,  who  has  studied  Jackdaws  breeding  on  Skomer  Island,  off  the 
Welsh  coast,  tells  me  (letter  dated  2nd  October  1980)  that  he  has  often 
seen  Stock  Doves  driven  away  by  Jackdaws  and  sometimes  actually  driven 
out  of  nesting  sites.  On  Skomer  both  species  nest  in  rabbit  holes  in  the 
cliffs  and  Dr.  Richards  believes  that  the  Stock  Doves  are  forced  to  make 
do  with  holes  unwanted  by  the  Jackdaws.  I  have  the  same  impression, 
but  without  having  observed  actual  disputes,  in  two  woodland  areas 
where  numbers  of  both  species  breed.  In  these  all  the  Stock  Dove  nests 


162 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


DEREK  GOODWIN  -  STOCK  DOVES 


163 


I  have  found,  when  the  Jackdaws  have  been  in  residence,  have  been  in 
holes  that  were  low  down  and  /or  in  sites  well  below  and  shaded  by  the 
canopy.  W.  H.  Hudson,  who  found  numbers  of  Stock  Doves  nesting  on 
Salisbury  Cathedral  in  1903,  was  told  that  there  the  Jackdaws  evicted  the 
nesting  Stock  Doves  but  he  observed  a  Stock  Dove  repeatedly  and  success¬ 
fully  attacking  Jackdaws  that  approached  its  nest,  on  which  its  mate 
was  sitting. 

If  the  Stock  Dove  sometimes  attacks  Jackdaws  with  the  same  berserk 
fury  that  it  often  shows  towards  nest  competitors  of  its  own  species, 
then  it  may  sometimes  succeed  in  intimidating  them.  I  am  inclined  to 
think,  however,  that  the  Jackdaw  wins  such  contests  more  often  than  not. 

Any  reader  interested  in  the  matter  who  has  the  luck  to  live  near  a 
cliff  inhabited  by  Stock  Doves  and  feral  pigeons  and/or  Jackdaws,  and 
who  has  a  fair  amount  of  spare  time,  would  be  able  to  make  interesting 
observations  and,  hopefully,  publish  them  in  some  future  issue  of  our 
magazine. 


REFERENCES: 

Campbell,  B.  1951.  A  colony  of  Stock  Doves.  Bird  Notes  24,  169-176. 

Goodwin,  D.  1955.  Notes  on  European  Wild  Pigeons.  Avicultural  Magazine  61, 
54-85. 

Goodwin,  D.  1970.  Pigeons  and  Doves  of  the  World.  London. 

Hudson,  W.  H.  1909.  Afoot  in  England.  103-109.  London. 

Murton,  R.  K.  Westwood,  N.  J.  and  Isaccson,  A.  J,  1964.  The  Feeding  Habits  of  the 
Wood  Pigeon  Columbus  palumbus ,  Stock  Dove  C.  oenas  and  Turtle  Dove  Strepropelia 
turtur.  Ibis  106.  174-197. 


164 


NOTES  ON  Lonchura  bicolor 
By  F.  C.  BARNICOAT  (Johannesburg,  South  Africa) 

Lonchura  bicolor  is  a  delightful,  small  mannikin  that  I  think  is  best 
regarded  as  having  three  geographical  races  in  Africa.  The  nominate  race, 
Lonchura  bicolor  bicolor ,  hails  from  West  Africa  proper  in  a  broad  belt 
along  the  southern  coast  of  the  bulge  of  Africa  (Guinea  to  Cameroon). 
This  is  the  race  which  I  have  bred  successfully  and  with  which  these  notes 
are  concerned.  The  upper  parts  of  these  birds  -  head,  chest,  back  and  tail  - 
are  entirely  black  with  a  marvellous  iridescent  sheen  giving  violet  or 
green  tints  in  the  sunlight.  The  flanks  show  attractive  black  and  white 
scalloping,  and  three  or  four  tiny,  but  distinct,  white  dots  occur  on  each 
wing.  The  underparts  are  pure  white.  I  always  think  of  them  as  little 
gentlemen  wearing  black  velvet  coats.  Their  rather  heavy  beaks  are  a  shiny 
bluish-grey  and  are  very  striking,  a  fact  that  has  doubtless  provided  the 
name  by  which  they  are  always  known  in  this  country  and  in  most  avi- 
cultural  literature  -  the  Blue-billed  Mannikin.  However,  they  are  also  called 
Black-and-white  Mannikins  or  Two-coloured  Mannikins,  the  latter  being 
the  direct  translation  of  their  Latin  name. 

One  might  say  that  Lonchura  bicolor  poensis  is  the  race  that  comes 
from  Central  Africa,  in  a  belt  roughly  5°  North  and  South  of  the  Equator 
stretching  from  the  Gulf  of  Guinea  as  far  to  the  east  as  western  Uganda, 
Kenya  and  Tanzania.  This  race  differs  from  the  above  in  having  the  outer 
webs  of  the  flight  feathers  and  the  rump  barred  with  white.  This  race  also 
occurs  on  the  island  of  Fernando  Po  in  the  Gulf  of  Guinea,  where  it  was 
first  discovered.  The  names  Fernando  Po  Mannikin  and  Black-breasted 
Mannikin  are  applied  to  it  and  Mackworth-Praed  and  Grant  call  it  Lon¬ 
chura  poensis  poensis  and  regarded  it  as  the  nominate  race.  The  Latin 
name  poensis  means  ‘of  or  belonging  to  grass’  and  is  very  appropriate,  as 
anyone  who  has  kept  this  species  will  readily  appreciate,  for  the  passion 
of  these  birds  for  the  seeding  heads  of  wild  grasses  and  ripening  millet 
sprays  is  obvious,  and  a  supply  of  these  is  the  greatest  inducement  to  start 
them  breeding,  perhaps  even  a  prerequisite. 

Lonchura  bicolor  nigriceps  or  the  Red-  or  Rufous-backed  Mannikin 
is  often  given  the  status  of  a  separate  species,  unfortunately  so,  I  feel, 
because  when  one  keeps  this  bird  beside  the  Blue-billed  Mannikin  it  is 
perfectly  clear  that  the  former  is  the  same  bird  as  the  latter,  merely  having 
the  mantle,  wing-coverts  and  tertiary  wing  feathers  a  rich  chestnut  colour 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  LONCHURA  BICOLOR 


165 


instead  of  black.  The  white  and  black  barred  pattern  on  the  flanks,  rump 
and  wings  is,  however,  as  well  developed  as  in  poensis.  This  race  hails 
mainly  from  East  Africa,  and  its  range  extends  from  Kenya  southwards 
through  Tanzania,  Malawi,  Zimbabwe,  and  Mozambique  to  South  Africa 
where  the  belt  has  narrowed  to  the  east  coast  of  Natal.  This  race  is  one  of 
the  most  popular  birds  in  the  aviaries  of  Natal  fanciers,  and  breeding 
successes  occur  quite  frequently,  especially  in  the  larger  garden-type  of 
aviary  containing  some  natural  vegetation  where  the  birds  can  feel  at  home 
and  perhaps  scrounge  a  few  insects.  Fanciers  from  other  parts  of  South 
Africa,  where  the  species  does  not  occur  locally,  seldom  manage  to  get 
hold  of  it. 


Map  showing  distribution  of  the  three  species 


I  am  quite  sure  that  the  Red-backed  Mannikin  would  interbreed  freely 
with  either  race  of  the  Blue-billed  Mannikin.  I  kept  them  in  separate 
aviaries,  preferring  pure-bred  birds,  but  it  would  be  a  very  interesting 
experiment  to  interbreed  with  them  to  see  whether  the  brown  back 
would  prove  dominant  or  recessive. 

The  Blue-billed  Mannikin  has  been  known  to  aviculture  since  Dr.  Russ’s 
days  in  the  last  century.  Dr.  A.  G.  Butler  recounts  some  German  successes 
in  his  famous  book  ‘Foreign  Finches  in  Captivity’,  written  in  the  1890’s. 
He  himself  possessed  only  one  specimen,  from  the  skin  of  which  Frohawk 


166 


F.C.  BARNICOAT  -  LONCHURA  BICOLOR 


painted  the  magnificent  plate  that  appears  in  the  book.  It  is  clear  that  the 
breeding  successes  with  this  species  were  always  few  and  far  between  and 
that  the  stock  died  out  fairly  rapidly.  It  does  not  appear  to  be  a  long 
lived  or  very  hardy  species  and  was  obviously  far  rarer  and  more  diffi¬ 
cult  to  maintain  and  breed  than  any  of  the  other  African  mannikins  -  the 
Bronze  Mannikin,  the  Magpie  Mannikin  and  even  the  Dwarf  Mannikin  or 
Bib  Finch  from  Malagasy.  It  would  seem  to  have  disappeared  from  the 
avicultural  scene  for  long  periods,  but  it  does  appear  on  the  market  spora¬ 
dically,  and  is  currently  being  offered  in  England.  I  remember  that  in  the 
late  1950s  several  specimens  met  with  great  success  on  the  show  bench 
in  South  Africa,  so  there  must  have  been  a  small  importation  at  that  time. 
Then  they  disappeared. 

There  was  a  small  importation  here  in  August  1973  and  a  friend  of 
mine  acquired  four  birds.  These  were  liberated  into  a  large,  naturally 
planted  aviary.  Unfortunately,  an  unseasonable  cold  snap  struck  before 
they  had  really  settled  in  and  all  of  them  were  lost. 

Another  importation  in  1975,  again  in  mid-winter,  gave  me  the  chance 
to  buy  two  pairs.  I  profited  by  my  friend’s  experience  and  did  not  release 
them  into  outdoor  aviaries  until  the  summer.  I  kept  them  for  nearly 
four  months  in  a  large  cage  as  is  used  for  breeding  canaries.  I  placed  a 
nest  box  approximately  20cm  square  with  a  half-open  front  in  the  cage. 
With  amazing  rapidity  all  four  Blue-billed  Mannikins  disappeared  inside 
this  box  and  made  themselves  cosy  in  the  rough  grass  nest  I  had  shaped. 
They  probably  roost  in  nests  in  the  wild  state,  and  the  provision  of  suit¬ 
able  boxes  to  act  as  sleeping  quarters  is  an  important  aspect  to  keeping 
these  birds  in  captivity.  I  find  that  in  aviaries,  too,  they  sleep  in  a  box  and 
this  enables  them  to  keep  warm  at  night  and  to  cope  adequately  in  out¬ 
door  aviaries  with  even  the  coldest  winter  weather,  although  they  come 
from  some  of  the  warmest  regions  of  Africa. 

They  are  simplicity  inself  to  feed  and  seem  to  thrive  with  little  more 
than  small  millet  seed  and  water.  They  are  not  great  greenfood  eaters, 
but  do  appreciate  spray  millet,  and,  of  course,  the  ripening  sprays  of 
wild  grasses  or  millet  grown  in  the  garden  are  a  luxury. 

My  birds  were  so  happy  as  a  foursome,  that  I  kept  them  together 
when  I  liberated  them  in  an  outdoor  aviary  when  the  summer  came.  This 
species  is  particularly  difficult  to  sex,  and  so  I  put  a  different  coloured 
plastic  ring  on  each  bird  in  order  to  be  able  to  identify  any  two  that 
started  behaving  like  a  pair.  Almost  immediately  I  noticed  there  were  two 
couples,  the  partners  of  which  stuck  together,  although  all  four  roosted 
together  in  a  nest  box. 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  LONCHURA  BICOLOR 


167 


I  had  possessed  these  birds  exactly  a  year,  when  in  June  1976  I  missed 
one  of  the  four.  On  entering  the  aviary  I  startled  the  hen  out  of  the  box 
in  which  they  roosted  and  discovered  four  of  the  tiniest  white  eggs  I  had 
ever  seen.  Thinking  that  there  was  absolutely  no  chance  that  these  would 
be  properly  incubated,  1  transferred  them  to  a  Bengalese  nest.  Three  of 
these  eggs  proved  fertile  and  duly  hatched.  Although  the  babies  got 
through  the  initial  stages  quite  well,  it  was  as  though  the  food  they  were 
being  given  was  not  agreeing  with  them  and  they  died  off  one  by  one, 
the  last  having  already  reached  the  feathering  stage.  This  experience 
prompted  me  to  separate  the  two  pairs  and  resolve  to  let  them  attempt 
to  rear  their  own  offspring  should  they  nest  again. 

The  splitting  up  of  the  two  pairs  seemed  to  throw  them  off  breeding, 
and  although  they  remained  extremely  healthy,  neither  pair  showed  the 
slightest  inclination  to  breed  until  the  following  March,  when  one  pair 
constructed  a  beautifully  woven  globular  nest  in  a  Budgerigar  breeding 
box,  using  the  inflorescences  of  the  wild  grass  Panicum  laevifolium,  which 
I  grow  every  year  in  the  late  summer  in  my  garden  for  feeding  to  the  birds. 
My  plan  to  let  the  parents  rear  the  babies  themselves  progressed  well. 
All  four  eggs  were  duly  hatched  out  and  the  parents  were  feeding  very 
well  indeed  when  tragedy  struck.  The  mother  died  in  the  box.  As  the 
father  did  not  continue  to  feed,  there  was  no  option  but  to  put  these 
babies  under  Bengalese.  They  progressed  favourably  at  first,  but  their 
growth  rate  seemed  to  slow  down  and  all  of  them  were  lost  shortly  after 
they  left  the  nest.  Despite  my  double  failure  with  Bengalese  housed  in 
aviaries,  I  think  that  better  results  could  be  obtained  from  Bengalese  in 
small  cages,  where  their  whole  effort  would  be  concentrated  on  looking 
after  their  strange  babies. 

My  second  pair  of  Blue-billed  Mannikins  made  no  attempt  to  breed, 
although  one  was  slightly  smaller  and  had  a  rather  narrower  beak  when 
viewed  from  the  top  »  one  of  the  best  guides  to  the  sexing  of  any  mannikin 
species.  Breeding  this  species  now  seemed  a  remote  possibility  but  when  a 
friend  was  left  with  an  odd  specimen,  which  he  offered  to  me,  I  felt 
that  I  might  as  well  put  it  with  my  odd  male.  From  its  smaller  size  and 
somewhat  less  showy  white  area  I  judged  it  to  be  a  hen.  In  due  course 
this  pair  produced  seven  offspring. 

They  were  housed  in  an  aviary  only  two  metres  square,  half  of  which  is 
taken  up  by  a  fibre  glass  shelter.  Only  half  the  roof  is  covered  with  as¬ 
bestos,  which  means  that  the  shelter  is  light  and  two  varieties  of  cypress 
trees  grow  successfully  in  it.  This  style  of  aviary  has  proved  quite  success¬ 
ful  for  breeding.  The  Blue-billed  Mannikins  shared  this  accomodation  with 


168 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  LONCHURA  BICOLOR 


pairs  of  Violet-eared  Waxbills,  Gouldian  Finches  and  European  Siskins,  all 
getting  on  with  each  other  fairly  well.  In  September  1977  they  built  a 
nest  of  dry  grass  in  a  bunch  of  bracken  fixed  up  in  the  shelter.  The  nest 
was  over  two  metres  above  the  ground  and  near  the  roof  of  the  aviary.  It 
was  not  very  well  woven  and  had  a  wide  entrance,  so  that  it  was  easy  to 
see  the  contents.  The  two  birds  always  slept  in  this  nest  as  they  had  for¬ 
merly  done  in  a  nest  box.  In  this  nest  they  attempted  to  raise  a  family  on 
three  occasions  in  rapid  succession,  only  fully  succeeding  the  third  time. 
I  did  not  feed  live  food  of  any  kind  to  them,  and  had  I  done  so  they  might 
have  reared  their  first  two  broods  as  well.  Each  clutch  consisted  of  four 
tiny  white  eggs.  The  first  two  babies  made  good  progress  until  they  began 
to  feather.  Then  I  found  them  draped  over  the  perch  in  the  flight,  an  indi¬ 
cation  that  the  parents  were  not  fully  satisfied  with  the  food  provided. 
The  second  brood  of  three  reached  the  stage  of  being  quite  well  feathered 
when  the  parents  seemed  to  loose  interest  gradually  and  allowed  the  babies 
to  die  off  one  by  one.  In  January  1978,  however,  they  raised  three  babies 
to  maturity,  and  in  April  repeated  the  success  with  another  four  babies. 
It  could  be  that  in  the  later  months  of  summer  more  small  insects  were  to 
be  found  in  the  natural  vegetation  growing  in  this  small  aviary,  or  the  extra 
grasses  I  was  able  to  supply  made  the  difference,  or  the  pair  could  just 
have  adapted  slowly  to  the  aviary  conditions. 

When  the  babies  leave  the  nest  they  are  a  dull  black  on  the  head  and 
back  and  grey  on  the  underparts.  It  was  difficult  to  keep  an  accurate  check 
on  incubation,  but  it  is  under  two  weeks,  probably  12  or  13  days.  The 
babies  developed  fast  and  tended  to  be  easily  flushed  from  their  nest 
before  they  could  fly  properly.  One  baby  jumped  from  the  nest  at  about 
14  days  old.  However,  I  found  the  parents  adept  at  getting  their  babies 
back  into  the  nest  even  when  this  feat  seemed  a  remote  possibility.  Having 
left  the  nest  the  babies  are  quick  to  learn  to  eat  seed  and  I  found  that 
the  first  brood  could  be  removed  from  their  parents  after  two  weeks.  The 
babies  bred  in  January  had  assumed  adult  plumage  by  the  end  of  April 
however  as  with  most  other  birds  this  may  take  longer  in  the  case  of  those 
bred  just  before  winter  sets  in. 

After  rearing  their  first  brood,  my  pair  took  a  short  break,  then  con¬ 
structed  an  entirely  new  nest  in  another  bunch  of  bracken,  but  it  was 
similar  in  style  and  position.  The  four  babies  reared  here  left  the  nest  a 
little  later  and  were  better  developed,  probably  because  the  entrance  of 
the  nest  faced  the  fibre  glass  wall  and  it  was  not  possible  to  disturb  them. 

I  would  say  that  this  attractive  bird  is  ideal  for  aviary  life.  They  are  not 
normally  aggressive,  although  once  the  non-breeding  pair  plucked  some 


F.  C.  BARNICOAT  -  LONCHURA  BICOLOR 


169 


young  Gouldians  that  had  just  left  the  nest  and  were  unable  to  defend 
themselves.  The  bigger  one’s  aviary  the  less  likelihood  is  there  of  this  sort 
of  trouble.  They  are  adaptable  to  aviary  life  and  reproduce  quite  readily. 
In  addition  they  are  particularly  successful  on  the  show  bench,  being 
steady  and  exceptionally  smooth  in  plumage  as  well  as  of  striking  appear¬ 
ance.  They  often  figure  among  the  major  awards  in  show  reports.  The 
same  can  be  said  of  the  Red-backed  Mannikin,  though  the  pair  I  had  were 
always  very  wild  in  a  cage  and  never  tamed  down.  However  I  do  not  know 
whether  the  two  races  differ  in  their  propensity  to  tame  down  in  capti¬ 
vity,  as  the  specimens  of  each  which  I  kept  might  have  been  caught  at 
different  ages,  which  often  makes  a  great  difference. 

Subsequently  both  pairs  nested  during  the  winter  and  the  hens  peri¬ 
shed;  also  one  of  the  cocks.  I  have  now  had  the  survivor  over  five  years, 
indicating  that  these  birds  can  endure  well  in  captivity  but  might  best  be 
brought  indoors  in  cages  for  the  winter,  where  they  would  be  unlikely  to 
attempt  breeding. 

The  old  male  was  re-mated  and  produced  a  further  brood  in  February 
1979.  Then  one  morning  I  noticed  him  chasing  his  hen.  Assuming  he  was 
driving  her  to  nest  again,  I  took  no  action,  and  was  taken  aback  an  hour 
later  to  find  the  little  hen  dead  with  her  eyes  picked  out.  Violence  of  this 
kind,  especially  towards  an  established  mate,  is  very  unusual  among 
estrildine  birds,  though  common  enough  with  softbills. 

I  conclude  that  it  is  wise  to  house  this  species  in  as  large  an  aviary 
as  possible  with  plenty  of  natural  cover,  where  they  would  probably 
do  well  in  a  flock,  which  seems  to  be  the  best  arrangement  for  most 
Lonchura  species,  which  seem  to  need  the  stimulation  of  other  pairs 
of  the  same  kind  for  optimum  breeding  results.  It  is  mainly  under  such 
conditions  that  other  South  Africans  have  recently  been  quite  successful 
in  establishing  a  stock  of ‘Blue-billed  Mannikins’,  especially  in  Natal  where 
there  is  not  a  cold  winter  to  contend  with.  This  species  undoubtedly  has 
potential  for  establishing  viable  aviary-bred  stocks. 


Work  cited: 


Mackworth-Praed,  C.  W.  and  Grant,  C.  H.  B.  1955.  African  Handbook  of  Birds, 
Series  1,  Vol  2.  Longmans,  London. 


170 


A  FEW  DAYS  IN  ADELAIDE 
By  G.A.  SMITH  (Peterborough) 


I  had  the  considerable  honour  to  be  invited,  by  the  Avicultural  Society 
of  South  Australia,  to  address  the  first  National  Avicultural  Convention 
held  at  Flinders’  University,  Adelaide.  I  arrived  early  in  the  morning  of 
16th  May,  the  opening  day  of  the  convention,  and  flew  out  of  Adelaide, 
for  my  journey  home,  mid-morning  on  21st  May.  My  impressions  of 
Australia  and  of  Australian  aviculture  must,  inevitably,  be  slight:  yet, 
with  the  tolerance  of  the  editor,  I  would  like  to  record  something  of  my 
first  visit  to  the  Antipodes. 

The  theme  of  the  convention  was  “Aviculture:  a  tool  of  conservation” 
and  the  damage  done  to  the  earth’s  surface  by  mankind  was  foremost 
in  my  mind  as  I  looked  down,  from  the  ’plane,  at  a  height  of  six  miles 
or  so.  Europe  appeared  congested  with  houses  and  highways  with  seldom 
a  patch  of  natural  vegetation.  The  mountainous  deserts  of  Iran  will  remain 
untouched  unless  the  improbability  occurs  of  a  change  in  climate.  As  we 
flew  south  along  the  western  coast  of  Pakistan  and  India  the  land,  except 
for  salt-marsh,  steep  sides  to  hills  and,  obvious  arid  desert,  was  scraped 
clear  of  trees  and  divided,  as  was  Europe,  into  the  interlocking,  angular 
squares  and  shapes  of  fields:  which  were,  before  the  monsoon,  devoid  of 
any  green.  So  that  this  edge  of  the  subcontinent  looked  like  the  hide  of  an 
itchy,  sunblistered,  parched,  mangy  water-buffalo.  The  land  seemed  so 
sore  and  raw  that  it  must  have  been  completely  inhospitable  for  many 
species  of  plant  and  animal  that  previously  lived  here.  Therefore  it  was 
pleasant  to  see,  as  we  crossed  the  southern  end  of  Sri- Lanka  (Ceylon), 
green  wooded  hills  and  valleys  with  clearings  largely  confined  to  the 
edges  of  watercourses. 

One  of  the  nicest  surprises  about  the  parts  of  Australia  I  saw  from  the 
air  was  that  European  man  had  not  had  such  a  large  effect  upon  the 
vegetation  as  I  had  feared.  For  though  large  amounts  of  woodland 
are  clear-felled  or  killed  by  ring  barking  around  Perth,  Melbourne  and 
Adelaide  -  the  cities  I  flew  over  -  the  impression  was  that  much  virgin 
land  remained  and  that  unnecessary  damage  might  be  halted.  And  I  think 
it  will,  for  I  never  met  a  people  so  conservation-conscious  as  the  Austra¬ 
lians.  The  other  pleasant  finding  was  how  run-off  water  is  collected: 
reservoirs,  lakes  and  man-made  ponds  appeared  abundant  compared  with 


G.  A.  SMITH  -  A  FEW  DAYS  IN  ADELAIDE 


171 


Western  Pakistan  and  India. 

The  first  bird  that  I  saw,  on  the  dawn  of  my  arrival  at  Melbourne  air¬ 
port  was  a  hen  Sparrow  Passer  domesticus  that  chirped  from  a  huge,  red- 
flowered  camellia.  I  heard  the  next,  a  Goldfinch  Carduelis  carduelis ,  sing¬ 
ing  in  a  twitter  of  loud  sexual  excitement  from  an  ornamental,  flowering, 
smooth-barked  Eucalyptus.  Having  left  the  Goldfinch  at  home,  in  England, 
beginning  to  breed  it  must  be  that  the  nesting  season  is  more  prolonged. 
My  next  species  was  a  flock  of  twenty-two  Roseate  Cockatoos  (Galahs) 
Cacatua  roseicapillus  almost  languidly  mobbing  an  unrecognisable  falcon. 
Parrots,  I  soon  found,  were  extremely  common.  Whilst  in  Adelaide  pairs  of 
Psephotus  haematonotus  were  seen  daily;  likewise  Musk  Glossopsitta 
concinna  and  little  lorikeets,  G.  pusilla.  As  with  the  Roseates  and  the 
Redrumps  attention  was  drawn  to  all  the  parrots  as  they  flew  because  of 
their  calls.  With  the  lorikeets  the  flight  was  so  fast  and  direct  that  unless 
one  glanced  up  immediately  on  hearing  them  they  were  lost  to  sight.  At 
the  University  campus  there  were  large  numbers  of  Adelaide  Rosellas 
Platycercus  elegans  adelaidae.  I  was  particularly  interested  to  see  if  they 
showed  much  variation  in  colour.  Forshaw  (1978)  gave  his  opinion  that 
the  Adelaide  (which  has  an  orangey  hue)  is  a  hybrid  population  between 
the  Pennant  P.e.  elegans  (which  is  red)  and  the  Yellow  Rosella  P.  e.  flav- 
eolus.  If  the  Adelaide  Rosella  were  a  hybrid  then,  logically,  the  popu¬ 
lation  would  be  mostly  composed  of  ‘typical’  Adelaides,  some  Pennant¬ 
like.  some  Yellow  Rosella-like  and  various  intermediaries  between  all 
three:  depending  upon  the  number,  the  dominance,  of  the  alleles  respons¬ 
ible  for  producing  the  yellow  and  red  coloration  and  the  selective  press¬ 
ures  maintaining  the  ‘Adelaide’  colour.  At  its  simplest  level,  for  example, 
if  the  Adelaide  was  produced  because  it  had  a  ‘red  allele’,  from  the  Pen 
nant,  and  a  ‘yellow  one’,  from  the  Yellow  Rosella  then,  on  average,  for 
every  two  Adelaides  produced  by  a  breeding  pair  of  Adelaides  there  would 
also  be  one  Pennant  and  one  Yellow  Rosella.  In  fact  the  plumage,  of  the 
birds  that  I  saw,  may  well  have  differed  slightly  between  individuals.  But 
this  difference  was  not  noticeable  to  me  in  the  field  -  except  that  young¬ 
sters  were  green.  However  as  I  know  (both  from  my  conversation  with 
field  workers  on  wild  Rosellas,  and  from  aviculturists  who  have  selected 
for  brighter-coloured  birds)  all  rosella  populations  ( Platycercus  species) 
display  quite  considerable  variation  in  colouring.  Consequently,  I  think 
that  Forshaw  was  mistaken  in  thinking  of  the  Adelaide  as  being  of  hybrid 
origin. 

Quite  the  most  evocative  of  Australian  birds,  because  of  its  musical 
piping  at  dawn  and  evening,  was  the  White-backed  Magpie  Gymnorhina 


172 


G.  A.  SMITH  -  A  FEW  DAYS  IN  ADELAIDE 


hypoleuca.  They  teased  because  they  were  never  close  enough  for  me  to 
‘snap’  them  when  I  had  my  camera;  but  when  I  left  it  behind  they  came  as 
close  as  a  metre.  Mudlarks  Grallina  cyanoleuca  often  joined  the  magpies 
in  perching  on  road-side  lamps.  Another  black  and  white  bird,  the  Willie 
Wagtail  Rhipidura  leucophrys,  was  also  very  common  and  tame.  They  were 
aggressive  and  appeared  singly.  Black  on  the  top  and  white  underneath 
they  had  none  of  the  appearance  of  shape  or  ‘jiz’  of  the  wagtails  Motacilla 
of  Europe.  For  example  the  long  and  heavy  black  tail  was  swung  laterally 
in  a  fanned  manner,  which  reminded  me  of  the  flared  skirt  of  a  flamenco 
dancer,  and  not  with  the  vertical  elasticated-bounce  of  the  Motacilla. 

After  the  three  day  conference  I  was  taken  to  see  several  avicultural 
collections.  The  first  lay  to  the  south  of  Adelaide.  The  straight,  and  not 
very  busy,  highway  had  its  surface  just  as  sploshed  and  spattered  as  it 
would  have  been  if  it  ran  under  a  heronry.  However,  it  was  not  faeces  that 
fouled  the  macadam  but  the  flattened  corpses  of  mice;  for  we  were  in  a 
mouse-plague-year.  And,  with  only  a  few,  scarce,  breaks  this  heavy  dotting 
of  the  road  with  mummified  mice  and,  infrequently,  a  cat,  continued 
unbroken  to  our  destination  thirty  miles  south-east.  Several  thin  flocks  of 
Little  Raven  Corvus  mellori  and  single  Nankeen  Kestrel  Falco  cenchroides 
were  seen.  The  effect  these  predators  would  have  had  on  the  mouse 
problem,  which  not  to  exaggerate  must  have  been  of  millions,  must  have 
been  as  negligible  as  would  that  of  a  child  filling  a  bucket  with  brine  from 
the  contents  of  the  ocean.  A  single  flock  of  the  very  common  Silver  Gull 
Lams  novaehollandiae  seemed  to  prefer  scraps  thrown  from  parked  cars 
to  mice:  for  they  were  outside  the  same  petrol-selling  restaurant  when  we 
came  back  hours  later.  My  curiosity  as  to  the  species  of  mouse  (the  House 
Mouse  Mus  musculus)  was  easily  satisfied  for,  on  arriving  at  our  desti¬ 
nation,  in  an  empty  barn  with  no  door,  whole  populations  of  mice  unable 
to  find  their  way  out  again,  lay  dead.  While  the  living  scurried  close  to  the 
walls  and  formed  pyramids  a  foot  high  in  each  corner.  A  smell  of  decaying 
meat  that  hung  about  the  farm  reminded  me  of  an  old-fashioned  tanner’s 
yard.  At  the  farm  I  was  shown  native  waterfowl,  most  native  species  of 
parrot,  and  several  pigeons,  and,  amongst  the  exotics,  Nanday  and  Jenday 
Conures  Aratinga  nenday  and  A.  jandaya,  Quaker  Conures  Myiopsitta 
monachus,  Indian  Ringnecks,  Alexandrines  and  Plumheads  Psittacula 
krameri  P.  eupatria  and  P.  cyanocephala.  The  pride  of  the  collection 
was  the  mutation  colours  of  the  Peach  faced  Lovebird  Agapomis  rosei- 
collis.  I  saw  lutinos,  a  black-eyed  yellow  -  this  was  a  particularly  attractive 
mutation.  In  no  way  comparable  to  the  mucky-yellow  parYellows  or 
‘Golden-Cherry’  lovebirds  of  Europe  and  North  America.  I  also  saw  a 


G.  A.  SMITH  -  A  FEW  DAYS  IN  ADELAIDE 


173 


mutation  of  Cockatiel  a  pink-eyed  bird  with  the  faintest  of  faint  grey 
plumage.  This  latter  may  or  may  not  be  a  fresh  mutation  for  it  might  have 
been  created  by  cross-linkage:  cinnamon  and  lutino  being  on  the  same 
sex-chromosome. 

Altogether  I  was  shown  around  three  of  the  largest  collections  in  South 
Australia.  The  establishments  were  all  private  and  appeared  larger  than 
those  of  Europe.  One  was  a  commercial  enterprise  dealing  exclusively 
in  parrots.  Perhaps,  therefore,  there  are  more  bird-breeders  in  Australia 
than  in  Europe.  If  so  this  is  consequent  upon  the  better  climate  and  the 
lower  density  housing  which,  until  recently  in  Adelaide,  was  four  houses 
to  an  acre.  Indeed  someone  complained  that  now  it  occasionally  gets 
as  high  as  eight  houses  to  an  acre!  The  standard  aviary  design  was  frames 
of  welded  steel  pipe  covered  by  galvanised  wire  and  sheltered,  at  one  end, 
against  the  sun  and,  minimally,  against  cold  and  wind,  by  galvanised  flat  or 
corrugated  sheet  steel.  Aviaries  tended  to  be  large  which  meant  that  for 
Princess  of  Wales’,  Rock  Pebblers  and  Barrabands  Polytelis  alexandrae, 
P.  anthopeplus  and  P.  swainsonii,  several  pairs  could  be  kept  together 
with  consequent,  for  they  are  apparently  colonial  birds  when  nesting, 
excellent  breeding  results.  Feeding  was  on  the  side  of  generosity.  Seed  is 
about  a  third  to  a  quarter  of  the  price  in  the  U.K. 

My  particular  interest  was  in  the  cockatoos  and  I  saw  all  the  Australian 
species  except  for  the  Palm  Probosciger  aterrimus  and  the  Glossy  Black 
Calyptorhynchus  lathami  There  is  a  trend  in  Australian  ornithology  to 
subdivide  species  of  birds  into  fresh  species.  This  is  particularly  so  for  the 
cockatoos.  There  are  said  to  be  two  species  of  White-tailed  Black  Cocka¬ 
toos  C.  funereus  in  Western  Australia  (Saunders  1977).  They  live  in  com¬ 
pletely  adjacent  woodland  of  different  species  of  Eucalyptus  and  differ  in 
voice  and  the  width  of  the  bill.  Except  by  very  close  examination  no  one 
could  tell  them  apart.  It  was  my  fortune  to  see  two  pairs  of  White  tails,  in 
the  same  collection,  made  up  of  a  male  from  the  wide-mandible  ‘race’  and 
a  hen  from  the  narrow-mandible  one.  As  yet  no-one  has  bred  the  White¬ 
tailed  Black.  When  they  do  it  will  be  most  instructive  to  see  whether,  when 
the  races  are  crossed,  the  chicks  turn  out  to  be  intermediate  in  bill  width 
or,  as  I  believe,  will  take  after  one  parent  or  the  other.  The  Yellow-tailed 
has  been  bred,  for  I  saw  chicks  in  two  collections.  Likewise  with  the 
Red-tailed  Black  C  magnificus :  both  unrecorded  in  print.  The  difference 
between  the  nominate  race  of  Red-tailed  and  the  south-western  isolate  C. 
m.  naso  was  striking.  For  naso  was  smaller  and  duller  and  kept  up  a 
continual  din  -  which  I  am  told  is  a  characteristic  of  its  behaviour,  while 
the  bigger  bird  was  silent.  For  those  who  blindly  accept  that  hand-reared 


174 


G.  A.  SMITH  -  A  FEW  DAYS  IN  ADELAIDE 


cockatoos  do  not  breed,  every  one  of  the  several  chicks  that  I  saw  from 
black  cockatoos  came  from  hand-reared  parents. 

Only  one  person,  from  the  very  many  parrot-breeders  that  I  conversed 
with,  bothered  to  keep  Roseate  Cockatoos.  And  he  had  three  mutations 
to  work  with;  red-eyed  white  (inos)  in  which  the  grey  was  entirely  su- 
pressed  leaving  the  pink.  Black-eyed  white  -  which,  except  for  the  eye, 
looked  much  the  ‘ino’  other  than  for  slight  evidence  of  greying  on  the 
wings:  and  cinnamon  in  which  the  grey  is  transmuted  to  pale  brown. 
Talking  of  mutations,  I  saw  a  lutino  Adelaide,  picked  up  as  a  sun-blinded 
youngster  straight  from  the  nest,  which  was  to  be  used  for  breeding.  This 
lutino  was  a  particularly  beautiful  bird  and  the  mutation,  being  sex- 
linked  (?)  should  readily  become  established  in  aviaries.  Gang-gang  Cock¬ 
atoos  Callocephalon  fimbriatum  were  plentiful  in  these  collections.  Un¬ 
fortunately  a  high  percentage  were  subject  to  a  self-mutilation  of  their 
feathers.  A  veterinarian,  Dr.  David  Schultz,  expressed  his  opinion  that 
this  often  proved  to  start  after  a  stress,  for  example  separating  the  pairs; 
or  removing  the  chicks;  or  capture  and  dispatch  to  another  collector. 
As  Gang-gangs  are  said  to  be  highly  arboreal,  perhaps  one  stress  is  that 
aviaries  are  (from  the  birds  point  of  view)  too  near  the  ground.  Whatever 
a  Gang-gang  in  perfect  feather  is  a  remarkably  beautiful  cockatoo  and  the 
cork-being-eased-from-the-neck-of-a-bottle  contact  call  is,  even  to  a  tee¬ 
totaller,  such  as  myself,  a  particularly  lovely  sound  to  hear. 

Leadbeater’s  (Major  Mitchell’s)  Cockatoos  Cacatua  leadbeateri  were  in 
all  collections.  The  westernmost  form  has  a  much  deeper  shade  of  pink 
to  the  body  and  an  absence,  or  a  token,  of  a  stripe  of  yellow  to  the  crest. 
I  do  not  think  they  are  represented  in  European  aviaries.  As  Leadbeater’s 
are  a  current  passion  of  mine  -  we  now  have  nine  (seven  ‘own-bred’).  I 
was  intrigued  to  hear  that  some  Australian  pairs  will  raise  four  youngsters 
to  a  nest.  General  opinion  was  that  they  were  not  ‘adult’,  i.e.  sexually 
mature,  until  they  were  four  years  old:  yet  I  was  told  of  birds  that  had  laid 
at  a  year  and  pairs  that  had  successfully  raised  chicks  when  two.  If  my 
own  birds  are  typical  they  attempt  to  tread,  and  have  certainly  begun  to 
establish  sexual  pairs,  by  a  year  and  investigate  nest  boxes  and  copulate, 
seemingly  quite  successfully,  when  two.  One  of  the  highlights  of  my  trip 
was  seeing  a  Leadbeater’s  X  Roseate  Cockatoo.  There  are  those  who  (e.g. 
Forshaw  1978),  after  evidence  supplied  by  Holyoak  (1970),  put  these 
cockatoos  into  separate  genera:  the  Roseate  then  becoming  Eolophus . 
However  this  lovely  hybrid  consolidates  my  own  belief  that  this  is  hair¬ 
splitting:  for  the  chick,  from  the  two,  resembled  a  ‘white’  cockatoo  in 
all  respects.  It  was  smaller  than  a  Leadbeater’s  and  had  a  white,  pinched 


G.  A.  SMITH  -  A  FEW  DAYS  IN  ADELAIDE 


175 


from  side  to  side,  crest.  It  was  white  on  the  back  with  just  a  few  greyish 
feathers  that  would,  in  all  probability,  with  time,  be  replaced  with  white. 
The  breast  was  pinky.  Unfortunately  the  aviary  in  which  it  was  housed 
proved  too  dark  to  photograph.  Mr.  Smit,  the  breeder,  told  me  that  it 
and  the  eleven  other  chicks  from  the  same  pair  were  of  the  same  appear¬ 
ance.  The  oddity  was  that  he  insisted  that  all  the  chicks  were  female. 
This,  if  true,  has  a  huge  interest,  for  male  hybrids  are  more  viable  than 
female.  But  I  believe  he  was  mistaken.  The  iris  of  male  Roseates  Is  often  of 
a  brown  colour  and  I  think  that  either  the  chicks  had  the  same  iris  colour 
(the  one  we  saw  was  brown)  or  the  difference  between  the  pinkish-brown 
of  the  hens  and  the  brown  of  the  males  was  not  discernible. 

Except  for  the  Orange-bellied  Neophema  chrysogaster,  I  saw  all  the 
grass  parakeets.  I  was  told  a  sad  tale  about  the  Orange-bellied  which  was 
that  someone  was  breeding  it  most  successfully  and  the  Wildlife  services 
took  the  birds  from  him  and  released  them,  as  they  were  perfectly  entitled 
to  do,  back  into  the  wild.  If  the  release  was  not  successful,  and  we  have  no 
information  that  it  was,  then  this  act  must  come  under  the  heading  of  mis- 
conservation.  Likewise  I  saw  all  the  Psephotus  parakeets,  except  for  the 
Paradise  P.  pulcherrimus  (which,  incidentally  I  am  informed  is  being  kept 
and  bred).  The  Golden-shouldered  P.  c.  chrysop terygius  and  the  Hooded 
P.  c.  dissimilis  were  plentiful  enough  to  appear,  even  if  my  impression  was 
mistaken,  quite  commonplace.  The  blue-bonnets  are  usually  included  in 
the  same  genus;  but  here  I  am  the  ‘splitter’  and  would  have  them  in 
Northiella.  The  Naretha  Blue-bonnet  K  narethae  again  appeared  to  be  in 
every  collection.  Selective  breeding  had  ‘improved’  the  Brown’s  or  North¬ 
ern  Rosella  Platycercus  venustus  so  that  they  had  completely  black  caps  to 
the  head  and  the  contrast  between  the  black  and  yellow  of  the  back  was 
maximised.  Invariably  the  condition  of  the  birds  was  excellent  and  if  this 
visit  did  one  thing,  it  was  to  emphasize  over  and  over  again  to  me  that 
what  parrots  in  Europe  lack  is  dry  warmth. 


References: 

Forshaw,  J.  M.  1973.  Parrots  of  the  World  2nd  Edition.  David  and  Charles,  Newton 
Abbot. 

Holyoak,  D.  T.  1970.  Structural  Characters  for  Supporting  the  Recogntion  of  the 
Genus  Eolophus  for  Cacatua  roseicapilla.  Emu  70:200. 

Saunders,  D.  A.  1979.  Distribution  and  Taxonomy  of  the  White-tailed  and  Yellow¬ 
tailed  Black  Cockatoos  Calyptorhynchus  spp.  Emu  79.  215-227. 


176 


IMPORTANT  NEWS  CONCERNING  ROCK  PIGEONS 
By  PROFESSOR  CARL  NAETHER  (Encino,  California) 


It  is  generally  assumed  by  scientists  and  other  researchers  on  the 
strength  of  intensive  as  well  as  extensive  study  and  observation,  both  in 
nature  and  In  captivity  that  the  Rock  Pigeon  Columba  livia  is  the  fore¬ 
runner  to  our  modern,  domestic  pigeon.  This  very  popular  hobby  bird  is 
currently  being  bred  in  most  parts  of  the  world  in  well  over  450  kinds. 
They  differ  slightly  or  markedly  in  the  matter  of  shape  or  form,  plumage 
colour,  or  mode  of  flight  from  the  Rock  Pigeon.  If  one  visits  a  so-called 
national  pigeon  show,  one  is  surprised,  if  indeed  not  agreeably  “shocked” 
by  the  seemingly  endless  varieties  of  birds  on  parade.  In  fact  there  is  no 
practical  limit  to  the  number  of  future  breeds,  which  are  likely  to  be 
produced  by  the  simple  means  of  crossing  existing  breeds.  The  inventive 
faculty  of  the  fancier  seems  ever  to  bring  forth  something  “new”,  even  if 
the  breed’s  newness  be  little  more  than  a  different  shade  of  plumage 
colour  or  a  different  body  shape  or  form.  As  we  all  know,  but  at  times 
do  not  fully  realise,  so  called  new  breeds  are  simply  more  or  less  attractive 
and  improved  mixture  of  several  old  ones,  and  they  are  labelled  “new”  to 
gain  followers.  This  is  not  necessarily  meant  to  downgrade  modern  vari¬ 
eties  which  in  many  instances  testify  beautifully  and  appealingly  to  the 
ingenuity,  initiative  and  perseverance  applied  to  their  “creation”. 

One  should  not  forget,  however,  how  flimsy  and  how  transient  the 
visible  physical  characteristics  of  new  breeds  in  most  cases  are,  how  easily 
they  can  be  erased  and  completely  removed  by  effective  crossbreeding. 
Good  examples  of  such  backward  “development”  can  be  found  in  large 
numbers  among  the  so  called  street  and  park  pigeons,  for  usually  their 
flocks  sport  fascinating  types  of  degenerated,  “former”  fancy  pigeons 
in  astounding  varieties.  Now  called  “culls”,  these  pigeons  have  gone, 
not  to  the  dogs,  as  the  old  saying  has  it,  but  to  the  streets!  Incidentally, 
a  favourite  pastime  of  not  a  few  pigeon  fanciers,  both  young  and  old, 
is  to  crossbreed  not  necessarily  with  forethought  and  careful  planning 
for  the  future,  but  “just  to  see  what  colour  or  shape  the  crosses  will  be 
like”!  In  the  course  of  his  long-time  hobby  keeping  both  domesticated 
wild  pigeons  and  doves,  this  writer  has  received  innumerable  requests 
for  information  regarding  the  crossing  of  all  kinds  of  pigeons  and  doves. 
Which  would  suggest  that  certain  pigeon  keepers  enjoy  expressing  their 
feelings  of  curiosity  in  this  fashion,  hoping  that  by  pure  chance  they 
will  produce  something  worthwhile. 


PROFESSOR  C.  NAETHER  -  ROCK  PIGEONS 


177 


But  now  let  us  get  back  to  the  Rock  Pigeon.  A  recent  series  of  infor¬ 
mative  articles  on  this  subject  appearing  in  the  “Gerflugel-Borse”,  a  well- 
known  West-German  hobby  magazine,  calls  specific  and  authentic  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  Rock  Pigeon  over  the  world, 
with  special  emphasis  on  the  numerous  subspecies  and  their  distinguishing 
characteristics.  So  far  as  is  known  today,  14  subspecies  of  Columha  livia 
have  been  found  and  certified  by  various  authorities.  There  may,  of 
course,  be  further  subspecies  extant  in  countries  where  they  are  simply 
inaccessible  to  observers  for  good  reasons.  The  fourteen  subspecies  differ 
mainly  in  size  and  plumage  colour,  these  differences  being  often  very  small 
and  not  readily  recognisable.  Their  sizes  are  determined  not  only  by  inheri¬ 
tance,  but  by  available  food  supplies.  Thus  Rock  Pigeons  living  in  desert 
and  waste  regions,  where  thay  have  to  subsist  on  an  often  very  limited  diet 
of  grass  and  other  desert  plant  seeds,  berries,  and  occasional  insects,  tend 
to  be  smaller  in  size  than  species  inhabiting  grain-producing  regions.  The 
ready  availability  of  suitable  grains  during  the  breeding  season  also  affects 
the  number  of  broods  raised,  which  may  vary  from  two  to  three,  or  even 
four  under  especially  favourable  conditions.  Plumage  colour  likewise 
varies  within  the  fourteen  subspecies.  Usually,  it  tends  to  be  somewhat 
lighter,  showing  more  white  on  the  back  or  more  grey,  on  species  living  in 
desert  or  tropical  regions,  where  frequent  sunshine  prevails  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  season.  In  coastal  and  other  regions,  less  favoured  by 
sunlight,  sub-species  tend  toward  a  darker  plumage,  the  white  or  grey 
backs  being  replaced  by  dark-grey  or  almost  grey-black,  blue  or  even  blue- 
black  colours.  In  considering  differences  in  plumage  colour,  one  must  not 
forget  that  in  given  habitats  Rock  Pigeons  have  crossed  with  certain  native 
species  more  or  less  freely,  thus  definitely  affecting  plumage  coloration. 

Another  quite  notable  difference  between  the  fourteen  subspecies 
concerns  wing-length,  which  may  differ  from  184  mm  to  as  much  as 
247  mm.  Thus  the  smallest  Rock  Pigeon  Columba  livia  schimperi ,  named 
after  the  German  naturalist  Schimper,  which  is  at  home  in  the  Nile  Region 
and  East  Egypt,  has  a  winglength  of  only  184  -  211  mm.  Columbia  livia 
livia  which  Eves  in  the  British  Isles,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  on  the  other 
hand,  boasts  a  wing-length  of  220  -  240  mm.  This  largely  blue-barred  bird 
with  a  white  back  has  a  glossy  neck  and  breast. 

The  Rock  Pigeon  with  the  lightest  coloured  plumage  is  Columba 
livia  daklae.  Its  upper  parts  and  wings  are  light  grey  contrasting  strongly 
with  a  white  back.  The  well-known  British  scientist  Meinertzhagen  was  the 
first  to  describe  this  pigeon  in  1928,  having  located  it  in  Egypt.  As  the 
“originator”  of  all  subspecies  functions  Columba  livia  intermedia,  so 


178 


PROFESSOR  C.  NAETHER  -  ROCK  PIGEONS 


regarded  by  the  British  ornithologist  Strickland  as  early  as  1844.  It  is  one 
of  the  darkest-coloured  rock  pigeons;  even  its  back  is  a  dark  blue. 

In  countries  where  more  or  less  primitive  agriculture  prevails  Rock 
Pigeons  seem  to  thrive  as  before,  while  in  others  where  modern  methods, 
such  as  immunizing  seeds  against  disease,  crop-dusting  etc.,  are  used, 
their  numbers  seem  to  shrink. 


179 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


In  Kenya,  the  second  annual  census  of  birds  within  the  Nairobi  Pro¬ 
vincial  boundary  was  even  better  supported  than  the  first,  and  totalled 
14,964  birds  of  304  species  (265  species  were  counted  in  the  first  census). 
Included  in  the  second  census  were  140  Ostrich,  two  Fish  Eagle,  14 
Crowned  Crane,  13  Hartlaub’s  Turaco,  592  Speckled  Mousebird,  18 
Silvery-cheeked  Hornbill,  282  Variable  Sunbird,  653  Bronze  Mannikin, 
137  Jackson’s  Widowbird,  15  Purple  Granadier  and  70  Pin-tailed  Whydah. 
Openbill  Stork  (two),  Hottentot  Teal  (15),  Crowned  Eagle  (two),  Spotted 
Redshank  (15),  Pigmy  Kingfisher  (two)  and  Fischer’s/Masked  Lovebird 
(16)  were  among  those  not  recorded  during  the  first  census. 


*  * 


* 


It  has  been  reported  that  on  the  west  coast  of  South  Africa,  where  the 
Jackass  Penguin  Spheniscus  demersus  is  endemic,  the  population  has 
halved  in  size  during  the  last  20  years.  It  has  been  estimated  that  since 
the  beginning  of  this  century,  there  has  been  something  like  a  ninety- 
percent  decline.  The  main  reason  for  this  was  egg  harvesting,  which  was 
outlawed  in  1969.  Now,  oil  pollution  and  harbour  developments  near  the 
breeding  colonies  are  causing  further  falls  in  numbers.  However,  the  main 
threat  appears  to  be  from  competition  for  food  with  the  fishing  industry, 
which  has  seriously  depleted  stocks  of  fish,  such  as  pilchard,  on  which  the 
penguins  feed. 


*  * 


* 


The  White-winged  Guan  Penelope  albipennis,  long  thought  to  be 
extinct,  has  been  found  living  in  pockets  of  evergreen  trees  growing  near 
streams  in  the  Andean  foothills  of  Peru.  John  O’Neill,  an  American  zoolo¬ 
gist,  estimates  that  several  hundred  of  these  birds  survive.  The  only  threat 
to  them  at  present  is  the  clearance  of  trees  to  create  agricultural  land.  The 
Peruvian  government  is  said  to  have  given  full  protection  to  the  White¬ 
winged  Guan. 


180 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


The  Royal  Society  for  the  Protection  of  Birds  report  that  1980  has 
been  the  most  successful  breeding  season  for  Scottish  Ospreys  for  a 
hundred  years  -  41  young  reached  maturity. 


* 


*  * 


By  the  time  this  note  is  read,  the  1980  results  of  Cornell  University’s 
captive  breeding  project  with  the  Peregrine  Falcon  will  have  been  pub- 
lished  in  the  Peregrine  Fund  Newsletter.  However,  as  little  has  been 
recorded  in  this  column  in  the  past  on  this  important  project,  perhaps  it 
will  be  of  interest  to  look  back  on  the  results  achieved  last  year  and  pub¬ 
lished  in  the  Fall  (autumn)  1979  Newsletter:  “This  year,  for  the  first 
time,  we  broke  the  100  mark  in  the  number  of  young  peregrines  raised 
in  our  combined  programs  at  Fort  Collins  and  Cornell  -  1 10  young  came 
from  eggs  laid  in  captivity  and  19  from  wild  eggs  hatched  in  incubators  .  .  . 
Thus,  at  Cornell  21  females  laid  a  total  of  117  eggs,  107  were  actually 
fertile,  71  of  them  hatched  (66%),  and  57  hatchlings  survived  to  achieve 
full  development.  The  comparable  figures  for  Fort  Collins  are:  24  egg- 
laying  females,  a  total  of  139  eggs  laid,  75  fertile,  58  hatched  (77%)  and 
53  raised”. 

Artificial  insemination  was  used  on  14  of  the  Cornell  females  and  16 
of  those  at  Fort  Collins.  This  method  of  fertilisation  is  believed  to  have 
a  success  rate  of  87%  at  Cornell  and  88%  at  Fort  Collins. 


*  * 


* 


Devil  Birds  by  Derek  Bromhall  provides  an  in-depth  study  of  the  private 
life  of  the  Swift.  A  colony  of  these  birds,  nesting  in  the  tower  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity  Museum  at  Oxford  were  studied  over  two  breeding  season  by  Mr. 
Bromhall;  the  results  of  which  can  be  seen  in  this  well  written  and  infor¬ 
mative  book,  illustrated  with  some  excellent  photographs,  not  only  of 
Apus  apus  but  ten  or  so  are  devoted  to  allied  species. 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


181 


Amongst  the  many  rare  books  on  ornithology  offered  recently  by 
Henry  Sotheran  Ltd.  of  Sackville  Street  was  the  5  volume  set  of  John 
Gould’s  Birds  of  New  Guinea  and  the  Adjacent  Papuan  Islands  for  the 
grand  price  of  £21,000.  I  think  I  will  content  myself  with  Rand  and 
Gilliard  until  the  rumoured  Field  Guide  to  Papua  New  Guinea  becomes 
available. 


*  * 


* 


The  Cornell  University  Laboratory  of  Ornithology  Newsletter  no.  95 
contains  brief  summaries  on  four  research  projects,  two  of  which  involve 
the  study  of  crane  migration  using  radio  transmitters  attached  to  the  birds’ 
leg  or  back  to  enable  close  monitoring  of  the  birds’  movements.  In  one 
study,  transmitters  were  attached  to  twelve  nestling  Sandhill  Cranes  on 
their  breeding  grounds  north  of  Winnipeg,  Manitoba  and  details  recorded 
of  their  migration  southwards  to  Dakota.  One  bird  was  tracked  as  far  as 
Texas. 

The  same  procedure  was  adopted  on  five  juvenile  Whooping  Cranes  for 
their  winter  migration  from  Gray’s  Lake  Refuge,  Idaho  to  Bosque  de 
Apache  National  Wildlife  Refuge  in  Southern  New  Mexico.  Tracking  was 
undertaken  by  light  aircraft  and  recorded  the  group  soaring  at  altitudes  of 
over  twenty  thousand  feet  when  crossing  the  Rockies.  The  report  also 
gives  some  encouragement  on  the  status  of  this  majestic  crane  which  num¬ 
bered  only  21  in  1941.  Estimates,  at  the  start  of  the  1979  winter  migra¬ 
tion  put  the  number  at  about  90  with  another  25  held  in  a  captive  flock  at 
Patuxtent. 

Other  subjects  in  the  Newsletter  cover  research  on  Great  Blue  Heron 
populations  in  New  York  State  and  predation  on  Goldenrod  Fly  larvae  by 

Downy  Woodpeckers. 


182 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


Fairy  wrens  of  the  genus  Malurus  are  not  frequently  seen  in  collec¬ 
tions  outside  their  native  Australia  but  aviculturists  within  Australia 
have,  over  the  years,  succeeded  in  breeding  at  least  nine  of  the  thirteen 
species  occurring  in  their  country;  one  other  inhabits  New  Guinea  but  has 
never  been  kept  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge.  References  in  the  Avi- 
cultural  Magazine,  usually  quoting  from  Australian  literature  give  the 
following  species  as  being  reared:  Purple-backed  Wren  M.  assimilis,  Tur- 
qoise  Wren  M.  callainus ,  Superb  Blue  Wren  M  cyaneus,  Red-winged  Wren 
M.  elegans ,  Variegated  Wren  M.  lamberti,  White-winged  Wren  M.  leucop- 
terus ,  Red-backed  Wren  M.  melanocephalus ,  Black-backed  Wren  M.  mel- 
anotus  and  Splendid  Wren  M.  splendens. 

Outside  Australia  the  Superb  Blue  is  the  only  species  to  have  reared, 
and  then  only  infrequently.  In  Britain,  the  first  breeding  took  place  as 
early  as  1902  in  the  aviaries  of  Reginald  Phillips;  a  most  remarkable 
achievement  considering  the  only  way  of  transporting  such  gems  in  those 
days  was  by  a  long  and  hazardous  sea  journey.  It  wasn’t  until  1978  that 
they  reared  again,  this  time  here  at  Padstow  Bird  Gardens  where  three 
young  were  reared  by  two  pairs  of  captive  bred  birds.  These  were  the 
progeny  of  a  prolific  pair  which  produced  a  total  of  twenty  young  in  one 
year  at  Frankfurt  Zoo.  The  Marshal  Boehm  Aviaries  in  America  also  had 
some  success  in  the  early  sixties. 


* 


* 


In  a  pleasing  sequel  to  his  article  on  hand-rearing  the  Greater  Spotted 
Woodpecker  (Avicultural  Magazine,  1979,  121-124),  Bill  Herring  relates 
that  two  of  them  have  nested  in  the  release  area.  The  nest  was  discovered 
when  the  young  were  fairly  well  advanced  but  both  parents  responded  to 
calls  made  to  them  at  the  time  by  answering  and  approaching  quite  clos¬ 
ely.  The  number  of  young  remained  unknown  as  no  sign  was  seen  of  them 
once  fledged. 


*  * 


* 


Still  on  the  subject  of  woodpeckers.  There  seems  to  have  been  an 
increase  in  their  numbers  in  the  Padstow  area  during  the  past  twelve 
months,  not  only  in  individuals  but  species.  The  Green  has  always  been  a 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


183 


common  bird  in  the  district  and  occasionally  a  pair,  along  with  young 
are  to  be  seen  feeding  on  our  centre  lawn.  However,  this  year  the  numbers 
seem  to  have  doubled  and  for  the  first  time  we  have  had  one  brought  into 
the  gardens,  but  like  most  birds  received,  was  injured.  Unfortunately,  the 
wound  was  an  old  one  and  the  bird  has  to  be  destroyed  because  of  its 
gangrenous  condition. 

I  had  not  previously  seen  either  the  Lesser  or  Greater  Spotted  in  the 
area  but  early  in  the  new  year,  a  pair  of  the  latter  put  in  an  appearance, 
spending  most  of  their  time  divided  between  a  row  of  large  pines  near  the 
gardens  and  tall  woodland  bordering  the  town.  As  the  year  progressed 
they  favoured  the  pines  less  and  were  frequently  observed  in  the  wood¬ 
land.  No  conclusive  evidence  of  nesting,  such  as  nest  site  or  young  were 
found  but  both  birds  were  seen  to  carry  away  pieces  of  fruit  from  the 
bird  table  of  a  house  just  across  the  road  from  the  gardens.  The  fruit 
concerned,  was  the  waste  of  our  previous  days  feeding  which  is  always 
“taken  across  the  road”  for  the  wild  birds  and  while  the  Roberts  have 
had  a  variety  of  birds  visit  their  bird  table,  I  think  it  was  a  very  pleased 
smile  which  accompanied  the  questioning  “Guess  what  we  had  visit  the 
bird  table”.  They  continued  to  visit  for  another  two  weeks,  taking  away 
pieces  of  fruit  as  they  departed. 

The  Lesser  Spotted  also  put  in  an  appearance,  being  observed  on 
several  occasions  and  a  dead  male,  an  obvious  road  casualty  was  found  in 
June. 


*  * 


* 


The  second  generation  White-cheeked  Turacos  reported  in  the  July 
newsletter  as  about  to  fledge  at  the  gardens  have  done  so,  and  have  been 
followed  by  a  third.  Our  original  pair,  after  three  abortive  attempts  earlier 
in  the  year,  hatched  and  subsequently  reared  two  of  their  own.  The  White- 
cheeks  are  one  of  the  first  species  to  begin  nesting,  and  one  of  the  last  to 
finish.  Since  their  first  productive  nesting  in  1975,  the  original  pair,  prior 
to  1980,  had  reared  seven  young.  The  first  two  bred  are  the  pair  which 
have  just  reared  their  first.  This  is  after  three  years  of  trying  in  which 
eggs  had  only  produced  one  young:  alas,  this  only  survived  for  a  week  or 
so.  This  year  when  young  hatched,  both  pairs  were  offered  bread  in  a 
Complan  and  Farlene  mixture  to  which  had  been  added  Ribena  (a  con¬ 
centrated  fruit  cordial),  powdered  cuttle-fish  and  Vionate  vitamin  powder. 


184 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


This  was  consumed  readily  along  with  soaked  puppy  meal  and,  apart 
from  grapes  and  tomato,  little  fruit  was  eaten  until  the  amount  of  bread 
sop  was  reduced  when  young  reached  the  age  of  between  three  and  four 
weeks. 


*  * 


* 


The  most  recent  awards  of  the  “Rare  Breeding  Medal”  by  the 
South  African  National  Cage  Bird  Association  were  made  to  J.  J.  Mare 
(Roodepoort)  for  breeding  the  Yellow-billed  Hornbill  (1979)  and  to 
Dr.  W.  D.  Russell  (Bryanston)  for  breeding  the  Goldie’s  Lorikeet  (1980). 

The  South  African  National  Championship  Show  was  held  in  Johan¬ 
nesburg  for  1980.  It  attracted  a  near  record  entry  of  3,300  birds.  The  Sup¬ 
reme  award  in  the  wild  bird  section  went  to  Dr.  W.  D.  Russell’s  Emerald 
Toucanet. 


* 


*  * 


The  colony  of  Night  Heron  Nycticorax  nycticorax  at  liberty  in 
Edingburgh  Zoo  for  nearly  thirty  years  was  the  subject  of  some  study  by 
several  members  of  the  Scottish  Ornithologists  Club  in  1979,  particularly 
by  local  recorder  for  the  Club,  Bob  Smith.  He  writes  “Stan  da  Prato 
counted  the  colony  on  4th  January  and  got  13  birds.  On  31st  December 
he  counted  13  adults  and  4  immatures. 

My  wife  and  I  visited  the  zoo  on  21st  April,  26th  May  and  a  brief 
visit  mid-June.  We  found  it  very  difficult  to  know  what  was  happening  in 
relation  to  nesting.  There  were  four  sites  with  platforms  (including  two 
substantial  structures  on  26th  May;  on  one  of  which  a  bird  was  sitting 
tight  while  the  second  appeared  empty,  although  an  adult  arrived  later.) 
The  other  two  platforms  were  fairly  flimsy.  I  feel  sure  one  of  the  nests 
had  eggs/young  on  26th  May  -  it  was  40  feet  up  a  deciduous  tree  but  no 
signs  of  adults  were  present  in  June.  No  indication  of  eggshells  or  young 
were  found  in  June  anywhere  and  most  of  the  visible  platforms  (low  down 
in  small  pines)  seemed  untenanted. 

From  our  two  visits  it  is  impossible  to  be  sure  whether  the  small 
platforms  we  saw  with  attendant  pairs,  were  being  used  for  egg-laying 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


185 


although  it  is  quite  possible  they  were.  However,  it  appears  that  in  1979 
there  were  about  four  pairs  with  platforms  of  which  at  least  one,  pro¬ 
bably  two  pairs  tried  to  breed.  As  four  young  were  observed  in  winter, 
obviously  one  or  two  pairs  were  successful.  The  zoo  has  a  high  population 
of  Carrion  Crows  and  Magpies  (and  Grey  Squirrels)  so  egg  predation  may 
be  a  problem.  I  understood  the  zoo  caught  three  adults  in  early  1979 
for  transportation  to  another  zoo. 

As  local  recorder  I  should  get  reports  on  Night  Herons  outside  the 
zoo  but  very  few  are  received.  It  may  be  that  some  people  see  them  and 
think  they  aren’t  worth  reporting  -  as  feral  birds.  But  I  really  think  that 
few  are  actually  seen,  possibly  because  they  are  a  dusk  flying  and  night 
feeding  species.  I  have  bird-watched  at  Gladhouse  Reservoir  since  the  war 
and  have  one  autumn  record  of  a  juvenile  many  years  ago  (15  miles 
S.S.E.).  I  have  heard  of  the  occasional  juvenile  in  Fife  many  years  ago  so 
possibly  there  is  some  movement  occasionally.  However  the  birds  are  fed 
at  the  zoo  and  probably  spend  most  of  their  time  there.  Occasionally  one 
is  reported  at  one  feeding  area  for  a  short  spell  -  one  frequented  the  water 
of  Leith  several  years  ago  and  could  be  seen  from  the  main  road.  About 
three  years  ago  an  adult  was  reported  near  Lasswade  (8  miles  from  the 
zoo),  which  flew  in  at  dusk  for  several  evenings.  On  27th  October  1979 
an  immature  flew  over  Seafield  (6  miles  East  of  the  zoo)  in  the  early 
morning  looking  for  the  zoo”. 

In  summing  up  his  letter,  Mr.  Smith  adds  “I  now  feel  that  the  colony 
is  probably  static,  maintains  the  occasional  loss  of  numbers,  and  that 
they  tend  to  wander  little,  if  at  all,  from  the  immediate  area  of  the  zoo”. 


*  * 


* 


In  a  recent  report,  the  Royal  Society  for  the  Protection  of  Birds  said 
that  the  Red  Kite,  one  of  the  rarest  and  most  spectacular  birds  of  Britain, 
has  had  its  most  successful  breeding  season  this  century. 

A  record  total  of  27  young  were  reared  by  21  pairs  of  kites  in  their 
central  Wales  haunt.  This  was  undoubtedly  aided  by  the  warm  Spring 
weather.  Seven  other  pairs  built  nests  and  laid  eggs,  but  these  either  failed 
to  hatch  or  were  taken  by  predators. 

This  brings  the  total  population  of  Red  Kites  in  Britain  to  about  125, 
the  highest  recorded.  Until  the  18th  Century,  Red  Kites  were  common  in 
Britain,  but  numbers  dropped  to  about  a  dozen  at  the  beginning  of  the 
century. 


186 


NEWS  AND  VIEWS 


In  keeping  with  the  trend  towards  specialisation  common  among  many 
of  the  progressive  wild-life  parks,  Reg  Smith,  director  of  Weyhill,  is  grad¬ 
ually  swinging  the  emphasis  to  birds  of  prey.  Quite  a  representative  stock 
of  raptors  was  already  included  in  the  collection  of  European  fauna  and 
several  of  the  species  have  been  bred  successfully.  Now,  under  the  new 
name  of  the  Hawk  Conservancy,  a  number  of  interesting  new  species 
have  been  added,  including:  White-backed  Vulture  Gyps  bengalensis, 
Cinerous  Vulture  Aegypius  monachus,  White-tailed  Sea  Eagle  Haliaeetus 
albiciila ,  Ferruginous  Buzzard  Buteo  regalis ,  Woodford’s  Owl  Ciccaba 
woodfordii  and  Boobook  Owl  Ninox  novaeseelandiae. 


D.C. 


Members  are  asked  to  forward  any  items  of  avicultural  interest  to:  D.  Coles, 
Pads  tow  Bird  Gardens,  Padstow,  Cornwall. 


* 


*  * 


Correction 

VoL  86,  No.  1,  P.  30.  Rothschild’s  Mynah  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park  by  D.  F.  Jeggo 
Line  15  -  “ . 1.15  m.  high”  should  read  “ . 1.75  m.  high”. 


*  * 


* 


The  Editor  does  not  accept  responsibility  for  opinions  expressed  in  articles, 
notes,  or  correspondence. 


ORNITHOLOGICAL  HOLIDAYS 
with  COX  &  KINGS 

The  1981  Programme  will  include  such  inter¬ 
esting  and  rewarding  centres  as: 

Kenya,  Rumania,  Camargue,  Yugoslavia 

Spain  -  Berdun-Pyrenees  (Huesca) 
and  Laguna  de  Gallacanta  (Zaragoza) 

Greece  -  Delphi  and  Parnassus  (Birds  &  Flowers) 

Planned  for  late  1981 /Early  1982 

Guyana,  Papua  New  Guinea 
Ecuador  and  Galapagos,  Morocco 
For  details  contact: 

Cox  &  Kings  Travel  Ltd.,  Special  Interest  Dept., 

46  Marshall  Street,  London  W1V  2PA. 

Tel:  01-439  8292 


BIRD  BOOKS 

BOUGHT  AND  SOLD 
Overseas  Enquiries  Invited 


Please  offer  those  books  surplus  to  your  require¬ 
ments  to  the  leading  world  specialist. 


LIMITED  EDITION.  The  Birds  of  Prey  of  the  British 

Islands ,  20  colour  plates  by  J.  C  Harrison ,  descriptive  text 
by  David  Evans,  half  leather,  slipcase,  folio,  275  signed 
copies.  Unique  beautiful  bird  book.  £450  inc.  postage. 

David  Evans  Fine  Bird  Books 

Marvins  Farmhouse,  Kingston  Deverill,  Warminster, 
Wiltshire,  BA12  7HG.  Tel.  (09853)  234 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY  OF  QUEENSLAND 


Welcomes  new  members 

An  Australian  Society  catering  for  all  birds  both  in  captivity  and  in  the  wild.  We 
put  out  a  bi-monthly  magazine  on  all  aspects  of  aviculture  and  conservation. 

Anyone  interested  in  becoming  a  member,  please  contact: 

Ray  Garwood,  19  Fahey’s  Road,  Albany  Creek,  4035  Queensland,  Australia. 

Annual  subscription  rates  are:  12.00  Australian  dollars  surface  mail 

18.00  Australian  dollars  air  mail 


BOOKS  ON  BIRDS 


New,  Second-hand,  Old  and  Rare 


CATALOGUE  ON  REQUEST 

WHELD0RI  &  WESLEY  LTD. 

C0DIC0TE,  HITCHIN,  HERTS,  SG4  8TE 

Stevenage  (0438)  820370 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Founded  1894 


The  Avicultural  Society  was  founded  in  1894  for  the  study  of  British  and  foreign 
birds  in  freedom  and  captivity.  The  Society  is  international  in  character,  having 
members  throughout  the  world. 

Membership  subscription  rates  per  annum:  British  Isles  £8.00;  Overseas  -  £9.00 
(20.00  US  dollars).  The  subscription  is  due  on  1st  January  of  each  year  and  those 
joining  the  Society  later  in  the  year  will  receive  back  numbers  of  the  current  volume 
of  the  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is:  British  Isles  and  Europe  -  £9.00;  out¬ 
side  Europe  -  £10.00  (25.00  US  dollars). 

All  overseas  rates  include  airmail  postage. 

Subscriptions,  changes  of  address,  orders  for  back  numbers,  etc.,  should  be  sent 
to:  THE  HON.  SECRETARY  AND  TREASURER,  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY, 
WINDSOR  FOREST  STUD,  MILL  RIDE,  ASCOT,  BERKSHIRE  SL5  8LT. 


NEW  MEMBERS 


Ms.  J.  Atkinson,  9643  Prichard  St.  867-9602,  Bellflower,  California  90706,  USA. 
W.G.  Christer,  Moor  End  Cottage,  Stricklands  La.,  Stalmine;  Nr.  Blackpool,  Lancs. 
Mr.  P.  Convy,  21  Fourth  Avenue,  Northville,  Bristol  BS7  ORN. 

Mr.  D.  H.  De  Swarte,  8670  W.  Silver  Spring  Drive,  Milwaukee,  WI  53225,  USA. 

Mr.  E.  A.  Dracup,  21  Millbrook  Road,  Bedford,  MK42  9HJ. 

Mr.  B.  Gallegos,  555  26th  Street,  Santa  Monica,  California  90402,  USA. 

Mr.  M.  Gammond,  13  The  Green,  Littleham,  Exmouth,  Devon. 

Miss.  J.  Gregson,  2  Manor  Way,  Totnes,  Devon. 

The  Hon.  F.  B.  Guinness,  Biddlesden  House,  Andover,  Hants. 

Mr.  D.  T.  Hall,  Flat  2,  Frogwell  Hospital,  Chippenham,  Wilts. 

Mr.  M.  Horstmann,  Fielding  Hotel,  Covent  Gda,  4  Broad  Ct.,  Bow  St.,  London  WC2. 
Mr.  G.K.G.  Illsley,  3  Boundary  Close,  Tilehurst,  Reading,  Berkshire  RG3  5ER. 

Mr.  A.  Merand,  6  Avenue  Jeanne  D’Arc,  44380  Pornichet,  France. 

Mr.  A.  Morris,  Boydengate  House,  Chislet,  Canterbury,  Kent. 

Mr.  R.  J.  Schemers,  5945  Brynthrop,  Utica,  Michigan  48087,  USA. 

Mr.  R.  Schmidt,  708  Sneed  Road,  Franklin,  Tena  37064,  USA. 

Mr.  C.  Smith,  316  South  Holly  Street,  Bunkie,  Louisiana  71322,  USA. 

Mr.  P.  K.  Tomimori,  Rua  Napoleao  de  Barros  447,  apto  32,  Vila  Clementino  04024 
Sao  Paulo  -  SP,  Brazil. 


CHANGE  OF  ADDRESS 


Mr.  &  Mrs  J.  F.  G.  Arman  to  “The  Bungalow”,  Luddington-in-the-Brook,  Nr.  Oundle, 
Peterborough. 

Mr.  G.  Hulzenga  to  Wibbandastate  13,  8926  Ma  Leeuwarden,  Holland. 

Rosalie  Muller  to  Hochhaus  11/16.1,  Shopping  Center,  8958  Spreitenbach,  Swit¬ 
zerland. 

Mr.  D.  J.  Ripper  to  63  Fitzroy  Street,  Sale,  Victoria  3850,  Australia. 

Mr.  T.  Weise  to  Kirchlorderstr.  77,  4600  Dortmund  50,  West  Germany. 

Ms.  H.  Willett  to  8228  Sulphur  Mountain  Road,  Ojai,  California  93023,  USA. 

Mr.  J.  C.  Witt  to  PO  Box  326,  Sells,  Arizona  85634,  USA. 


Published  by  The  Avicultural  Society,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot, 
Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Unwin  Brothers  Ltd.,  The  Gresham  Press,  Old  Woking,  Surrey 


y?8.  *>54  * 


flpHL 

Bum 

A/ICULTURAL 

MAGAZINE 


SPECIAL  PARROT  ISSUE 


SPECIAL  ISSUE  ON  PARROTS 
CONTENTS 

Breeding  the  Horned  Parrot  Eunymphicus  c.  comutus  by  Dr.  H.  Quinque  ....  187 
(with  coloured  and  black  and  white  plates) 

Breeding  Goffin’s  Cockatoo  by  Rosemary  Low  (with  plates) . 195 

Some  Notes  on  Breeding  the  Red-tailed  Cockatoo  by  F.  Bohner . 202 

Breeding  the  Western  Race  of  the  Cape  Parrot  by  G.  and  H.  Isert . 205 

(with  plate) 

First  Captive  Breeding  of  the  Jamaican  Black-billed 

Amazon  Parrot  by  R.  Noegel . 209 

Breeding  the  Yellow-crowned  Amazon  by  J.  and  J.  Arman  (with  plates) . 211 

Notes  on  Breeding  Slender-billed  Conures  by  T.  Silva . 218 

Breeding  Results  for  1978  -  1979  by  Rosemary  Low  (with  plates)  . 220 

Amazon  Parrot  Husbandry  by  R.  Noegel . 232 

Our  Collection  of  Amazon  Parrots  by  J.  and  P.  Stoodley . 246 

The  St.  Lucian  Amazon  Parrot  by  T.  Silva . 248 

The  Macaws  at  Rode,  by  D.H.S.  Risdon . 249 

Vernal  Hanging  Parrots  by  Miss  M.  Gourlay . 251 

The  Philippine  Hanging  Parrot  Loriculus  philippensis 

by  Mme.  J.L.  Spenkelink-Vanschaik  (with  plate) . 253 

Feather  Plucking  in  Parrots  -  Observations  of 

an  Amateur  by  Hazel  Hathorne . 256 

The  Austral  Conure  by  Mme.  J.L.  Spenkelink-Vanschaik  (with  plate) . 258 

The  Discovery  of  the  Home  of  Lear’s  Macaw  by  A.  Freud . 261 

Reviews . 264 

Index  for  Volume  86  (1980) .  270 

List  of  Avicultural  Society  Officers  and  Medallists 
Title  Pages  for  Volume  86  (1980) 


THE  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE  welcomes  original  articles  that  have  not  been 
published  elsewhere  and  that  essentially  concern  the  aviculture  of  a  particular  bird  or 
group  of  birds,  or  that  describe  their  natural  history.  Articles  should  be  preferably 
typewritten,  with  double  spacing,  and  the  scientific  names  as  well  as  the  vernacular 
names  of  birds  should  be  given.  References  cited  in  the  text  should  be  listed  at  the 
end  of  the  article.  Line  drawings  should  be  in  Indian  ink  on  thick  paper  or  card; 
photographs  which  illustrate  a  particular  point  in  the  article  will  be  used  where 
possible  and  should  be  clearly  captioned. 

ADDRESS  OF  EDITOR 

Mary  Harvey,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot,  Berkshire,  SL5  8LT,  England. 


(The  Editor  does  not  accept  responsibility  for  opinions  expressed  in  articles,  notes 
or  correspondence.) 


K  r  _  >Jgt 


Dr.  Quinque 


Male  Horned  Parrot  Eunymphicus  c.  cornu  tus 


Avicultural  Magazine 


THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  A  VICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Vol.  86  -  No.  4  -  All  rights  reserved  OCTOBER -  DECEMBER  1980 


BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT  Eunymphicus  c.  cornu tus 
By  Dr.  HENRY  QUINQUE  (Mesnil  Aubry,  Paris) 

Ever  since  our  eminent  President,  Dr.  Jean  Delacour,  was  kind  enough 
to  devote  an  article  in  the  Avicultural  Magazine  of  July— August  1973 
to  my  bird  collection,  I  have  promised  myself  that  I  would  publish  some 
of  my  breeding  results,  but  time  goes  by  and  my  professional  duties  have 
always  intervened. 

However  today,  the  reproduction  of  Eunymphicus  c.  cornu  tus  seems 
to  me  to  be  of  such  importance  that  I  should  report  it  to  our  Society  and 
would  pay  respectful  homage  to  Dr.  Jean  Delacour,  in  token  of  the  sincere 
friendship  which  unites  us  and  of  the  deep  admiration  which  I  have  for 
him. 


* 


*  * 


Description 

The  Horned  Parrot  is  so  rarely  seen  in  captivity  that  a  description  is 
necessary  and  none  is  better  than  that  given  by  Dr.  Jean  Delacour  in  his 
excellent  Guide  des  oiseaux  de  Nouvelle  Caledonie  et  de  ses  Dependances 
(1966): 

“The  Horned  Parrot  -  size  35  cms.  Beak  strong;  tail  long  and  broad, 
green,  lighter  and  more  yellow  on  the  underside;  flight  and  lateral  tail- 
feathers  blue  and  black,  the  middle  feathers  tinted  with  blue  at  the  tips; 
the  front  and  middle  of  the  crown  red;  crest  formed  of  two  long  and 
straight  black  feathers  which  are  red  at  the  tip;  cheeks  and  throat  black; 


188 


Dr.  H.  QUINQUE  -  BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT 


This  superb  and  unusual  species  is  strictly  protected.” 

History 

This  bird,  whose  beauty  and  charm  is  unequalled,  has  always  been 
difficult  to  keep  alive  in  collections  and  yet  there  was  a  miracle  in  Europe 
in  1885,  as  we  shall  see  later. 

Skilled  aviculturists  such  as  the  Marquis  of  Tavistock,  who  reared 
many  rare  parrots,  never  succeeded  in  keeping  it  alive  in  spite  of  a  heating 
system  which  was  the  best  of  the  day. 

The  Hon.  Canon  Dutton,  another  great  parrot  specialist,  wrote  in 
the  Avicultural  Magazine  (vol.  6,  1900,  page  244):  “The  species  that 
beats  me  is  Nymphicus.  To  look  at  their  bills,  you  would  say  they  were 
seedeaters,  but  I  bought  a  lot  of  eight  once  which  looked  healthy  enough. 
They  all  died,  one  after  the  other,  of  digestive  troubles,  and  I  have  had 
other  specimens  which  I  have  kept  for  twelve  months  or  so,  but  then  they 
have  died.  They  have  never  been  kept  very  long  in  the  Zoological  Gardens. 
I  cannot  but  think  they  would  live  longer,  if  we  knew  how  to  feed  them 
correctly”.  (Note:  at  that  time  Nymphicus  was  the  generic  name  of  the 
Horned  Uvean  Parakeets.  It  is  now  the  generic  name  of  the  Cockatiel 
N.  hollandicus.  Ed.) 

These  lines  written  by  a  man  of  such  great  experience,  who  in  addi¬ 
tion  was  not  restricted  by  any  shortage  of  money,  are  hardly  encouraging. 

Moreover,  since  the  beginning  of  this  century,  this  wonderful  bird 
has  become  rarer  and  even  more  difficult  to  obtain.  Since  Dr.  Delacour’s 
publication  the  number  of  Eunymphicus  has  been  greatly  reduced  by  the 
increasing  destruction  of  the  forests  due  to  the  working  of  the  nickel 
mines. 

I  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  Horned  Parrot  many  years  ago  in 
the  book  by  Dr.  A.  Reichenow  Vogelbilder  aus  Fernen  Zonen.  Plate  23 
depicts  it  in  very  true  colours;  perhaps  it  is  better  drawn  than  the  others. 
Anyway,  I  fell  in  love  with  it  -  a  love  without  hope  for  more  than  20  years. 

Then  I  discovered  that  this  bird  which  the  great  aviculturist  of  the 
twentieth  century  had  not  succeeded  in  keeping  alive  for  more  than  a 
few  months,  had  been  well  kept  and  bred  during  the  last  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 

This  is  a  resume  of  the  story,  told  by  the  Marquis  of  Brisay  in  his  rare 
and  charming  work  entitled  In  our  Aviaries  (Vichy,  France,  1899). 

“Very  rare  and  little  known,  the  Horned  Parrot  has  been  imported 
alive  in  London  for  the  first  time  by  Mr.  Abraham,  it  adorns  the  collection 
of  M.  Comely  at  Beaujardin. 


Dr.  H.  QUINQU  -  BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT 


189 


Four  examples  of  these  parrots  were  installed  in  an  aviary  which  was 
completely  open  and  measured  5  metres  long  by  3  metres  wide,  the  only 
shelter  being  a  shed,  which  was  furnished  with  perches,  feeding  dishes, 
large  nesting  boxes  and  hollow  logs.  At  the  start  of  the  cold  season,  they 
were  put  into  cages  to  be  released  in  the  aviary  in  the  Spring  of  1883. 

In  1884,  M.  Comely  announced  to  the  Societe  d’Acclimatation  that 
one  of  the  females  had  paired.  She  died  in  producing  her  first  egg  and  the 
next  attempt  was  happier.  The  second  pair  imitated  the  first,  after  the  male 
was  separated  and  there  were  subsequent  matings  followed  by  a  laying  of 
eggs  which  hatched  young”. 

It  is  also  amusing  to  note  the  admiring  comment,  perhaps  tinged  with 
envy,  made  by  the  Marquis  of  Tavistock,  later  Duke  of  Bedford,  in  his 
book  Parrots  and  Parrot-like  Birds  in  Aviculture ”  (London):  “A  few 
exceptional  specimens,  however,  have  lived  to  a  great  age  with  no  special 
care  and  the  Baron  von  Comely,  who  must  have  possessed  either  uncom¬ 
mon  luck  or  unusual  skill,  bred  both  the  Uvean  and  hybrids  with  Nymph- 
icus  cornutus” . 

It  is  interesting  that  the  Marquis  of  Tavistock  spoke  of  the  Uvean  sub¬ 
species  and  of  hybrids  with  the  New  Caledonian  parrot.  In  fact,  I  am 
very  uncertain  about  the  rearing  and  we  have  found  nothing  conclusive 
about  the  actual  rearing  of  the  Horned  Parrot. 

Hybrids  between  the  Uvean  Parakeet  and  the  Kakariki 

Before  breeding  the  New  Caledonian  parrot,  I  had  attempted  an  ex¬ 
periment  which  seems  worth  recording.  For  many  years  I  had  two  male 
Uvean  Parrots  E.  c.  uvaeensis,  the  form  of  the  genus  Eunymphicus  char¬ 
acterised  by  a  crest  of  some  six  feathers  whereas  the  nominate  race  has 
two,  and  a  notch  on  the  upper  mandible.  The  population  of  this  parrot  is 
near  extinction  because  its  habitat  is  limited  to  some  four  or  five  kilo¬ 
metres  which  are  still  uncultivated  in  the  north-west  of  the  islet  of  Uvea  or 
Ouvea,  in  the  Loyalty  Islands,  which  measures  in  total  only  fifteen  kilo¬ 
metres  from  north  to  south;  it  is  situated  to  the  north-east  of  New  Cale¬ 
donia. 

This  bird  is  a  little  smaller  than  its  near  relative  in  New  Caledonia;  its 
coloration  is  less  brilliant,  for  it  does  not  have  the  yellow  on  the  cheeks 
or  down  the  back;  its  crest  is  a  uniform  green,  the  six  plumes  longer  at 
the  front  than  at  the  back,  forming  an  arc  and  recurved. 

In  other  respects,  the  habits  of  this  bird  are  very  similar  even  though 
their  habitats  are  completely  separate,  the  former  being  a  native  of  New 


190 


Dr.  H.  QUINQUE  -  BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT 


Caledonia,  an  island  some  400  kilometres  long  and  the  second  lives  in  the 
very  small  northern  portion  of  the  islet  of  Uvea  situated  many  hundreds  of 
kilometres  to  the  north  east. 

My  two  males  were  completely  tame,  the  one  very  gentle,  the  other 
fearless  and  sometimes  aggressive  towards  humans. 

The  one  whose  history  concerns  us  is  more  gentle;  it  escaped  one  day 
from  its  aviary  and  spent  the  night  in  the  belfry  of  a  village  church,  some 
40  metres  high.  I  had  alerted  the  children  of  the  neighbourhood  and  the 
village  policeman,  teaching  them  how  to  imitate  the  call  of  the  Uvean 
Parrot.  It  has  a  very  characteristic  sound,  unusual  in  a  bird,  similar  to 
that  of  the  New  Caledonian  Parrot  of  which  we  will  speak  later,  but  of  a 
slightly  different  tone. 

The  day  following  the  escape,  when  the  village  policeman  walked 
past  the  church,  imitating  the  fugitive’s  call,  a  voice  answered  him  and  our 
parrot  was  seen  on  a  main  beam  of  the  roof  of  the  belfry,  next  to  the 
largest  bell.  The  village  policeman  climbed  up  the  framework  of  the 
steeple,  drew  from  his  pocket  a  handful  of  seeds  which  he  put  in  his  hat; 
a  last  song  particularly  well  imitated  (and  possibly  hunger)  brought  our 
friend  to  the  edge  of  the  hat  where  he  was  captured,  put  in  a  pocket 
and  returned  to  his  home. 

Never  having  been  able  to  find  a  companion  for  this  bird,  I  thought 
that  it  might  be  possible  to  cross  it  with  a  female  Kakariki  of  the  red- 
fronted  form  from  New  Zealand  Cyanoramphus  novaezelandiae.  The 
genus  Cyanoramphus  and  the  genus  Eunymphicus  are  dissimilar  in  some 
respects  but  have  many  similarities.  The  crossing  was  attempted  and 
succeeded  beyond  all  hopes.  The  first  hybrids  were  born  in  1972  and  since 
that  date  I  have  obtained  some  twenty  birds.  Seeing  that  these  hybrids 
are  fertile,  because  they  have  produced  progeny  between  each  other,  I 
stopped  this  project. 

These  hybrid  birds  have  a  mixture  of  the  characteristics  of  the  two 
parents  but  the  size  of  the  males  is  at  least  as  large  as  that  of  their  father, 
this  being  considerably  larger  than  their  mother.  The  colours  are  those  of 
the  Uvean  Parrot,  with  a  beautiful  reddish-purple  cap,  not  coming  down 
towards  the  eye  as  in  the  female  Kakariki.  This  cap  is  thick  and  silky  but 
none  of  the  feathers  are  long  enough  to  form  a  crest. 

The  voice  is  an  exact  copy  sometimes  of  the  male,  sometimes  of  the 
female,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  determine  if  this  is  related  to  the  sexes 
of  the  hybrids. 

Although  the  parents  were  very  gentle,  the  hybrids  are  fierce  and 
several  have  been  killed  in  fights  between  each  other.  Quite  recently,  one 
of  them  killed  its  mother,  which  I  have  never  seen  in  another  parrot. 


Dr.  H.  QUINQUE  -  BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT 


191 


Reproduction  of  the  Horned  Parrot 

For  lack  of  space  during  construction,  I  was  obliged  to  put  together 
several  Horned  Parrots  in  the  same  aviary.  Their  gentleness  being  quite 
exceptional,  this  was  easy;  apart  from  several  courtship  pursuits,  there 
never  was  a  fierce  peck,  much  less  a  wound.  I  saw,  quite  often,  a  male 
feeding  his  female  by  the  side  of  another  male  on  the  same  perch  without 
any  signs  of  jealousy. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  this  promiscuity  is  not  a  good  thing  if  one 
wants  to  breed,  and  indeed,  I  obtained  from  two  females  several  clutches 
of  three  or  four  clear  eggs  each  time. 

One  day,  however,  I  decided  to  isolate  a  magnificent  pair  which  appear¬ 
ed  to  be  more  keen  than  the  others,  into  a  separate  aviary.  This  aviary 
has  a  shelter  with  a  little  heating,  is  2.5  metres  long  and  1.2  metres  wide, 
and  3  metres  high.  This  dwelling  opens  through  a  window  into  a  flight 
12  metres  long,  2.2  metres  high  and  1.2  metres  wide.  Inside  the  shelter 
are  two  nesting  boxes  25  cm.  in  diameter,  and  50  cm  high.  The  entrance 
hole,  high  up,  is  10  cm  wide.  The  boxes  are  partly  filled  with  peat. 

Normally  these  birds  breed  in  New  Caledonia  from  October  to  Dec¬ 
ember  during  their  summer.  The  eggs  are  laid  in  holes  in  tree  trunks,  but 
sometimes,  doubtless  in  the  absence  of  hollow  trees,  I  had  definite  inform¬ 
ation  that  the  nests  could  be  made  in  a  bank  or  amongst  the  roots  of  a 
tree.  They  then  occur  in  the  form  of  a  simple  excavation  or  a  small  hole 
enlarging  to  a  chamber;  but  this  is  not  the  normal  manner  of  nesting. 
Clutches  in  the  wild  consist  of  three  to  four  eggs;  it  is  rare  that  more  than 
two  young  are  reared. 

The  male’s  courtship,  such  as  I  have  been  able  to  observe  it,  consists 
of  a  series  of  pendulum  movements  of  the  head  in  a  vertical  direction  with 
outspread  head  feathers  and  raising  of  the  short  feathers  of  the  crown.  The 
two  large  spatular  feathers  of  the  crest  are  not  erectile  and  remain  laying 
flat  on  the  head  or  flutter  about  with  the  bird’s  movements.  It  is  quite 
useful  to  note,  while  on  this  subject,  that  the  plate  by  W.  T.  Cooper  in 
the  work  by  J.  M.  Forshaw,  Parrots  of  the  World  (1973)  represents  with¬ 
out  doubt  an  immature  bird,  not  an  adult.  In  fact,  not  only  are  the  colours 
more  vivid  in  the  adult,  particularly  the  beautiful  yellow  marking  on  the 
lower  part  of  the  back  which  is  also  much  wider,  but  the  crest  is  much 
longer  and  is  never  recurved  in  front  as  with  Eunymphicus  c  uvaeensis. 
The  crest  of  a  young  adult  or  of  a  female  measures  about  40  millimetres 
long  -  it  is  rectilinear,  sloping  backwards  at  about  45°  to  the  head.  In  old 
males,  the  crest  is  splendid,  velvet  black  at  the  base,  enlarged  at  the  end 
by  two  spatules  of  a  brilliant  vermilion  colour.  It  measures  50  to  60  mm 


192 


Dr.  H.  QUINQUE  -  BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT 


long  and  often  hangs  down  as  if  under  the  weight  of  the  spatules,  resting 
on  the  upper  part  of  the  back,  either  down  the  middle  or  on  the  side  of 
the  neck  giving  to  this  bird  a  unique  appearance.  There  is  sometimes  a 
third  feather  entirely  red  and  slender,  rectilinear  and  about  15  mm  in 
length,  situated  behind  the  two  spatulate  feathers. 

The  female  begs  the  male  to  feed  her  with  very  faint  calls:  the  male 
then  sings  loudly  with  a  very  particular  call,  similar  but  deeper  than  that  of 
the  Uvean  Parrot.  This  song  rather  resembles  the  somewhat  nasal  sound 
made  by  a  child’s  wooden  trumpet.  The  human  voice  can  imitate  it  by 
making  the  sound  “ko...ko...ko...”,  partly  through  the  nose  and  repeated 
with  decreasing  volume,  from  five  to  twenty  times  holding  each  syllable 
for  three  to  four  seconds.  Then  the  song  becomes  “confidential”,  only 
heard  within  three  or  four  metres,  in  the  form  of  a  single  note  short  and 
muffled.  Then  the  male  regurgitates  after  much  bending  and  stretching 
of  the  neck,  and  feeds  the  female  which  bends  its  head  back. 

The  part  which  is  perhaps  the  most  characteristic  is  the  rapid  con¬ 
traction  and  dilation  of  the  pupil  of  the  male,  in  rhythm  with  his  song. 
The  movement  of  the  reddish-orange  iris  is  easily  observed  with  the  aid 
of  binoculars.  These  movements  of  the  iris  can  also  be  seen  when  the 
male  is  excited  by  an  unusual  event  or  when  he  displays  to  a  human 
observer.  I  have  never  seen  the  mating. 

The  female  laid  a  first  clutch  of  three  eggs  which  were  clear  at  the  end 
of  March  1979.  At  the  end  of  May,  after  having  visited  the  two  nests  and 
nibbled  splinters  of  wood  inside,  she  chose  the  one  which  was  placed 
under  the  north  wall  of  the  shelter.  Very  fine  white  wood  shavings  were 
detached  to  carpet  the  peat. 

Another  clutch  of  three  clear  eggs  was  produced  in  the  middle  of  May. 
From  the  last  week  in  May,  the  male  recommenced  feeding  the  female. 
The  first  egg  was  laid  on  7th  June  1979.  From  that  date,  and  in  other 
incubations,  the  female  did  not  leave  the  nest  except  in  the  mornings 
about  8  a.m.  for  a  few  minutes,  feeding  herself  only  rarely,  she  was  assidi- 
ously  fed  by  the  male. 

Very  often  the  male  stayed  in  the  nest  for  several  hours  with  his  mate, 
only  leaving  to  look  for  food.  I  have  only  seen  this  behaviour  in  Gang 
Gang  Cockatoos  and  certain  lories. 

On  25th  June  I  found  that  the  female  left  the  nest.  A  rapid  inspection 
revealed  the  presence  of  three  eggs,  one  fertile  and  the  two  others  clear. 
The  eggs  are  pure  white,  smooth  and  almost  round.  The  dimensions  are 
as  follows:  29  mm  x  25  mm  -  29  mm  x  25  mm  and  28  mm  x  26  mm.  I 
have  measured  many  others  with  identical  results.  These  figures  taken 


Dr.  H.  Quinque 


Horned  Parrot  Chick,  aged  12  days 


Dr.  H.  QUINQUE  -  BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT 


193 


from  some  ten  eggs  are  higher  than  those  given  by  J.  M.  Forshaw.  The 
30th  June  was  for  me  a  day  of  great  joy  because  it  saw  the  birth  of  a 
beautiful  chick  covered  in  grey  down.  I  had  hoped  for  this  for  a  long  time, 
because  I  had,  in  fact,  reared  every  psittacine  species  in  my  collection 
except  for  this  one.  More  than  the  joy  of  a  breeder,  I  felt  a  very  strong 
emotion  because  this  rare  event  was  without  doubt  the  beginning  of  the 
rescue,  by  captive  breeding,  of  a  species  in  serious  danger  of  extinction. 

Incubation  is  thus  21  to  23  days  as  the  first  egg  was  laid  on  7th  June 
and  the  chick  hatched  on  30th  June.  One  egg  being  laid  each  day,  it  is 
impossible  to  know  when  the  fertile  egg  was  laid. 

On  5th  July,  the  chick  was  ringed  with  some  apprehension,  but  with 
no  harm  done.  The  parents  were  not  put  out  in  any  way  and  continued  to 
feed  it  with  great  solicitude.  I  was  surprised  by  the  attitude  of  the  mother: 
she  stayed  permanently  in  the  nest,  either  on  or  beside  her  young,  for 
more  than  20  days,  even  during  the  three  or  four  inspections  which  I 
made.  This  was  perhaps  due  to  the  cool  weather  which  we  were  experi¬ 
encing  in  France  at  the  time  with  temperatures  around  15  -  18°C. 

While  the  parents  always  refused  any  insectile  food,  the  young  one 
was  fed  almost  exclusively  on  mealworms  for  the  first  ten  days  of  its 
life. 

Thanks  to  this  diet,  the  growth  of  the  chick  was  very  fast,  much  more 
so  than,  for  example,  that  of  a  broadtail  of  the  same  age.  Later  the  parents 
gradually  reduced  the  animal  food  in  order  to  give  the  usual  dry  seeds  with 
a  passing  preference  for  hemp  seed,  sunflower  seeds,  fruits,  green  stuff  and 
a  little  biscuit.  Examination  of  the  chick  during  the  first  few  days  revealed 
an  extraordinary  characteristic:  whereas  it  was  entirely  covered  in  a  dark 
grey  down,  I  noticed  a  cap  of  white  down  on  the  head.  This  cap  which 
covers  the  crown  of  the  head  in  the  early  days  narrowed  on  the  back  of 
the  head  to  form  a  circle  well  determined  of  10  mm  in  diameter  around 
the  fifteenth  day  when  the  outline  of  the  primaries  and  the  tail  feathers 
began  to  appear. 

At  the  end  of  the  third  week,  the  first  blue  and  green  of  the  wings  and 
tail  appears  while  the  cap  on  the  back  of  the  head  gradually  disappears.  I 
noted  the  presence  of  the  same  white  occipital  spot  on  all  the  hybrids 
E.  c.  uvaeensis  x  C  novaezelandiae. 

On  the  morning  of  3rd  August,  that  is  34  days  after  hatching,  a  perfect¬ 
ly  formed  bird  left  the  nest.  Some  hours  later  it  was  capable  of  flying 
very  well  and  of  perching  outside  the  shelter. 

After  leaving  the  nest,  the  colours  were  scarcely  less  brilliant  than 
those  of  the  parents;  only  the  yellow  of  the  cheeks  and  of  the  lower  part 


194 


Dr.  H.  QUINQUE  -  BREEDING  THE  HORNED  PARROT 


of  the  back  was  not  such  a  bright  gold  as  on  the  parents.  The  feet  were 
light,  the  iris  brown,  the  beak  light  yellow;  the  dark  red  crown  as  extended 
as  that  of  the  parents;  there  was  no  crest.  It  was  the  same  size  as  the 
mother:  that  is  about  a  sixth  less  than  the  male.  The  primaries  and  the 
tail  feathers  were  fully  grown. 

The  character  of  this  young  one  is  much  more  confident  than  that  of 
most  psittacines,  some  of  which  are  sometimes  timid  in  spite  of  having 
tame  parents. 

The  young  bird  was  fed  by  the  parents  for  about  forty  days,  and  then 
began  very  quickly  to  feed  itself  on  fruits  and  particularly  green  stuff. 

On  13th  August,  the  first  red  feather  of  the  crest  appeared;  on  20th 
August  one  could  see  two  very  fine,  entirely  red  feathers,  one  a  centimetre 
long,  the  other  slightly  more.  These  feathers  were  straight  except  for 
sloping  forward  at  the  tips. 

From  15th  August  the  female  began  visiting  her  nest  again.  Normally, 
I  clean  out  the  nest  boxes  after  each  clutch;  taking  account  of  the  habits 
of  the  Horned  Parrot  I  left  everything  strictly  alone,  the  nest  being  very 
tidy  and  hardly  damp.  I  believe  that  this  is  important  because  these 
birds  are  said  to  return  every  year  to  their  nesting  tree.  In  the  Isle  of 
Uvea,  for  example,  the  families  which  live  there  share  the  nesting  amongst 
each  other  and  consequently  the  nests  and  their  young:  each  family  may 
own  two  or  three  nests  occupied  each  year  by  the  same  couples. 

This  species  is  fortunately  strictly  protected,  Dr.  Delacour’s  book 
having  made  the  New  Caledonians  aware  of  the  inestimable  living  treasures 
of  which  they  are  the  custodians.  In  addition,  in  New  Caledonia,  the 
government  and  enlightened  bird  lovers  have  created  a  park  at  Noumea 
to  save  many  species  including  the  Kagu  and  possibly  Eunymphicus . 
These  people,  in  advance  of  some  others,  have  understood  that  captivity, 
can  contribute  to  the  saving  of  species  in  danger.  They  have  come  up 
against  fierce  defenders  of  the  wild  who  are  opposed  to  any  capturing 
vfor  captivity.  These  people  certainly  had  some  grounds  as  long  as  the 
environment  remained  viable  for  wildlife,  but  the  human  population  grows 
more  quickly  than  that  of  other  animals  and  we  must  not  wait  until  it 
is  too  late  to  save  a  species  as  has  so  often  been  the  case  since  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  this  century. 


*  *  *  * 

We  are  most  grateful  to  Dr.  Quinque  for  his  generosity  in  donating  the  cost  of 
printing  in  colour  the  front  plate  which  illustrates  his  article  above. 


195 


BREEDING  GOFFIN’S  COCKATOO 
By  ROSEMARY  LOW  (Barnet) 


Description 

Coffin’s  Cockatoo,  Cacatua  goffini,  is  a  small  species  which  appears  all 
white  at  a  quick  glance,  and  crestless.  In  actual  fact  it  has  quite  large 
areas  of  the  plumage  yellow  (underside  of  wings  and  tail)  and  pale  orange 
(bases  of  the  feathers  of  the  head  and  crest  -  most  conspicuous  on  lores), 
and  an  erectile  crest  which  usually  lays  flat  on  the  crown.  The  bill  is  grey¬ 
ish  white.  Length  is  about  32  cm  (12  in).  The  female  is  usually  slightly 
smaller. 

Sexual  Dimorphism 

It  is  a  simple  matter  to  sex  adult  birds  seen  in  good  light.  The  iris  of  the 
eye  is  black  in  males  and  reddish-brown  in  females.  The  area  of  raised 
skin  surrounding  the  eye  is  generally  more  prominent  in  males. 

Natural  History 

This  cockatoo  is  found  only  in  the  Tenimber  Islands  in  Indonesia. 
Extensive  deforestation  has  occurred  there  in  recent  years.  Before  this 
devastation,  the  species  was  very  common.  Bill  Timmis,  curator  of  Hare- 
wood  Bird  Garden,  told  me  that  when  visiting  the  Tenimber  Islands  in 
1962,  he  went  to  Jamdena,  which  was  then  heavily  forested.  He  saw  large 
numbers  of  Goffm’s,  on  the  coast  and  inland,  mostly  in  pairs.  At  dusk 
they  returned  to  their  roosting  trees,  some  of  these  being  along  water 
courses,  where  they  would  settle  on  the  outermost  branches  of  tall  trees. 
He  noted  that  their  flight  was  direct,  with  deliberate  wing-beats. 

Avicultural  History 

Prior  to  1972,  Goffm’s  Cockatoo  was  rare  in  aviculture.  I  knew  this 
species  only  from  a  pair  in  Wassenar  Zoo  in  Holland.  In  that  year  large- 
scale  export  commenced:  hundreds  of  Goffin’s  were  received  by  dealers 
in  Europe  and  the  USA.  Mass  export  resulted  in  this  most  attractive 
little  cockatoo  becoming  the  least  expensive  member  of  the  genus.  The 
inevitable  result  was  that  it  did  not  receive  the  attention  or  appreciation 
it  deserved.  Although  now  exported  much  less  often,  it  remains  the  least 
expensive  of  the  cockatoos. 


196 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  GOFFIN’S  COCKATOO 


Breeding  Successes 

In  Britain  the  first  completely  successful  breedings  occurred  in  1977. 
The  Society’s  medal  was  awarded  to  Neil  O’Connor  of  Surrey  whose 
pair  reared  a  single  youngster.  In  the  same  year  Mr.  and  Mrs  R.  H.  Day  of 
Bournemouth  hand-reared  one  Goffin’s.  The  male  of  the  breeding  pair 
unfortunately  died  in  January  1978.  Another  male  was  obtained  a  few 
weeks  later  and  the  female  laid  a  single  egg  in  the  early  part  of  1979.  It 
was  infertile.  Two  more  eggs  were  laid  in  June.  Both  hatched  in  July 
and  the  chicks  were  hand-reared  to  independence  from  the  age  of  about 
ten  days.  Additionally,  Mr.  and  Mrs  R.  Mann  of  Stilton,  Peterborough, 
reared  a  single  youngster  in  1978.  There  is  an  interesting  story  behind  this 
success.  The  male  had  plucked  itself  severely,  thus  a  second  male  was 
obtained  and  placed  in  the  aviary  containing  the  pair.  Although  the 
plucked  bird  was  unable  to  fly,  it  kept  the  second  male  away  from  the 
female  and  never  again  plucked  itself.  The  new  male  was  removed,  and, 
when  the  male  was  fully  feathered,  the  original  pair  bred  successfully. 

Also  in  1978,  this  species  was  reared  at  liberty  in  the  Lake  District 
by  J.  H.  Strutt.  Two  young  were  reared  in  a  Scots  pine  tree.  In  1979  a 
single  youngster  was  reared  and  left  the  nest  in  early  July. 

Outside  the  UK,  Goffin’s  Cockatoo  has  been  bred  in  Holland  by  E.G.B. 
Schultz  in  197 4  (see  Avicultural Magazine  1975,  155-6). 

Surprisingly,  it  seems  that  no  successes  have  been  reported  in  the 
USA,  where  more  cockatoos  are  reared  annually  than  in  any  other  coun¬ 
try. 

My  own  pair  was  obtained  in  1972,  through  the  generosity  of  a  member 
of  the  Society,  Mrs  S.  Belford.  They  were  placed  in  an  aviary  measuring 
approximately  lift  (3.3  m)  long,  4  ft  (1.2  m)  wide  and  6  ft  (1.8  m)  high. 
It  is  situated  a  few  feet  from  the  kitchen  window;  thus  the  birds  are 
readily  observed.  Imported  when  young,  my  pair  have  always  been  com¬ 
patible  and  completely  devoted  to  each  other. 

Over  the  years  they  were  provided  with  a  varied  assortment  of  nesting 
sites,  until  their  aviary  began  to  look  like  a  depository  for  unwanted 
nest-boxes.  Screaming  noisily,  with  crest  erect,  they  would  cautiously 
place  their  heads  inside  a  nesting  receptacle  but  never  enter.  It  seemed 
that  they  were  afraid  to  do  so.  Eventually  they  were  offered  an  oblong 
box  with  the  entrance  near  floor  level,  which  was  entered.  During  the 
summer  of  1978  they  were  provided  with  a  log,  placed  horizontally  on 
the  ground  which  obviously  met  with  their  approval.  Had  this  been  pro¬ 
vided  several  years  before  it  might  have  stimulated  them  to  nest,  as  cocka¬ 
toos  do  not  take  seven  years  to  reach  sexual  maturity.  Failure  to  provide  a 


Goffln’s  Cockatoo  Aviary  containing  three  nest  boxes  and 
a  barrel.  They  did  not  nest  until  provided  with  a  log. 


R.H.  Grantham 


Older  Coffin’s  Cockatoo 
chick,  aged  26  days. 


(Below)  Goffin’s  Cockatoo 
chicks  aged  eight  weeks. 

R.H.  Grantham 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  COFFIN’S  COCKATOO 


197 


nesting  site  which  suited  them  was  almost  certainly  the  reason  for  the 

seven-year  wait. 

During  April  the  following  year,  1979,  the  female  spent  increasing 
periods  inside  and,  judging  by  her  behaviour,  the  first  egg  was  laid  on 
30th  April.  As  incubation  is  shared  in  the  white  cockatoos,  the  male  gener¬ 
ally  brooding  during  the  day  and  the  female  at  night,  when  the  male  is 
absent  during  the  day  one  knows  that  incubation  has  commenced  -  in 
this  case  on  2nd  May. 

On  the  morning  of  30th  May  an  egg-shell,  with  one  end  removed,  was 
seen  in  front  of  the  log.  A  chick  had  hatched.  Later,  I  heard  the  sound  of  a 
chick  being  fed.  Two  days  later  I  could  hear  two  chicks  but  not  until 
seven  more  days  had  passed  was  the  second  egg-shell  ejected  from  the 
nest. 

Most  white  cockatoos  are  extremely  conservative  feeders  when  first 
imported;  it  usually  takes  them  several  years  to  acquire  a  liking  for  most 
foods  other  than  seed.  This  was  true  of  the  Goffin’s  which,  fortunately, 
as  it  is  an  excellent  rearing  food,  preferred  corn  on  the  cob  to  all  other 
items.  As  fresh  corn  was  not  available,  it  was  necessary  to  use  frozen  cobs 
which  had  been  thawed.  A  section  about  2  in  (5  cm)  long  was  given 
every  two  hours  or  so,  as  well  as  spinach.  The  only  other  food  taken 
with  enthusiasm  was  spray  millet.  Sunflower  and  canary  seed,  normally 
the  staple  items  of  their  diet,  were  also  available. 

After  the  first  chick  hatched,  the  male  proved  to  be  a  devoted  parent, 
spending  all  day  inside  the  log  brooding  the  young.  The  female  spent  a 
large  part  of  the  day  in  the  flight  feeding.  I  did  not  see  the  male  do  so  until 
17  days  after  the  first  chick  was  heard.  When  they  were  being  fed  they 
made  a  chip- chip- chip  sound  which  was  clearly  audible.  Often  the  sound 
could  be  heard  when  the  female  was  in  the  flight;  thus  it  was  evident  that 
the  male  did  most  or  much  of  the  feeding. 

The  change  in  the  female’s  behaviour  after  the  chicks  hatched  was 
interesting.  She  suddenly  became  tame,  clinging  to  the  wire  and  “asking” 
for  food  (although  extras  were  supplied  very  frequently)  while  the  male, 
who  was  rarely  seen,  remained  more  wary. 

The  pair  did  not  normally  leave  the  nest  together  except  when  there 
was  a  cat  in  the  vicinity,  when  they  would  scream  in  unison  until  it  had 
departed.  The  mewing  sounds  made  by  the  chicks  could  then  be  heard 
more  loudly  than  when  they  were  being  brooded. 

On  16th  June  I  became  concerned  at  apparently  hearing  the  voice  of 
only  one  chick.  Previously,  using  a  torch  and  a  mirror  to  attempt  to  see 
inside  the  log  proved  unsuccessful.  On  the  following  day  the  piece  of  wood 


198 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  GOFFIN’S  COCKATOO 


nailed  to  the  end  of  the  log  was  taken  off.  This  revealed  a  large  well- 
nourished  chick  which  had  its  eyes  wide  open  and  its  crop  partly  full. 
It  then  weighed  nearly  6  oz.  The  contrast  between  it  and  its  sibling  was 
astounding.  The  second  chick  was  less  than  half  its  size,  weighed  3  oz 
and  had  no  food  in  its  crop.  It  was  at  once  removed  for  hand-rearing. 

It  proved  very  easy  to  feed,  holding  its  head  high  and  opening  its 
mouth  wide.  It  took  the  food  from  a  spoon  with  the  sides  bent  inwards 
(especially  adapted  for  feeding  parrot  chicks)  with  the  same  strong  pump¬ 
ing  action  as  it  would  have  taken  it  from  its  parent’s  beak.  It  them  made 
the  chip-chip-chip  sound  associated  with  food  swallowing  as  well  as 
impatient  noises  between  each  spoonful. 

Two  days  later  there  was  a  change  in  the  behaviour  of  the  adult  birds. 
Both  left  the  log  at  8.30  p.m.  They  would  go  to  the  log  and  look  inside 
yet  seemed  afraid  to  enter.  As  neither  bird  had  returned  by  10.30  p.m. 
the  chick  was  removed.  There  was  still  food  in  its  crop. 

Much  larger  and  nearly  double  the  weight  of  its  sibling,  it  was  very 
much  quieter  and  more  placid  and  its  feeding  action  was  weak  in  compar¬ 
ison.  This  was  not  due  to  any  weakness  but  probably  because  it  was  less 
avid  for  food,  having  been  well  cared  for.  I  fed  it  several  times  before 
returning  it  to  the  nest  at  7  a.m.  on  the  following  morning.  The  male 
entered  the  nest  at  once  and  brooded  and  tended  the  chick  throughout 
the  day.  However,  the  evening  brought  a  recurrence  of  the  happenings  of 
the  previous  day.  The  chick  was  thus  removed  again;  this  time  its  crop 
was  empty  and  it  was  not  returned  to  the  log. 

It  had  then  only  emerging  pin  feathers  and  might  not  have  survived 
the  night  without  being  brooded.  The  pink  and  white  appearance  of 
cockatoo  chicks  is  in  complete  contrast  to  the  young  of  other  parrots: 
nails  and  beak  are  white  and  the  pink  skin  is  not  darkened  by  the  feather 
tracts,  as  the  feathers  are  white. 

As  the  young  feather  up,  their  appearance  is  different  from  that  of 
most  other  parrots  in  which  pin  feathers  appear  in  a  definite  order  over 
different  parts  of  the  body.  In  cockatoo  chicks,  pin  feathers  appear 
simultaneously  over  most  of  the  body,  so  that  at  one  stage  a  cockatoo 
chick  has  the  appearance  of  a  white  porcupine,  being  covered  in  unopened 
quills.  The  first  to  open  are  those  of  the  underparts. 

When  the  chicks  were  removed  the  pair  recommenced  to  mate  and  the 
female  started  throwing  out  the  wood  chips  gnawed  from  inside  the  log. 
However,  another  nesting  attempt  was  not  made;  after  a  few  days  they 
began  to  moult. 

The  chicks  grew  rapidly,  weighing  11  oz  and  6  oz  at  37  and  35  days. 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  GOFFIN’S  COCKATOO 


199 


One  week  later,  the  elder  was  fully  feathered,  apart  from  the  quills  in  tail 
and  flights  which  were  still  in  their  sheaths.  In  comparison,  the  younger 
looked  two  weeks  younger,  being  fairly  well  covered  with  feathers  but 
only  two-thirds  the  size.  The  tail  sheaths  were  just  appearing,  while  those 
of  the  elder  chick  were  1  in  (2.5  cm)  long. 

It  was  noticeable  that  the  skin  surrounding  the  eye  was  bluer  than  in 
the  adults.  And  the  coral-red  bases  to  the  feathers  of  the  head,  including 
the  crest,  were  extremely  prominent.  When  fully  feathered,  the  younger 
had  a  coral  tinge  to  the  feathers  of  the  mantle. 

They  were  slow  to  learn  to  walk  in  comparison  with  most  parrot 
chicks  at  a  similar  stage  of  development.  Until  they  were  about  six  weeks 
old  they  sat  on  their  haunches  with  their  four  toes  pointing  forward.  The 
younger  usually  had  its  feet  outstretched  in  a  manner  which  might  have 
led  some  observers  to  believe  that  it  was  deformed.  At  six  weeks  the 
elder  chick  started  to  walk.  At  First  he  had  difficulty  in  controlling  the 
direction  of  his  large  feet. 

At  this  stage,  when  weighing  about  12  oz,  he  ceased  to  gain  weight 
and  became  more  difficult  to  feed.  Indeed,  he  behaved  exactly  as  one 
would  expect  of  a  chick  of  about  one  month  older  which  was  on  the  point 
of  being  weaned.  When  offered  sunflower  kernels  he  would  attempt  to 
chew  them  and,  when  given  whole  seeds,  he  discovered  in  a  matter  of 
minutes  how  to  remove  the  husk.  Small  pieces  of  apple  or  biscuit  did 
not  interest  him  at  all. 

At  six  weeks  the  younger  chick  suddenly  ceased  its  tiresome  crying 
and  allowed  itself  to  be  handled,  previously  tolerating  this  only  to  be 
fed.  At  the  same  time  it  occasionally  became  more  difficult  to  feed;  never 
before  had  it  refused  a  spoonful  of  food,  crying  for  more  even  when  its 
crop  was  bulging. 

The  food  consisted  of  various  items  which  were  liquidised  in  a  blender. 
It  contained  chopped  spinach,  corn  off  the  cob,  carrot  (grated),  Casilan 
(milk  powder,  92%  protein,  made  by  Farley  Health  Products,  Plymouth), 
skimmed  milk  powder  and  wheat  germ  cereal.  To  ensure  the  food  con¬ 
tained  adequate  calcium,  a  small  amount  of  bone  meal  and  scraped  cuttle¬ 
fish  bone  were  added.  The  resulting  soupy  mixture  was  heated  in  a  sauce¬ 
pan  before  each  feed.  Fresh  food  was  made  once  daily. 

By  the  time  he  was  seven  and  a  half  weeks  old  the  elder  chick  differed 
from  an  adult  only  in  his  shorter  tail  and  more  colourful  plumage. 

A  week  previously  the  young  cockatoos  had  been  moved  from  the 
heated  cage  to  a  metal  one.  Soon  after,  the  elder  chick  started  to  perch 
but  the  younger  made  no  attempt  to  do  so  until  three  weeks  later. 


200 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  GOFFIN’S  COCKATOO 


By  this  time,  both  were  quite  vocal,  “warbling”  softly  to  themselves 
with  contentment  after  being  fed.  Both  could  make  a  harsher  creaking 
sound,  usually  heard  when  they  were  playing.  When  he  was  eight  weeks 
old  the  elder  youngster  could  fly  downwards  when  encouraged  to  do  so. 
At  nine  weeks  he  flew  upwards  for  the  first  time.  His  flight  was  strong, 
so  much  so  that  two  days  later  he  circled  the  room  four  times  and  could 
land  with  confidence  on  the  picture  rail  or  door  top.  There  was  nothing 
experimental  about  his  first  flights  -  but  then  he  had  spent  several  days 
vigorously  flapping  his  wings  without  taking  off.  This  created  such  a 
strong  draught  that  his  small  sister  would  cower  out  of  the  way! 

Demolition  expert  is  a  description  which  has  been  applied  by  many 
owners  of  Goffin’s  Cockatoos  to  their  birds.  Nevertheless,  I  had  not 
expected  this  trait  to  make  itself  evident  in  a  bird  of  the  tender  age  of 
ten  weeks.  By  this  time,  Kettle,  as  the  elder  chick  was  known,  enjoyed 
his  excursions  around  the  room  so  much  that  he  protested  strongly  when 
he  returned  to  his  cage.  It  was  made  of  metal  with  a  punch  bar  front; 
Kettle  demonstrated  his  objection  by  champing  on  the  wires  so  that  they 
acquired  strange  shapes  or  were  pulled  completely  out  of  position. 

It  might  be  wondered  how  I  could  be  certain  of  the  sex  of  these  cocka¬ 
toos  at  such  an  early  age,  before  adult  eye  colour  was  assumed.  This  is 
relatively  easy  as  the  shape  of  the  head  differs  in  male  and  female:  it  is 
larger  and  bolder  with  more  height  above  the  eye  in  the  male.  The  dif¬ 
ference  was  particularly  pronounced  in  these  two  birds,  as  is  their  temp¬ 
erament.  The  male  is  an  extrovert,  knowing  from  an  early  age  how  to 
charm  his  human  friends. 

Cockatoos  are  among  the  most  intelligent  of  birds  and  the  Bare-eyed, 
to  which  the  Goffin’s  is  closely  related,  has  long  been  recognised  as  one  of 
the  cleverest  and  most  amusing  of  the  cockatoos.  Nevertheless,  I  was 
constantly  amazed  at  the  intellect  demonstrated  by  Kettle  from  an  early 
age.  He  was  full  of  confidence  and  extremely  quick  to  learn.  In  most 
respects  his  progress  was  two  or  three  weeks  more  advanced  than  his 
sister’s  -  rather  remarkable  when  one  considers  that  this  species  would 
normally  spend  about  ten  weeks  in  the  nest. 

At  nine  and  a  half  weeks  he  was  feeding  mainly  on  his  own;  it  proved 
impossible  to  feed  him  on  most  occasions  as  he  refused  to  open  his  beak. 
About  twice  daily  he  would  be  hungry  enough  to  run  to  the  offered  spoon 
and  feed  avidly.  At  this  time  his  sister  was  being  fed  about  four  times 
daily. 

Both  birds  spent  much  time  feeding,  and,  by  then,  their  droppings  had 
the  solid  consistency  of  those  of  an  adult.  They  were  offered  whole 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  GOFFIN’S  COCKATOO 


201 


sunflower  seed  which  had  been  soaked  for  24  hours  then  washed  well  in 
running  water;  sunflower  kernels  (dry)  and  apple  and  carrot  which  were 
chopped  into  minute  pieces.  Millet  sprays  were  eaten,  although  probably 
the  greater  part  was  wasted.  They  were  actually  spoon-fed  once  daily  until 
November;  this,  of  course  was  not  necessary  but  up  until  that  time  we 
were  hand-feeding  a  Red  Lory  Eos  bornea  and  the  young  cockatoos  de¬ 
manded  a  share  on  seeing  the  spoon.  Even  at  the  time  of  writing  (February 
1980)  the  sight  of  a  spoon  triggers  infantile  behaviour:  they  drop  the 
wings  submissively  and  emit  the  throaty  food-begging  sound.  If  offered  the 
tip  of  the  spoon  they  will  grasp  it  firmly  and  pump  the  head. 

However,  I  firmly  believe  that  a  gradual  weaning  process  is  benefi¬ 
cial  and  that  too  rapid  weaning  can  be  harmful  and  could  cause  excessive 
weight  loss. 

The  cockatoos  started  their  first  moult  in  December  1979,  with  the 
feathers  of  the  head,  crest  and  nape.  At  the  time  of  writing  the  moult  is  far 
from  complete. 


202 


SOME  NOTES  ON  BREEDING  THE  RED-TAILED  COCKATOO 
Calyptorhynchus  magnificus  naso 

By  F.  BOHNER  (Happy  Valley,  South  Australia) 


The  race  of  Red-tailed  Cockatoo  to  which  these  notes  refer  inhabits 
the  south-west  regions  of  Western  Australia  and  differs  from  the  nominate 
form  by  its  smaller  size,  more  rounded  crest  and  less  drawn  out  call. 
Males  are  black  with  back,  nape  and  lower  breast  slightly  washed  with 
brown;  central  tail  feathers  black  whilst  others  are  black  but  with  a  sub¬ 
terminal  band  of  bright  red;  bill  blackish.  Females  are  brownish  black  with 
numerous  yellow  spots  on  head,  neck  and  wings.  Feathers  on  underparts 
are  margined  with  pale  yellow  or  orange.  Tail  band  yellow  becoming 
progressively  more  orange  towards  the  tip  and  crossed  by  black  bars.  Bill 
horn  coloured. 

The  breeding  pair  occupied  an  outside  flight  in  a  block  of  three 
aviaries  and  had  a  pair  of  Yellow-tailed  Cockatoos  as  neighbours  in  the  ad¬ 
joining  aviary.  The  flight  measures  26  ft  long  by  8  ft  high  by  5  ft  wide. 
Two-thirds  of  the  roof  is  covered  to  keep  the  shelter  area  as  dry  and  as 
private  as  possible,  also  to  minimise  the  introduction  of  worms  from  wild 
bird  droppings. 

A  three-feet  section  of  Eucalyptus  with  an  inside  diameter  of  twelve 
inches  was  provided  as  a  nesting  log.  This  was  put  near  the  roof  just  inside 
the  shelter,  facing  east,  and  angled  at  thirty  degrees  to  facilitate  access. 
Moist  rotted  wood  dirt  (peat)  was  placed  to  a  depth  of  six  inches  to 
provide  a  suitable  base.  The  first  signs  of  nesting  were  noticed  in  March 
1975  when  the  hen  was  seen  inside  the  log.  Two  weeks  of  general  inspec¬ 
tion  followed  before  she  started  to  chew  chips  of  wood  from  the  inside 
and  top  of  the  log  to  add  to  the  base.  The  first  egg  was  laid  on  22nd  April 
but  was  not  incubated.  It  was  removed  for  artificial  incubation  but  proved 
infertile,  as  did  a  second  egg  laid  four  weeks  later. 

The  1976  season  proved  successful  with  a  fertile  egg  being  laid  on 
13  th  February.  The  hen  alone  incubated  and  was  seldom  seen  except  if  a 
disturbance  occured.  It  hatched  on  the  28th  day  and  the  male  was  seen  to 
feed  the  female  on  several  occasions.  She  was  absent  from  the  log  often 
and  for  long  periods  during  the  day  which  caused  some  concern,  but 
always  returned  at  night  and  carried  out  normal  parental  duties. 

The  youngster  was  first  observed  when  three  days  old  and  was  covered 
in  yellow  down.  It  was  well  fed  and  appeared  quite  healthy.  Another 


F.  BOHNER  -  BREEDING  THE  RED-  TAILED  COCKATOO 


203 


check  was  made  a  week  later  when  signs  of  feather  growth  were  detected 
beneath  the  skin.  Eyes  were  only  half  open  at  this  stage.  At  the  age  of 
nine  weeks  the  youngster  ventured  to  the  top  of  the  log  daily,  from 
where  the  female  fed  and  preened  it.  If  a  sudden  noise  was  heard  during 
these  periods,  the  female  would  prod  the  youngsters  head  with  her  beak, 
sending  it  back  to  the  bottom  of  the  log  out  of  sight.  Vacation  of  the 
log  took  place  at  fourteen  weeks  with  the  male  then  showing  much  pride 
in  his  offspring.  Protection  of  both  female  and  young  was  evident  and 
particularly  noticeable  when  the  Yellow-tailed  Cockatoos  adjoining 
ventured  onto  the  aviary  partition  wire.  The  reaction  was  always  immed¬ 
iate  aggression  by  the  male  Red-tail. 

For  the  first  four  nights  the  parents  coaxed  the  youngster  back  to 
the  top  of  the  log  where  they  all  camped.  Thereafter,  the  roost  was  chang¬ 
ed  to  a  perch  at  the  front  of  the  aviary  with  the  youngster  eventually 
settling  down  between  its  parents  for  the  night. 

It  was  a  fine  specimen  being  slightly  smaller  than  the  hen  with  much 
the  same  body  colour.  Its  face  was  marked  heavily  with  yellowish  spots 
while  the  rest  of  the  body  was  only  slightly  so.  The  mandibles  were  almost 
fully  white  indicating  it  to  be  a  hen.  She  was  strong  on  the  wing  and  able 
to  cover  the  full  length  of  the  aviary  in  level  flight  but  her  landings  left  a 
lot  to  be  desired  for  some  time.  The  hen  continued  to  feed  it  until  about 
a  year  old. 

The  main  seed  diet  offered  comprised  of  sunflower.  Millet,  canary 
seed  and  hulled  oats  were  offered  but  not  eaten.  Once  a  week  some 
almonds  or  raw  peanuts  were  fed  and  occasionally,  a  little  boiled  maize. 
Other  items  of  fairly  regular  supply  were  ripe  pine  cones,  the  native 
Casuarina  and  Banksia  seed  pods,  and  eucalypt  branches  holding  seed 
capsules.  These  latter  items  are  not  only  beneficial  to  the  diet  but  provide 
many  hours  of  natural  entertainment  by  chewing  which  prevents  boredom 
and  unnatural  behavioural  antics.  Shell  and  course  grit,  as  well  as  cuttle¬ 
fish  bone  are  available  at  all  times.  During  rearing,  soft  foods  in  the  form 
of  sprouted  sunflower  seeds,  apple,  plain  cake  or  biscuit  and  green  pana- 
cum  grass  stems  are  offered,  with  at  least  one  of  these  being  offered  daily. 
Panacum  stems  were  particularly  relished. 

The  third  season  commenced  with  the  laying  of  an  egg  on  21st  Jan¬ 
uary.  This  left  the  young  hen  with  the  male  who  weaned  it  as  the  female 
no  longer  fed  it  due  to  incubating.  It  was  left  in  the  flight  until  the  second 
young  left  the  nest  as  it  provided  company  for  the  male  but  was  then  re¬ 
moved  to  another  aviary  as  slight  rejection  became  evident.  At  this  stage 
she  had  just  began  to  utter  the  adult  call  more  often  instead  of  the  normal 
soft  squeak. 


204 


F.  BOHNER  -  BREEDING  THE  RED  TAILED  COCKATOO 


The  second  youngster  vacated  the  nest  early  spending  only  ten  weeks 
in  the  log.  It  was  totally  different  in  appearance  to  the  first  with  the 
plumage  much  blacker.  Yellow  spotting  on  the  head  was  absent  but  pre¬ 
sent  at  a  lesser  extent  on  the  wings  and  body.  Upper  and  lower  mandibles 
black  with  whitish  tips.  This  suggested  the  bird  was  a  probable  cock  which 
was  borne  out  later  by  its  behaviour.  At  the  age  of  two  years  and  nine 
months  it  possessed  two  red  tail  feathers. 

Next  season  started  late  with  the  hen  not  laying  until  9th  March. 
Incubation  started  next  day  and  was  again  28  days  with  the  chick  vacating 
the  log  after  twelve  weeks.  Plumage  was  similar  to  the  last  youngster  but 
bill  colouration  differed;  upper  mandible  was  black  while  the  lower  was 
white  with  dark  tip. 

On  4th  March  1979  the  hen  again  started  incubating.  Her  absence 
from  the  previous  years  youngster  made  it  squawk  incessantly  which 
aggravated  her  causing  her  to  give  it  the  occasional  tap  on  the  head  in 
scorn.  It  was  then  removed  to  another  aviary  to  give  its  parents  peace  and 
quiet  during  breeding.  Incubation  was  again  28  days  and  fledging  took 
thirteen  weeks.  It  was  a  male. 

Juveniles  are  reported  as  being  similar  in  appearance  to  females  but 
from  the  four  reared  in  my  collection,  young  are  clearly  sexable  on  leaving 
the  nest.  Males  tend  to  have  a  more  blackish  plumage  with  some  yellow 
spots  on  body  and  wings  but  often  more  in  the  facial  regions.  They  tend  to 
call  more  and  elicit  their  parents’  attention  more  frequently  than  hens  do. 
Bill  colour  is  generally  black  with  varying  amounts  of  white  but  stabilises 
to  a  uniform  colour  when  about  2 Vi  years  old.  Females  usually  have 
whitish  beaks  with  many  yellow  spots  on  the  head  and  more  over  the  body 
than  males. 

Activities  for  the  1980  season  have  started  early  with  the  female 
inspecting  the  log  on  11th  December  so  I  remained  hopeful  of  repeating 
the  previous  successes. 


205 

BREEDING  THE  WESTERN  RACE  OF  THE  CAPE  PARROT 

Poicephalus  robustus  fusdcollis  (Kuhl) 

By  G,  ISERT  and  H.  ISERT  (West  Berlin.) 


Of  the  Cape  Parrot,  a  species  widely  distributed  over  the  tropical  and 
subtropical  parts  of  Africa,  three  subspecies  have  been  described  which  are 
separated  from  each  other  by  wide  gaps.  Although  it  may  be  difficult  to 
distinguish  the  western  subspecies  P.  r.  fusdcollis  from  the  Central  African 
P.  r.  suahelicus  if  the  country  of  origin  is  unknown,  the  difference  between 
these  two  subspecies  and  the  nominate  race  from  South  Africa  is  clear 
enough:  while  in  the  two  former  birds  the  head  and  neck  are  silvery  grey, 
these  parts  are  yellowish  brown  in  P.  r  robustus.  On  the  other  hand, 
differences  between  P.  r.  suahelicus  and  P.  r.  fusdcollis  are  only  slight 
and  consist  of  a  more  bluish  tinge  of  the  green  part  of  the  plumage  in 
the  latter. 

According  to  Snow  there  is  a  remarkable  difference  in  ecology  between 
the  two  northern  races,  which  are  birds  of  seasonal  woodland  and  wood- 
savannah  mainly  at  tropical  levels  over  most  of  their  range,  and  the  South 
African  race  which  is  primarily  a  bird  of  the  montane  Podocarpus  forests 
above  1000  m,  where  it  roosts  and  breeds  at  subtropical  and  temperate 
levels  moving  down  to  feed  in  adjacent  low-lying  coastal  forest  and  wood¬ 
ed  valleys. 

Cape  Parrots  have  rarely  been  kept  in  captivity  and  we  know  only  of 
one  breeding  success  which  took  place  in  Basle  Zoo  in  1964  and  has 
been  described  by  Lang  in  volume  75  of  this  Magazine.  In  the  spring  of 
1974  I  managed  to  buy  a  Cape  Parrot  from  a  dealer  in  Berlin  who  had 
imported  the  bird  from  Gambia.  As  in  all  races  of  P  robustus  females 
show  a  brick  red  front  reaching  back  to  the  eyes,  it  was  easy  to  sex  my 
bird  as  a  female.  I  had  to  wait  until  August  1976  to  obtain  a  suitable 
cock  from  a  dealer  in  Maintal,  who  had  imported  several  birds  from 
West  Africa.  At  the  beginning  very  nervous  and  timid,  the  two  parrots  had 
to  be  kept  in  separate  cages,  and  it  was  necessary  to  avoid  hasty  move¬ 
ments  when  near  them.  They  were  always  nervous  with  people  they  did 
not  know.  Compared  with  many  other  species  of  parrots,  Cape  Parrots  are 
no  great  criers.  They  only  called  in  flight  when  we  had  them  flying  in  the 
room  and  then  only  for  about  ten  minutes  in  the  morning  and  evening. 
They  are  very  swift  and  nimble  flyers  and  even  in  a  small  room  never 
knock  into  a  wall  or  window. 


206 


Cape  Parrots  from  Gambia  Poicephalus  robustus  fuscicollis 
L  to  r.  :  Young  male,  adult  male,  young  female,  adult  female. 


G.  &  H.  ISERT  -  BREEDING  THE  CAPE  PARROT 


207 


Their  cages  were  put  side  by  side  for  some  weeks,  so  that  the  birds 
could  become  accustomed  to  each  other,  and  in  the  middle  of  September 
1976  they  were  put  together  in  an  flight  100  cm  x  210  cm  x  80  cm, 
supplied  with  a  nesting  box  30  cm  x  30  cm  x  55  cm,  the  floor  of  which 
was  covered  with  a  thin  layer  of  sawdust.  The  entrance  hole  of  the  nesting 
box  was  enlarged  by  the  birds  to  a  suitable  width  for  them.  The  pair  got 
on  well  together  and  the  first  mating  was  observed  on  6th  November,  1976 
and  was  repeated  four  or  five  times  daily  until  the  first  egg  was  laid  on 
26th  November  1976  and  was  numbered.  Three  days  later  the  second  egg 
followed  and  the  clutch  was  completed.  In  our  birds  we  have  never  obser¬ 
ved  clutches  of  three  eggs  as  described  for  the  nominate  race  in  Basle  Zoo. 
The  female  sat  on  the  eggs  from  the  time  she  laid  the  first  and  only  left  the 
nest  to  relieve  herself.  She  was  then  fed  by  the  cock. 

After  an  incubation  period  of  28  days  the  first  young  bird  hatched 
from  the  first  egg.  Two  days  later  the  second  young  bird  followed.  When 
the  birds  were  17  and  19  days  old  the  female  left  the  nesting  box  for  the 
first  time  for  about  20  minutes  to  feed  on  her  own.  On  7th  March,  1977 
the  first  young  bird,  at  the  age  of  71  days,  looked  out  of  the  nesting  box 
for  the  first  time.  On  the  following  days  he  sat  several  times  in  the  en¬ 
trance  hole.  The  second  young  bird  sat  in  the  entrance  hole  for  the  first 
time  when  he  was  74  days  old. 

Immature  birds  of  both  sexes  of  Poicephalus  robustus  resemble  the 
adult  female  in  plumage,  but  head  and  neck  have  a  stronger  tinge  of  red, 
while  the  thighs  and  carpal  edges  show  no  red.  Also  the  red  forehead  is 
weaker  in  the  young  and  interspersed  with  silver  grey  feathers  in  the 
immature  male.  After  six  months  the  red  of  the  head  of  both  has  disap¬ 
peared  and  the  colour  of  the  head  resembles  that  of  the  male.  In  the  young 
female,  two  or  three  feathers  appear  on  the  forehead  at  the  age  of  nine 
months;  at  the  age  of  ten  months  she  loses  the  first  primaries  and  has  a 
brick  red  head-band  of  5  mm  wide  and  a  few  red  feathers  on  the  thighs 
and  wing-edges.  At  the  age  of  ten  months  the  young  male  acquired  the 
first  red  feathers  on  the  thighs  and  the  edges  of  the  wings.  In  the  young 
of  both  sexes  the  red  does  not  extend  as  far  as  it  does  on  the  parents 
until  the  bird  is  three  years  old. 

At  the  age  of  82  days  the  first  young  bird  flew  out  and  was  back  in 
the  nesting  box  an  hour  and  a  half  later.  The  second  young  bird  flew 
out  for  the  first  time  at  85  days  and  was  back  in  the  nesting  box  after 
an  hour.  The  next  day  both  young  left  the  nesting  box  in  the  morn¬ 
ing  and  were  fed  shortly  by  the  cock.  They  spent  almost  the  whole  day  in 
the  aviary  and  returned  in  the  evening  to  the  nesting  box  where  they 
spent  the  night  with  the  hen.  On  3rd  April  1977  a  young  bird  was  ob- 


208 


G.  &  H.  ISERT  -  BREEDING  THE  CAPE  PARROT 


served  for  the  first  time  feeding  independently.  From  4th  April  onwards, 
these  young  birds  were  no  longer  fed  by  the  cock;  they  had  to  feed  inde¬ 
pendently  at  the  age  of  98  and  100  days.  After  the  first  young  bird  had 
looked  out  of  the  nesting  box,  the  cock  was  no  longer  observed  feeding 
the  female,  or  the  female  feeding  the  young  birds.  These  were  separated 
from  their  parents  on  3rd  July,  1977. 

At  the  end  of  1977  the  pair  hatched  another  two  young;  the  incubation 
period  was  the  same.  The  first  young  bird  flew  out  at  the  age  of  81  days; 
the  second  at  the  age  of  83  days.  They  were  independent  at  the  age  of  100 
and  102  days.  In  the  autumn  of  1978  a  clutch  was  not  fertilized,  probably 
because  of  a  change  of  place.  At  the  beginning  of  1979  two  eggs  were 
again  laid.  The  young  birds  flew  out  at  the  same  time  as  the  first  hatch  and 
were  independent  at  the  same  age.  At  the  beginning  of  December  1979  the 
pair  had  its  fifth  clutch.  One  day,  two  days  before  the  eggs  were  expected 
to  hatch,  one  egg  was  found  broken  on  the  ground;  from  this  time  on  the 
hen  no  longer  sat  on  the  other  egg.  Now,  in  February  1980  the  pair  again 
has  young  birds  in  the  nesting  box. 

Their  diet  consisted  of  walnuts,  hazlenut's,  pine  nuts,  peanuts,  white 
and  black  sunflower  seeds,  dry  and  germinated,  as  well  as  apples,  bananas 
and  grapes.  They  also  received  carrots,  hard  cooked  egg-yolk  and  milky 
corn,  finger  sized  branches  of  fruit  trees,  and  regularly  calcium  and  cuttle- 
bone.  Compared  with  Grey  Parrots,  P.  robustus  are  weak  feeders,  except 
if  there  are  young  birds  in  the  nest.  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  our  Cape  Parrots 
to  hold  a  twig  in  one  foot  while  feeding  on  small  seed.  We  believe  this  to 
be  a  sort  of  “Ersatzhandlung”,  for  in  the  wild  they  may  take  small  seed 
or  fruit  by  holding  the  twig  it  is  growing  on  within  reach  of  the  bill. 

We  hope  our  breeding  pair  will  continue  to  breed  so  reliably  in  the 
future. 


REFERENCES 

Astley,  H.D.  1915.  My  Brown-necked  Parrot.  A vicultural  Magazine  VI,  pp.  1 10-111. 
Forshaw,  J.M.  &  Cooper,  W.T.  1973.  Parrots  of  the  World.  Lansdown,  pp.228-290. 
Hopkinson,  E.  1910.  The  Brown-necked  Parrot  Poicephalus  fuscicollis.  Avicultural 
Magazine  Third  series,  VoL  1,  pp  107-112. 

Hopkinson,  E.  1917.  The  Brown-necked  Parrot.  Avicultural  Magazine.  Third  series. 
VoL  VIII,  pp. 24-28. 

Hopkinson,  E.  1926.  The  Brown-ne®ked  Parrot.  Avicultural  Magazine.  Fourth  series. 

VoL  IV.  pp.l  71-174. 


209 


Lang,  E.M.  1969.  Some  Observations  on  the  Cape  Parrot  Poicephalus  robustus 
robustus.  Avicultural  Magazine  75.  pp.84-86. 

Skead,  C.J.  1964.  The  Overland  Flights  and  the  Feeding  Habits  of  the  Cape  Parrot 
Poicephalus  robustus  robustus  (Gmelin)  in  the  Eastern  Cape  Province.  The  Ostrich, 
pp.  202-223. 

Snow,  D.  W.  1978.  An  Atlas  of  Speciation  in  African  Non-Passerine  Birds.  Trustees  of 
the  British  Museum  (Natural  History).  London,  pp.222. 


FIRST  CAPTIVE  BREEDING  OF  THE  JAMAICAN 
BLACK-BILLED  AMAZON  Amazona  agilis 

By  RAMON  NOEGEL  (Seffner,  Florida,  USA) 


Our  four  Jamaican  Black-billed  Amazons  arrived  early  in  1977  and  at 
the  time  we  believed  them  to  be  youngsters  due  to  their  very  dark  eyes. 
However,  as  the  year  wore  on  and  the  eyes  remained  dark  we  began  to 
realize  that  here  was  an  Amazon  Parrot  that  did  not  develop  a  distinct  iris 
colour  as  in  most  other  Amazons.  With  this  realisation  in  mind  we  placed  a 
nest  box  on  their  aviary  in  the  spring  of  1978  which  triggered  a  battle 
between  the  two  pairs  and  resulted  in  our  removing  the  two  specimens 
which  were  being  dominated  by  the  true  pair.  Though  the  dominant  pair 
frequented  their  box  that  breeding  season  no  eggs  were  deposited  and  we 
had  to  wait  patiently  until  this  season.  Not  expecting  any  actual  nesting 
before  late  April  or  early  May  we  were  rather  surprised  to  find  two  eggs 
already  being  incubated  on  10th  April.  Upon  candling,  one  egg  proved 
fertile  and  both  were  replaced  in  the  nest  box.  By  the  end  of  April  it  was 
obvious  that  there  was  a  chick  because  of  the  heavy  consumption  of 
additional  food  by  the  cock.  As  the  hen  sat  tight  and  never  left  the  nest 
box  while  anyone  was  around  the  area,  we  thought  it  best  to  wait  and  not 
risk  disturbing  her.  Finally  on  2nd  May  we  succeeded  in  seeing  the  chick 
which  was  then  five  to  seven  days  old,  or  so  we  judged.  The  infertile  egg 
was  removed  and  it  was  decided  to  allow  the  parents  to  raise  the  chick. 
Our  policy  here  at  Life  Fellowship  has  always  been  to  remove  and  hand- 
rear  most  of  our  psittacines  when  they  reach  seven  to  twelve  days  of  age. 
In  this  case  we  felt  that  our  lack  of  knowledge  regarding  this  particular 


210  R.  NOEGEL  -  BREEDING  THE  JAMAICAN  BLACK-BILLED  AMAZON 


species  of  Amazon  merited  leaving  the  chick  remaining  under  the  expert 
care  of  its  very  judicious  parents.  On  21st  June  the  young  Jamaican 
Black-billed  Amazon  fledged.  Two  days  later  we  discovered  the  parents  for 
some  reason  had  chewed  all  its  tail  feathers.  We  removed  it  to  a  3  ft.  x  3  ft. 
x  3  ft.  cage  adjoining  the  parents  aviary  and  continued  to  hand  feed  it 
twice  a  day  until  the  time  of  this  writing  (12th  July  1979).  It  has  already 
begun  to  eat  soft  foods  and  to  crack  a  few  seeds. 

Little  is  known  about  the  Jamaican  Black -billed  Amazon’s  habits.  Its 
beautiful  dark  green  makes  this  parrot  hard  to  distinguish  in  its  dense 
native  forests  on  the  island.  On  the  two  visits  I  have  made  to  Jamaica  I 
have  only  once  caught  sight  of  this  parrot,  though  the  more  commonly 
seen  Jamaican  Yellow-billed  Amazon  A.  collaria  is  often  sighted  while 
driving  along  coastal  roads  adjacent  to  heavily  populated  areas.  While 
reports  indicate  that  the  Black-billed  Amazon  is  still  plentiful  in  its  inland 
habitat,  hunters  still  find  it  difficult  to  obtain  and  concentrate  on  the 
Yellow-billed  Amazon  as  there  seems  to  be  more  of  a  demand  for  it  due 
to  its  soft  pastel  colouring  and  its  reputed  ability  as  a  better  talker  than 
agilis.  What  this  parrot  may  lack  in  colour  or  talking  ability  it  certainly 
makes  up  for  in  personality  and  antics.  During  the  courtship  ritual  the 
cock  makes  charges  at  the  hen  in  such  a  comical  manner  as  to  remind  one 
of  an  automatic  toy,  swaying  from  side  to  side  with  stiff  legged  jerky 
motions.  Upon  reaching  the  hen  he  jumps  over  her  as  if  playing  leap  frog 
only  to  resume  the  jerky  walking  until  about  two  feet  away  where  he 
turns  and  begins  a  similar  charge  and  another  hop  over  the  hen.  We  have 
seen  this  ritual  repeated  for  as  long  as  thirty  minutes  or  more.  In  other 
Amazons  such  ritual  is  of  less  duration  and  none  so  comical.  During  this 
performance  the  hen  sits  perfectly  still  while  uttering  soft  chortlings  to 
encourage  her  suitor  in  his  jester-like  pursuit.  No  crouching  by  the  hen  was 
observed  as  witnessed  in  other  Amazon  species  when  preparing  for  copu¬ 
lation,  nor  did  we  see  actual  copulation  take  place.  In  our  other  Amazons, 
copulation  usually  takes  place  early  in  the  morning  between  sunrise  to 
8.00  a.m.  and  in  the  late  afternoon  from  about  5.00  p.m.  until  dark. 

There  is  little  dimorphism  in  these  Amazons:  both  are  uniform  green. 
Both  have  a  single  or  at  the  most  five  red  or  orange  feathers  just  above 
the  cere  and  both  have  the  black  ear-coverts.  The  only  sexual  difference 
seems  to  be  the  hen’s  smaller  more  rounded  head.  Both  have  the  same 
body  shape  which  is  slightly  on  the  dumpy  side  in  fully  adult  birds. 

This  first  captive  breeding  of  the  Jamaican  Black-billed  Amazon  makes 
three  species  and  three  sub-species  of  the  Caribbean  Amazons  being  bred 
here  at  Life  Fellowship.  Many  thanks  are  in  order  to  all  my  wonderful 
staff  and  especially  to  Greg  Moss  whose  devotion  to  our  collection 


R.  NOEGEL  -  BREEDING  THE  JAMAICAN  BLACK-BILLED  AMAZON  211 


demands  more  than  the  time  required  of  him.  Such  a  large  responsibility 
could  not  be  carried  out  without  each  worker’s  cooperation  and  any 
success  is  to  a  great  extent  due  to  their  loyalty  to  this  project.  None 
are  paid  for  their  work,  it  is  entirely  a  labour  of  love  for  the  birds. 

While  we  are  working  with  other  rare  types  of  Amazon  parrots  and 
other  equally  rare  psittacines,  the  Caribbean  Amazons  have  always  been 
my  favourites  and  command  most  of  my  attention.  The  realization  of 
their  dwindling  habitat,  coupled  with  their  uniqueness  and  beauty  have 
long  held  my  attention  and  that  of  our  other  workers  also.  This  breeding 
will  make  three  first  world  breedings  for  us,  all  being  Caribbean  Amazons. 
While  we  are  proud  of  these  first  breedings  we  do  not  loose  sight  of  the 
real  purpose  which  is  the  saving  by  captive  breeding  of  rare  and  endan¬ 
gered  species.  The  knowledge  that  we  are  doing  something  really  worth 
while  for  the  preservation  of  these  rarities  is  compensation  enough. 


BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-CROWNED  AMAZON 

Amazona  ochrocephala 

By  JOHN  and  JOSIE  ARMAN  (Peterborough) 


We  purchased  our  pair  of  Yellow-crowned  Amazons  on  10th  September 
1978,  after  being  told  that  they  were,  as  far  as  could  be  ascertained, 
approximately  eight  years  old,  and  had  only  once  in  their  lives  been  in  an 
aviary,  the  rest  of  their  time  having  been  spent  in  various  cages  indoors.  We 
decided  to  keep  the  birds,  which  we  believed  to  be  a  pair,  indoors  for  two 
weeks,  during  which  time  their  aviary  and  indoor  quarters  were  prepared. 

On  22nd  September  the  birds  were  placed  in  their  indoor  quarters 
with  the  hole  to  the  outdoor  flight  blocked  off,  to  allow  them  to  get 
used  to  the  quarters  and  to  where  their  food  and  water  could  be  found. 
The  inside  quarters  were  54  in.  high  by  34  in.  wide  by  18  in.  deep.  One 
perch  only  was  installed,  of  natural  wood.  The  Amazons  were  then  left 
for  three  days  to  settle  in. 

On  24th  September  we  installed  a  nest  box  in  the  outside  flight,  atta¬ 
ched  to  the  shed  wall,  under  overhead  cover  of  wood  and  roofing  felt  of 


212 


J.  &  J.  ARMAN  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-CROWNED  AMAZON 


two  and  a  half  feet.  This  was  to  keep  the  nest  box  dry.  Later  in  the  day  we 
opened  the  bob-hole  and  waited.  During  the  course  of  the  afternoon,  both 
birds  ventured  into  the  flight,  the  cock  first  followed  tentatively  by  the 
hen.  Both  birds  also  found  their  way  back  to  the  inside  quarters  in  the 
early  evening. 

On  25th  September  we  observed  the  hen  inspecting  the  inside  of  the 
nest  box  nervously.  Both  birds  stayed  in  the  outside  flight  all  night,  the 
only  time  they  have  done  so.  Their  routine  is  to  return  to  the  inside 
quarters  at  dusk  and  remain  there  until  the  following  morning.  The  foll¬ 
owing  day,  the  cock  bird  (what  we  presumed  to  be  the  cock)  was  observed 
showing  interest  in  the  nest  box  and  later  entered  it.  On  inspection  of  the 
nest  box  when  the  birds  had  gone  indoors,  we  discovered  that  the  cock 
had  made  alterations  to  the  wood  laths  provided  to  make  the  nest. 

Their  regular  diet  consisted  of  sunflower  seed  mixed  with  Vitapet  and 
PYM  (ratio  two  lbs.  seed,  two  tablespoons  Vitapet,  two  tablespoons  PYM) 
shaken  well.  This  is  always  left  for  24  hours  before  feeding,  to  allow  the 
Vitapet  to  soak  into  the  seed.  In  addition,  we  fed  peanuts,  canary  and  hemp. 
Fruit  was  offered.  During  January,  as  the  weather  was  colder,  we  intro¬ 
duced  a  nectar  mixture  (as  recommended  by  Rosemary  Low  in  “Parrots 
of  South  America”)  adding  three  drops  of  Abidec  to  her  recipe  and  feeding 
the  birds  once  a  week  in  small  drinkers.  Throughout  the  early  winter 
months,  and  through  to  December,  the  Amazons  continued  their  ritual 
of  eating,  preening,  exercising  and  sleeping. 

On  14th  April  1979,  we  were  thrilled  to  see  our  Yellow-crowned 
Amazons  mating  and  feeding.  The  cock  bird  had  his  right  foot  on  the 
hen’s  back  and  was  emitting  a  type  of  rhythmic  moan,  a  noise  very  diffi¬ 
cult  to  describe  which  increased  in  volume  and  rapidity  as  mating  pro¬ 
gressed.  (Thus,  whenever  we  heard  the  noise,  we  knew  the  pair  were 
mating,  as  this  was  the  only  time  the  cock  made  the  noise).  During  the 
following  weeks,  the  birds  were  mating  almost  every  day,  the  cock  bird 
treading  the  left  side  then  the  right  side  of  the  hen.  The  birds  always 
mated  on  the  same  perch.  The  cock  would  feed  the  female,  then  begin  to 
flick  his  wings  very  slightly  -  not  full  span  -  but  kept  close  to  the  body, 
with  just  a  slow  deliberate  shimmering  of  wings.  When  the  hen  was  ready 
to  mate,  she  would  also  begin  to  flick  her  wings  two  or  three  times  in  the 
same  fashion.  The  procedure  would  last  anything  from  three  to  ten  min¬ 
utes. 

On  14th  July,  the  hen  entered  the  nest  box  and  seemed  more  relaxed 
than  previously.  She  stayed  in  the  nest  box  all  night  on  28th  July,  coming 
out  for  15  minutes  early  in  the  morning,  returning,  then  coming  out  again 


J.  &  J.  ARMAN  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-CROWNED  AMAZON 


213 


at  4,45  p  m.  for  15  minutes.  The  following  day  brought  thunderstorms 
and  torrential  rain,  and  the  hen  came  off  the  nest  all  day,  but  the  follow¬ 
ing  morning  the  cock  bird  was  in  the  flight  on  his  own;  the  hen  had 
returned  to  the  nest  box  and  remained  there  all  day. 

On  5th  August,  we  checked  the  nest  and  to  our  delight,  there  were 
two  eggs.  The  hen  had  come  off  the  nest  when  the  cock  gave  his  alarm  call 
as  I  entered  the  flight,  but  she  returned  to  the  nest  after  five  minutes 
(which  seemed  like  an  eternity  to  us)  and  we  heaved  a  great  sigh  of  relief. 
At  this  stage,  one  of  the  eggs  looked  fertile,  viz.  grey  in  colour  and  the 
other  appeared  a  clear  pinky-white  which  we  took  to  be  infertile.  We  did 
not  handle  the  eggs. 

We  estimated  that  the  eggs  would  hatch  around  the  28th  August  and 
on  this  day  we  decided  to  check  the  nest.  At  7.00  p.m.,  I  entered  the 
flight,  the  cock  immediately  giving  his  alarm  call,  but  he  did  not  show 
any  signs  of  aggression.  We  had  chosen  this  time  as  the  hen  was  out  being 
fed  by  the  cock  and  she  flapped  a  little,  but  nothing  serious.  On  opening 
the  inspection  flap  of  the  nest  chamber,  there  were  still  two  eggs.  One  was 
obviously  clear,  and  the  other  was  just  chipping!  We  retired  from  the 
flight,  thrilled,  but  still  not  counting  our  chickens  .  .  . 

On  1st  September  we  checked  the  nest,  opening  the  inspection  flap 
carefully  as  the  hen  was  inside.  She  sat  tight  for  some  moments  and  then 
began  to  move  up  the  tunnel.  There  before  our  eyes  was  a  beautiful 
baby  Amazon,  naked  except  for  the  odd  wisps  of  down  here  and  there. 
The  flesh  was  pink  all  over,  including  the  beak  and  the  down  was  white. 
The  eyes  and  ears  were  sealed.  We  removed  the  broken  shell,  but  left 
the  infertile  egg  as  a  44hot  water  bottle”  for  the  chick.  On  5th  September 
we  checked  the  nest  again.  The  chick  had  a  little  more  down  -  the  eyes 
and  ears  were  still  sealed.  By  8th  September  the  nest  was  beginning  to  get 
very  messy  with  the  baby’s  droppings,  everything  was  much  the  same. 

We  did  not  check  again  until  16th  September.  The  hen  was  very  pro¬ 
tective  and  would  not  leave  the  chick.  Eventually  after  some  coaxing, 
she  moved  halfway  up  the  tunnel  of  the  nest  box  and  kept  a  watchful 
eye.  The  baby’s  eyes  and  ears  were  now  open  and  the  tip  of  the  beak 
was  beginning  to  go  black.  Dark  brown  quills  had  begun  to  appear.  We 
removed  the  infertile  egg. 

By  the  following  weekend,  the  chick  was  much  larger.  The  crop  was 
not  completely  full,  but  we  presumed,  as  it  was  making  such  good  progress 
that  the  mother  knew  what  she  was  doing.  The  chick  now  had  dark  grey 
down  all  over,  apart  from  the  wings  which  were  now  showing  pin  feathers 
of  green.  We  took  the  first  photographs  of  the  baby  in  the  nest  box,  and 
even  at  this  early  age  he  would  lunge  forward  with  his  beak  open,  and 


214  J.  &  J.  ARMAN  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-CROWNED  AMAZON 

would  shrink  back  into  the  darkest  corner  of  the  box.  At  this  stage  the 
outer  ring  of  the  eye  was  grey  and  the  pupil  was  blue  black.  The  beak 
was  flesh  coloured  with  just  a  little  black  at  the  tip.  The  lower  mandible 
was  large,  feet  and  legs  beginning  to  go  grey.  The  following  weekend,  the 
feathers  on  the  wings  were  more  advanced,  pin  feathers  everywhere  else. 

At  no  time  during  the  rearing  did  we  hear  the  chick  call  his  mother, 
or  indeed  make  any  noise  at  all,  apart  from  the  hissing  type  sound  which 
accompanied  his  lunging  movements  when  the  box  was  opened  and  day¬ 
light  engulfed  him. 

On  7th  October,  we  removed  the  chick  from  the  nest  and  took  him 
out  of  the  flight  in  order  to  take  better  photographs  of  his  progress.  The 
cock  bird  gave  his  usual  alarm  call,  and  the  hen  sat  close  beside  him 
looking  very  concerned.  We  quickly  took  the  photographs  and  returned 
the  chick  to  his  mother.  It  was  possible  at  this  stage  to  distinguish  the 
coloured  areas,  the  yellow  on  the  forehead  and  red  and  yellow  on  the  wing 
butts.  Feet  were  by  now  very  large  and  completely  grey,  the  claws  being 
black. 

On  14th  October,  when  the  chick  was  exactly  six  weeks  and  one  day 
old,  we  took  him  away  from  the  parents  for  hand-rearing.  The  cock  and 
hen  sat  outside  in  the  flight  for  the  whole  day,  looking  most  forlorn  and 
obviously  missing  their  baby.  Rupert,  as  we  had  named  him,  was  well- 
feathered  all  over,  with  pin  feathers  and  down  covering  his  body.  There 
were  no  pink  patches  left  showing.  His  crop  was  full,  so  we  decided  to 
leave  him  until  his  crop  had  emptied  somewhat  before  giving  him  his 
first  feed. 

Hand-rearing  from  six  weeks 

We  gave  Rupert  his  first  feed  on  14th  October  at  5.00  p.m.  We  used  a 
large  syringe  and  mixed  the  following  to  a  soft  runny  consistency  with 
warm  milk:  six  tsp.  Farex,  one  drop  Vitapet,  two  tsp.  Glucose,  two  slices 
mashed  over-ripe  banana,  and  one  drop  of  Adexolin.  Rupert  took  his  first 
feed  perfectly  and  greedily  with  a  strong  pumping  action,  and  surprisingly 
little  noise,  just  a  tiny  squeak  occasionally. 

We  had  prepared  a  special  plywood  box  for  him  with  a  window  of  green 
perspex.  We  had  also  purchased  a  baby’s  size  hot  water  bottle,  which  fitted 
into  half  the  floor  space,  leaving  the  other  half  free  for  him  to  get  away 
from  the  heat  if  he  wanted  to.  The  bottle  was  always  kept  just  hand  hot 
and  wrapped  in  a  towel. 

We  fed  Rupert  again  at  10.00  p.m.  -  the  same  mixture,  and  settled  him 
down  for  the  night.  His  crop  was  almost  full.  At  no  time  did  we  ever 
over-fill  his  crop,  tending  to  slightly  under-fill  if  anything.  On  checking 


J.  Arman 

Yellow-crowned  Amazon  Parrot  -  25  days  old 


J.  Arman 


Yellow-crowned  Amazon  Parrot  -  39  days  old 


YeEow-erowned  Amazon  Parrot 


J.  &  J.  ARMAN  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-CROWNED  AMAZON 


215 


at  5.00  a.m.  the  following  morning,  the  baby  still  had  a  little  food  in  his 
crop,  thus  we  decided  he  would  be  able  to  last  through  the  nights  without 
being  fed. 

As  we  both  work,  my  wife  made  arrangements  to  take  Rupert  to  work 
with  her  and  leave  him  in  his  box  in  a  heated  conservatory,  to  enable 
his  feeds  to  be  made  regularly,  at  first  at  three-hourly  intervals.  The  baby 
was  fed  the  same  mixture  at  8.00  a.m.,  1 1.00  a.m.,  1.00  p.m.,  4.00  p.m., 
7.00  p.m.,  and  10.00  p.m.,  approximately  seven  or  eight  teaspoons  of  the 
mixture  at  each  feed,  then  leaving  him  from  10.00  p.m.  until  8.00  a.m.  the 
following  morning.  He  appeared  to  be  feeding  adequately,  except  that  he 
did  not  seem  to  be  getting  a  big  enough  mouthful  at  each  pump  at  the 
syringe.  We  therefore  decided  to  use  a  bent  spoon  and  this  proved  extre¬ 
mely  successful,  and  indeed  seemed  to  remind  the  baby  of  his  mother’s 
beak,  as  he  liked  the  spoon  pushed  right  down  almost  into  his  throat. 

On  21st  October,  we  added  home  mix  rearing  food  to  the  baby’s  diet, 
and  mixed  to  a  slightly  thicker  consistency,  omitting  the  banana  as  he  did 
not  find  this  palatable.  On  occasion,  when  the  food  seemed  to  take  longer 
to  pass  through,  we  gave  him  a  couple  of  teaspoons  of  hot  water  mixed 
with  black  strap  molasses,  to  aid  his  digestion  after  the  feed,  which  seemed 
to  make  the  food  pass  through  the  baby’s  system.  We  now  mixed  a  day’s 
supply  at  a  time  and  reheated  it  by  putting  it  in  a  cup  and  placing  the  cup 
in  boiling  water,  instead  of  mixing  each  feed  freshly.  The  baby  was  being 
offered  food  every  five  hours  at  this  stage. 

On  22nd  and  23rd  October,  we  had  to  coax  him  to  take  his  food, 
as  after  a  couple  of  spoons  he  would  turn  his  head  and  waddle  away.  On 
the  evening  of  the  23rd  we  gave  a  little  hot  milk  to  substitute  for  the 
mix  which  he  would  not  take,  hoping  this  would  replace  some  of  the 
goodness.  Rupert  refused  his  food  and  seemed  very  listless. 

We  had  been  inspecting  the  droppings  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  until 
this  time  they  had  been  about  half  an  inch  long,  dark  green  in  colour 
and  very  profuse.  On  24th  October,  we  noticed  there  was  very  little  faeces, 
and  at  lunchtime  my  wife  noticed  little  white  streaks  in  the  droppings, 
which  appeared  to  be  live  worms,  and  consequently  that  evening  we 
sought  advice  from  our  vet.  We  took  Rupert  to  the  surgery  and  he  was 
wormed  with  Nemicide  administered  directly  into  the  crop  with  a  syringe 
and  tube.  The  vet  informed  us  that  the  hot  milk  given  the  night  before  had 
probably  caused  the  live  worms  to  be  passed.  Rupert  refused  any  more 
food  that  night. 

This  was  the  time  that  I  regretted  taking  the  chick  away  from  his 
parents,  thinking  that  he  would  probably  die  because  of  my  inexperience, 


216 


J.  &  J.  ARMAN  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-CROWNED  AMAZON 


but  the  following  day  (at  55  days  old)  Rupert  passed  some  small  knots 
of  worms,  the  longest  being  about  half  an  inch  long,  and  later  in  the  day 
he  passed  a  very  large  pencil-like  knot  of  completely  white  faeces,  about 
IV2  in.  long  and  3/8  in.  diameter,  which  was  solid  worms,  and  this  was  the 
turning  point.  Rupert  showed  immediate  signs  of  recovery,  relishing  his 
food  once  more,  and  returning  to  his  old  self.  No  more  worms  were  passed 
during  the  rearing. 

As  the  parents  had  both  been  tested  for  worms  just  prior  to  incubation 
of  the  eggs,  we  could  only  suppose  that  they  had  fed  the  baby  droppings 
from  wild  birds  which  had  dropped  through  the  wire  roof  of  the  flight. 
This  could  have  proved  a  costly  exercise  had  we  not  sought  immediate 
treatment.  Luckily,  some  friends  of  ours  had  warned  us  that  two  of  their 
Amazon  babies  (Lilac-crowned)  had  also  experienced  worms  during  the 
hand-rearing  period.  We  had  therefore  looked  out  for  them. 

At  69  days  old  Rupert  was  in  beautiful  feather,  an  Amazon  in  all  but 
length  of  tail.  His  beak  was  now  three-quarters  black  from  the  tip,  the  cere 
was  grey  with  pink  round  the  nostrils.  During  the  course  of  the  next  two 
weeks  to  83  days,  the  tail  feathers  developed  and  the  wing  flights  reached 
almost  full  length.  We  had  transferred  him  from  his  travelling  box  to  a 
parrot  cage  where  he  perched  quite  naturally  at  his  first  attempt.  At  night 
he  was  returned  to  his  box  for  warmth  and  safety. 

At  this  time  he  was  still  on  four  feeds  a  day,  but  we  began  putting 
sunflower  seed  and  water  in  drinkers,  although  he  paid  little  attention  to 
them.  We  cut  out  his  lunch-time  feed,  hoping  this  would  encourage  him  to 
try  the  hard  seed.  Although  he  would  pick  up  the  seed  and  crack  it,  he 
did  not  eat  the  kernel.  On  26th  November,  we  gave  Rupert  his  early 
morning  feed,  intending  not  to  feed  him  again  until  late  evening.  We  noti¬ 
ced  that  evening,  several  cracked  seeds  and  the  kernels  missing.  We  tried 
him  on  various  fruits  but  he  would  not  touch  any  kind.  He  seemed  to  find 
the  wetness  on  his  beak  distasteful,  and  rarely  drank  water. 

On  27th  November,  Rupert  decided  to  fly.  He  leapt  from  the  worktop 
in  the  kitchen  to  the  floor.  After  this  he  continued  to  try  his  wings  at 
every  opportunity.  We  thus  decided,  for  his  own  protection,  to  clip 
his  wings  slightly,  as  he  had  no  control  over  his  destination  or  landing 
platform.  He  tended  to  flap  off  with  no  idea  of  where  he  was  going,  and 
inevitably  crash  landed  -  usually  into  something  breakable.  To  clip  his 
wings,  we  cut  away  the  trailing  edges  of  the  primary  and  secondary  flight 
feathers,  but  he  continued  to  fly,  usually  downwards,  being  unable  to  gain 
much  height  however  much  he  flapped  his  wings. 

By  5th  December,  Rupert  was  almost  as  large  as  his  father.  His  beak 


J.  &  J.  ARMAN  -  BREEDING  THE  YELLOW-CROWNED  AMAZON 


217 


had  grown  much  longer  and  was  by  now  half  black  from  the  tip.  He  was 
still  being  given  a  feed  at  7.00  a.m.  and  10.30  p.m.,  but  was  taking  sun¬ 
flower  seed  during  the  day. 

He  was  at  that  stage  when  he  loved  to  nuzzle  into  our  necks,  and  was 
fascinated  by  my  wife’s  earrings,  tending  to  tug  at  them.  Windsor,  our  long- 
suffering  and  very  patient  St.  Bernard,  was  also  troubled  by  Rupert.  He 
would  be  sleeping  peacefully,  and  would  suddenly  be  bombarded  by  an 
Amazon  in  full-flight,  and  receive  a  gentle  peck  on  the  nose.  We  found 
that  Windsor  had  his  own  way  of  dealing  with  this.  He  would  simply 
shake  his  big  head  vigorously  and  Rupert  would  depart. 

On  8th  December,  we  noticed  that  Rupert’s  eyes  had  started  to  change 
colour.  On  the  outer  ring  they  were  very  pale  brown  with  flecks  of  orange. 
The  pupil  was  black.  This  was  also  the  day  Rupert  gave  his  first  speech, 
not  a  long  oratory  but  just  a  simple  “Hello”  which  was  as  pleasant  to  hear 
as  a  thousand  words.  Later  we  noticed  that  he  had  two  versions  of  this 
greeting  -  one  being  a  very  proper  refined  “Hello”,  the  other,  copying  my 
voice  -  a  type  of  cockney  “alio”,  omitting  the  ‘h’. 

He  loved  to  ride  in  the  car,  showing  great  interest  in  his  surroundings 
and  the  views  flashing  past  the  window.  Inevitably  he  would  fall  from  his 
perch  -  letting  out  an  “Ouch”  as  he  did  so. 

On  15th  December,  we  took  our  last  photographs  of  Rupert.  He  looked 
every  inch  an  Amazon,  a  beautiful  bird  with  a  sparkling  bright  eye,  and 
gleaming  immaculate  feathers. 


218 


NOTES  ON  BREEDING  SLENDER-BILLED  CONURES 
Enicognathus  leptorhynchus 


By  T.  SILVA  (North  Riverside,  Illinois,  U.S.A.) 


These  interesting  birds  are  susceptible  to  cold  in  captivity  which  is 
surprising  as  they  come  from  Chile,  where  it  gets  extremely  cold.  My 
first  male  died  in  this  way,  although  the  second  survived  after  being 
transferred  to  a  hospital  cage.  These  birds  appear  to  be  decreasing  in 
numbers,  apparently  through  Newcastle  disease  and  because  of  deforest¬ 
ation. 

Description 

These  basically  dull  green  birds  have  crimson  foreheads  and  some 
individuals  have  red  in  the  belly  and  thighs.  The  feathers  on  the  forehead 
and  back  are  edged  in  black.  The  bill  is  brown,  legs  also  brown.  The  imma¬ 
ture  birds  are  smaller  with  a  shorter  bill  tipped  in  horn  colour.  Their 
plumage  is  darker  green  and  the  skin  around  the  eye  is  white  instead  of  the 
dirty  grey  of  the  adults. 

Breeding 

These  conures  appear  to  be  fairly  good  breeders  in  captivity.  Sexes  can 
be  fairly  well  distinguished  by  the  difference  in  the  size  of  the  pelvic 
bones.  The  female  can  be  identified  by  its  smaller  head,  and  by  the  red 
on  its  belly,  which  the  male  lacks.  They  are  fairly  noisy  but  become  tame 
very  quickly  and  can  be  bred  in  small  cages  instead  of  flights.  When  my 
pair  was  first  set  up  for  breeding  in  a  flight  they  failed  to  produce  fertile 
eggs,  but  when  moved  to  a  cage  2  ft  by  2  ft.  by  3  ft.,  nested  quickly  and 
produced  fertile  eggs.  The  male  displays  as  follows:  the  wings  are  spread 
slightly,  the  head  bobs  up  and  down  and  the  pupils  dilate,  the  bird  screech¬ 
ing  throughout.  The  female  sometimes  displays  in  the  same  manner.  The 
cock  mounts  the  hen  with  one  foot  while  keeping  the  other  on  the  perch. 
She  will  crouch  down  and  mating  begins.  To  attract  the  male’s  attention, 
the  hen  will  feed  him.  Mating  occurred  early  morning  and  late  afternoon. 
Those  in  my  collection  breed  twice  a  year,  in  early  spring  and  late  autumn. 

The  average  clutch  consists  of  four  large  eggs  which  are  broadly  ovate. 
Incubation  lasts  26  days,  although  one  clutch  hatched  in  24  days.  Eggs  are 
laid  every  other  day,  but  the  hen  may  miss  a  day.  She  will  incubate  from 


T.  SILVA  -  BREEDING  SLENDER-BILLED  CONURES 


219 


the  first  egg  and,  although  the  male  may  go  in  and  sit  next  to  her  for 
short  periods,  he  does  not  incubate  the  eggs.  He  feeds  her  and  at  times 
may  feed  the  chicks.  She  comes  out  once  a  day  to  relieve  herself  and, 
after  about  18  days,  may  also  bathe.  Those  in  my  collection  will  only  rear 
two  chicks,  and  if  others  hatch  they  are  killed  or  left  to  starve.  The  last 
time  that  they  bred,  their  chicks  had  to  be  removed  for  hand-rearing  after 
the  oldest  was  killed. 

Young 

The  chicks  have  white  down  on  wings,  head  and  body;  the  body  colour 
is  pink.  The  are  slow  to  grow,  and  at  about  12  days  their  size  is  equal  to 
that  of  a  Budgerigar.  At  ten  days  the  voice  changes  from  a  “chirp”  to  a 
“screech”.  The  eyes  begin  to  open  at  eight  days  but  do  not  fully  open 
for  some  time.  At  about  ten  days  the  small  dots  which  will  become 
feathers  are  just  beginning  to  appear.  The  exact  weaning  period  has 
varied  considerably  from  bird  to  bird. 

Hand-feeding 

The  chicks  do  well  on  a  formula  of  equal  parts  of  finely  ground  mon¬ 
key  chow,  high  protein  baby  cereal  and  hulled,  ground  sunflower  seed. 
In  addition  to  this  the  chicks  were  also  provided  with  some  fruit  or  egg, 
mynah  pellets  with  fruit,  and  a  pinch  of  vitamins  once  daily.  For  the 
first  few  days  they  are  fed  every  two  hours  until  the  crop  expands,  then 
every  three  hours  during  the  day  and  every  four  hours  at  night.  The  food 
is  at  first  given  in  a  liquid  form,  and  thickened  as  the  chicks  grow  older 
and  are  more  able  to  digest  solids.  As  they  grow  older  they  are  fed  less 
frequently;  when  they  begin  picking  seeds,  they  are  fed  morning  and 
evening  and  as  more  seeds  and  fruit  are  taken,  they  are  fed  only  at  night. 

Nest  box 

The  nest  box  used  is  12  in.  by  12  in.  by  12  in,  filled  to  the  top  with 
shavings  most  of  which  the  hen  tosses  out  when  she  begins  to  nest.  The 
shavings  are  replenished  after  each  nesting. 

The  information  supplied  is  from  my  experience  and  observations  of 
my  own  birds,  which  lead  me  to  believe  that  that  the  Slender-billed 
Conure  could  become  well  established  in  captivity. 


220 


BREEDING  RESULTS  FOR  1978-1979 
By  ROSEMARY  LOW  (Barnet) 

In  past  years  I  have  called  my  annual  reports  the  197-  breeding  season; 
however,  seasons,  as  such,  do  not  exist  when  one  keeps  such  birds  as  lories 
and  Eclectus,  for  they  lay  in  every  month  of  the  year.  Thus  on  1st  January 
1978  a  Fairy  Lorikeet  Charmosyna  pulchella  rothschildii  (housed  indoors) 
laid  and  on  3rd  January  a  Meyer’s  Lorikeet  Trichoglossus  flavoviridis 
meyeri  also  laid.  Neither  clutches,  each  of  two  eggs  as  is  usual,  hatched. 
The  Fairy  laid  her  second  egg  three  days  later,  an  interval  which  is  not 
unusual. 

The  eggs  of  her  second  clutch  were  laid  on  21st  and  23rd  April.  They 
were  infertile  and  she  left  them  on  12th  May.  The  pair  had  previously 
hatched  chicks.  This  species  has  not  been  reared  in  Britain  since  E.  J. 
Brook’s  success  in  1914.  At  the  time  of  writing  perhaps  only  Walsrode 
Birdpark  is  breeding  it  in  Europe. 

This  may  also  be  true  of  Meyer’s  Lorikeet.  In  1978  my  husband  and  I 
reared  three,  each  from  a  separate  clutch.  As  these  birds  have  proved 
incapable  of  rearing  their  young  in  our  collection,  they  are  removed 
for  hand-rearing  at  an  early  age. The  first  chick  was  removed  from  the 
nest  on  8th  April:  the  nest  also  contained  a  dead  chick  which  was  perhaps 
four  days  old  at  the  time  of  its  death.  The  live  chick  was  probably  six  days 
old.  By  18th  April,  i.e.  at  about  16  days,  its  eyes  were  starting  to  open; 
by  20th  April,  they  were  almost  fully  open.  By  then  the  underparts  were 
covered  in  light  grey  down.  On  3rd  June,  i.e.  at  nine  weeks,  this  chick  was 
moved  to  a  cage  from  the  heated  brooder  and  it  immediately  started  to 
feed  on  its  own.  It  commenced  to  moult  early  in  August,  when  four 
months  old. 

A  chick  from  a  second  pair  of  Meyer’s  Lorikeets  was  heard  on  7th  April 
but  had  died  by  the  13th;  chicks  are  normally  removed  at  six  days.  A 
second  egg  contained  a  chick  which  had  died  in  the  shell. 

On  11th  June,  eight  days  after  the  Meyer’s  became  independent,  a 
six  day  old  chick  hatched  by  the  same  pair  was  removed  from  the  nest 
for  hand-feeding.  The  second  egg  was  infertile.  The  chick  was  independent 
by  29th  July  when  it  was  housed  with  its  older  siblings.  However,  unlike 
the  other  Meyer’s  we  have  hand-reared,  it  has  remained  exceptionally 
tame. 

This  time  we  had  a  rest  of  13  days  before  its  parents  again  had  a  single 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1979 


221 


chick  which  was  removed  from  the  nest  on  11th  August.  The  chick  in  the 
second  egg  had  died  in  the  shell.  This  third  chick  was  reared  without 
incident  and  was  moved  from  the  brooder  to  a  cage  on  10th  October. 
Thus  we  had  spent  from  April  to  October  rearing  three  Meyer’s. 

The  procedure  adopted  for  rearing  these  chicks,  which  has  always 
proved  very  easy,  was  described  fully  in  the  Avicultural  Magazine ,  1977, 
pp. 12-17.  Our  attempts  to  establish  this  species  in  captivity  have,  all 
along,  been  made  more  difficult  by  the  preponderance  of  males.  In  1979 
only  two  females  were  breeding;  a  third  was  too  young.  One,  an  imported 
bird,  is  probably  becoming  too  old  to  breed  for,  for  the  first  time,  she 
failed  to  hatch  any  eggs.  The  second  female,  which  had  proved  the  most 
reliable  breeder,  with  two  different  males,  unfortunately  escaped  while 
we  were  on  holiday.  I  blame  myself  for  the  loss  of  the  only  chick  she 
hatched  in  1979.  At  six  days  it  looked  and  sounded  so  strong  I  decided  to 
leave  it  in  the  nest  for  a  couple  more  days  -  a  serious  error  of  judgement 
for  it  was  dead  on  the  seventh  day. 

Considering  that  we  have  three  laying  pairs  of  Iris  Lorikeets  Tricho- 
glossus  iris,  results  with  this  species  were  not  good  in  1978  and  1979.  Our 
original  pair  imported  in  1971  are  no  longer  fertile  and  the  female’s 
clutches  now  consist  of  a  single  egg  only  -  presumably  a  sign  of  increasing 
age  in  this  tiny  lorikeet,  which,  like  the  Meyer’s,  is  smaller  than  a  Budger¬ 
igar.  In  1978  she  laid  two  clutches,  on  4th  July  and  17th  August.  In  1979 
she  laid  on  6th  June  and  7th  September.  In  April  1979  I  separated  the 
pair,  pairing  the  male  with  a  female  who  has  never  laid  a  fertile  egg  for 
which  I  believe  the  male  is  to  blame.  For  three  weeks  they  steadfastly 
ignored  each  other,  keeping  to  opposite  sides  of  the  aviary.  I  then  relented 
and  reunited  the  pairs  with  their  first  mates.  The  pair  bond  between  the 
original  pair,  the  first  to  reach  Britain  for  many  years,  hand-reared  by 
natives  and  therefore  almost  certainly  a  brother/ sister  pair,  is  very  strong. 
However,  they  fight  ferociously  whenever  we  are  near,  as  hand-reared 
birds  will  in  competition  for  human  attention.  It  would  probably  have 
required  several  months  of  perseverance  for  them  to  accept  new  partners. 

The  infertile  pair  mentioned  consist  of  the  female  reared  by  the  late 
Ray  Kyme  in  1974  and  an  imported  male.  The  latter  is  a  bird  of  rather 
feminine  appearance  and  I  suspect  that  it  is  useless  as  a  breeder.  The 
female  will,  in  the  future,  be  paired  with  the  unrelated  male  reared  in 
1979.  The  third  pair  consists  of  two  imported  birds,  the  female  of  which 
is  a  continuous  layer.  I  lost  count  of  the  number  of  clutches  she  laid  since 
producing  chicks  in  1976  and  had,  in  fact,  given  up  inspecting  her  nest.  It 
was  thus  with  some  surprise  that  I  heard  a  chick  being  fed  on  29th  April 


222 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1979 


1979.  On  inspecting  the  nest-box  I  found  that  it  was  at  least  eight  days 
old.  As  the  danger  period  had  passed  and  it  looked  well  fed  and  healthy, 
it  was  not  removed  -  the  first  time  they  had  been  allowed  to  rear  a  chick 
since  they  first  hatched  chicks  in  1975  which  died  at  an  early  age  (but 
during  cold  weather). 

During  the  rearing  period,  consumption  of  nectar  (much  less  than  in 
other  lorikeets)  dropped,  and  carrot  was  eaten  avidly,  as  well  as  apple, 
sunflower  seed  and  spray  millet,  plus  occasional  pieces  of  dried  fig  of 
which  they  are  passionately  fond.  A  fme  male,  the  young  bird  left  the 
nest  on  27th  June.  The  parents  seemed  particularly  attached  to  it,  thus 
it  was  not  removed  from  their  aviary  until  2nd  September. 

The  female  laid  again  about  one  week  later.  A  chick  was  heard  on 
6th  October  when  it  was  about  three  days  old.  Lulled  into  a  false  sense 
of  security  by  their  recent  success,  I  decided  to  leave  the  chick  with  them. 
After  a  couple  of  weeks  they  started  to  pluck  it  -  a  warning  sign  I  should 
not  have  ignored.  Work  was  being  carried  out  in  the  vicinity  of  their 
aviary  which  was  possibly  the  reason  that  it  was  found  dead  and  mutilated 
on  22nd  October.  The  female  again  has  eggs  at  the  time  of  writing  (26th 
December). 

The  Iris  is  my  favourite  small  lorikeet.  From  Timor,  it  is  only  very 
rarely  exported  and  I  can  only  regret  that  aviculturists  let  the  opportunity 
to  establish  it  slip  through  their  fingers.  At  least  50  birds  reached  Britain 
during  1972,  and,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  only  mine  still  survive. 
My  own  breeding  results  have  been  far  below  those  hoped  for  and  can 
only  be  described  as  poor. 

The  most  reliable  pair  of  lories  in  the  collection  are  the  Dusky  Pseudeos 
fuscata.  This  species  has  proved  to  be  a  consistent  breeder  since 
it  became  available  in  1972.  Our  pair  have  reared  young  each  year  since 
1975  but  young  were  reared  in  1978  only  after  a  lot  of  hard  work  on  our 
part.  The  1977  youngster  was  left  with  its  parents  until  26th  March  and 
a  week  later  the  adults  were  mating.  The  female’s  two  eggs  were  laid 
during  the  end  of  April  and  a  chick  was  heard  on  25th  May.  While  the 
peat  in  the  nest  was  being  changed  on  29th  July  I  noticed  to  my  dismay 
that  one  of  the  well-grown  youngsters  had  the  fungus  Candida  albicans 
growing  in  its  mouth.  It  was  immediately  removed  from  the  nest  for 
treatment  and  hand-rearing.  At  this  age  it  was,  of  course,  very  nervous 
of  our  close  presence,  but  it  would  have  been  extremely  difficult  to  treat  it 
if  left  in  the  nest,  because  of  the  ferocity  of  the  parents.  We  discovered 
that  the  Candida  was  growing  as  the  result  of  an  injury  which  must  have 
been  caused  by  the  parents  and  that  it  had  also  lost  part  of  one  toe,  pre- 


(top)  Tahiti  Blue  Lory  Chick,  aged  eight  days,  weight  5  g.  (photo  by  Ted  Wright) 
(centre)  Red  Lory  chick  aged  about  10  days  (with  5p.  piece  for  size  comparison). 
Until  four  weeks  old,  it  spent  most  of  its  time  on  its  back.  (Photo  by  R.H.  Grantham) 
(bottom)  Clutch  of  eggs  of  Yellow-shouldered  Amazon.  The  female  became  egg- 
bound  on  the  blood-stained  egg  on  the  right,  rounder  than  the  other  two.  (Photo  by 
R.  H.  Grantham). 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1979 


223 


sumably  due  to  the  same  reason.  The  fungus  infection  was  complet¬ 
ely  cured  after  a  few  days’  treatment  with  Nystatin  (Nystan  -  made  by 
Squibbs)  ointment. 

After  two  or  three  days  “Brownie”,  as  I  called  this  lory,  had  lost  its 
fear  of  us.  It  weaned  itself  in  a  matter  of  minutes  on  5th  August  and  grew 
up  into  a  delightfully  tame  and  affectionate  bird.  “Brownie”  was  so  called 
because  its  immature  plumage  was  mainly  brown  with  only  small  and  dull 
areas  of  orange,  unlike  the  other  young  reared  by  this  pair  in  which  the 
immature  plumage  had  been  much  brighter. 

The  chick  left  with  its  parents  appeared  to  be  doing  well  so  we  were 
shocked  to  find  it  dead  on  6th  August  -  at  about  the  time  it  should  have 
left  the  nest.  It  had  been  heard  calling  strongly  the  day  before  and  the 
reason  for  its  death  could  not  be  ascertained. 

Probably  because  this  chick  did  not  live  to  leave  the  nest,  the  parents 
nested  again.  A  chick  was  heard  on  20th  September.  Once  again  both  eggs 
hatched. Because  of  the  lateness  of  the  season  and  the  fact  that  the  female 
Dusky  ceases  to  brood  her  young  during  the  day  when  they  are  about 
two  weeks  old,  we  decided  to  remove  the  young  for  hand-rearing  on  3rd 
October.  In  very  young  lories  the  legs  tend  to  splay  out  beneath  them  but 
this  is  rectified  as  they  grow.  It  soon  became  evident  that  something  was 
wrong  with  the  left  leg  of  the  elder  chick  which  was  held  at  right  angles 
to  the  body.  I  spoke  to  a  veterinary  surgeon  who  is  known  for  his  interest 
in  unusual  cases  and  he  agreed  to  x-ray  the  chick. 

It  was  then  six  weeks  old  and  only  partly  feathered,  thus  it  says  much 
for  its  constitution  that  it  took  the  car  journey  to  Huntingdon,  several 
sessions  on  the  radiography  table  and  even  a  light  anaesthetic  in  its  stride. 
As  anyone  who  has  hand-reared  lories  will  know,  they  keep  up  an  almost 
incessant  plaintive  cry.  We  were  all  amused  by  the  fact  that  the  last  part 
of  it  which  ceased  to  function  as  it  was  gradually  overcome  by  the  anaes¬ 
thetic  was  its  voice! 

Several  x-rays  were  necessary  before  it  was  seen  that  the  abnormal 
angle  of  the  leg  was  caused  by  a  “greenstick”  fracture  ,  i.e.  the  break  had 
occurred  at  an  extremely  early  age  before  the  bones  were  brittle.  It  had 
then  set  incorrectly.  Our  veterinary  surgeon  was  not  confident  of  its 
chances  of  ever  being  able  to  perch  normally.  However,  we  were  reluctant 
to  make  an  irrevocable  decision  until  we  knew  for  certain  that  nothing 
could  be  done  for  it.  To  help  the  young  lory  to  grip,  welded  mesh  was 
placed  on  the  floor  of  the  heated  brooder  cage;  this  appeared  to  have  a 
therapeutic  effect,  for  by  the  time  it  was  old  enough  to  be  removed  to  a 
cage  it  could  perch  perfectly  well.  It  is  difficult  to  detect  that  anything 


224 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1978 


is  wrong  with  the  Dusky’s  leg  except  when  it  attempts  to  run  on  a  flat 
surface.  Thus  there  is  hope  for  a  chick  which  suffers  a  leg  fracture  at  a 
very  early  age. 

In  1979  the  pair  nested  slightly  earlier,  despite  the  prolonged  bitterly 
cold  weather.  The  first  chicks  were  reared  without  incident,  and  left 
the  nest  about  26th  July.  Because  they  were  drenched  in  a  heavy  storm, 
they  were  removed  from  the  aviary  (to  be  dried  by  infra-red  lamp)  on  8th 
August  and  were  not  returned.  Thus  the  female  laid  again  two  weeks  later. 
When  she  deserted  the  nest  on  19th  September,  a  dead  newly  hatched 
chick  was  found  and  an  egg  in  which  the  chick  had  pipped  the  shell  and 
died.  This  was  the  first  time  since  the  first  chick  was  reared  that  they  had 
failed  to  rear  their  young.  Rearing  food  consists  of  nectar,  with  wheat 
germ  cereal  added,  spray  millet  and  occasionally,  soft  ripe  pear. 

Because  the  young  spent  a  few  weeks  indoors  they  soon  became  tame. 
Indeed,  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  caging  all  young  parrots  for  a  few  weeks 
after  removal  from  their  parents.  At  this  stage  they  usually  become  tame 
quite  quickly;  thus  their  captive  lives  are  free  from  the  stress  which  can 
be  so  damaging  -  and  all  too  often  fatal  -  to  those  birds  which  are  afraid  of 
people. 

After  rearing  two  chicks  in  1977,  the  Black  Lories,  Chalcopsitta  atra 
have  not  since  been  successful,  much  to  my  regret.  Incidentally,  the  two 
year  old  offspring,  kept  indoors,  still  has  the  white  orbital  skin  of  an 
immature  bird,  proving  that  exposure  to  sunlight  causes  the  skin  to 
darken. 

In  1978  her  mother  laid  on  about  6th  May  without  result.  A  second 
clutch  was  laid  about  28th  June  and  a  chick  was  heard  on  30th  and  31st 
but  had  died  by  the  following  day.  She  laid  again  about  three  weeks  later, 
also  without  result.  In  1979  an  egg  with  pitted  shell  was  found  on  the 
aviary  floor  on  13th  May,  thus  only  one  egg  was  incubated  -  unsuccess¬ 
fully.  The  pair  are  so  ferocious  that  nest-box  inspection  is  very  difficult. 
Ideally  the  box  should  be  mounted  on  the  outside  of  the  aviary. 

A  Red  Lory  Eos  bomea  purchased  in  December  1978  as  a  mate  for  a 
lonely  male,  was  the  first  female  to  lay  in  1979.  Her  first  egg  was  laid 
about  2nd  March.  The  nest  was  deserted  on  1st  April.  She  laid  again  one 
month  later  and  when  the  nest  was  inspected  on  28th  May  two  chicks, 
covered  in  longish  white  down,  were  seen.  They  were  estimated  to  be  three 
or  four  days  old.  However,  although  brooded  conscientiously,  they  were 
inadequately  fed  and  died  on  4th  June. 

The  female  laid  again  at  the  beginning  of  July.  On  July  27th  chicks 
were  heard;  nest  inspection  revealed  two  recently  hatched  chicks  which 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1979 


225 


did  not  look  strong.  They  were  removed  at  once  for  hand-rearing.  The 
younger  died  in  the  early  hours  of  the  following  morning.  The  survivor 
was  spoon-fed  for  14  weeks  and  was  by  far  the  most  difficult  chick  we 
have  ever  hand-reared.  Until  it  was  four  weeks  old  it  habitually  laid  on  its 
back,  thus  continually  took  air  into  its  crop  which  made  it  difficult  to 
feed.  It  was  abnormally  slow  to  learn  to  feed  itself.  As  is  typical  of  the 
majority  of  immature  Eos  bornea  it  differed  from  the  adults  in  having 
well-defined  blue  ear-coverts. 

Two  Swainson’s  Lorikeets  Trichoglossus  haematodus  moluccanus 
obtained  from  separate  sources,  were  put  together  in  August  1979.  They 
were  observed  copulating  in  mid-November  and  the  female  laid  shortly 
after.  She  deserted  clear  eggs  on  21st  December. 

It  is  notable  that  both  the  Swainson’s  and  the  Red  Lory  females  laid 
when  the  pairs  had  been  together  less  than  three  months  -  and  previously 
all  four  birds  had  been  deprived  of  mates.  So  often  it  seems  that  parrots 
are  eager  to  nest  under  such  circumstances. 

Finally,  among  the  lories,  a  pair  of  Tahiti  Blue  Lories  Vini  peruviana  in 
our  custody  for  US  Customs/San  Diego  Zoo  also  attempted  to  breed.  On 
12th  May  1979  the  female  laid  from  the  perch  -  for  a  reason  I  failed  to 
understand  since  the  pair  spend  so  much  time  in  their  nest-box  in  an 
indoor  flight.  She  laid  again  during  August;  the  single  egg  proved  infertile. 
It  was  slightly  smaller  in  size  than  that  of  a  Fairy  Lorikeet.  At  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  November,  two  more  eggs  were  laid.  The  incubation  was  note¬ 
worthy  for  the  fact  that,  as  far  as  I  could  determine,  it  was  carried  out 
entirely  by  the  male.  In  the  Charmosyna  and  perhaps  in  the  other  Vini 
lories,  incubation  is  shared  by  male  and  female  -  uniquely  among  lories  in 
which  incubation  only  by  the  female  is  usual.  In  1979  San  Diego  Zoo  was 
successful  in  rearing  Tahiti  Blue  Lories,  thus  I  hope  that  information  will 
shortly  be  available  concerning  the  incubation  habits  of  their  pairs. 

On  26th  November  I  heard  the  sound  of  a  chick  being  fed  in  the  Blue 
Lories’  nest-box.  Inspection  revealed  a  dead  chick,  probably  newly- 
hatched,  and  a  two  day-old  chick  which  was  very  much  alive.  Fearing  that 
it  might  not  be  fed  adequately,  I  removed  it  from  the  nest  early  the 
following  morning  and  placed  it  in  an  incubator,  set  at  92°F  (33°C). 
Despite  its  extreme  diminutiveness  and  minute  bill,  it  fed  readily  from  a 
spoon  (the  teaspoon  adapted  for  this  purpose  with  sides  turned  inwards) 
immediately.  Because  of  the  small  capacity  of  its  crop,  it  required  feeding 
at  hourly  intervals  during  the  day,  a  task  usually  carried  out  by  my  hus¬ 
band.  Nightly,  between  11  p.m.  and  6  a.m.  I  fed  it  twice. 

Initially,  there  were  problems  with  its  diet.  Milk  powder  (high  protein  - 


226 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1979-1979 


Casilan)  caused  small  lumps  to  form  in  the  crop  (easily  seen  as  the  crop  is 
transparent  in  a  very  young  chick)  thus  had  to  be  discontinued.  For  this 
reason,  I  did  not  give  cereal,  (for  very  young  chicks  wheat  germ  cereal  is 
usually  reduced  to  a  powder,  using  a  grinder).  The  food  offered  consisted 
of  malt  extract,  apple  and  glucose,  mixed  with  water  in  an  electric  blender. 
On  this  the  chick  thrived  for  a  week.  It  was  strong,  active  and  vocal.  At 
eight  days  the  feather  tracts  were  visible  beneath  the  skin.  The  white  down 
was  fluffy  and  its  pink  skin  looked  healthy.  However,  at  ten  days  the  chick 
became  difficult  to  feed.  It  took  air  into  its  crop  and  what  appeared  to  be 
air  (but  proved  to  be  gas)  could  be  seen  through  the  transparent  skin  of 
the  abdomen.  It  grew  increasingly  difficult  to  feed  and  died  at  12  days.  Its 
death  was  the  major  disappointment  of  the  season. 

Autopsy  revealed  no  sign  of  disease  and  that  it  was  apparently  well 
developed  for  its  age.  The  fact  that  the  yolk  sac  was  not  fully  absorbed 
indicated  that  nutritionally  the  diet  was  inadequate.  However,  there  was 
gas  in  the  bowels,  which  probably  caused  its  death.  George  Smith,  who 
performed  the  autopsy,  suggested  that  this  was  due  to  lack  of  fibre  in  the 
diet  and  I  feel  that  he  was  correct  in  this  conclusion. 

Another  instance  of  birds  which  have  been  deprived  of  partners  nesting 
soon  after  being  introduced  was  demonstrated  by  my  favourite  small 
parrots,  the  Salvadori’s  Fig  Parrots  Psittaculirostris  salvadorii.  After  the 
unfortunate  death  of  the  female,  a  replacement  was  not  obtained  until 
29th  September  1979,  and  then  due  to  the  generosity  of  George  Smith. 
Compatibility  between  the  male  and  female  was  instant;  the  male  was 
overjoyed  at  again  having  a  wife.  He  seemed  to  lose  all  interest  in  life  while 
on  his  own.  The  female  laid  a  single  egg  four  weeks  later  which  was  in¬ 
fertile,  although  copulation  had  occurred,  probably  frequently.  She  laid 
again  during  mid-December.  The  birds  are  housed  in  an  indoor  flight  as  we 
are  not  prepared  to  allow  them  to  face  the  vagaries  of  a  British  winter. 

They  are  fed  mainly  on  fruit,  especially  soaked  dried  figs,  thus  their 
droppings  have  the  loose  consistency  of  a  softbill.  They  also  eat  sunflower 
seed.  To  breed  this  species  is  one  of  my  dearest  hopes. 

Another  pair  of  which  I  am  particularly  fond  is  the  Slender-billed 
Parrakeets,  Enicognathus  leptorhynchus.  The  female  is  the  bird  obtained 
by  the  late  Mrs  Howard  of  Wolverhampton  in  or  before  1965  and  the  male 
is  on  loan  from  London  Zoo.  Unfortunately,  the  male  copulates  with  the 
perch  and  not  with  the  female,  thus  the  single  clutches  laid  in  1978  and 
1979  were  infertile.  To  literally  add  injury  to  insult,  the  male  enters  the 
nest  and  plays  football  with  the  eggs.  The  prospects  of  breeding  from  this 
pair  seem  hopeless! 

It  was  of  interest  that  the  Bronze-winged  Parrot  Pionus  chalcopterus 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  19784979 


227 


hatched  in  the  collection  in  1976  laid  in  June  and  September,  paired  to  an 
imported  male.  The  eggs  were  infertile. 

The  Amazon  parrots  were  a  major  source  of  disappointment,  especially 
in  1979  when  20  eggs  were  laid  and  no  chicks  hatched!  However,  I  do  not 
lack  patience  and  know  that  it  can  be  some  years  before  certain  pairs 
prove  fertile.  The  six  Cayman  Parrots  Amazona  leucocephala  caymanensis , 
which  my  husband  and  I  brought  back  from  the  Island  of  Grand  Cayman 
in  1975,  consist  of  two  true  pairs  and  two  others  which  are  probably 
males.  In  1978  one  female  laid  at  the  end  of  May  and  deserted  four  in¬ 
fertile  eggs  on  30th  June.  The  female  of  the  second  pair  laid  about  40  days 
later  and  deserted  infertile  eggs  on  8th  July. 

In  1979  laying  was  slightly  earlier.  One  female  deserted  five  infertile 
eggs  on  21st  June  and  the  other  left  two  clear  eggs  two  days  later. 

Considering  how  cold  were  the  months  of  May  and  the  preceding 
months  in  both  years,  and  that  the  Caymans’  tolerance  to  low  temper¬ 
atures  is  less  than  that  of  all  the  other  large  parrots  in  the  collection,  it 
is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  the  eggs  are  infertile;  it  seems  unlikely 
that  the  birds  would  be  in  full  breeding  condition  by  May.  Climatically, 
May  of  1979  was  more  peculiar  than  usual.  On  4th  May  there  was  snow, 
sleet  and  hail.  Only  nine  days  later  I  recorded  in  my  diary  that  the  temp¬ 
erature  was  77°F  (25°C)  -  a  heatwave  of  the  briefest  possible  duration. 

The  Yellow-shouldered  Amazon  known  as  “Icky”,  Amazona  barba - 
densis  laid  for  the  second  year  during  the  third  week  of  May  1978,  and 
at  about  the  same  time  during  1979.  Neither  clutches  hatched  -  or  if 
they  did,  the  chicks  died  early.  Inspecting  the  nest  is  impossible  with  this 
exceptionally  ferocious  pair. 

In  1979  eggs  were  obtained  from  a  second  female  barbadensis ,  “Susie”. 
The  pair  had  been  together  for  less  than  a  year.  Her  three  eggs  were  laid 
at  peculiar  intervals  over  a  ten-day  period  -  on  11th,  17th  and  21st  of  May. 
On  the  morning  of  the  2 1  st  she  was  seen  sitting  unhappily  in  the  entrance 
of  the  nest  barrel.  She  was  carefully  wrapped  in  a  towel  and  taken  indoors 
and  placed  in  the  heat  of  an  infra-red  lamp.  After  a  few  hours  she  seemed 
completely  recovered  and  surprised  me  at  10  p.m.  by  laying  a  third  egg. 
Not  at  all  the  classic  symptoms  of  egg-binding!  She  was  kept  indoors 
for  a  few  days.  The  eggs  were  placed  in  an  incubator  and  proved  infertile. 
A  second  clutch  was  not  laid  although  the  male  fed  her  and  nest  inspection 
occurred. 

As  Amazons  usually  lay  in  May  and  fall  into  a  moult  not  long  after 
ceasing  incubation  of  infertile  clutches,  in  future  eggs  will  be  checked  for 
fertility  after  a  few  days  and  removed  if  infertile.  Hopefully,  replacement 
clutches  will  result  which  have  a  better  chance  of  being  fertile. 


228 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1979 


For  the  first  time  we  had  eggs  from  Double  Yellow-headed  Amazons 
Amazona  ochrocephala  oratrix.  The  pair  was  reunited  in  the  autumn  after 
being  separated  for  nearly  two  years.  I  regret  to  say  that  we  had  caged  the 
female  on  her  own  for  this  length  of  time  and  placed  what  was  almost 
certainly  a  second  male  with  her  mate!  I  fmd  this  species  very  difficult 
to  sex.  Their  joy  at  being  reunited  in  the  autumn  of  1978  was  wonderful 
to  see  and  something  that  I  captured  on  cinefilm.  There  was  much  dis¬ 
playing  and  chortling  and  the  male  invited  the  female  to  inspect  the  nest 
barrel. 

It  may  have  been  the  separation  that  stimulated  the  female  to  lay  in 
April.  The  two  eggs  did  not  hatch.  She  laid  again  in  June  and  deserted 
the  addled  eggs  on  23  rd  July. 

Throughout  both  periods  both  birds  were  in  the  nest  simultaneously 
so  that  I  began  to  wonder  if  again  I  was  wrong  and  they  were  two  hens, 
not  two  males  as  I  had  originally  thought. 

An  unexpected  success  was  the  rearing  of  a  Grey  Parrot  Psittacus 
erithacus.  The  pair  had  been  together  since  1973  when  the  female  “chose” 
the  male  as  soon  as  he  was  placed  in  a  colony  aviary  of  five  birds.  In  the 
following  year  she  laid  fertile  eggs.  She  laid  annually  until  1976  but 
made  no  attempt  to  breed  in  1977  and  1978. 

It  seemed  that  drastic  action  was  needed,  thus  in  the  spring  of  1979  the 
pair  was  moved.  From  a  large,  secluded  aviary  they  were  placed  in  a  smal¬ 
ler  one  measuring  about  9ft.  (2.7m)  long,  3ft  (90cm)  wide  and  6ft  (1.8m) 
high.  The  situation  seemed  quite  unsuitable  -  alongside  a  busy  path  and 
overlooked  by  the  climbing  frame  of  the  children  next  door.  However, 
this  was  apparently  very  much  to  the  birds’  liking  for  they  went  to  nest 
almost  at  once. 

The  female  laid  at  the  end  of  May  but  she  sat  so  tightly  I  never  dis¬ 
covered  how  many  eggs  formed  the  clutch.  On  30th  June  the  behaviour 
of  the  male  led  me  to  suspect  that  a  chick  had  hatched.  Nest  inspection 
was  not  very  revealing  as  the  hen  would  not  move.  When  the  chick  was 
large  enough  to  be  left  unattended  for  a  short  while  she  would  return  to 
the  nest  at  quite  incredible  speed  the  moment  I  touched  the  aviary  door. 
On  25th  July  I  had  my  first  good  look  at  the  young  bird  -  covered  in 
woolly  grey  down  and  standing  upright. 

The  rearing  of  the  chick  progressed  completely  without  incident. 
On  6th  September  it  was  seen  looking  out  of  the  nest  and  after  a  week 
would  sit  in  the  nest  entrance.  The  male  would  spend  long  periods  sitting 
on  the  nest-box  perch,  usually  with  an  item  of  food  in  his  foot,  such  as 
a  piece  of  apple  of  millet  spray.  Evidently  he  was  teaching  the  young 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1979 


229 


bird  how  to  feed,  for  I  observed  it  feeding  for  itself  on  its  first  day  out  of 

the  nest  -  26th  September. 

During  the  three  weeks  it  had  spent  looking  out  of  the  nest-box  it  lost 
its  shyness  and  ceased  to  growl  when  subjected  to  a  steady  scrutiny. 
Two  weeks  after  leaving  the  nest  it  was  quite  unafraid  and  moved  about 
the  aviary  in  a  confident  manner.  Its  plumage  then  differed  from  the 
adults’  in  the  more  silvery  shade  and  in  the  brownish-red  tip  to  the  tail. 
The  latter  feature,  together  with  the  dark  grey  instead  of  yellow  iris,  is 
characteristic  of  all  immature  Grey  Parrots. 

Every  night  it  returned  to  the  nest  to  roost  with  its  parents  until 
removed  from  the  aviary  on  21st  October.  An  interesting  aspect  of  this 
breeding  was  the  rearing  food,  which  was  not  what  I  would  consider 
ideal.  The  male  was  a  conservative  feeder,  taking  only  seed,  fruit  and  other 
sweet  items.  Sunflower  seed  offered  was  therefore  soaked  in  water  for 
24  hours  (then  well  washed)  to  increase  its  digestibility.  To  ensure  that 
the  chick  did  not  suffer  a  calcium  deficiency  resulting  in  rickets,  the 
banana  which  the  male  ate  with  enthusiasm  was  lightly  dipped  in  bone 
meal.  For  the  first  two  or  three  weeks  after  hatching  I  provided  sponge 
cake  and  wheat  germ  soaked  in  nectar  with  vitamin  drops  added.  This 
had  to  be  discontinued  when  the  wasps  put  in  their  usual  appearance  in 
August  as  it  resulted  in  the  Grey’s  food  di§h  swarming  with  them. 

Finally,  our  faithful  pair  of  Eclectus  Parrots  Eclectus  roratus  (the 
female  of  the  sub-species  vosmaeri )  reared  some  excellent  youngsters.  In 
1978  two  chicks  were  hatched  during  the  last  week  of  June,  the  first 
being  seen  on  the  26th.  By  20th  July  the  green  tips  to  the  mantle  feathers 
proclaimed  that,  as  usual,  it  was  a  male,  as  was  the  second  chick.  They 
left  the  nest  on  12th  and  22nd  September.  The  female  laid  again  during 
the  last  week  in  October.  The  first  chick  hatched  on  22nd  November 
and  the  second  on  the  26th.  By  then  the  weather  was  freezing  and 
snow  fell  during  the  following  week.  Before  the  young  birds  were  four 
weeks  old  I  was  elated  to  discover  that  both  were  females  -  the  first  raised 
by  this  pair  after  what  seemd  to  be  an  endless  succession  of  males  (ten  in 
fact). 

The  male  is  mainly  responsible  for  feeding  the  young  and,  hitherto,  had 
always  made  an  excellent  job  of  this.  However,  on  30th  December  the 
young  were  heard  crying  continuously  for  food  and  the  female  left  the 
nest  more  frequently  than  usual  and  seemed  restless.  Next  day  the  male 
appeared  to  have  lost  all  interest  in  feeding  them.  It  was  as  though  his 
instinct  warned  him  of  the  long  weeks  of  severe  weather  ahead  which 
commenced  that  day. 


230 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  1978-1979 


When  the  female  left  the  nest  at  midday  the  young  were  inspected;  the 
smaller  had  an  empty  crop,  the  larger  but  little  food.  Under  normal 
circumstances  their  crops  would  resemble  little  bulging  sacks.  We  decided 
to  remove  them  at  once  -  and  the  female  dive-bombed  me  as  I  carried 
them  out  of  the  aviary  -  but  thereafter  neither  bird  gave  any  outward 
sign  of  missing  their  young. 

The  younger  chick  was  so  hungry  that  she  opened  her  bill  and  allowed 
me  to  literally  pour  down  the  food.  This  was  a  relief  as  well  developed 
chicks  could  have  proved  difficult  to  feed.  I  was  interested  to  note  the 
weak  pumping  action  of  this  species  when  being  fed.  It  is  quite  unlike  that 
of  the  lories  and  cockatoos,  for  example,  in  which  even  a  small  chick  can 
almost  knock  the  spoon  out  of  one’s  hand  with  its  strong  pumping  action. 

The  food  used  for  the  Eclectus  chicks  was  made  fresh  daily  using  a 
small  electric  blender.  Eclectus  have  a  great  need  for  vegetable  matter, 
thus  this  accounted  for  about  one  third  of  the  food.  Apple,  carrot,  and 
corn  on  the  cob  (frozen,  then  thawed)  were  placed  in  the  blender  with 
approximately  equal  parts  of  Casilan  milk  powder  (92%  protein),  skimmed 
milk  powder,  wheat  germ  cereal  and  sunflower  seed  kernels.  A  small 
amount  of  bone  meal  was  added  to  ensure  that  the  calcium  content  was 
adequate.  Water  was  then  added  and  the  mixture  blended  to  a  porridge¬ 
like  consistency. 

When  the  chicks  had  been  removed  from  the  nest  there  was  such  a 
large  discrepancy  in  their  size  it  was  obvious  that  the  younger  had  not 
been  receiving  her  fair  share  of  food.  They  weighed  1 1  oz.  and  8lA  oz. 
The  plumage  of  the  younger  showed  signs  of  malnutrition;  hunger  traces 
(horizontal  lines)  across  some  feathers,  and  abnormal  coloration.  Her 
head  was  orange,  not  red,  and  the  feathers  of  her  back  were  bronze  and 
green,  not  red  and  green  as  in  her  sister.  The  last  feathers  to  appear,  those 
on  the  throat,  were  of  the  correct  colour,  an  indication  that  the  nutritional 
problem  had  been  rectified  by  hand-feeding.  They  rapidly  gained  weight 
and,  ten  days  after  being  removed  from  the  nest,  they  weighed  13  oz.  and 
10  oz.  After  three  weeks  they  started  to  eat  sunflower  kernels.  The  next 
step  was  to  offer  cracked  sunflower  seed,  apple  and  pomegranate,  all  of 
which  they  consumed  readily. 

As  they  took  more  of  these  foods  they  became  increasingly  difficult 
to  feed.  The  elder  youngster  would  take  a  couple  of  spoonfuls  of  pre¬ 
pared  food  and  run  back  to  the  cage  (standing  on  the  table  on  which  they 
were  fed).  Or  she  would  shake  her  head  and  attack  the  spoon.  The  younger 
was  far  less  dependent  and  strong-willed.  By  the  time  they  were  three 
months  old  they  were  very  independent,  but  they  lacked  the  affectionate 


R.  LOW  -  BREEDING  RESULTS  19784979 


231 


nature  which  makes  many  hand-reared  parrots  exceptionally  appealing. 

As  I  had  expected,  the  head  colour  of  the  younger  chick  moulted 
out  to  the  normal  shade  of  red.  At  the  time  of  writing  she  is  13  months 
pld  and  has  retained  some  of  the  bronze  wing  feathers. 

In  1979  the  Eclectus  did  not  lay  until  27th  June.  This  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  several  months  earlier  the  male  had  to  be  anaesthetised  to  have 
Ms  abnomially  thick,  overgrown  beak  trimmed.  He  reacted  badly  to  the 
anaesthetic  and  did  not  regain  breeding  condition  for  several  months. 
The  female  hatched  a  chick  on  27th  July.  Possibly  because  the  male’s 
beak  had  again  become  overgrown,  the  female  took  almost  sole  care  of 
this  chick  until  it  was  old  enough  to  climb  to  the  nest  entrance,  where  it 
was  fed  by  the  male.  It  was  a  female  and  left  the  nest  on  9th  October  - 
the  shortest  fledging  period  recorded  in  our  Eclectus. 

The  male’s  beak  had  to  be  attended  to  again.  As  another  anaesthetic 
was  out  of  the  question  and  the  bird  is  so  tame  that  handling  causes 
him  no  stress,  we  did  this  ourselves.  I  held  him  while  my  husband  removed 
the  overgrown  part  of  the  beak  using  a  small  hacksaw.  This  took  about 
five  seconds!  The  female  laid  the  first  egg  of  her  next  clutch  of  two  on 
24th  November.  However,  they  failed  to  hatch. 

Undoubtedly  the  event  that  gave  us  most  pleasure  in  1979  was  the 
hand-rearing  of  two  Coffin’s  Cockatoos.  This  I  have  described  in  a  separate 
article. 

It  was  pleasing  to  note  that  in  1979  we  had  eggs  from  almost  every 
female  housed  outdoors  with  a  male.  The  only  exceptions  were  a  Roseate 
Cockatoo  paired  to  a  male  with  an  inoperable  lipoma,  and  the  Goldie’s 
Lorikeets. 


232 


AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 
By  RAMON  NOEGEL  (Seffner,  Florida,  USA) 


This  article  is  not  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  we  are  trying  to 
put  forth  the  ultimate  in  avicultural  husbandry.  That  would  be  too  great 
a  claim  for  even  the  best  aviculturist  to  make  because  each  genus  of 
psittacines  would  require  a  life-time  of  study  and  experience  even  to 
begin  to  understand  the  parrots’  particular  wants  and  needs.  Because  of 
our  success  in  breeding  Amazon  parrots,  and  due  to  the  many  requests 
we  annually  receive  for  information  on  this  subject,  we  of  the  New  Age 
Ranch  (Life  Fellowship)  want  to  share  some  facts  and  theories  that  may 
prove  beneficial  to  the  beginner. 

Selecting  the  Amazon  parrot  that  you  wish  to  breed 

Today’s  aspiring  aviculturist  is  fortunate  in  having  a  large  stock  of 
imports  to  choose  from  for  potential  breeders.  A  few  years  ago  we  would 
pick  up  a  lone  long  term  cage  pet  and  hope  to  find  another  of  the  opposite 
sex  and  then  spend  two  or  three  years  getting  them  into  breeding  condi¬ 
tion.  When  introduced  we  were  faced  with  the  problem  of  whether  they 
would  be  compatible  or  not.  Just  putting  two  Amazons  together  that 
are  of  the  opposite  sex  does  not  always  result  in  a  breeding.  There  was  no 
surgical  sexing  or  the  other  more  sophisticated  means  of  sexing  available. 
The  would-be  breeder  had  to  trust  in  his  or  her  ability  to  sex  by  sight. 
When  one  considers  such  difficulties  still  existed  even  fifteen  years  ago, 
we  can  well  be  amazed  by  the  breeding  successes  accomplished. 

Many  people  today  have  beginner’s  luck  right  from  the  start  and  breed 
a  species  that  yesterday  was  considered  difficult  or  impossible.  Because  of 
these  initial  achievements  some  individuals  become  overnight  authorities. 
After  some  bitter  disappointments,  however,  they  will  usually  go  on  to 
become  seasoned  aviculturists  and  appreciate  just  how  difficult  it  really  is. 

Years  ago  it  was  argued  that  a  tame  Amazon  did  not  make  a  good 
breeder.  This  is  not  always  true.  I  have  known  only  of  one  such  pet 
that  had  been  so  humanised  that  it  refused  to  pair  off.  Most  of  our  breed¬ 
ers  were  long-term  cage  pets  being  for  the  most  part  past  twenty  years 
of  age  when  we  received  them.  They  were  often  feather  pickers  which  is 
usually  a  good  indication  that  they  are  sexually  frustrated  and  ready  to 
breed.  Sometimes  they  required  two  to  four  seasons  to  get  the  hang  of 
parenthood.  Having  been  used  to  people  they  didn’t  exhibit  the  skittish- 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


233 


ness  so  common  among  wild  adult  imports.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  Amazons,  unlike  other  psittacines,  generally  lay  only  one  clutch 
each  season,  so  if  the  eggs  prove  infertile  the  aviculturist  is  faced  with 
waiting  until  the  next  year  to  try  again.  This  may  discourage  some  who  are 
used  to  psittacines  that  produce  three  or  more  clutches  a  year.  Parakeets, 
conures,  cockatiels,  cockatoos,  African  Grey  Parrots,  macaws,  Eclectus 
and  Hawkheads  breed  the  year  round  if  conditions  are  right.  Our  pair  of 
Hawkheads  gave  us  nine  chicks  in  one  year.  When  you  consider  their 
average  clutch  to  be  only  two  eggs  and  at  the  most  three  you  can  well 
appreciate  their  effort.  Our  pair  of  Eclectus  breed  every  two  months  and 
give  us  two  eggs  each  time;  both  are  always  fertile.  Our  breeding  Jendayas 
average  five  to  six  clutches  a  year.  Such  birds  more  than  earn  their  keep 
and  help  to  pay  for  the  time  and  effort  we  must  spend  on  the  more 
unpredictable  Amazons. 

In  the  wild  juvenile  Amazons  go  through  the  mating  ritual  each  season 
just  as  the  adults  do.  In  this  way  “pair  bonds”  are  accomplished.  We  have 
had  year-old  Amazons  copulate  and  go  through  all  the  stages  adult  breed¬ 
ers  display.  Some  hens  will  even  lay  when  as  young  as  two  years  of  age. 
The  eggs  are  always  small,  reminding  one  of  the  small  eggs  produced 
by  pullets  in  chickens.  We  have  never  had  or  known  of  successful  ferti¬ 
lization  of  eggs  until  the  hen  was  four  years  of  age  and  this  has  always 
been  with  an  older  cock.  I  think  it  would  be  safe  to  say  that  in  Amazons 
both  hen  and  cock  should  be  at  least  five  years  of  age  before  actual 
breeding  is  accomplished.  I  am  perfectly  aware  there  are  always  exceptions 
to  any  rule  but  we  are  speaking  of  parrots  whose  history  was  known,  i.e., 
they  were  hatched  in  captivity  or  were  imports  still  being  hand  fed  and 
their  exact  ages  could  not  be  questioned.  Often  those  who  hint  at  an 
earlier  age  of  breeding  in  reality  do  not  know  the  true  ages  of  the  Amazons 
involved  and  have  merely  taken  someone’s  word  for  it.  Because  of  this 
initial  five  year  requirement  it  is  always  best  to  start  out  with  adult  birds  if 
possible. 

Like  people,  certain  Amazons  are  quite  fussy  about  their  partners. 
On  the  other  hand  we  must  debunk  some  of  the  false  ideas  that  have  been 
fostered  regarding  pair  bonds.  Where  one  is  faced  with  the  problem  of 
having  one  hen  and  three  males  of  a  particularly  rare  species  it  is  advisable 
to  mate  her  with  a  different  cock  each  year  to  ensure  a  better  blood  stock. 
We  have  accomplished  this  with  certain  leucocephala  and  we  never  had  a 
problem.  One  season  after  removing  a  fresh-laid  clutch  from  one  hen,  we 
removed  the  cock  and  introduced  another  which  the  breeding  hen  immedi¬ 
ately  paired  with  and  went  back  to  nest  producing  fertile  eggs.  This  was 


234 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


accomplished  partly  because  the  hen  in  question  nested  early  in  April.  Her 
first  eggs  were  taken  as  soon  as  the  full  clutch  was  laid.  She  settled  down 
with  the  new  cock  which  was  already  proven  from  last  year  with  another 
hen.  Her  second  clutch  m^as  deposited  in  the  middle  of  June.  By  such 
procedure  new  blood  lines  can  be  built  up  even  when  a  shortage  of  a 
certain  sex  is  prevalent  in  a  collection.  We  have  over  twelve  Cayman  Island 
Amazons  A.  L  caymanensis  which  have  the  same  mother  but  three  unre¬ 
lated  fathers.  By  keeping  track  of  the  birds  each  year  we  can  offer  relati¬ 
vely  unrelated  birds  to  other  offspring  from  other  breeding  pairs  we  have. 

We  are  all  too  often  amused  when  reading  many  of  the  advertisements 
that  appear  in  various  avicultural  journals  which  give  a  list  of  “Breeding 
pairs5’ ,  “Mated  pairs”  or  “Proven  pairs”.  Such  advertisements  are  calcu¬ 
lated  to  sell  birds  which  are  often  not  even  true  pairs.  In  reality  very  few 
proven  breeders  are  ever  advertised.  They  are,  generally,  too  well  known 
and  when  offered  for  sale  will  be  quickly  snapped  up  by  those  knowing 
their  value.  Any  aviculturist  with  even  a  little  knowledge  is  aware  of  the 
fact  that  many  birds  appear  to  pair  off  but  will  never  breed.  Nest  mates 
often  prove  to  be  of  the  same  sex  and  some  adults  that  pair  off  are  later 
found  to  be  of  the  same  sex.  These  facts  are  especially  true  of  Amazons. 
Even  copulation  or  attempts  at  copulation  may  be  observed  among  such 
birds,  giving  the  novice  the  impression  he  has  a  true  pair.  Therefore, 
ascertaining  the  exact  sex  of  the  specimens  being  introduced  will  be  help¬ 
ful.  It  is  suggested  that  at  least  two  pairs  (sexed)  be  placed  together  in 
a  large  aviary  and  thereby  allowing  the  parrots  themselves  to  pick  out 
their  own  mates.  The  introduction  of  a  nest  box  early  in  spring  will 
usually  trigger  the  choosing  and  one  must  be  ever  alert  to  the  danger 
such  pairing  often  brings.  The  true,  or  more  correctly,  the  mated  pair 
will  turn  on  the  others  and  serious  injury  or  even  death  will  occur  if  the 
unwanted  birds  are  not  removed.  These  are  placed  in  another  aviary  with 
a  nest  box  and  though  rejected  by  the  others  will  often  prove  themselves. 
If  not,  then  seek  two  more  individuals  (also  sexed)  and  begin  again.  In 
this  way  you  may  be  fortunate  enough  in  gaining  three  mated  pairs  that 
will  eventually  breed  for  you,  making  all  your  efforts  well  worthwhile. 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


235 


Remember  Amazons  are  not  colony  breeders  and  will  fearlessly  defend  to 
the  death  their  nesting  area.  How  quickly  have  we  seen  docile  pets  become 
vicious,  biting  demons  when  pairing  off  takes  place. 

How  to  encourage  breeding 

Contrary  to  past  information  we  have  found  that  it  helps  to  have  sev¬ 
eral  breeding  pairs  of  Amazons  in  the  same  general  area  or  within  hearing 
distance  of  each  other.  Such  an  arrangement  often  stimulates  nesting  pro¬ 
cedures.  Some  Amazons  like  many  other  birds  and  animals  have  to  be 
taught  or  incited  to  breed.  When  robbed  as  babies  from  the  nest,  such 
Amazons  miss  the  privelege  of  growing  up  in  a  family  group  where  much 
necessary  training  is  accomplished.  In  the  wild  we  have  observed  juvenile 
Amazons  still  with  their  parents  when  the  next  breeding  season  com¬ 
menced.  The  adult  cock  would  go  through  his  courtship  display  and  feed 
the  hen  while  last  year’s  brood  looked  on  apparently  quite  fascinated  by 
their  parent’s  actions.  Such  observation  no  doubt  gives  the  young  a  last¬ 
ing  impression.  In  captivity  this  can  be  easily  simulated  by  placing  young 
Amazons  in  aviaries  within  sight  of  proven  breeders.  When  the  adults 
begin  to  be  excited  and  make  their  peculiar  mating  chortlings  the  nearby 
young  are  visibly  stirred  by  this  ritual  and  seek  to  imitate  the  display  and 
cries  of  the  elders.  Nature  has  so  instilled  this  into  them  that  even  hand- 
reared  young  readily  respond.  The  best  way  then  to  get  results  is  from 
association  in  a  controlled  environment  with  proven  pairs  when  available. 
At  Life  Fellowship  (New  Age  Ranch)  we  accomplish  this  by  what  we 
call  the  “hotel”  method.  The  “hotel”  is  a  long  aviary  type  cage  which  is 
divided  into  four  or  five  compartments  each  of  which  is  3’  x  3’  x  3’  in 
size.  The  dividing  wire  is  W'  x  1”  to  prevent  any  parrot  from  doing  any 
serious  damage  to  his  next  door  neighbour.  The  “hotel”  is  then  situated 
so  that  an  Amazon  in  any  compartment  may  easily  see  what  is  going  on 
in  the  proven  breeding  pair’s  aviary.  Young  birds  from  a  year  on  up  to 
breeding  age  are  placed  individually  in  each  compartment.  When  the 
adult  proven  pair  begins  the  ritual  the  young  birds  become  noticeably 
excited  and  they  will  often  attempt  to  feed  their  adjoining  partners  if 
one  proves  to  be  a  hen.  If  two  cocks  are  side  by  side  they  will  begin  to 
spar  with  each  other  through  the  fine  mesh  wire  that  separates  them. 
This  procedure  is  merely  to  condition  the  youngsters  for  the  two  years 
ahead.  We  seldom  allow  two  birds  that  have  formed  a  pair  bond  to  be 
caged  together  until  four  years  of  age  as,  while  in  some  cases  this  is  not 
dangerous,  in  others  it  may  result  in  serious  injury  or  even  death  to  the 
hen.  In  the  wild  such  vicious  advances  by  an  adolescent  cock  can  be  es- 


236 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


caped  by  the  hen  simply  flying  away.  In  confinement  this  is  not  possible 
and  often  a  young  hen  will  be  badly  beaten  or  killed.  Injuries  thus  sus¬ 
tained  may  cause  a  timidity  in  the  hen  which  later  can  interfere  with 
actual  copulation  taking  place.  Be  patient  and  wait;  you  may  well  save 
yourself  and  the  parrots  a  bitter  experience.  Breeding  season  for  Amazons 
in  North  America  and  Great  Britain  is  the  spring  and  early  summer,  and 
is  more  or  less  determined  by  warmth  and  length  of  days  or  light.  Proper 
conditions  have  been  artificially  simulated  indoors.  Your  locality  and 
climate  will  therefore  determine  the  proper  breeding  season  for  your 
Amazons.  Here  in  central  Florida  the  earliest  we  have  had  an  Amazon 
breed  was  in  April.  In  most  instances  nesting  is  in  May  or  June  and  even 
as  late  as  July  but  the  latter  is  the  exception.  Since  most  of  our  psitta- 
cine  area  is  in  our  Florida  rain  forest  the  shade  factor  plays  an  important 
part.  Aviaries  in  the  more  open  sun  induce  the  Amazons  to  breed  earlier 
than  those  in  the  more  shaded  locations.  Strange  to  relate  Yellow-naped 
Amazons  in  Central  America  commence  breeding  in  December  and  Jan¬ 
uary  in  places  like  Honduras,  February  in  Nicaragua  and  March  in  Costa 
Rica.  In  the  northern  Caribbean  islands  the  breeding  season  corresponds 
with  ours  in  central  Florida.  The  early  nesting  season  in  Central  America 
allows  the  parrot  hunters  to  harvest  young  Amazons  and  usually  results 
in  the  parents  nesting  again.  This  early  nesting  period  is  probably  trigg¬ 
ered  by  low  pressure  areas  that  are  the  result  of  cold  fronts  moving  down 
the  land  mass  from  North  America  but  which  would  not  have  the  same 
influence  on  islands  in  the  Caribbean.  I  am  sure  the  “experts”  will  come 
up  with  a  more  feasible  explanation  regardless  of  its  validity. 

The  aviary  and  nest-box 

Each  set  up  is  different  and  many  aviculturists  go  to  great  lengths  to 
justify  their  approach  in  this  matter  and  often  force  their  method  upon 
others,  but  what  works  for  one  will  not  necessarily  work  for  another. 
Years  ago  English  and  European  aviculturists  emphasised  large  aviaries  as 
essential  for  captive  breeding.  Many  newcomers,  upon  reading  these  works 
of  yesterday,  immediately  set  out  to  do  the  same  not  realizing  that  many 
advances  in  knowledge  have  been  made  in  the  past  thirty  years  where 
this  subject  is  concerned.  The  results  have  been  that  many  potentially 
capable  aviculturists  have  been  discouraged  from  attempting  to  breed 
larger  psittacines  because  of  the  cost  and  space  such  large  aviaries  require. 

Today  more  realistic  and  practical  aviaries  are  being  constructed,  with 
more  predictable  successes  being  scored  in  breeding.  It  was  my  happy 
privelege  to  know  the  late  Mrs  E.  L.  Moon  of  Miami  for  the  last  12  years 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


237 


of  her  life.  This  grand  old  lady  of  aviculture  bred  many  different  exotic 
birds  and  produced  or  developed  the  white  Cockatiel  which  she  lovingly 
referred  to  as  her  “moonbeams”.  She  was  in  love  with  her  birds  and 
consequently  they  bred  for  her  under  the  most  questionable  conditions 
imaginable.  When  I  first  met  Mrs  Moon  she  must  have  been  in  her  late 
sixties.  I  was  astounded  to  see  that  her  aviaries  consisted  of  stacked  cages 
three  and  four  high  from  the  floor  to  the  ceiling  of  the  small  room  adjoin¬ 
ing  her  house.  Tin  was  placed  between  each  layer  to  keep  the  droppings 
off  the  fellows  below.  Each  cage  was  roughly  3’  x  3’  x  6’.  The  room  for 
the  most  part  was  rather  dark,  being  lighted  only  by  some  small  dirty 
windows  and  a  sixty  watt  bulb  or  two  overhead.  In  such  a  set  up  Mrs 
Moon  bred  African  Greys,  cockatoos,  macaws,  Amazons,  Cockatiels, 
parakeets  and,  I  believe,  some  lorikeets  as  well.  In  addition  to  sunflower 
seeds  and  greens  she  fed  all  her  psittacines  some  unsavoury  looking  mess 
that  reminded  me  of  slop  being  fed  to  pigs.  I  have  always  regretted  having 
not  ascertained  its  composition.  At  the  time  I  was  still  too  brain-washed 
by  what  I  had  read  to  be  open-minded  enough  to  learn.  Consequently  I 
was  rather  critical  of  this  grand  old  lady’s  achievements.  As  the  years  of 
experience  have  since  taught  me  better  I  have  grown  to  greatly  admire  Mrs 
Moon. 

This  all  leaves  us  with  the  question:  what  is  really  necessary  for  breed¬ 
ing  and  sustaining  healthy  parrots.  Obviously  the  attitude  of  the  avicult- 
urist  plays  an  immense  role  in  the  happiness  and  well-being  of  the  birds. 
We  have  seen  parrots  bred  in  very  limited  quarters  while  still  others  with 
thirty  foot  long  aviaries  and  vast  avian  medical  knowledge  have  miserably 
failed  to  breed  even  the  most  simple  and  commonly  bred  psittacines.  The 
rare  exception  to  this  rule  is  a  veterinarian  in  Miami  who  owns  and 
operates  one  of  the  largest  pet  supplies  in  the  U.S.  This  rare  accredited 
importer  has  achieved  several  first  breedings  but  has  steadfastly  refused  to 
apply  for  the  first  breeding  award.  His  attitude  is  that  the  accomplishment 
was  reward  enough.  Such  a  humble  and  dedicated  attitude  is  so  uncom¬ 
mon  among  today’s  aviculturists  that  I  think  it  should  be  noted  here  even 
though  he  prefers  his  name  not  to  be  mentioned.  However,  such  a  person 
is  an  exception  and  certainly  not  the  norm.  We  all  tend  to  put  recognition 
ahead  of  the  better  goals  of  accomplishment. 

The  obvious  conclusion  is  that  a  parrot  in  breeding  condition,  i.e.  not 
too  fat,  sexually  mature,  nutritionally  balanced,  well  exercised  and  happy 
will  breed  in  a  small  aviary  and  will  do  so  year  after  year  producing  perf¬ 
ectly  healthy  young.  Too  many  people  fail  to  take  into  consideration  the 
law  of  evolution  which  grants  adaptation  to  all  creatures.  It  is  not  incon- 


238 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


ceivable  to  envisage  parrots  or  for  that  matter  any  bird  or  animal  adjusting 
to  captive  conditions  just  as  the  Budgerigar,  Cockatiel  and  domestic  fowl 
have  so  readily  done.  We  have  dared  some  far  outlandish  programmes  here 
at  Life  Fellowship  and  have,  by  our  success,  proved  they  can  be  practical 
and  that  Nature  is  willing  to  work  with  us  so  long  as  none  of  her  laws  are 
violated.  Others  in  less  favourable  climates  than  ours  have  achieved  similar 
success  when  they  have  sought  to  work  with  Nature.  By  this  it  becomes 
more  and  more  evident  that  the  solution  to  successful  captive  breeding  lies 
within  the  realm  of  the  aviculturisf  s  sensitivity  toward  his  charges  rather 
than  in  prejudiced  and  preconceived  ideas  which  limit  his  vision  and 
thwart  the  satisfaction  aviculture  could  be  gratifying  him  with. 

Today  when  asked  by  closed-minded  sceptical  visitors  how  we  succeed 
I  simply  reply  “we  listen  to  the  parrots  and  give  them  what  they  want 
rather  than  what  others  think  they  should  have”. 

Most  captive  Amazons  are  relatively  content  in  their  aviaries  and  if 
they  escape  they  will  usually  return  for  food,  protection  and  for  roost¬ 
ing.  This  is  a  good  indication  that  the  parrot  is  happy  with  its  surroun- 
ings.  When  we  can  get  past  the  impractical  dream  of  rare  and  endangered 
species  remaining  safe  in  their  natural  habitat  and  accept  the  more  realistic 
and  positive  attitude  that  the  only  lasting  means  of  survival  will  eventually 
be  through  captive  breeding,  we  can  get  on  with  the  project.  The  limited 
land  area  of  many  endangered  Amazons  -  such  as  the  Caribbean  islands  - 
makes  it  imperative  that  we  breed  these  parrots  in  captivity.  It  is  doubtful 
whether,  with  the  present  development  of  these  islands  and  other  Central 
and  South  American  countries,  many  species  will  last  another  20  years. 
There  is  a  concerted  effort  on  Grand  Cayman  Island  to  exterminate  its 
native  Amazon  A.  I  caymanensis.  On  Cayman  Brae  A.  I  hesterna  has 
never  been  overly  plentiful  and  current  development  will  finish  off  the 
native  parrot.  These  are  just  a  couple  of  cases  and  others  just  as  similar 
are  known  such  as  the  native  Amazon  parrots  of  the  Isle  of  Pines,  St. 
Vincent,  St.  Lucia,  Dominica,  etc. 

Today,  many  Amazon  and  conure  escapees  are  readily  breeding  and 
even  producing  hybrids  in  the  Miami  area.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  see  10 
to  20  Double  Yellow-heads,  Mexican  Red-heads,  Finsch’s  and  Yellow- 
napes  even  in  the  more  inhabited  areas  such  as  Miami  Beach.  These  parrots 
prove  the  parrot  can  easily  adapt  to  city  living.  If  this  continues  we  may 
well  see  Amazons  and  other  psittacines  established  in  Florida,  California 
and  Texas,  not  to  mention  the  Quaker  Parrakeets  already  well  established 
in  New  York. 

But  this  is  digressing  from  the  topics  of  aviary  and  nest  box.  Ten 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


239 


years  ago  in  1969  we  decided  to  change  our  style  of  aviaries  from  the 
traditional  walk  in  type  to  aviaries  suspended  about  four  feet  off  the 
ground.  This  new  approach  ended  parasites  in  the  collection,  afforded 
better  protection  from  predators  and  ants,  cut  down  on  the  needless 
disturbance  of  the  birds  which  walk-in  aviaries  produce.  This  arrangement 
allows  both  disregarded  food  and  droppings  to  pass  through  the  wire  and 
out  of  the  reach  of  the  parrots.  The  nest  box  is  attached  to  the  outside 
of  the  aviary  which  facilitates  easy  inspection  with  a  minimum  of  bother 
to  the  parents. 

This  type  of  aviary  is  less  expensive,  easier  to  keep  clean  and  produces 
a  more  pyschologically  secure  effect  on  the  parrots.  They  soon  learn  that 
a  person  cannot  get  to  them  and  even  the  most  nervous  specimens  will 
soon  calm  down.  We  construct  our  aviaries  with  welded  wire  and  “C” 
clips.  The  average  size  is  usually  three  feet  wide  by  three  to  four  feet  high 
and  twelve  to  sixteen  feet  long.  This  is  ample  size  for  most  Amazons  and 
similar-sized  parrots  i.e.,  African  Grey,  Eclectus,  Hawkhead,  etc.  The 
sides  and  top  are  1”  x  2”  or  1”  x  1”  and  the  bottom  is  x  1”  wire.  This 
smaller  wire  for  the  bottom  affords  a  better  footing  for  the  parrots.  These 
aviaries  can  be  suspended  on  iron  pipe  frames  or  on  wooden  cross  beams. 
This  makes  the  aviary  portable  and  easy  to  rake  under.  Wood  perches 
are  placed  at  each  end.  Here  we  purchase  1”  x  1”  farming  stakes  four 
feet  long  and  made  of  cypress.  They  can  usually  be  purchased  from  a 
farm  supply  and  are  used  for  staking  tomatoes.  These  are  relatively  in¬ 
expensive  when  purchased  in  large  bundles.  The  parrots  love  to  chew 
them  to  pieces.  The  large  pieces  left  over  remain  on  the  bottom  of  the 
aviary  and  the  parrots  continue  to  whittle  them  away  to  nothing.  This 
not  only  keeps  their  beaks  trim  but  gives  them  something  to  play  with 
and  thereby  not  become  bored  with  confinement.  Green  branches  of 
various  trees  are  also  excellent  for  the  purpose  but  if  the  aviculturist 
has  a  large  collection,  a  continual  supply  of  branches  is  not  always  easy 
to  come  by. 

Square  perches  make  copulation  easier  and  give  the  parrots  a  chance 
to  relax  while  on  the  perch  rather  than  constantly  having  to  grip  a  round 
perch  to  keep  from  falling.  I  abhore  the  use  of  iron  or  plastic  pipe  for 
perches.  The  unfortunate  birds  have  to  continually  be  on  guard  to  keep 
from  slipping  off  the  perch.  While  such  pipe  lasts  indefinitely,  its  use 
certainly  shows  little  consideration  on  the  part  of  the  aviculturist  for  his 
birds.  For  many  years  we  cut  branches  from  the  hardwoods  that  comprise 
our  rain  forest  here  on  the  Ranch.  The  bark  would  soon  be  peeled  off 
but  the  hickory,  magnolia  and  oak  wood  would  take  some  time  to  be 


240 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


whittled  away.  In  the  meantime  such  perches  became  quite  soiled  by  the 
parrot’s  feet  after  they  had  held  a  piece  of  fruit  or  some  other  form  of 
soft  food  stuff.  This  residue  would  then  tend  to  build  up  to  a  grime  which 
the  parrots  were  constantly  coming  in  contact  with  each  time  they  took 
hold  of  the  perch  with  their  beaks.  Therefore  the  easily  demolished 
square  perch  made  of  clean  freshly  milled  wood  not  only  provides  a 
better  resting  place  for  the  parrot’s  feet  but  a  cleaner,  less  bacteria-ridden 
perch.  Dont  wory  about  the  sharp  edges  on  the  square  perch  as  they  are 
usually  smoothed  off  by  the  parrots  on  the  first  day. 

The  nest  box  for  most  Amazons  of  medium  size  should  be  12”  x  16” 
x  24”.  The  depth  should  be  more  for  the  larger  Amazons  and  an  increase 
in  width  of  two  to  four  inches  is  advisable.  Here  we  use  %”  plyboard.  For 
the  smaller,  less  destructive  Amazons  we  place  only  a  piece  of  1”  x  2” 
welded  wire  down  from  the  entrance  to  give  the  birds  something  to  climb 
on  to  the  nest  area.  For  the  larger,  more  destructive  Amazons  we  line  the 
entire  inner  part  of  the  box  with  1”  x  1”  wire.  The  entrance  consists  of 
a  square  hole  cut  out  at  the  very  top  of  the  box  and  measures  about  four 
to  five  inches  square.  In  this  way  the  top  piece  of  plyboard  is  the  lintel 
of  the  entrance  and  there  is  not  the  waste  of  several  inches  of  space  above 
the  entrance  that  the  conventional  round  holed  nest  box  gives.  Square 
holes  are  more  easily  wired  to  keep  the  entrance  way  from  being  chewed 
to  pieces.  About  eight  inches  from  the  bottom  and  on  the  back  side  of 
the  box  we  cut  a  doorway  about  six  to  eight  inches  square.  On  the  inside 
we  place  welded  wire  and  make  another  smaller  wire  door  that  opens 
outward  as  does  the  wooden  door.  This  gives  double  protection  when  in¬ 
specting  the  nest  box.  It  is  best  to  first  lure  the  hen  from  the  box  which 
is  seldom  difficult  with  Amazons.  A  piece  of  flat  tin  is  then  inserted  bet¬ 
ween  the  wire  of  the  aviary  and  the  nest  box’s  entrance  so  neither  bird 
can  gain  entrance  to  the  box.  In  this  way  you  can  candle  the  eggs  after 
they  are  seven  days  old  to  see  which  ones  are  fertile.  We  usually  mark 
the  eggs  as  they  are  laid  so  we  know  the  exact  date  when  they  should 
hatch.  28  days  are  required  for  all  Amazon  eggs.  If  the  clutch  proves  in¬ 
fertile,  we  remove  them  which  will  generally  result  in  the  pair  nesting 
again.  Sometimes  the  second  clutch  will  prove  fertile.  Always  remove 
any  infertile  egg  from  a  clutch  as  they  only  take  up  space  and  may  break 
and  spoil  the  rest.  Oddly  enough  however,  Amazon  eggs  after  being 
incubated  for  28  days  though  infertile  are  almost  always  as  fresh  in  app¬ 
earance  when  broken  open  as  newly  laid  ones. 

The  nest  box  is  wired  to  the  aviary  and  often  rests  on  a  post  embedded 
in  the  ground.  This  gives  the  heavy  nest  box  more  support  and  keeps  down 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


241 


movement  which  would  occur  if  attached  only  to  the  suspended  aviary. 
The  nest  box  is  filled  to  a  depth  of  about  six  to  eight  inches  with  clean 
wood  shavings  such  as  cedar.  Large  bags  of  this  type  wood  shavings  can 
usually  be  bought  through  pet  supplies.  We  prefer  cedar  because  it  helps 
repel  various  ants  and  insects.  Sometimes  “Seven  Dust”  is  sprinkled 
over  the  bottom  of  the  box  before  the  shavings  are  placed  in  it.  Tobacco 
dust  in  the  form  of  snuff  will  also  serve  the  same  purpose  and  is  quite 
safe  and  highly  effective  against  mites,  cockroaches  and  ants.  If  the  nesting 
material  is  not  too  soiled  at  the  end  of  the  breeding  season  we  allow  it 
to  remain  in  the  box  and  as  the  next  season  approaches  a  3”  layer  of 
fresh  shavings  is  placed  over  the  old.  Here  in  Florida  we  have  such  high 
humidity  that  we  never  need  to  moisten  the  nest  material,  unless  it  is 
extremely  dry  just  before  the  eggs  are  to  hatch.  We  then  spray  water 
directly  into  the  nest  box  daily  in  the  form  of  a  light  fine  spray  from  the 
hose.  This  simulates  rain  which  is  quite  often  blown  into  nest  cavities 
in  the  Amazons’  wild  habitat.  If  carefully  done  this  seldom  disturbs  the 
hen  and  she  simply  remains  tight  on  the  nest.  Such  a  daily  spray  keeps  a 
high  humidity  in  the  nest  box  but  does  not  make  the  material  wet.  Since 
we  often  spray  our  Amazons  when  there  is  a  dry  spell  we  also  take  this 
opportunity  to  spray  them  when  they  are  off  the  nest  in  the  heat  of  the 
day.  The  hen  will  usually  bathe  herself  enough  in  this  way  to  carry  con¬ 
siderable  moisture  back  into  the  box  and  thus  to  the  eggs.  We  have  found 
that  in  most  cases  it  is  not  uncommon  for  the  cock  to  enter  the  nest 
box  regularly  with  the  hen.  This  is  another  good  reason  for  having  a  large 
enough  nest  box  to  accomodate  the  presence  of  the  cock  also.  When 
the  chicks  hatch  the  cock  will  in  most  cases  assist  in  the  chore  of  teeding. 
This  is  especially  true  in  the  leucocephala  group  (Cubans,  Caymans,  His- 
paniolans)  and  in  the  Spectacle.  We  have  noticed  a  marked  tendency  in 
the  father-feeding  aspect  with  our  captive-bred  Amazons,  more  so  than 
with  the  long  term  caged  ones  which  undoubtedly  shows  that  the  longer 
a  parrot  is  away  from  some  of  its  natural  instincts  the  less  the  possibility 
of  reverting  back  to  what  is  no  doubt  a  normal  practice  in  the  wild  or 
with  four  or  five  year-old  cocks. 

Feeding  practices 

Although  we  try  to  get  the  parrots  to  eat  the  most  nutritious  and 
widest  range  of  foods  possible,  some  birds  just  refuse  to  cooperate  but 
still  annually  breed  and  produce  strong  young  on  a  very  limited  sunflower 
seed  type  diet.  As  already  stated  most  of  our  breeders  were  long-term 
caged  pets  and,  with  the  exception  of  some  fruit  and  vegetables,  refuse 


242 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


other  types  of  food.  In  the  past  we  used  to  place  vitamin  drops  in  the 
birds’  water  but  we  soon  realized  the  intake  was  negligible  and  therefore 
developed  a  mixture  which  is  readily  accepted  by  most  parrots.  In  a 
blender  we  add  hot  water  about  one  third  full;  to  this  is  added  a  cup  of 
raw  shelled  peanuts,  a  teaspoon  of  powdered  dolomite  or  calcium  lactate 
or  cuttle  bone  -  we  vary  it  daily  to  ensure  variety;  then  three  spoonfuls  of 
powdered  milk,  a  teaspoon  of  wheat  germ  oil  or  cod  liver  oil  or  two  400 
I.U.  vitamin  E  capsules,  a  teaspoon  of  brewer’s  yeast  or  potent  yeast 
which  contains  many  added  vitamins  and  minerals  not  found  in  plain 
brewer’s  yeast.  Raw  wheat  germ  may  be  added  to  thicken  the  mixture 
after  it  is  well  blended.  We  also  add  about  two  cc.s  of  orange-flavoured 
liquid  vitamins.  Care  should  be  taken  not  to  overload  the  mixture  so  that 
the  peanut  taste  is  lost  or  the  birds  may  refuse  it.  This  mixture  is  then 
heated  in  a  pot  until  almost  hot.  Constant  stirring  is  necessary  to  prevent 
sticking.  The  mixture  is  then  poured  out  into  a  preheated  thick  baking  or 
mixing  bowl  to  sustain  the  heat  of  the  mixture.  A  spoonful  is  given  to  each 
aviary  of  a  pair  of  birds,  a  half-spoonful  to  one  bird.  In  this  way  you  will 
be  giving  more  nutrition  to  your  bird  than  it  would  gain  in  a  week’s 
average  feed.  This  mixture  is  greedily  eaten  by  most  Amazons. 

Sometimes  we  use  raw  carrot  and  beet  juice  in  place  of  the  water  used 
in  the  blender.  This  necessitates  a  juicer  as  well  as  a  blender.  When  raw 
juice  is  used  care  should  be  taken  not  to  overheat  the  mixture. 

To  give  variety  in  the  above  mentioned  mixture  we  beat  four  to  five 
eggs  and  scramble  fry  until  well  done.  They  are  added  to  the  blender  with 
two  or  three  slices  of  whole  grain  bread,  powdered  milk  and  hot  water. 
Once  well-blended,  the  mixture  is  removed  and  we  add  vitamins,  minerals, 
calcium  and  wheat  germ  oil,  all  of  which  is  well  mixed  in  the  bowl.  In 
order  to  thicken  the  mixture  simply  add  raw  wheat  germ  or  another  slice 
or  two  of  whole  grain  bread.  This  makes  a  delicious  and  desirable  mixture 
for  your  parrots  which  gives  them  much  needed  protein,  lecithin  and  lime 
in  addition  to  all  the  other  nutritious  ingredients.  It  makes  an  excellent 
supplement  for  parents  feeding  chicks  and  can  safely  be  used  in  hand¬ 
feeding  chicks  so  long  as  it  is  brought  to  a  more  liquid  state  by  adding 
water.  It  can  be  refrigerated  and  portions  warmed  up  at  hand-feeding  time. 

In  Central  America  the  natives  use  “masa”  to  successfully  raise  thou¬ 
sands  of  baby  Amazons  destined  each  year  for  the  U.S.,  England  and 
Europe.  Masa  is  composed  mostly  of  corn  meal  and  bananas  with  some 
vitamins  added.  This  mixture  is  well  cooked  and  fed  to  the  chicks  in  a  very 
soupy  form.  It  is  allowed  to  cool  until  warm  and  then  literally  poured 
down  the  babies  from  a  can  that  had  been  bent  to  form  a  spout.  Generally 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


243 


children  and  old  ladies  are  used  to  feeding  up  to  four  hundred  of  these 
babies  at  a  time.  Upon  seeing  such  a  performance  one  comes  away  feeling 
rather  foolish  for  all  the  painstaking  efforts  we  go  through  here  in  the 
States  to  rear  a  dozen  Amazon  chicks.  We  think  of  handrearing  as  a  rela¬ 
tively  new  practice  and  forget  that  Central  and  South  American  Indians 
as  well  as  those  on  the  Caribbean  islands  practiced  handfeeding  baby 
psittacines  centuries  before  the  arrival  of  the  first  European.  They  are 
naturals  at  the  art  and  clearly  understand  things  about  parrots  we  are 
just  now  finding  out;  such  as  what  to  feed  the  chicks  on  to  produce  more 
colour,  etc.  We  hope  to  spend  about  three  months  among  these  Indians 
learning  some  of  their  ancient  techniques  for  rearing  parrots. 

Fostering 

If  you  have  rare  and  endangered  species  that  may  well  depend  on 
captive  breeding  for  survival,  it  will  be  to  your  advantage  to  learn  some¬ 
thing  of  fostering.  This  is  accomplished  by  simply  removing  the  eggs  as 
they  are  laid  and  placing  them  under  a  dependable  foster  parent  bird.  Here 
we  use  Jendayas  and  other  Amazons  that  are  nesting  at  the  time.  Some¬ 
times  we  substitute  artificial  eggs  for  those  we  remove  to  cause  the  hen  to 
continue  to  lay  out  her  clutch  in  the  nest  rather  than  face  the  chance  of 
her  quitting  the  nest  as  her  eggs  begin  to  disappear.  When  the  hen  has 
finished  her  clutch  the  artificial  eggs  are  removed  and  in  about  three  weeks 
she  will  usually  go  back  to  nest.  This  clutch  we  allow  her  to  keep  and 
hatch.  In  this  way  you  may  be  fortunate  in  obtaining  twice  the  number  of 
chicks  you  would  have  ordinarily  hatched.  It  can  be  a  tricky  business, 
however,  and  one  must  really  know  the  birds  to  use  as  foster  parents.  We 
never  place  more  than  one  egg  from  small-sized  Amazons  with  the  Jen- 
daya’s  own  clutch.  This  has  to  be  done  when  the  Jendaya  pair  lays  its  first 
egg  as  the  Amazon  egg  will  hatch  four  or  five  days  after  the  Jendaya’s 
begin  to  hatch.  Sun  Conure  eggs  are  almost  identical  in  size  to  the  smaller 
type  Amazons  such  as  Spectacle,  Cuban,  Cayman,  Hispaniolan,  Finsch’s, 
Mexican  Red-heads,  etc.  Most  aviculturists  would  not  want  to  risk  the  loss 
of  a  Sun  Conure  clutch  for  the  sake  of  fostering.  We  also  use  old  Amazon 
hens  which  refuse  copulation  and  therefore  their  eggs  are  infertile.  These 
are  replaced  with  the  desired  fertile  eggs  and  as  a  rule  both  foster  mother 
and  father  are  just  as  judicious  in  caring  for  the  chicks  as  if  they  had  been 
their  own.  This  gives  the  chicks  a  chance  to  be  cared  for  in  a  real  nest 
environment  rather  than  an  incubator.  It  also  gets  the  chick  past  the  first 
five  days  which  is  the  most  crucial  period  of  its  life  and  we  are  convinced 
it  gives  them  a  better  start  in  life  than  by  artificially  rearing  them. 


244 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


We  have  had  six  eggs  fostered  at  one  time  by  an  old  Cuban  hen  which 
we  affectionately  call  “the  old  Maid  Cuban”.  She  has  had  many  partners 
over  the  years  but  steadfastly  rejects  copulation.  The  last  three  seasons 
we  have  placed  four  year-old  cocks  with  her  which  she  subjects  and 
permits  them  to  feed  her  and  to  help  in  the  rearing  of  chicks.  At  any  rate 
the  above  mentioned  six  eggs  consisted  of  two  from  A.  ventralis ,  one  from 
A.  I  caymanensis  and  three  from  A.  I  palmarum.  All  were  successfully 
hatched  and  removed  from  the  nest  when  about  six  days  old.  Overjoyed 
with  her  accomplishment  this  old  lady  went  back  to  her  nest  and  laid 
three  more  infertile  eggs  to  which  we  added  one  A.  I  caymanensis  egg. 
This  she  hatched  and  was  allowed  to  rear  the  chick  until  it  had  pen  fea¬ 
thers.  If  you  ever  visited  Key  West  in  the  fifties  and  early  sixties  you  no 
doubt  saw  this  Cuban  Amazon  in  her  cage  in  front  of  the  old  Anchor 
Bar  on  Duval  Street.  It  is  best  to  practice  fostering  initially  with  less 
rare  species  and  thereby  learn  your  prospective  foster  parent’s  attitude. 

Environment 

Finally,  parrots,  like  people,  enjoy  variety.  We  regularly  move  proven 
breeders  from  one  location  to  another  during  the  winter.  This  gives  them  a 
chance  to  adjust  to  their  new  surroundings  prior  to  the  spring  breeding 
season.  Many  of  our  visitors  are  horrified  at  this  procedure  and  argue 
that  it  disturbs  the  parrots  and  will  interfere  with  their  breeding  next 
season,  but  we  have  found  it  to  be  just  the  opposite.  Since  our  aviaries 
are  portable,  a  change  of  scenery  is  an  easy  matter.  Due  to  the  heavy 
growth  of  tropical  shrubs  that  form  a  ground  cover  under  our  Florida  rain 
forest  we  often  need  only  move  the  aviary  a  few  yards  to  give  the  parrots 
an  entirely  new  environment.  Since  they  remain  in  the  aviary  and  their 
nest  box  is  immediately  reattached  upon  locating  the  aviary  the  Amazons 
feel  secure  and  seem  to  fully  enjoy  the  excitement  of  the  change.  We 
leave  the  nest  boxes  with  all  our  psittacines  the  year  round  and  both  birds 
are  often  seen  entering  the  nest  box  at  almost  any  time  of  the  year.  Some 
do  so  especially  during  the  inclement  weather.  I  learned  this  in  the  Cay¬ 
man  Islands  years  ago  when  a  hurricane  passed  by  the  islands  and  they 
were  battered  for  several  days  by  high  winds  and  rain.  Curious  to  know 
how  the  parrots  were  taking  the  weather  I  spent  much  time  in  the  field 
and  saw  parrots  peering  out  of  nest  holes  in  venerable  old  trees  that  had 
stood  tropical  gales  for  centuries.  It  would  seem  that  under  these  circum¬ 
stances  the  parrots  go  for  several  days  without  eating  until  the  winds  are 
abated.  Young  birds,  lacking  the  experience  of  their  elders  are  often  found 
water  logged  after  heavy  rain  and  cannot  fly  and  are  then  easily  caught. 


R.  NOEGEL  -  AMAZON  PARROT  HUSBANDRY 


245 


This  same  thing  often  occurs  in  Cuba  I  am  told  and  then  the  rural  people 
catch  such  birds  and  make  a  soup  from  them.  Soup  making  of  parrots  is 
an  ancient  practice  of  most  of  the  Caribbean  island  peoples.  It  is  supposed 
to  give  strength  and  potency  to  the  males  of  the  family.  The  practice  of 
moving  the  aviary  refers  to  Amazons  only.  Other  psittacines  that  breed 
the  year  round  should  not  be  disturbed.  In  the  wild  breeding  Amazons  will 
usually  make  use  of  the  same  nest  hole  year  after  year.  For  some  reason 
in  confinement  they  prefer  a  change  of  scenery.  We  must  remember 
that  in  the  wild  they  are  daily  moving  to  new  places  in  a  circular  move¬ 
ment  but  maintain  a  perfect  homing  ability  which  brings  them  back  to 
their  roosts  and  old  nest  sites  each  season.  Moving  them  about  thus  gives 
them  a  good  memory  pattern  of  the  whole  area  on  our  ranch.  This  often 
proves  useful  if  a  bird  escapes.  Amazons  have  excellent  memories  and  a 
very  high  degree  of  intelligence.  For  instance,  one  old  Cuban  male  knows 
that  a  certain  pair  of  catching  gloves  that  I  use  on  Amazons  has  a  small 
hole  in  the  right  thumb.  When  attempting  to  catch  him  he  always  makes 
for  the  hole  and  usually  suceeds  in  nipping  my  thumb.  This  never  fails 
though  he  or  any  of  our  Amazons  are  seldom  handled  more  than  three 
times  a  year.  Merely  showing  the  Amazons  the  gloves  which  may  be 
tucked  under  my  arm  causes  great  excitement.  They  know  what  the  gloves 
are  used  for  and  immediately  fly  to  the  furthest  part  of  their  aviary  as 
quickly  as  possible.  Other  types  of  strange  clothing  or  hats  only  draw 
marked  curiosity  but  seldom  trigger  this  fear  behaviour. 

Privacy 

If  you  wish  to  breed  Amazons,  keep  people  away  from  your  aviaries,  as 
breeding  Amazons  are  highly  nervous  and  unpredictable  parrots.  Stran¬ 
gers  may  incite  fights  among  breeding  pairs,  cause  hens  to  leave  the  nest 
and  even  worse,  during  the  adults’  frenzy  they  may  even  resort  to  biting 
and  killing  their  offspring.  Many  have  been  the  injured  looks  I’ve  had  to 
face  when  refusing  visitors  to  our  bird  area  here  on  the  ranch.  The  true 
aviculturist  understands  this  caution  but  most  beginners  do  not.  Accus¬ 
ations  of  unsociability  are  more  than  offset  by  the  satisfaction  gained  from 
breeding  successes  which  will  greatly  aid  in  saving  many  species  from 
extinction  and  ease  the  heavy  drain  on  wild  populations  which  world 
demand  encourages.  When  one  considers  all  that  is  involved,  the  rewards 
are  well  worth  the  effort,  heartache  and  time  required  of  us. 


246 


OUR  COLLECTION  OF  AMAZON  PARROTS 


By  I.  and  P.  STOODLEY  (Lowerdean,  Hants) 


There  are  approximately  60  Amazons  in  our  collection,  18  species  and 
subspecies,  as  follows: 


Yellow  billed  Amazon 
Salle’s  Amazon 
Spectacled  Amazon 
Lesser  White-fronted  Amazon 
Green-cheeked  Amazon 
Fin  sc  IT  s  Amazon 
Yellow-cheeked  Amazon 
Salvins’s  Amazon 
Lilacine  Amazon 
Yellow-shouldered  Amazon 
Blue-fronted  Amazon 
Yellow-winged  Amazon 
Orange-winged  Amazon 
Yellow-fronted  Amazon 
Double  Yellow-headed  Amazon 
Mealy  Amazon 
Plain-coloured  Amazon 
Vinaceous  Amazon 


A.  coilaria , 

A.  v entralis, 

A.  albifrons  albifrons , 

A.  albifrons  nana 
A,  viridigenalis 
A.  finschi 

A.  autumnalis  autumnaiis 
A.  autumnalis  salvini 
A .  autumnalis  lilac ina 
A.  barbodensis  barbadensis 
A.  aestiva  aestiva 
A,  aestiva  xanthopteryx 
A.  amazonica 

A.  ochrocephaia  panamensis 
A.  ochrocephaia  oratrix 
A.  farinosa  farinosa 
A.  farinosa  inornata 
A.  vinacea 


Some  of  these  birds  are  immature  and  therefore  not  expected  to 
breed  for  a  year  or  two;  the  others  have  laid  infertile  eggs. 

Breeding  pairs  are  housed  in  aviaries  measuring  18  ft.  long,  4  ft.  wide, 
6  ft.  6  ins.  high.  We  find  Amazons  are  not  very  destructive;  therefore  the 
wire  need  not  be  of  the  heaviest  gauge.  The  roofs  of  the  aviaries  are  half 
board  and  felt,  protected  by  wire  mesh,  the  remainder  of  wire  covered 
by  plastic  sheeting  or  glass.  The  fronts  are  wire  netting  with  sliding  glass 
panels  to  allow  for  ventilaion,  all  floors  are  concrete  covered  with  peat 
and  gravel.  Artificial  lighting  and  a  water  misting  system  are  used  as 
described  in  my  article  on  breeding Pionus  (Avicultural Magazine,  VoL  84, 
No.  2). 

The  birds  are  fed  on  soya  beans,  maize  and  a  little  sunflower  seed 
soaked  overnight.  To  this  mixture  is  added  a  good  complete  dog  meal. 


J.  &  P.  STOODLEY  -  OUR  COLLECTION  OF  AMAZON  PARROTS  247 


Carrot  and  greens  are  fed  daily  and  berries  and  fruit  as  available.  An  abun¬ 
dance  of  lucerne,  celery,  landcress,  spinach,  dandelion  also  succulent 
young  branches  cut  from  willow,  cultivated  especially  for  the  birds. 
The  small  Amazons  appreciate  a  handful  of  wheat  thrown  on  to  the 
gravel  floor;  many  will  take  bread  and  milk. 

Our  nests  are  natural  logs;  mostly  dead  elm  about  four  feet  high  which 
I  hollow  out  with  a  chain  saw.  A  hollow  concrete  cylinder  approximately 
nine  inches  deep  encircles  the  base  of  each  log;  it  is  of  sufficient  diameter 
to  allow  wet  peat  to  be  packed  between  it  and  the  log.  Inside  the  hollowed 
log  we  put  about  15  inches  of  peat,  which  is  packed  as  firm  as  possible. 

The  birds  spend  a  lot  of  time  chewing  the  inside  of  the  log,  and  in 
some  cases  a  cupped  nest  is  formed.  Since  hens  take  some  time  in  nest 
preparation,  it  is  difficult  to  tell  when  the  first  egg  is  laid.  We  try  to  keep 
account  and  as  soon  as  possible  the  clutch  is  candled.  If  the  full  clutch 
is  infertile,  the  eggs  are  taken  away  and  there  is  every  possibility  that 
the  hen  will  lay  again.  Eggs  that  appear  infertile  are  placed  in  the  incubator 
and  candled  again  later  before  disposal. 

The  period  of  incubation  is  26  to  28  days.  The  hen  is  fed  in  the  log 
by  the  male.  As  a  point  of  interest  our  male  Panama  has  for  three  seasons 
spent  the  full  incubation  period  in  the  log  sitting  side  by  side  with  the  hen. 
The  male  birds  enter  the  nest  to  feed  the  hens  or  chicks.  The  hens  are  not 
generally  seen  in  the  flight  until  the  chicks  are  quite  large  and  showing  pin 
feathers. 

The  period  from  hatching  to  full  independence  varies  from  80  to  90 
days.  Careful  observation  is  needed  during  the  rearing  period  and  chicks 
that  are  not  being  well  fed  by  the  parents  are  removed  and  hand  reared. 

Youngsters  reared  in  1979  include:  Double  Yellow-headed,  Panama 
Yellow-fronted,  Blue-fronted,  Green-cheeked  and  Salle’s. 


248 


THE  ST.  LUCIAN  AMAZON  PARROT 
By  T.  SILVA  (North  Riverside,  Illinois,  USA) 


The  St.  Lucian  Amazon  Amzona  versicolor  is  one  of  the  most  endan¬ 
gered  Lesser  Antillian  Amazon  parrots.  Its  numbers  have  steadily  dropped 
and  at  the  moment  its  population  is  said  to  be  between  30-250  depending 
on  the  person  asked,  but  is  probably  closer  to  100.  It  is  widely  known  on 
its  native  island  of  St.  Lucia  and  legally  protected.  Although  it  is  being 
watched  closely  by  conservationists,  its  numbers  are  still  dangerously  low 
and  captive  breeding  will  be  the  only  way  of  saving  this  bird. 

Its  habitat  is  heavily  forested  and  a  natural  preserve  has  been  set  aside 
in  the  middle  of  the  island  for  the  Jaquot,  as  the  islanders  call  it.  Several 
persons  and  I  walked  through  this  rain  forest  recently,  a  walk  of  approxi¬ 
mately  seven  miles  which  takes  three  and  a  half  to  four  hours  to  complete. 
Though  we  viewed  the  splendour  of  this  magnificent  forest,  we  did  not 
see  any  of  the  birds  but  on  several  occasions  heard  a  bell-like  sound  which 
is  the  same  sound  made  by  captive  birds  and  is  not  a  typical  Amazon 
parrot  voice.  There  are  numerous  fruit  trees,  and  nesting  trees  available  for 
the  birds  and  there  are  several  rangers  whose  purpose  is  to  watch  and  offer 
the  birds  protection.  It  was  difficult  to  see  why  this  bird  is  so  threatened 
as  it  is  being  protected,  is  well-known  to  the  islanders  and  its  habitat  is 
almost  untouched. 

There  is  much  variation  in  colour  and  size  in  these  beautiful  birds. 
We  viewed  four  of  the  six  birds  in  captivity  on  the  Island  and  no  two  had 
the  same  coloration  or  size.  The  most  impressive  of  the  birds  that  we  saw 
was  kept  loose  on  the  patio  of  a  restaurant  owner.  It  was  very  tame  and 
even  when  excited  did  not  make  any  attempt  to  bite  its  owner.  Though 
this  bird  was  very  gentle  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  typical  of  this  species. 
Another  bird  was  also  owned  by  a  restaurateur  who  kept  it  with  an  Orange¬ 
winged  Amazon  and  a  Greater  Sulphur-crested  Cockatoo.  It  appeared  to 
have  mated  with  the  Orange-winged  Amazon  and  attempted  to  mate  and 
feed  it  whilst  we  were  watching.  Two  other  birds  are  kept  by  a  man  in  his 
home  who  has  built  a  special  aviary  to  house  them.  Their  diet  consisted  of 
mostly  fruits,  particularly  bananas  which  are  grown  throughout  this  island, 
coconuts,  papaya,  some  sunflower  seeds  and  peanuts.  All  the  birds  had 
been  shot,  as  this  method  is  used  throughout  these  islands,  the  hope  being 
that  the  bird  is  only  winged  and  not  killed,  and  they  have  dropped  wings. 

The  only  legally-held  St.  Lucian  Amazons  outside  this  Island  are  the 


D.H.S.  RISDON  -  THE  MACAWS  AT  RODE 


249 


nine  birds  at  the  Jersey  Wildlife  Preservation  Trust  in  the  Channel  Islands, 
which  are  on  loan  from  the  Government  of  St.  Lucia.  Six  of  these  birds 
were  collected  in  1976,  one  in  1975,  and  hand-reared.  Another  bird  had 
been  kept  as  a  pet  in  England  and  the  ninth  is  on  loan  from  Hamilton, 
Bermuda. 

Lesser  Antillean  Amazon  parrots  are  the  largest  and  most  impressive  of 
the  Amazon  parrots  but  they  are  all  in  danger  and  though  many  methods 
of  preserving  them  in  the  wild  have  been  tried,  I  am  convinced  that  captive 
breeding  will  be  the  only  way  to  save  them  from  extinction.  I  believe  that 
the  St.  Lucian,  along  with  the  St.  Vincent,  Imperial  and  Red-necked 
Amazons,  should  be  distributed  and  placed  with  qualified  individuals  who 
already  have  a  successful  record  of  breeding  this  genus. 


THE  MACAWS  AT  RODE 
By  D.H.S.  RISDON  (Rode,  Somerset) 


One  of  the  major  attractions  at  the  Tropical  Bird  Gardens  have  become 
our  liberty  macaws,  and  since  we  are  breeding  them  in  fair  numbers  every 
year  I  thought  a  few  notes  about  them  might  be  of  interest. 

First  of  all  I  don’t  think  it  would  be  possible  to  have  as  many  breeding 
pairs  as  we  have  flying  free  unless  they  were  under  control.  The  dominant 
pairs  would  soon  drive  the  others  away.  Each  pair  has  its  own  aviary  with 
a  small  shelter  in  which  it  nests.  The  birds  are  let  out  in  the  morning 
and  called  back  in  the  evening  when  they  are  fed.  The  trap  in  the  aviary  is 
then  closed  and  they  are  confined  for  the  night. 

This  serves  several  purposes.  Sick  birds  can  be  easily  caught  up.  Access 
to  nest  boxes  is  comparatively  easy  as  the  parents  can  be  shut  in  the 
flight  whilst  inspection  is  being  carried  out.  Dominant  or  aggressive  pairs 
can  be  prevented  from  taking  over  the  nest  sites  of  others. 

The  birds  do  not  always  behave  as  they  should.  On  cold  or  wet  evenings 
they  usually  come  in  without  trouble  but  on  fine  warm  ones  they  some¬ 
times  “play  up”  and  stay  out  late,  to  the  exasperation  of  the  keepers  who 
have  to  go  back  again  and  again  to  get  them  in.  Sometimes,  in  spite  of  all 


250 


D.H.S.  RISDON  -  THE  MACAWS  AT  RODE 


our  efforts,  they  will  have  a  night  out  in  the  trees.  We  then  refuse  to  feed 
them  until  they  do  come  in.  The  great  thing  is  to  get  them  “hooked”  on 
some  tit-bit,  like  biscuit,  which  does  not  form  a  regular  part  of  their 
diet.  This  can  be  invaluable  should  they  stray  away  from  home  and  have  to 
be  fetched  back.  In  this  case  the  rattle  of  the  biscuit  tin  will  get  them  to 
answer  and  show  their  whereabouts. 

They  do  stray  occasionally  for  no  apparent  reason.  Their  homing 
instinct  is  not  strong  and  if  they  wander  more  than  a  mile  from  home  they 
seem  to  lose  all  sense  of  direction  and  end  up  ten  or  twenty  miles  away. 

Young  unmated  birds  make  the  best  show  as  they  fly  in  groups,  but 
they  are  not  always  the  easiest  to  get  in  at  night.  Adult  pairs  stick  more  or 
less  to  a  given  territory  and  are  more  “home  bound”. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  when  free  they  pick  up  extras  in  the  way  of 
buds  and  fresh  green  bark,  not  to  mention  beech  nuts  and  the  wild  berries 
of  autumn.  Whether  this  contributes  to  our  breeding  success  is  hard  to 
say  because  quite  a  few  macaws  are  bred  nowadays  permanently  confined 
in  aviaries. 

In  practically  every  case  our  breeding  pairs  have  found  their  own 
mates.  Macaws  are  the  most  intelligent  of  an  intelligent  group  of  birds. 
They  form  strong  attachments  and  if  two  decide  to  pair  up  there  is  little 
you  can  do  to  stop  them.  Conversely  you  can  put  two  together  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  you  will  have  a  compatible  pair,  especially  if  they  are 
within  sight  or  sound  of  others. 

After  18  years  of  close  contact  with  them,  I  find  them  almost  impos¬ 
sible  to  sex  by  appearance  -  at  least  the  Blue  and  Yellows  and  the  Scarlets. 
Green-winged  are  a  bit  more  obvious  -  the  cocks  have  heavier  and  broader 
beaks.  Like  all  intelligent  creatures  macaws  vary  considerably  one  from 
another  and  one  can  be  easily  misled  by  appearances.  We  had  what  I  would 
have  sworn  was  a  true  pair  of  Blue  and  Yellow.  One  was  substantially 
larger  and  bolder  than  the  other  and  they  behaved  like  a  pair,  but  both 
laid  eggs! 

Our  macaws  usually  start  breeding  in  April  or  May.  We  give  them  stout 
wooden  boxes  or  barrels,  partly  open  at  the  top.  In  the  bottom  of  these 
is  a  layer  of  broken  up  rotten  wood  about  six  inches  deep.  The  boxes 
are  about  20  inches  square  and  the  same  in  height.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
make  these  too  big.  The  birds  seem  to  like  crowding  themselves  into  a 
small  space.  The  boxes  are  placed  in  the  shelter  part  of  the  aviary,  well 
off  the  ground  -  in  fact  as  high  as  possible. 

When  they  are  due  to  lay,  their  appetites  increase.  Three  eggs  make  the 
usual  clutch.  The  hen  does  the  incubating,  although  the  cock  will  often 


251 


enter  the  box  with  her  if  danger  threatens.  Incubation  lasts  from  23  days 
to  35  days.  It  is  difficult  to  be  certain  of  the  exact  time  because,  although 
the  hen  frequents  the  box  from  the  laying  of  the  first  egg,  she  does  not 
really  start  sitting  until  the  second  or  third  has  been  laid. 

Again  the  birds’  appetites  increase  when  hatching  time  is  getting  near, 
presumably  to  build  up  crop  milk.  At  this  time  their  liking  for  cooked 
meat  and  bread  liberally  smeared  with  margarine  increases.  They  love  chop 
bones  with  the  remains  of  fat  adhering  and  will  strip  off  every  scrap. 

When  they  have  young  our  oldest  breeding  pair  of  Blue  and  Yellow 
will  fly  down  and  feed  with  my  pigeons,  greedily  taking  peas  and  maize, 
and  yet  if  these  grains  are  offered  in  their  food  tin  they  will  not  touch 
them. 

The  young  fledge  at  13  weeks  old,  and  then  we  have  a  problem.  They 
can  fly  quite  well  at  this  stage  and  if  allowed  out  with  their  parents  they 
get  up  in  the  trees  and  refuse  to  come  down,  relying  on  the  old  birds  to 
feed  them.  We  therefore  find  it  better  to  clip  their  flight  feathers  before 
they  fly,  thus  restricting  them  to  a  given  area,  so  that  we  can  get  them  on  a 
stick  and  return  them  to  the  aviary  each  evening  until  they  have  learned 
to  do  this  themselves. 

The  colour  of  the  iris  in  young  birds  is  dark  at  first.  It  begins  to  lighten 
to  grey  at  about  six  months.  By  the  time  they  are  a  year  old  it  is  almost 
as  pale  as  that  of  the  adult  bird. 


VERNAL  HANGING  PARROTS  Loriculus  vernalis 
By  MISS  M.  GOURLAY  (Camberley,  Surrey) 


I  was  very  much  intrigued  when  earlier  this  year  I  noticed  that  my  one 
pair  of  Vernal  Hanging  Parrots  were  actively  engaged  in  courtship,  with 
constant  feeding  of  the  hen  by  the  cock  bird.  The  pair  lived  in  an  out-door 
planted  aviary  with  a  shed  where  the  heat  was  permanently  controlled  at 
a  minimum  of  60°F.  Their  companions  were  chlorophonias,  zosterops, 
yuhinas  and  a  solitary  hen  Silver-throated  Tanager,  with  whom  they  lived 
in  perfect  amity.  The  tubular  heaters  in  the  shed  have  a  board  across  the 


252 


M.  GOURLAY  -  VERNAL  HANGING  PARROTS 


top  of  them,  and  on  this  I  placed  a  large  hollow  birch  log,  given  to  me  by 
another  bird  enthusiast. 

The  log  had  a  naturally  made  pop-hole  approximately  twelve  inches 
from  the  bottom  inside  level.  It  soon  became  evident  that  the  hen  was 
sitting,  but  having  read  G.  D.  Gradwell’s  article  in  the  Society’s  Magazine 
(Vol.  81,  No.  3  1975)  I  was  not  very  hopeful  of  success. 

In  due  course  I  noted  that  food  was  being  taken  into  the  nesting  site, 
but  as  the  log  had  a  screwed-on  lid  I  was  not  going  to  risk  desertion  by 
satisfying  my  curiosity. 

I  had  not  long  to  wait  for  this,  as  soon  both  parents  appeared  constant¬ 
ly  in  the  flight,  and  I  knew  that  my  worst  fears  were  realised.  I  opened  the 
lid  and  was  horrified  to  find  four  dead  babies  half  buried  in  the  soft  peat 
at  the  bottom  of  the  log.  This  was  the  first  time  I  had  actually  seen  inside 
it,  and  then  realised  that  the  hen  must  have  had  great  difficulty  in  scaling 
the  smooth  interior  to  get  to  the  hole,  and  in  doing  so  must  have  trodden 
the  babies  into  the  peat  with  fatal  results. 

I  replaced  the  peat  with  dried  grass,  and  also  fixed  a  little  plastic  ladder 
to  the  inside  of  the  log  leading  to  the  hole. 

On  the  3rd  of  March  I  thought  I  heard  sounds  coming  from  the  log, 
and  again  on  the  6th  and  13th,  and  at  intervals  after  that.  I  continued 
giving  an  extra  ration  of  hard-boiled  yolks  of  eggs,  plus  mealworms, 
maggots,  sponge  cake  mixed  with  honey  and  Farex  mixed  with  peanut 
butter.  At  last  on  the  29th  March  I  was  met  in  the  flight  by  a  youngster, 
fully  fledged,  and  almost  larger  than  its  parents.  I  opened  the  lid,  and  to 
my  surprise  found  two  more  little  parrots  fully  fledged,  looking  a  day  or 
two  younger  than  the  one  outside,  but  they  both  emerged  on  the  two 
successive  days,  looking  as  strong  and  robust  as  the  first  one. 

They  continued  to  prosper,  and  are  now  quite  independent  of  their 
parents  -  I  reckon  they  were  in  the  nest  for  approximately  five  weeks 
before  emerging. 

To  me  the  most  amazing  feature  was  that  when  I  removed  the  log  to 
clean  it  out  expecting  to  find  very  dirty  sticky  mess  in  the  nest,  it  was 
perfectly  clean  and  dry  -  how  the  parents  managed  that  I  simply  do  not 
know. 

The  hen  is  sitting  again  on  seven  eggs  (May  1980)  but  owing  to  various 
disturbances,  I  think  it  unlikely  that  any  of  these  will  hatch  out,  but  it  is 
virtually  impossible  to  tell  when  incubation  started. 


253 


THE  PHILIPPINE  HANGING  PARROT  Loriculus  philippensis 
Mme.  J.  L.  SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK  (Soesterberg,  Holland) 

When  this  hanging  parrot,  with  a  size  of  about  14  cm,  has  moulted 
out  completely,  it  is  beautiful  light  green  with  a  bright  orange  bill  and 
orange  legs,  its  rump  is  bright  red.  The  cock  then  has  a  small  red  “cap”  and 
a  large  orange  patch  on  its  throat.  The  head  is  slightly  more  yellowish 
green  than  the  rest  of  the  body.  Under  the  wings  and  the  tail  the  feathers 
are  light  blue  that  becomes  darker  to  the  top  of  the  wings.  The  hen  is  a 
shade  darker  green,  the  “cap”  is  smaller,  whereas  the  cheeks  are  bright 
deep  light  blue.  The  eyes  are  brown  but  when  the  cock  is  agitated  it  shows 
a  light  eye-ring  by  which  it  looks  aggressive  and  fierce.  The  young  birds 
come  totally  pale  green  out  of  the  nest,  apart  from  the  red  patch  on  the 
back,  while  the  bill  and  the  legs  are  light  yellow.  The  eyes  are  like  dark 
black  beads. 

In  the  autumn  of  1976  I  bought  Philippine  Hanging  Parrots  from 
several  bird-dealers.  One  dealer  kept  the  birds  cold,  at  about  15°C,  in  a 
very  spacious  aviary;  the  other  kept  them  in  a  heated  room  with  an  extra 
heating-unit  at  a  temperature  of  about  30°C.  Notwithstanding  this  con¬ 
siderable  difference  in  temperature,  I  put  the  hanging  parrots  that  I 
bought  from  both  of  these  dealers  together  in  one  aviary.  The  first  day  I 
kept  the  hanging  parrots  at  a  temperature  of  about  20°C  but  after  that 
every  day  I  lowered  the  temperature  a  little.  After  one  week  the  tempe¬ 
rature  of  the  aviary  was  about  5°C  in  the  day-time  and  at  night  warmed  up 
to  10°C.  These  temperatures  seemed  to  suit  all  the  birds. 

After  two  weeks  I  opened  the  hatch  to  the  outside  aviary  to  let  the 
fresh  air  in  and  all  went  well. 

When  the  weather  became  more  agreeable  in  the  spring,  I  saw  that  the 
hanging  parrots  spent  more  and  longer  periods  in  the  outside  aviary.  In 
the  summer  of  1977  from  the  fourteen  hanging  parrots  I  bought,  in 
total  four  of  them  had  died,  presumably  as  a  result  of  the  transport  - 
and  quarantine-time.  The  ten  remaining  parrots  proved  to  be  four  cocks 
and  six  hens. 

The  autumn  of  1977  was  very  wet,  the  winter  was  particularly  mild, 
whereas  the  spring  of  1978  was  too  cold.  Nevertheless  the  hanging  par¬ 
rots  preferred  to  stay  outside  in  the  open  aviary  even  at  night.  In  this 
outside  aviary  grow  bamboo,  buxus  and  privet  bushes,  and  it  has  wild 
clematis  and  other  climbing  plants  growing  over  it. 


254  J.L.  SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK  -  PHILIPPINE  HANGING  PARROT 


MrsJ.L.  Spenkelink  Vanschaik 
Philippine  Hanging  Parrot  chicks,  6  weeks  old 


As  spring  proceeded  and  summer  began  I  saw  that  the  cocks  showed 
more  interest  in  the  hens  and  looked  more  and  more  into  the  nest  logs. 

Then  I  saw  a  hen  in  a  privet  bush,  biting  off  the  leaves  of  the  privet 
and  putting  these  leaves  between  the  feathers  of  its  abdomen,  while  its 
partner  was  chasing  away  another  hen  and  its  mate  from  this  bush.  It 
always  proved  to  be  the  same  hen  with  its  male,  which  collected  the 
leaves  from  a  specific  privet  bush.  All  the  other  hanging  parrots  were 
chased  away  by  the  cock.  When  the  hen  returned  “empty”  from  its 
breeding  log,  the  cock  immediately  fed  her  and  then  started  whistling 
softly  but  meanwhile  it  kept  watch  in  its  privet  bush.  After  several  days 
I  decided  to  check  the  breeding  logs. 

As  a  breeding  place  I  used  a  log  with  a  length  of  about  50  cm,  with  an 
inside  diameter  of  16  cm  and  an  entrance  hole  of  4  cm.  The  breeding 
logs  were  made  from  the  trunk  of  a  poplar.  In  total  three  pairs  started  to 
breed.  Unfortunately  one  of  the  hens  died  when  it  flew  away  in  panic  out 
of  its  breeding  log,  in  which  it  was  brooding  four  oval  formed  eggs.  The 
eggs  were  about  18.6  x  16.5  mm.  From  the  other  pairs,  one  pair  had  five 


J.L.  SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK  -  PHILIPPINE  HANGING  PARROT  255 


and  the  other  one  four  eggs. 

After  three  weeks  of  incubation  I  heard  a  soft  squeaking.  The  cock 
went  into  the  breeding  log  but  as  the  hen  was  very  nervous  I  did  not 
dare  to  have  a  look  at  the  results.  When  the  first  young  one  was  about 
fifteen  days  old  I  inspected  one  of  the  nests.  There  lay  four  young  ones  of 
several  ages.  I  could  just  ring  the  eldest  one  but  not  yet  the  youngest. 
One  proved  to  be  dead,  when  I  took  a  look  after  three  days.  The  other 
three  young  ones  grew  up  and  flourished,  and  after  six  weeks  they  flew 
out,  one  after  the  other. 

Two  weeks  after  the  youngest  one  flew  out  I  saw  that  the  hen  started 
anew  biting  off  leaves  from  its  privet  bush.  Immediately  I  removed  the  old 
nest  and  cleaned  the  inside  thoroughly.  After  one  week  there  lay  the  first 
egg  of  the  second  clutch. 

The  young  ones  were  mainly  fed  by  the  cock.  If  the  hen  had  time  for 
it,  it  did  so  too  but  not  so  assidously  as  the  cock.  I  gave  the  hanging 
parrots  various  seeds  in  separate  feeding  bottles,  hung  up  in  the  inner 
cage  in  winter  time  and  outside  in  the  summer.  Every  day  during  the 
breeding  period  the  hanging  parrots  also  had  sprouted  white  sunflower 
seeds  and  another  kind  of  sprouted  seed.  Although  they  had  dry  seeds 
at  their  disposal,  they  also  had  a  lory-nectar  in  the  morning  and  egg-food 
in  the  afternoon.  The  egg-food  contained  brown  bread,  Gistocal  (a  cal¬ 
careous  animal  preparation),  milk  powder,  grated  carrots,  apples  and  other 
fruits.  This  was  always  freshly  made  every  day. 

From  the  first  clutches  I  got  respectively  three  and  two  young  ones  and 
from  the  second  clutches  two  and  two.  The  accompanying  pictures  show 
the  first  three  young  ones  taken  on  the  hand.  The  young  ones  are  born  naked 
and  after  about  ten  days  they  have  a  little  grey-white  down.  On  the  fif¬ 
teenth  day  the  eyes  are  open  and  the  first  feathers  appear. 

Although  the  parent  birds  started  to  colour  after  being  six  months 
in  my  aviary,  the  young  ones  already  moulted  at  three  months  old  and 
when  hardly  nine  months  old  they  went  into  the  breeding  logs  almost 
completely  coloured.  Now  in  spring  1979  they  are  as  anxious  as  their 
parents  to  start  breeding  and  dance  and  sing  cheerfully  in  the  sunshine. 

I  have  had  eggs  in  the  nest  logs  from  young  birds  only  ten  months  old. 


FEATHER  PLUCKING  IN  PARROTS  - 
OBSERVATIONS  OF  AN  AMATEUR 

By  HAZEL  HATHORN  (Frome,  Somerset) 


Opinions  on  feather  plucking  in  parrots,  its  causes  and  cures,  vary  so 
widely,  even  among  experts,  that  possibly  the  experience  of  a  mere  ama¬ 
teur  like  myself  might  be  of  interest,  having  been  lucky  enough  to  achieve 
one  spectacular  100  per  cent  cure. 

I  firmly  believe  that  the  basic  causes  of  feather  plucking  are  psycholo¬ 
gical  -  boredom,  frustration,  even  grief  for  an  absent  owner,  and  seldom,  if 
ever,  the  result  of  a  physical  disorder  or  dietary  deficiency.  Unfortunately, 
as  everyone  knows,  the  habit,  once  acquired,  is  very  hard  to  break  and 
curing  the  cause  of  the  trouble  will  often  not  stop  the  bird  from  plucking. 
One  can  restore  the  absent  owner  (if  alive  of  course!),  provide  a  frus¬ 
trated  bird  with  a  mate  and  give  a  bored  bird  occupation  or  greater  free¬ 
dom,  but  so  often  one  is  merely  left  with  a  happy  plucked  parrot  instead 
of  a  disturbed  one.  This  is  one  stage  to  the  good,  admittedly,  from  the 
parrots  viewpoint,  but  one  is  then  left  with  a  depressed  owner,  who,  hav¬ 
ing  corrected  the  parrot’s  mental  condition  expects  its  physical  appearance 
to  be  restored  in  due  course.  So  often  this  doesn’t  happen,  either  because 
the  parrot  has  been  plucking  so  long  and  so  thoroughly  that  it  has  destro¬ 
yed  all  its  feather  follicles  so  that  the  feathers  cannot  regrow,  or  because 
the  habit  of  plucking  is  so  ingrained  that  it  is  a  way  of  life. 

Over  the  years  I  have  acquired  several  partly  plucked  African  Greys, 
mostly  at  the  “white  woolly  waistcoat”  stage,  and,  of  these,  one  is  now  in 
excellent  feather,  one  appears  to  be  regrowing  well  after  two  years  with  us, 
and  the  other  two  are  about  the  same  as  they  were  when  we  first  had 
them.  I  have  also  one  failure  -  a  bird  who  was  in  good  feather  when  we  had 
her  and  who  is  a  marvellous  talker  in  all  the  different  voices  of  the  family. 
She  appeared  on  television  a  couple  of  years  ago  to  introduce  a  “Wildlife 
on  One”  programme,  and  from  this  time  on  she  began  to  pluck.  I  can 
only  assume  that  she  is  a  frustrated  television  star,  thwarted  of  the  fame 
she  feels  is  her  due,  after  one  brief  appearance.  She  remains  a  tremendous 
talker  and  in  every  way  seems  a  happy  contented  bird,  thus  confounding 
all  my  theories. 

The  total  success  which  I  mentioned  earlier  is  with  a  bird  which  was 
offered  to  me  about  six  years  ago  by  a  man  who  had  married  and  left 
his  parrot  in  his  family  home  with  his  elderly  mother.  Mother  no  longer 
felt  equal  to  lifting  and  cleaning  the  cage  and  coping  with  the  feathers 


H,  HATHORNE  -  FEATHER  PLUCKING  IN  PARROTS 


257 


and  husk  on  the  floor  each  day.  He  warned  me  during  conversation  that 
the  parrot  “had  lost  a  few  feathers”,  but  this  proved  to  be  an  understate¬ 
ment  for  when  I  saw  Polly  she  was  absolutely  naked,  apart  from  her  head 
and  neck  feathers.  Just  like  an  oven  ready  chicken.  I  had  never  seen  any¬ 
thing  so  pathetic.  She  was  a  gentle  and  friendly  bird,  however,  instantly 
ducking  her  head  to  be  scratched  and  offering  gentle  beak-pinches  in 
return. 

Within  about  three  weeks  of  acquiring  Polly  she  was  covered  in  white 
fluffy  down  and  about  a  week  later  flight  quills  began  to  appear;  also  a 
row  of  red-tipped  quills  on  her  tail.  Each  morning  and  evening  when  I 
returned  from  work  I  was  afraid  to  look  in  case  she  had  pulled  them  all 
out  but,  incredibly,  she  let  the  feathers  grow  unmolested  until  within 
about  four  months  she  was  fully  feathered.  The  odd  thing  was  that  each 
feather  was  twisted  and  curved  so  that  she  presented  a  completely  curly 
appearance.  I  thought  that  possibly  the  constant  feather  plucking  had 
damaged  the  feather  follicles  but  a  friend  suggested  that  the  curliness 
was  the  result  of  hunger  trace  -  a  condition  produced  by  a  diet  deficiency 
when  she  had  needed  extra  nutrients  to  cope  with  the  vast  feather  re¬ 
growth  programme.  This  must  have  been  the  answer  because  gradually 
the  twisted  feathers  moulted  out  to  be  replaced  by  normal  ones  and  within 
a  year  Polly  was  a  perfectly  feathered  bird.  She  has  exceptionally  thick 
and  profuse  feathers  -  I  can  bury  my  fingers  in  the  thick  mantle  at  the 
back  of  her  neck.  Also  she  has  a  strange  dusty  pink  tinge  to  her  wing  and 
back  feathers.  This  is  not  like  the  coral  coloured  groups  often  seen  on  the 
breasts  of  African  Greys  but  an  all-over  dusting  of  pink,  more  the  tone  of 
a  Roseate  Cockatoo. 

I  can  only  think  that  the  complete  change  of  environment  and  possibly 
the  company  of  other  birds  cured  Polly. 


258 


J.  L.  SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK  -  THE  AUSTRAL  CONURE 


THE  AUSTRAL  CONURE 

By  Mm e.  J.L.  SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK  (Soesterberg,  Holland) 


Two  subspecies  of  the  Austral  Conure  are  Enicognothus  ferrugineus 
ferrugineus  and  the  smaller  Enicognathus  ferrugineus  minor.  The  Austral 
Conure  is  mainly  green;  the  back  is  a  dull  green  while  the  front  is  more  of 
a  yellowish  green.  The  feathers  on  the  head  and  on  the  rump  are  black 
margined,  which  gives  the  bird  the  effect  of  “being  scaled”.  The  band  on 
the  forehead  and  the  patch  on  the  abdomen  have  the  typical  maroon-red 
colour  of  many  South  American  parrots.  This  colour  is  also  apparent  in 
the  tail,  although  in  sunlight  the  feathers  shine  with  a  flaming  copper- 
red.  Like  many  other  kinds  of  South  American  parrots  they  have  dark 
blue  flight  feathers.  The  beak,  naked  eye-ring  and  legs  are  dark  grey, 
almost  black. 

The  Austral  Conure  lives  in  the  most  southern  parts  of  Chile  and 
Argentina,  up  to  55°  south  latitude,  except  on  the  higher  mountains  and 
the  tableland  region  of  the  east  coast.  The  country  here  is  rather  dry, 
and  the  habitat  consists  of  beech  woods,  Acacia  and,  on  the  higher  parts, 
the  Araucaria .  They  are  fond  of  the  seeds  of  these  trees,  and  in  captivity 
we  give  them  pine  nuts  and  beech  nuts,  although  the  latter  will  not  keep 
very  well. 

While  visiting  a  bird-dealer  I  saw  several  of  these  interesting  and  un¬ 
common  birds,  and  many  of  them  were  in  very  poor  condition  and  so 
badly  injured  due  to  the  catching  and  transport  conditions  that  they 
would  never  fly  again.  Although  the  merchant  was  asking  high  prices,  I 
resolved  to  buy  some  of  these  birds  because  I  was  completely  fascinated 
by  their  uncommon  behaviour  and  attitude.  I  selected  the  most  healthy 
looking  out  of  the  mistreated  specimens. 

The  winter  of  1978  -  1979  was  very  cold.  In  my  garden  we  had  temp¬ 
eratures  of  minus  24°C  for  three  successive  nights,  and  of  minus  20°C 
in  the  daytime  for  a  period  of  ten  days.  The  birds  remained  in  surprisingly 
good  condition  in  spite  of  this,  seeking  shelter  in  the  nest  logs  at  night. 

Spring  started  with  beautiful  sunny  weather  and  warm  temperatures. 
This,  however,  did  not  last  and  it  became  cold  again.  In  spite  of  the  bad 
weather,  I  noticed  one  of  the  birds  was  missing.  I  found  that  one  of  the 
hens  was  preparing  its  nest  in  one  of  the  nest  logs.  The  bird  stayed  for 
longer  and  longer  periods  in  the  nest,  and  on  investigating  the  log  I  found 
two  eggs.  After  laying  a  third  egg  the  hen  remained  inside  the  nest.  After 


J.  I .  SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK  -  THE  AUSTRAL  CONURE 


259 


Mme.  J.L.  Spenkelink-Vanschaik 
Austral  Conure  Chick,  20  days  old. 


six  days  the  hen,  which  was  very  tame,  allowed  further  investigation  and 

six  eggs  were  found. 

Although  mating  was  not  observed  in  this  pair,  other  pairs  showed 
that  mating  takes  place  very  early  in  the  morning. 

The  eggs  were  laid  on  the  29th  of  May,  31st  of  May,  2nd  June,  4th 
June,  6th  June  and  the  last  on  the  8th  of  June. 

On  the  25th  June  I  heard  a  soft  squeaking  and  when  I  took  a  look  at 
the  nest  I  saw  that  there  were  two  young  of  one  day  old.  The  chick  in  the 
third  egg  was  chirping  and  half  out  of  its  shell.  This  proved  that  the  hen 
had  started  brooding  after  laying  its  second  egg  and,  like  the  Pyrrhura 
conures,  the  fourth  and  fifth  egg  hatched  after  21  days  of  incubation. 
Unfortunately  the  sixth  egg  failed  to  hatch,  having  been  slightly  damaged 
by  the  hen.  The  five  young  birds  thrived:  I  ringed  them  all  at  fifteen 
days.  The  young  birds  were  very  calm  and  almost  tame,  and  remained 
so,  even  after  leaving  the  nest;  even  now  they  will  come  to  me  when 
tempted  by  food. 

The  Austral  Conure,  like  the  Pyrrhuras,  the  Aratingas  and  the  Amazons, 
will  cover  the  faeces  of  the  chicks  in  the  nest  with  small  pieces  of  wood 


260 


J.L.  SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK  -  THE  AUSTRAL  CONURE 


which  they  bite  off  the  inside  of  the  nest  logs. 

On  the  22nd  of  August  the  first  bird  flew  out,  and  after  five  days 
I  had  five  beautiful  full-grown  birds  on  the  perch. 

Three  days  after  the  last  of  the  young  birds  had  flown  out,  the  parent 
birds  stopped  feeding  them,  and  on  the  fourth  day  even  chased  them  away 
from  the  nest.  This  was  the  first  time  that  I  had  seen  such  behaviour 
towards  their  young  in  South  American  parrots. 

The  young  birds  thrived  and  after  two  months  they  even  started  to 
imitate  other  calls  and  sounds.  When  one  of  the  young  males  had  been 
out  of  the  nest  for  four  months  I  saw  him  feeding  an  adult  female,  who 
accepted  this  gesture. 

To  encourage  the  parents  to  breed  for  a  second  time  I  put  an  extra 
nest  log  into  the  aviary  but  no  interest  was  shown  in  this. 

The  Austral  Conures  were  housed  in  a  completely  outdoor  aviary  with 
dimensions  of  8  m.  long,  1  m.  wide  and  1.75  m.  high.  The  breeding  de¬ 
scribed  above  started  as  a  colony  breeding  with  three  pairs  together 
in  one  aviary.  When  the  first  pair  had  started  breeding,  the  other  pairs 
showed  interest  in  the  remaining  nest  logs,  but  unfortunately  I  had  no 
further  results. 

The  logs  hung  on  one  side  of  the  aviary,  about  one  metre  apart.  There 
were  two  feeding-places;  one  in  a  small  covered  part  at  the  back  of  the 
aviary  contained  dry  seed  mixture,  with  less  popular  white  sunflower 
seeds  provided  nearby,  while  at  the  front  of  the  aviary  they  got  fruit, 
sprouted  seeds,  soft  food  and  other  dainties  such  as  fruit  tree  blossoms, 
fresh  sprouted  greens,  endive  etc. 

The  Austral  Conures  are  very  calm  birds  not  given  to  noisy  screeches 

at  all.  I  found  them  very  intelligent  and  easy  to  tame. 


261 


THE  DISCOVERY  OF  THE  HOME  OF  LEAR’S  MACAW 
By  ARTHUR  FREUD  (Smithtown,  New  York) 


In  December  1978,  the  home  of  Lear’s  Macaw  was  discovered  by  Dr. 
Helmut  Sick,  a  German  ornithologist,  who  has  worked  in  Brazil  for  almost 
forty  years.  Lear’s  Macaw  (named  for  the  artist  and  poet,  Edward  Lear) 
was  first  identified  in  1856.  Edward  Lear  had  painted  a  portrait  of  what  he 
believed  to  be  a  Hyacinthine  Macaw  for  his  famous  folio  of  parrot  port¬ 
raits  in  1831.  Lear  generally  used  live  models  for  his  work  and  thus  it 
appears  that  the  ornithologist,  Bonaparte,  honoured  Lear  by  naming  the 
newly  identified  species  after  him  in  1856.  Bonaparte  made  his  differ¬ 
entiation  between  A.  lean  and  A.  hyacinthinus  after  viewing  skins  in  the 
Paris  Museum  and  comparing  these  with  Lear’s  painting.  The  illustration 
which  accompanies  this  article  is  from  a  photo  of  one  of  Lear’s  original 
lithographs  and  the  typical  half  moon  facial  markings  of  the  Lear’s  Macaw 
can  be  easily  noted.  The  Lear’s  is  also  referred  to  as  the  Indigo  Macaw 
but  little  has  been  known  about  the  origin  of  this  attractive  bird.  Since  it 
is  quite  similar  in  appearance  to  the  Hyacinthine  Macaw  it  was  frequently 
shipped  together  with  that  parrot  without  any  differentiation  being  made 
between  the  two  birds.  Importers  who  lacked  knowledge  or  were  not 
perceptive  would  then  simply  sell  the  Lear’s  as  a  smaller  and  less  vividly 
coloured  member  of  A.  hyacinthinus . 

Dr.  Sick  is  a  highly  respected  member  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences 
as  well  as  a  professor  at  the  University  of  Rio  and  a  member  of  the  staff 
of  the  Museum  of  Natural  History.  His  name  is  well  known  in  ornitho¬ 
logical  circles  for  his  published  papers. 

Dr.  Sick’s  article  on  the  of  Anodorhynchus  lean  originally  appeared  in 
the  August  1979  issue  of  the  German  magazine  Die  Gefiederte  Welt.  It  was 
brought  to  my  attention  by  my  friend  Henning  H.  Jacobsen  of  Denmark 
who  knew  of  my  interest  in  this  parrot  from  an  article  which  I  had  written 
about  the  Lear’s  for  the  British  magazine  of  the  Parrot  Society.  A  letter  to 
the  editor  of  Die  Gefiederte  Welt  provided  Dr.  Sick’s  address  and  the 
suggestion  that  I  contact  him  for  permission  to  translate  the  article  and 
quote  from  it.  An  interesting  correspondence  ensued  following  which  Dr. 
Sick  graciously  granted  his  permission. 

Most  current  authors  indicate  that  Lear’s  Macaw  is  a  rather  mysteri¬ 
ous  bird  in  that  little  is  known  about  its  distribution.  Forshaw  speculates 
that  the  bird  probably  originates  in  north-eastern  Brazil  and  that  it  is 


262 


A.  FREUD  -  THE  HOME  OF  LEAR’S  MACAW 


extremely  rare.  He  quotes  Voous’  1969  speculation  that  the  Lear’s  may  by 
a  hybrid  between  the  Hyacinthine  and  Glaucous  Macaws,  but  has  his 
doubts  about  this. 

The  records  show  that  shipments  of  Lear’s  Macaws  (arriving  with 
Hyacinthines)  would  come  from  such  locations  as  Para,  probably  from  the 
harbour  of  Belem  but  the  exact  origin  of  the  Lear’s  could  not  be  pin  point¬ 
ed.  Forshaw  reports  also  that  in  1950  Pinto  visited  the  town  of  Santo 
Antao  in  Pernambuco  and  was  shown  there  a  recently  captured  Lear’s 
which  presumably  came  from  Joazeiro,  a  city  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Sao  Francisco  River.  This  was  a  hint  of  the  possible  location  of  origin  of 
the  Lear’s. 

Dr.  Sick  himself,  writing  in  1969  noted  that  the  species  was  rare  al¬ 
though  the  possibility  existed  that  additional  populations  remained  to 
be  discovered.  Thus,  in  1978  Dr.  Sick  made  a  third  effort  to  locate  the 
home  of  Lear’s  Macaw  which  until  this  time  had  been  known  only  by 
observations  of  captive  specimens.  His  explorations  took  him  to  Raso  de 
Catarina  which  was  the  last  place  that  Dr.  Sick  believed  a  wild  popu¬ 
lation  of  Lear’s  could  exist.  During  his  journey  to  Raso  de  Catarina  (which 
is  in  northern  Bahia)  Dr.  Sick  saw  as  many  as  21  specimens  of  Lear’s 
Macaw  flying  together.  He  located  their  sleeping  and  nesting  places  which 
were  in  inaccessible  rock  caves  in  the  sides  of  the  canyon-like  dried  river 
valleys.  The  Lear’s  were  the  only  macaws  which  appeared  in  the  area. 

It  was  a  difficult  trip  as  the  tropical  heat  was  most  pronounced  at  this 
time  of  the  year  and  this  added  to  the  hardship  of  the  journey.  Travelling 
conditions  were  primitive  with  lengthy  rides  being  made  on  beasts  of 
burden  which  were  provided  with  platforms  to  carry  supplies  and  riders 
rather  than  the  more  comfortable  saddles.  In  spite  of  these  hardships 
Dr.  Sick  considered  the  trip  a  fabulous  adventure. 

His  moment  of  triumph  arrived  after  a  lengthy  night  march  which  took 
them  through  areas  of  deep  and  loose  sand  in  the  trackless  Dornbusch- 
Caatinga  region.  Dr.  Sick  reports  that  the  Raso  de  Catarina  is  one  of  the 
most  inaccessible  regions  of  Brazil.  It  was  the  scene  of  the  revolt  of  a  small 
group  of  individuals  against  the  government  of  the  Republic  of  Brazil  in 
1897.  This  was  referred  to  as  the  Canudos  War.  The  area  is  so  rough  that 
more  than  1,000  elite  troops  from  Rio  and  Sao  Paulo  died  in  the  area 
during  this  war.  It  is  believed  that  most  of  them  died  of  thirst.  Dr.  Sick’s 
party  had  60  litres  of  water  with  them  which  required  great  economy  in 
use. 

The  programme  of  discovery  lasted  for  approximately  one  and  a  half 
months.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Dr.  Sick  celebrated  his  69th  birthday 


A.  FREUD  -  THE  HOME  OF  LEAR’S  MACAW 


263 


on  the  10th  January  1978  by  sitting  in  the  Ara-Canyons  and  observing 
the  parrots  which  were  arriving  to  roost  as  the  sun  went  down.  He  viewed 
at  least  15  specimens  of  Lear’s  through  his  new,  large  telescope  on  this 
occasion.  Thus,  surrounded  by  a  thick  swarm  of  insects  and  watching  a 
pair  of  Lear’s  Macaws  preening  each  other,  he  celebrated  the  most  memo¬ 
rable  birthday  of  his  life  secure  in  the  knowledge  that  he  had  at  last  found 
the  home  of  Anodorhynchus  leari. 

*  Dr.  Sick  was  assisted  in  his  efforts  by  his  assistant  Dante  M.  Teixeria. 


264 


REVIEWS 

ALL  ABOUT  PARROTS  By  ARTHUR  FREUD 

Published  by  Howell  Book  House,  New  York.  1980.  Pp  304,  36  colour 
plates,  photos  and  line  drawings.  Price  17.95  American  dollars. 


Arthur  Freud  is  well-known  to  American  parrot  enthusiasts  for  his 
regular  column  in  American  Cage  Bird  Magazine.  In  his  articles  the  em¬ 
phasis  is  invariably  on  pet  birds  and  this  interest  is  reflected  in  his  book. 
Its  title  is  misleading:  more  accurately  it  should  have  been  entitled  “All 
about  Pet  Parrots”.  The  species  covered  are  discussed  primarily  from  their 
aspect  of  their  talking  ability  and  accomplishments  as  pets.  The  book  con¬ 
tains  very  little  on  the  subject  of  breeding. 

The  first  seven  chapters  cover  general  aspects:  A  History  of  Parrot 
Keeping,  Purchasing  a  Parrot,  Cages  and  Toys,  Feeding,  “Polly  Wanna 
Talk?”,  Training  Techniques  and  a  chapter  on  health.  This  section  contains 
much  excellent  advice  for  the  pet  keeper.  In  the  chapter  on  cages  and 
toys,  for  example,  there  are  many  useful  ideas  which  will  increase  the 
health  and  happiness  of  any  pet  parrot. 

The  remaining  chapters  are  devoted  to  the  African  Grey,  Amazons, 
Macaws,  Cockatoos,  Conures,  Budgies  and  Cockatiels,  and  “A  sample 
of  other  interesting  Parrots  and  Mynah  Birds”.  The  species  selected  again 
indicate  that  Mr.  Freud’s  interest  is  primarily  the  pet  bird.  These  chapters 
could  be  described  as  a  review  of  the  existing  literature,  and  those  who 
have  a  fairly  comprehensive  library  of  parrot  books  will  not  find  a  great 
deal  of  original  material.  The  author  quotes  very  extensively  from  the 
Duke  of  Bedford,  Rutgers  and  Norris  and  Rosemary  Low,  as  well  as 
nineteenth  century  writers  such  as  Karl  Russ  and  W.  T.  Greene. 

The  danger  in  this  type  of  compilation  is  that  not  only  is  much  of 
the  material  vastly  out  of  date  (even  that  quoted  from  the  more  recent 
sources,  for  developments  in  parrot  aviculture  have  been  rapid)  but  in¬ 
accuracies  and  legends  are  passed  on  to  the  reader.  We  learn,  for  example, 
that  the  now  extinct  Carolina  Conures  wintered  in  hollow 
trunks  of  dead  cypress  trees  “in  a  state  resembling  hibernation”!  And 
that  the  Roseate  or  Galah  is  the  most  commonly  kept  species  of  cockatoo. 
This  was  true  a  century  ago  -  but  not  today. 

It  is  regrettable  that  a  large  number  of  misspelt  names  of  places,  people 
and  birds  occur  throughout  the  text;  for  example,  the  Blue-eyed  Cock- 


REVIEWS 


265 


atoo’s  scientific  name  is  incorrectly  spelt  as  opthalmica  three  times  on 
page  204. 

The  standard  of  the  colour  photographs  is  quite  high;  unfortunately, 
each  colour  photograph  is  also  reproduced  in  black  and  white  at  a  differ¬ 
ent  point  in  the  text.  This  is  something  of  an  insult  to  the  reader’s  powers 
of  observation.  In  addition  there  are  many  good  black  and  white  photo¬ 
graphs  and  numerous  line  drawings  by  Lydon.  Many  will  feel  that  these 
century-old  illustrations  look  out  of  place  in  a  modern  work  with  colour 
photographs.  Several  species  are  wrongly  captioned;  the  Alexadrine  (in 
colour  and  monochrome)  is  described  as  a  Ringneck  Parrakeet  and  a 
Lydon  drawing  of  a  Ground  Parrakeet  bears  the  caption  “An  early  render¬ 
ing  of  a  Budgie”. 


R.  L. 


LOVEBIRDS  AND  THEIR  COLOUR  MUTATIONS 
By  JIM  HAYWARD 

Published  by  Blandford  Press.  96  pp.  Price:  £5.95. 


It  is  about  20  years  since  Vane’s  book  on  lovebirds  and  parrotlets 
was  first  published.  It  was  an  incredibly  informative  little  book  which, 
unfortunately,  is  now  out  of  print.  Paradoxically,  its  publication  was 
followed  by  a  dearth  of  interest  in  lovebirds  probably  because  parrot 
breeders  were  more  inclined  to  devote  their  aviary  accommodation  to  ex¬ 
pensive  and  profitable  Australian  parrakeets  than  to  lovebirds,  most  species 
of  which  could  be  brought  for  a  few  pounds  a  pair. 

Although  blue  masked  and  lutino  Nyasa  Lovebirds  have  been  known 


266 


REVIEWS 


since  the  1930’s  it  is  only  the  last  decade  which  has  seen  the  establishment 
of  other  new  colour  varieties  of  various  species.  An  almost  incredible 
number  of  colour  varieties  of  the  Peach-faced  species  has  been  produced, 
many  of  which  have  been  given  ridiculous  names  like  “Golden  Cherry”. 
Some  are  dull  washed-out,  almost  dirty  looking  varieties  which  seem 
hardly  worth  perpetuating  and  make  one  wonder  whether  lovebird  enthu¬ 
siasts  would  not  be  doing  aviculture  a  better  service  if  they  devoted 
their  tune  and  effort  to  the  re-establishment  of  aviary  strains  of  normal 
Nyasas  and  Black-cheeks  now  scarce  in  captivity.  However,  this  is  a  per¬ 
sonal  bias  and,  to  be  fair,  there  can  be  few  parrots  more  lovely  than  lutino 
or  so-called  “pastel-blue”  Peach-faced  Lovebirds. 

The  precipitous  drop  in  value,  particularly  on  the  Continent,  of  Aus¬ 
tralian  parakeets  and  the  establishment  of  many  new  lovebird  mutations 
appear  to  have  stimulated  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  lovebird  genus  and 
Jim  Hayward’s  “Lovebirds  and  their  Colour  Mutations”  has  been  pub¬ 
lished  at  just  the  right  time.  A  considerable  amount  of  valuable  infor¬ 
mation  on  the  various  colour  varieties  of  the  Peach-faced  and  other  species 
has  been  collected  together,  probably  for  the  first  time,  and  the  book 
abounds  with  the  theoretical  expectations  from  various  matings.  Few 
people  know  more  about  lovebirds  in  captivity  than  the  author  who  has 
drawn  on  his  considerable  experience  to  describe  the  basic  accommo¬ 
dation  he  uses  for  lovebirds,  as  well  as  their  general  management  and  the 
hazards  associated  with  their  breeding.  The  book  contains  very  useful, 
admirably  concise,  sections  on  diseases  and  on  the  performance  of  simple 
post  mortem  examinations  but  the  chapter  on  genetics  is  probably  too 
brief  for  the  principles  of  Mendel  to  be  made  comprehensive  to  the  un¬ 
initiated.  The  book  is  profusely  illustrated.  The  colour  photographs 
depict  almost  every  species  of  lovebird  and  its  known  colour  varieties, 
but  the  colours  in  some  have  not  been  reproduced  accurately  (e.g.  the 
green  of  the  Fischer’s  Lovebird).  The  black  and  white  illustrations,  except 
the  anatomical  diagrams,  are  hardly  necessary.  For  beginners  with  love¬ 
birds  the  book  gives  a  brief  account  of  their  requirements  in  captivity 
and  for  more  experienced  breeders  it  brings  together  information  about 
mutations  which  has  not  previously  been  generally  available.  It  is  very 
good  value  for  its  price. 


J.R.H. 


REVIEWS 


267 


HOW  TO  KEEP  PARROTS,  COCKATIELS 
AND  MACAWS  IN  CAGE  OR  AVIARY 
By  ROSEMARY  LOW. 

Published  by  John  Bartholomew  &  Sons  Ltd.,  Edingburgh,  Scotland.  1980 


Rosemary  Low  is  widely  known  in  the  avicultural  world  as  a  most 
successful  keeper  and  breeder  of  various  parrots.  I  use  the  word  “parrot” 
in  the  ornithological  sense  to  cover  all  birds  of  the  family  Psittacidae.  It 
would  have  been  better  so  used  in  the  title  of  this  book  which  deals  not 
only  with  parrots,  cockatiels  and  macaws  in  the  restricted  senses  suggested 
by  such  a  title,  but  also  with  parakeets,  lovebirds,  conures,  hanging  par¬ 
rots,  lories,  lorikeets  and  cockatoos. 

It  is  an  attractive  little  book,  published  by  the  same  firm  and  in  the 
same  general  format  as  her  previous  book  on  mynas.  It  is  a  very  convenient 
size  that  will  slip  readily  into  the  pocket  for  train  journeys,  and  is  sort  of 
halfway  between  hardback  and  paper  back  in  consistency.  I  can  fmd  no 
indication  of  price  on  my  review  copy  but  an  enclosed  note  from  the  firm 
has  a  lot  of  (to  me)  mysterious  (and  unexplained)  letters  and  numbers 
listed  among  which  is  “limp  96pp”.  If  this  indicates  a  price  of  less  than 
£1  the  book  is  indeed  a  bargain  by  present  day  standards. 

The  author  deals  first  with  such  general  subjects  as  “Starting  with 
parrots”,  “Feeding”,  “Breeding”,  etc.;  subsequent  chapters  deal  with 
different  main  groups  of  parrots  such  as  the  cockatoos,  the  Australian 
parakeets  and  others.  The  deservedly  popular  Cockatiel  has  a  chapter  to 
itself.  All  the  species  likely  to  be  available  to  the  aviculturist,  and  some 
that  are  not,  are  discussed  in  these  chapters.  My  own  personal  experience 
with  birds  of  this  family  has  been  restricted  (apart  from  boyhood  Budger¬ 
igars)  to  observations  of  various  species  wild  in  Australia  and  Brazil  and  of 
feral  Rose-ringed  Parakeets  “somewhere  in  Kent”.  I  believe,  however, 
that  the  author’s  advice  is  sound  as  well  as  humane.  I  was  glad  to  see 
that  she  stresses  the  cruelty  of  leaving  a  pet  parrot  alone  for  long  periods, 
the  unsuitability  of  standard  parrot  cages  and  the  fact  that  many  parrots 
are  not  primarily  seed  eaters  in  a  wild  state.  Perhaps  it  is  one  welcome 
side  effect  of  the  “permissiveness44  so  deplored  by  far  Right  and  far  Left 
alike  that  we  no  longer  consider  our  captive  birds  dangerously  “pam¬ 
pered”  if  they  are  protected  from  cold  or  given  a  reasonably  varied  diet. 
If  so,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  “reactionary  backlash”  now  widely  fore¬ 
told  will  not  see  our  lorikeets  put  back  on  “plain  healthy  diet”  of  canary 
seed  and  groundsel! 


268 


REVIEWS 


But  back  to  the  book.  It  is  good  to  know  that  some  species  are  being 

bred  in  numbers,  but  are  there  really  now  more  Bourke’s  Parakeets  in 
captivity  than  wild  in  Australia  as  is  claimed  (p.  55)?  Is  Leadbeater’s 
Cockatoo  (surely  one  of  the  most  beautiful  birds  in  the  world)  in  the 
perilous  state  that  seems  implied?  When  I  was  in  Australia  in  1965  I  saw 
numbers  of  both  these  species,  including  a  flock  of  about  200  Leadbeater’s 
Cockatoos  where  they  “ought”  not  to  have  been  (elsewhere  I  saw  this 
species  only  in  pairs  or  in  small  flocks  of  up  to  about  ten  individuals). 
I  should  hate  to  think  that  either  of  these  species  have  since  seriously 
declined.  But  have  they? 

The  book  is  illustrated  with  (unless  I  have  miscounted)  19  colour 
pictures,  mostly  full  page,  depicting  21  species.  Except  in  the  case  of  the 
Hyacinthine  Macaw  (which  seems  to  miss  the  whole  “jizz”  of  its  subject) 
I  found  them  both  attractive  and  accurate;  in  a  few  the  colour  is  not 
quite  right,  but  that  is  no  doubt  due  to  reproduction  and  not  the  fault 
of  the  unnamed  artist.  Why  is  he  or  she  unnamed?  His/her  pictures,  even  if 
not  in  the  top  rank,  seem  to  me  much  better  than  those  of  some  much 
lauded  modern  bird  artists  whose  names  my  kindly  nature  and  libel  laws 
alike  deter  me  from  dropping. 

A  book  of  this  size  obviously  cannot  be  fully  comprehensive,  but  it  is 
surprising  what  a  lot  of  information  it  contains.  Moreover  references  to 
other  works  are  given.  It  can  be  heartily  recommended. 


D.G. 


REVIEWS 


269 


PARROTS  -  THEIR  CARE  AND  BREEDING 
By  ROSEMARY  LOW 

Published  by  the  Blandford  Press.  670  pp.  Price  £22.00 

The  past  decade  has  seen  the  publication  of  a  plethora  of  avicultural 
books  so  many  of  which  have  been  devoted  to  parrots  that  one  might  be 
tempted  to  ask  if  another  is  really  necessary.  However,  it  is  quickly  ap¬ 
parent  to  the  reader  that  “Parrots  -  their  care  and  breeding”  by  Rosemary 
Low  is  quite  different  from  books  by  other  authors  on  the  same  subject. 

Few  aviculturists  are  more  experienced  in  keeping  successfully  many 
species  of  parrot  and  none  can  indulge  their  interest  with  more  care. 
This  outstanding  experience  and  enormous  care  are  evident  in  the  first 
part  of  the  book  in  which  the  author  deals  with  accommodation,  feeding, 
management,  etc.  These  chapters  contain  advice  invaluable  not  only  to 
beginners  but  also  to  experienced  breeders  as  also  does  the  chapter  on 
sickness  in  which  G.  A.  Smith,  whose  knowledge  of  diseases  in  parrots 
is  remarkable,  summarises  in  his  inimitable  way,  an  incredible  amount 
of  useful  information. 

The  second  part  of  the  book  is  concerned  with  the  various  species 
which  are,  or  have  been,  available  to  aviculturists.  The  author’s  practical 
experience,  combined  with  her  considerable  knowledge  gained  meticulo¬ 
usly  from  the  literature  and  from  personal  contacts,  makes  this  section  of 
the  book  unique  in  that  it  contains  a  vast  amount  of  original  inform¬ 
ation.  Much  of  the  emphasis  is  placed  on  breeding  but  more  attention 
could  have  been  given  to  the  part  which  aviculturists  can  play  in  conserv¬ 
ation.  The  Australian  species,  which  undoubtedly  are  ideal  subjects  for 
aviculture,  are  not  given  quite  the  same  attention  as,  for  example,  the 
lories  and  the  South  American  parrots,  and,  although  the  author  refers 
to  the  remarkably  numerous  breeding  successes  with  rare  species  like 
Hooded,  Golden-shouldered  and  Brown’s  Parakeets  in  Dutch,  German  etc 
aviaries,  the  subject  is  never  developed. 

Many  species  are  illustrated  with  colour  photographs  of  excellent 
quality  although  a  few  of  the  illustrations,  which  were  probably  included 
because  they  are  almost  unique,  show  specimens  (e.g.  Painted  Conures, 
Spix’s  Macaw)  which  could  have  been  in  better  feather  condition.The 
book  is  well  written  in  an  interesting  and  scholarly  manner.  Reading  it 
has  given  me  more  pleasure  than  any  other  book  on  aviculture  ever  has. 


J.  R.H. 


270 


INDEX 


Adelaide,  A  few  days  in,  1 70 
Aviculture,  J avanese,  108 

Barclay  Smith,  Miss  Phyllis,  46 
Bar  bet,  Red  and  Yellow,  Breeding  of,  128 
Breeding  Results  for  1979,  Rosemary 
Low,  220 

Bustards,  Great,  Problems  and  Progress 
in  Captive  Breeding  of,  131 

Canberra  Garden,  Birds  of  a,  40 
Cock  of  the  Rock,  Breeding  of,  at 
Houston  Zoo,  1 

Cockatoo,  Gofftn’s,  Breeding,  195 
Cockatoo,  Red-tailed,  Notes  on 
Breeding,  202 
Conure,  Austral,  258 
Conures,  Slender-billed,  Breeding  of,  218 
Cordon-Bleus,  Some  notes  on  keeping,  16 
CORRESPONDENCE: 

Breeding  Laterallus  leucopyrrhus, 

L.  Van  Praet,  60 

A  Wild  Mallard  Problem,  Mrs  P.V. 
Upton,  121 

Crane  Eggs,  Increasing  Fertility  of,  10 

D’Eath,  Mr  J.O.,  The  Collection  of,  105 
Doves,  Stock,  Personal  Observations 
on,  105 

Ducks,  Pink-eared,  Musk  &  Blue-billed, 
Rearing  of,  81 

Dung  and  Leaves,  Use  of  by  nesting 
African  Starlings,  111 

Food,  Some  Sources  of  Live,  33 

Humming  Bird,  Blue-tailed  Emerald, 
Display  of,  147 

Jay,  Beechey’s,  Breeding  of,  123 
Jay,  S teller’s,  141 

Lerwick  Harbour,  Birds  of,  99 
Lonchura  bicolor,  Notes  on,  164 
Lovebird,  Grey-headed,  Breeding  of,  74 

Macaw,  Lear’s,  Discovery  of  Home 
of,  261 

Macaws  at  Rode,  249 
Mousebirds,  Further  Notes  on,  85 


Mynahs,  Greater  Hill,  Observations  of 
Nesting  of,  5 

Mynah,  Rothschilds,  at  Jersey 
Zoological  Park,  30 

News  and  Views,  51,  114,  179. 

Parrots,  Amazon,  Husbandry  of,  232 
Parrots,  Amazon,  Our  Collection  of,  246 
Parrot,  Amazon,  J  amaican  Black-billed, 
Breeding  of,  209 
Parrot,  Amazon,  St.  Lucian,  248 
Parrot,  Amazon,  Yellow-crowned, 
Breeding  the,  211 

Parrot,  Cape,  Western  Race  of,  Breeding 
the,  205 

Parrots,  Feather  Plucking  in,  256 
Parrot,  Horned,  Breeding  the,  187 
Parrot,  Philippine  Hanging,  253 
Parrot,  Vernal  Hanging,  251 
Pigeons,  Rock,  Important  News  of,  176 
Popelairia,  Geographical  Distribution 
and  Description  of,  91 

Reviews: 

The  Birdhouse  Book  (D.  McNeil,  56 
Kalibris  (Dr.  K.-L.  Schuchman,  57 
All  About  Parrots  (A.  Freud),  264 
Lovebirds  and  their  Colour  Mutations 
(J.  Hayward),  265 
How  to  Keep  Parrots,  Cockatiels 
and  Macaws  in  Cage  or  Aviary 
(R.  Low),  267 

Parrots,  Their  Care  and  Breeding 

(R.  Low),  269 

Social  Meeting,  Report  of. 

Vulture,  Griffon,  Breeding  of,  61 

Wax  wing,  Cedar,  Breeding  of,  67 

Zoos,  News  of: 

Denver,  49 
Berlin,  50,  113 

Zosterops,  Breeding  of,  70 


THE  AVICULTURAL 
MAGAZINE 


BEING  THE  JOURNAL  OF 
THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


Edited  by 

MARY  HARVEY 


VOL.  86 

JANUARY  1980  to  DECEMBER  1980 


1980 

(0 


CONTENTS 


TITLE  PAGE . i 

CONTENTS  . . ii 

LIST  OF  CONTRIBUTORS  . iii 

LIST  OF  PLATES  . . iv 

INDEX  . . 270 


LIST  OF  CONTRIBUTORS 


ARMAN,  J.  &  J. 

Breeding  the  Yellow-crowned  Amazon . 211 

BARNICOAT,  F.  C. 

Breeding  the  Grey-headed  Lovebird . . . . . 74 

Notes  on  Lonchura  spermestes  bicolor  . .  164 

BOHNER,  F. 

Some  Notes  on  Breeding  the  Red-tailed  Cockatoo  . . .  202 

COLES,  D. 

News  and  Views . 51,114,179 

COLLAR,  N.  J.  and  GORIUP,  P.D. 

Problems  and  Progress  in  the  Captive  Breeding  of 

The  Great  Bustards  in  Quasi-natural  conditions  . 131 

DELACOUR,  Dr.  Jean 

Miss  Phyllis  Barclay-Smith,  An  Obituary . 46 

GARDENER,  A. 

Breeding  the  Griffon  Vulture . 61 

GIBSON,  L. 

Some  Sources  of  Live  Food . 33 

Breeding  Zosterops  . . 70 

Further  Notes  on  Mousebirds . 85 

Steller’s  Jay . 141 

GOODWIN,  D. 

Birds  in  Lerwick  Harbour . 99 

Some  Notes  on  Keeping  Cordon  Bleus . . . .  .  16 

Personal  Observations  on  Stock  Doves . . . .  151 


GORIUP,  P.D.  (see  Collar,  N.  J.) 


GOURLAY,  Miss  M. 

Vernal  Hanging  Parrots  . .  251 

HATHORNE,  Hazel 

Feather  Plucking  in  Parrots . z56 

ELGAR,  R. 

The  Geographical  Distribution  and  Description  of  the  Genus  Popelairia 

with  Observations  on  the  Wire-crested  Thorntail  P.  popelairia . 91 


Observations  on  the  Display  of  the  Blue-tailed  Emerald 


147 


ELLIS,  M. 

The  Use  of  Dung  and  Leaves  by  Nesting  African  Starlings  ...........  Ill 

F  REUD,  Arthur 

The  Discovery  of  the  Home  of  Lear’s  Macaw . . . .  261 

KLOS,  Prof.  H.-G. 

News  Prom  Berlin  Zoo  . . . . .  50,  113 

LA  RUE,  C 

Increasing  Fertility  of  Crane  Eggs  . . . . 10 

LEWIS,  D. 

Breeding  the  Cedar  Wax  wing . . . .  .  67 

LOW,  Rosemary 

Breeding  the  Scarlet  Cock  of  the  Rock  at  Houston  Zoo  . .  1 

Member’s  Collections  -  Mr.  J.  D’Eath  . . . . 44 

Report  of  Social  Meeting,  16th  January  1980  .  105 

Breeding  Goffin’s  Cockatoo . . . .  195 

Breeding  Results  for  1978-1979  . . . .  220 

LUBBOCK,  M. 

The  Rearing  of  Pink-eared  Ducks,  Musk  Ducks  and  Blue-billed  Ducks  .....  81 
LYVERE,  Paul  A.  (see  Schmitt,  Edward  C.) 

ISERT,  G.  &  H. 

Breeding  the  Western  Race  of  the  Cape  Parrot  . . 205 

JEGGO,  D.  F. 

Rothschild’s  Mynah  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park  ...................  30 

MORRISON,  A. 

Birds  of  a  Canberra  Garden . . . 40 

A  Note  on  Javanese  Aviculture . . . .  108 

NAETHER,  Prof.  C. 

Important  News  Concerning  Rock  Pigeons  . . 176 

NOEGEL,  R. 

First  Captive  Breeding  of  the  Jamaican  Black-billed  Amazon  Parrot  ......  209 

Amazon  Parrot  Husbandry  . . 232 

OUSE,  Andrea  J. 

Observations  of  Nesting  of  Greater  Hill  Mynahs  at  Van  Saun  Park  Zoo .  5 


TODD,  W. 

Breeding  Beechey’s  Jays  at  the  Houston  Zoo . .  123 

QUINQUE,  Dr.  H. 

Breeding  the  Horned  Parrot . 187 

RiSDON,  D.  H.  S. 

The  Macaws  at  Rode . . . .  249 

SPENKELINK-VANSCHAIK,  Mme.  J.  L. 

The  Philippine  Hanging  Parrot . 253 

The  Austral  Conure  .  . . .  258 

SCHMITT,  Edward  C. 

The  Denver  Zoo  Bird  Collection  in  1979  . . . . .  .  49 

Breeding  the  Red  and  Yellow  Barbet  at  Denver  Zoo  (with  Paul  A.  Lyvere)  .  .  128 

SMITH,  G.  A. 

A  Few  Days  in  Adelaide . . . 170 

SILVA,  T. 

Notes  on  Breeding  Slender-billed  Conures . 218 

The  St.  Lucian  Amazon  Parrot . .  .  248 


LIST  OF  PLATES 


Cock  of  the  Rock  chick,  42  days  old,  at  Houston  Zoo  . .  1 

Collecting  Semen  from  a  Red-crowned  Crane  .  . . .  1 2 

Rothschild’s  Mynah  at  Jersey  Zoological  Park  .....................  30 

Griffon  Vulture  Chick  and  parent  in  nest . . . 61 

Pink-eared  Ducklings  hatched  at  the  Wildfowl  Trust  .  . . .  82 

Musk  Ducklings  hatched  at  the  Wildfowl  Trust  . . . . 83 

Line  Drawings  of  tails  of  Wire-crested  Thorntail 

Phase  1  of  Display  of  male . . . . . .  95 

Phase  2  of  Display  of  Male  . .  96 

Mr.  J.  D’Eath  with  some  members  of  his  collection . .  106 

Stanley  Crane  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  J.  D’Eath . . . 107 

Bird  Market  Scenes,  Java  . . . . .  108 

View  in  north-western  Bali,  habitat  of 

the  disappearing  Rothschild’s  Starling . 109 

A  badly  limed  Rothschild’s  Starling 

impounded  by  the  protection  authorities . . . .  109 

Beechey’s  Jays,  32  days  old,  bred  at  Houston  Zoo . . . 123 

Male  Great  Bustard  in  pen  at  Porton  Down,  summer  1979  . .  132 

Embryo  of  Great  Bustard  . . . . 133 

Great  Bustard  Trust’s  first  chick . . . 133 

Male  Horned  Parrot  ( in  colour) . . .  187 

Breeding  pair  of  Horned  Parrots . . . . . . 192 

Horned  Parrot  chick,  aged  12  days . .  .193 

Goffin’s  Cockatoo  aviary . 196 

Coffin’s  Cockatoo  chick,  aged  26  days . 197 

Goffin’s  Cockatoo  chick,  aged  8  weeks  ...  . . 197 


Cape  Parrots  from  Gambia 


.206 


Yellow-crowned  Amazon  Parrot, 

aged  25  days . 214 

aged  39  days .  214 

aged  10  weeks . . . .  .  215 

aged  1514  weeks  . . . .  215 

Slender-billed  Parrakeet . 222 

Dusky  Lories  with  recently  fledged  young .  222 

Tahiti  Blue  Lory  chick,  aged  8  days . . . 223 

Red  Lory  chick,  aged  ten  days . .  223 

Eggs  of  Yellow-shouldered  Amazon  Parrot . 223 

Red  Lory  chick,  aged  about  10  days . . . 225 

Clutch  of  eggs  of  Yellow-shouldered  Amazon . . . .  225 

Philippine  Hanging  Parrot,  aged  six  weeks . . . 254 

Austral  Conure,  aged  about  20  days . . . . . 259 


The  Avicultural  Society 

FOR  THE  STUDY  OF 
BRITISH  &  FOREIGN  BIRDS 
IN  FREEDOM  &  CAPTIVITY 


OFFICERS  AND  COUNCIL 
as  at  31st  December  1980 


President 

DR.  JEAN  DELACOUR 
Vice-Presidents 

F.C.  BARNICOAT  J.O.  D’EATH 

W.  VAN  DEN  BERGH  J.J.  YEALLAND 

D.H.S.  RISDON 

Hon.  Vice-President 
A.A.  PRESTWICH 

Hon.  Editor 
MARY  HARVEY 

Hon.  Secretary-Treasurer 
H.J.  HORSWELL 

Hon.  Assistant  Secretary 
MARY  HARVEY 


Members  of  the  Council 


D.  COLES 
M.  CURZON 
K.  DOLTON 
M.W.  ELLIS 
MISS  J.  FENTON 
MRS  R.  GRANTHAM 
R.  HARVEY 


PROF.  J.  R.  HODGES 
K.C.R.  HOWMAN 
K.J.  LAWRENCE 
M.  LUBBOCK 
R.  OXLEY 
R.C.J.  SAWYER 
W.  TIMMIS 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 
PAST  AND  PRESENT 


1894-  1895 

1895-  1920 

1921-  1925 
1926-  1955 
1956-  1963 
1964-  1967 
1968-  1972 
1972 


PRESIDENTS 

The  Countess  of  Bective 
The  Rev.  and  Hon.  F.  G.  DUTTON 
(later  CANON,  and  LORD  SHERBORNE) 
The  Rev.  H.  D.  Astley 
A.  Ezra.  O.B.E. 

D.  Seth-Smith 
Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 
A.  A.  Prestwich 
Dr.  J.  Delacour 


VICE-PRESIDENTS 

1894-  1895 

The  Rev.  and  Hon. 

1949-  1963 

Miss.  E.  Maud  Knobel 

F.  G.  Dutton 

1950-  1955 

D.  Seth-Smith 

1895-  1900 

The  Right  Hon.  the 

1952-  1961 

E.  J.  Boose y 

Baroness  Berkeley 

1958-  1970 

Allen  Silver 

1896-  1899 

Sir  H.  S.  Boynton,  Bt. 

1962-  1978 

G.  S.  Mottershead 

1899-  1906 

A.  F.  Wiener 

1963-  1974 

Sir  Crawford 

1906-  1937 

Her  Grace  the  Duchess 

McCullagh,  Bt. 

of  Bedford 

1964-  1967 

A.  A.  Prestwich 

1925-  1927 

Her  Grace  the  Duchess 

1967-  1973 

J.  J.  Yealland 

of  Wellington 

1970 

Miss  P.  Barclay- 

1925-  1935 

The  Lady  Dunleath 

Smith,  C.B.E. 

1925-  1942 

H.  R.  Fillmer 

1973 

D.  H.  S.  Risdon 

1925-  1951 

Dr.  E.  Hopkinson, 

1973 

J.  D’Eath 

C.M.G.,  D.S.O. 

1974-  1979 

W. Conway 

1938-  1962 

J.  Sped  an  Lewis 

1978 

W.  Van  Den  Bergh 

1980- 

F.C  BARNICOAT 

HON.  SECRETARIES 

1894-  1896 

Dr  C.  S.  Simpson 

1914-  1916 

T.  H.  Newman 

1896-  1899 

H.  R.  Fillmer 

Dr  A.  G.  Butler 

1899-  1901 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

1916-  1919 

Miss  R.  Alderson 

1901-  1903 

R.  Phillipps 

Dr  A.  G.  Butler 

1903-  1904 

R.  Phillipps 

Dr  A.  G. Butler 

1919-  1920 

Dr.  L.  Lovell-Keays 
Dr  A.  G.  Butler 

1904-  1909 

T.  H.  Newman 

1921  -  1922 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 

1922-  1948 

Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 

1909-  1914 

R.  I.  Pocock 

1949-  1970 

A.  A.  Prestwich 

Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 

1971 

H.  J.  Horswell 

HON.  ASSISTANT  SECRETARIES 
1950-  1 970  Miss  Kay  Bonner 
1971  Mrs  Mary  Harvey 


HON. 

TREASURERS 

1894-  1897 

H.  R.  Fillmer 

1917-  1919 

A.  Ezra 

1897-  1899 

O.  E.  Cresswell 

1920 

Dr.  L.  Lovell-Keays 

1899-  1901 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

1921-  1922 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

1901-1906 

W.  H.  St.  Quintin 

1923-  1948 

Miss  E.  Maud  Knobel 

1906-  1913 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

1949-  1970 

A.  A.  Prestwich 

1913-  1917 

B.  C.  Thomasett 

1971 

H.  J.  Horswell 

OFFICERS  OF  THE  AVICULTRUAL  SOCIETY 


HON.  EDITORS 

1804-  1896 

Dr.  C.  S.  Simpson 

1924 

The  Marquess  of 

H.  R.  Fillmer 

Tavistock  (later  His 

1896-  1899 

IT  R.  Fillmer 

Grace  the  Duke  of 

1899-  1901 

O.  E.  Cresswell 

BEDFORD) 

1901-  1907 

D.  Seth -Smith 

1925 

The  Marquess  of 

1907-  1908 

D.  Seth -Smith 

Tavistock 

Dr.  A.  G.  Butler 

D.  Seth-Smith 

1908-  1909 

D.  Seth -Smith 

1926-  1934 

D.  Seth-Smith 

Frank  Finn 

1935 

The  Hon.  Anthony 

1909-  1910 

Frank  Finn 

— 

Chaplin  (Later  the 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

Right  Hon. 

1910-  1912 

J.  Lewis  Bonhote 

Viscount  Chaplin) 

1912-  1917 

The  Rev.  H.  D.  Astley 

Miss  E.  F.  Chawner 

1917-  1920 

Dr.  Graham  Renshaw 

1936-  1938 

Miss  E.  F.  Chawner 

1920-  1923 

R.  I.  POCOCK 

1939-  1973 

Miss  Phyllis 

D.  Seth -Smith 

1974-  1978 

Barclay-Smith. 

C.B.E. 

J.  J.  Yealland 

1979 

Mary  Harvey 

MEDALLISTS  OF  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


THE  PRESIDENT’S  MEDAL 
Miss  Phyllis  Barclay-Smith,  C.B.E.,  1 4th  March,  1960 
Arthur  Alfred  Prestwich,  1 4th  March,  1960 
Dr.  Jean  Delacour.  13th  March,  1967 
Walter  Van  Den  Bergh,  2 1st  February,  1973 


THE  KNOBEL  AWARD 
Sten  Bergman,  D.S.C.,  14th  March,  1960 
CURT  AF  ENEHJELM,  1 4th  March,  1960 

THE  EVELYN  DENNIS  MEMORIAL  AWARD 
Mrs.  K.  M.  Scamell,  13th  November,  1967 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY  OF  QUEENSLAND 


Welcomes  new  members 

An  Australian  Society  catering  for  all  birds  both  in  captivity  and  in  the  wild.  We 
put  out  a  bi-monthly  magazine  on  all  aspects  of  aviculture  and  conservation. 

Anyone  interested  in  becoming  a  member,  please  contact: 

Ray  Garwood,  19  Fahey’s  Road,  Albany  Creek,  4035  Queensland,  Australia. 

Annual  subscription  rates  are:  1 2.00  Australian  dollars  surface  mail 

18.00  Australian  dollars  air  mail 


BIRD  BOOKS 

BOUGHT  AND  SOLD 
Overseas  Enquiries  Invited 


Please  offer  those  books  surplus  to  your  require¬ 
ments  to  the  leading  world  specialist. 


LIMITED  EDITION ,  The  Birds  of  Prey  of  the  British 
Islands,  20  colour  plates  by  J.C.  Harrison,  descriptive  text 
by  David  Evans,  half  leather,  slipcase,  folio,  275  signed 
copies.  Unique  beautiful  bird  book.  £450  inc.  postage. 


David  Evans  Fine  BirdBooks 

Marvins  Farmhouse,  Kingston  Deverill,  Warminster, 
Wiltshire,  BAI2  7HG.  Tel.  (09853)  234 


THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY 


The  Avicultural  Society  was  founded  in  1894  for  the  study  of  British  and  foreign 
birds  in  freedom  and  captivity.  The  Society  is  international  in  character,  having 
members  throughout  the  world. 

Membership  subscription  rates  per  annum:  British  Isles  £8.00;  Overseas  -  £9.00 
(20.00  US  dollars).  The  subscription  is  due  on  1st  January  of  each  year  and  those 
joining  the  Society  later  in  the  year  will  receive  back  numbers  of  the  current  volume 
of  the  AVICULTURAL  MAGAZINE. 

The  subscription  rate  for  non-members  is:  British  Isles  and  Europe  -  £9.00; 
outside  Europe  -  £10.00  (25.00  US  dollars). 

All  overseas  rates  include  airmail  postage. 

Subscriptions,  changes  of  address,  orders  for  back  numbers,  etc.,  should  be  sent  to: 
THE  HON.  SECRETARY  AND  TREASURER,  THE  AVICULTURAL  SOCIETY, 
WINDSOR  FOREST  STUD,  MILL  RIDE,  ASCOT,  BERKSHIRE  SL5  8LT. 


NEW  MEMBERS 


Mr.  D.  Appleton,  2283  Southwood  Drive,  White  Bear  Lake,  Minnesota  55110,  U.S.A. 
Mrs  J.A.  Brodhead,  403  Westwood  Office  Park,  Fredericksburg,  Virginia  22401,  U.S.A. 
Mr.  J.D.  Cahill,  375  Rayners  Lane,  Pinner,  Middlesex. 

Mr.  D.M.  Campbell,  D.D.S.,  22554  Ventura  Boulevard,  No.  118  Woodland  Hills, 
California  91364,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  J.E.  Fouts,  Box  148,  Halstead,  Kansas,  67056,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  R.W.  Grant,  614  W.  Woodland  Avenue,  San  Antonia,  Texas  78212,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  G.  Panarello,  111  Marshal  Avenue,  Staten  Island,  New  York  10314,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  D.M.  Stanford  Head,  21  Cameron  Road,  Bromley,  Kent. 

Mr.  W.  Steinigeweg,  Wallgartenstrasse  20  d,  D-3167  Burgdorf,  Germany. 

M.  &  H.  Schaper,  Grazer  Strasse  20,  Postfach  SI 0669,  3000  Hanover  81,  Germany. 


DONATIONS 


The  Society  is  most  grateful  to  Mr.  S.C.D.L.  Lacey  for  his  generosity. 


CHANGE  OF  ADDRESS 


Mr.  R.  Adams  to,  46  Hillshaw  Park  Way,  Ripon,  N.  Yorks. 

Mr.  B.C.R.  Bertram  to,  Flat  1,  the  Zoological  Society  of  London,  Regents  Park, 
London  NW1  4RY 

Mr.  R.S.  Bradshaw,  to  5c  Stewart  House,  Sycamore  Avenue,  Chandler’s  Ford,  East¬ 
leigh,  Hants. 

Mr.  B.A.  Cutler,  1201  Santa  Yney,  Apt.  B,  Los  Osos,  California  93402,  U.S.A. 

Mr.  N.  Livanos  to,  P.O.  Box  831,  Newcastle,  N.S.W.  2300,  Australia. 

Mr.  R.L.  Restall  FZS,  MIPA,  MBOU  to,  Takanewa,  P.O.  Box  23,  Tokyo  108,  Japan 
Mr  J.H.  Swift  to,  13  Crimscote,  Crimscote,  Stratford-Upon-Avon. 

Mr.  M.  Van  Elmbt  to,  Au  du  Bois  -  L’Eveque,  7B  -  5141  Andoy-Wierde,  Belgium. 


Published  by  The  Avicultural  Society,  Windsor  Forest  Stud,  Mill  Ride,  Ascot, 
Berkshire,  SL5  8LT  ,  England. 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Unwin  Brothers  Ltd.,  The  Gresham  Press,  Old  Woking,  Surrey 


O  Xfoosv£^  «  O 

“LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlinillSNl'YlVINOSHillAIS  ! 
r-  z  £  2  «-  2 

2  .  m  /SSSSX  2  xSSwTx  “  jjSSif*  o 

Z 


1  NOlinillSNI  NVIN0SH1IIAIS  S3IUVUan  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN 

in  2  _ ...  co  Z  y.  </>  2 

2  .<  s  ,*  <  aVVk.-  S  < 

Ay*  *  Z 


^  g  ise  ^§i 

z 

>  'W*  2  ^  >  _ 

I  L I  B  R  A R  I  ES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlinillSNI  NVINOSHIIIAIS^ 

“  __  <o  — ;  co 

/g2|S\  -  /s^aDSs.  « 

3J  < 
cr 


NOlinillSNI  NVINOSH1IINS  S3ldVaai1  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN 


LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlinillSNI  NVINOSHlllNS 

Z  t  g  2  X  g  2  CO 

8  I  mm  I  i  isfe  la  * 

f  Wi%#i  _ 

2  *  .Vjjr  >  «g  '  > "  2  XfoosvA^X  > 

^NOlinXIiSN^NVINOSHlIWS^Sa  I  a’vu  a  nf  LI  BRAR  I  ES  ^SMITHSON  IAN  ^ 

S  I  ^raSK  “  4ft*  1 


1  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlinillSNI  NVINOSH1HNS 
p  7  ^vra  °  xrSwTv  r  o 

^  b 


h* 

co 

z 


j  NOlinillSNI  NVINOSHillAIS  S3ldVdail  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN 

CO  2  ___  CO  2  -♦*.  CO  2 

<  s:  E  ^ 


_  z  '*  _j  Z 

jail  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlinillSNI  NVINOSHIIl 
r  z  r-  _  z  r* 

O  o 

CD  ‘  ”  - 

X) 


^  _  rn 

tion" NoiinmsNi  nvinoshiiws  S3 1 ava a n“u BRAR I es^smithsoni, 

1  CO  z  CO  Z  w 

2  ..<  2  ^.<  £  xSSw>Ti 

x  s  tig  id  5  a 

"rfM. .wffl  x  \sS^..SSsl  o  ■m's/zM  x 


\  _  _.(J  f 

\  5  N-®0^ 

U  a  n2U  BRAR  I  ES^SMITHSONIAN^  INSTITUTION  NOIlfUllSNI  NVIN0SH1I 

—  fA  ""  (D  ™ 

■?-A  —1  ./  /^/  ^2,  H  H 

H  li&N 

C  C 


Q  Z  O  _  X^OlllS^X  Q 

ITION^NOlinillSNlAlVINOSHlIlNS  S3  I  ava  a  IT^LI  B  RAR  I  ESZSMITHSONI 
z  r*  v  2!  r*  2 

O  Z  \v  o  XlvriroX  Z  /^A  0 


ugn  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOlinillSNI  NVIN0SH1I 
2  >  12  ^ ^  z  \  £  ^2 

^  E  -  A  E  ~ 


S  •’.^F  >  '^52^  S  '\)^v  l’ 

ITION  AlOlifUllSNI  NVINOSHilWS^SHI  dVdaiAlB  RAR  I  ES  SMITHSONI 

CO  . — .  7  \  C/5  *-3» 


O  ,w’  z  o 

Z  «J  z 

dail  LIBRARIES  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  NOIlfUllSNI  NVIN0SH1I 
*“  2  r;  Z  £ 

O  ,  _  /wW<X  O  xt^vovTx  vv