As I was crossing the dry stream bed about a hundred yards below Boot Spring, I suddenly saw within twenty-five feet of me a female warbler with nest material in her bill. I stopped instantly and, remaining motionless, was greatly relieved to see the warbler continue undisturbed by my presence. In a moment she dropped to the ground and entered the nest, which was on the sloping right bank of the stream about six feet back from the margin of the rocky stream bed. After working for about twenty seconds the warbler left the nest and flew down the stream bed a hundred and fifty feet. In twelve minutes she was back with more nest material to repeat the performance. Subsequent excursions for building material during the ensuing hour were of three, twelve, six, and twenty-two minutes’ duration. Each time she worked at the nest only fifteen to twenty seconds, until the last trip (at 11:43 A. M.) when she worked about two minutes and then departed, probably to feed, for she did not return again while I watched. Each trip to the nest had been made undeviatingly, without any hesitation, from the stream bed or from the forest to the west. Alighting almost directly above the nest, without a pause she dropped through the branches by three or four stages and promptly entered the nest, placed the material, and snuggled down working it into place. After a few moments she seemed to have completed this to her satisfaction, and, leaving the nest, she flew up to the branches ten or twelve feet above, fed for a few moments on the insects among the fresh green leaves of the little oaks and maples, and went away for more material.When it was evident that the nest building was over for the time I went over to the nest and, examining it more closely, found that it was nearly built. The following day, May 8, it seemed to be finished.
As I was crossing the dry stream bed about a hundred yards below Boot Spring, I suddenly saw within twenty-five feet of me a female warbler with nest material in her bill. I stopped instantly and, remaining motionless, was greatly relieved to see the warbler continue undisturbed by my presence. In a moment she dropped to the ground and entered the nest, which was on the sloping right bank of the stream about six feet back from the margin of the rocky stream bed. After working for about twenty seconds the warbler left the nest and flew down the stream bed a hundred and fifty feet. In twelve minutes she was back with more nest material to repeat the performance. Subsequent excursions for building material during the ensuing hour were of three, twelve, six, and twenty-two minutes’ duration. Each time she worked at the nest only fifteen to twenty seconds, until the last trip (at 11:43 A. M.) when she worked about two minutes and then departed, probably to feed, for she did not return again while I watched. Each trip to the nest had been made undeviatingly, without any hesitation, from the stream bed or from the forest to the west. Alighting almost directly above the nest, without a pause she dropped through the branches by three or four stages and promptly entered the nest, placed the material, and snuggled down working it into place. After a few moments she seemed to have completed this to her satisfaction, and, leaving the nest, she flew up to the branches ten or twelve feet above, fed for a few moments on the insects among the fresh green leaves of the little oaks and maples, and went away for more material.
When it was evident that the nest building was over for the time I went over to the nest and, examining it more closely, found that it was nearly built. The following day, May 8, it seemed to be finished.
Eggs.—Two complete clutches have been found, each containing four eggs. Four eggs collected and measured were 18 by 13.3, 18 by 13.5, 18 by 13.5, and 18.5 by 14 millimeters. They were creamy white, speckled, and blotched in a wreath at the larger end with “vinaceous fawn,” “light brownish drab,” and “cinnamon drab.”
Egg laying, in the one instance observed, was at daily intervals (May 12-15); the first egg was laid four days after completion of the nest. Incubation had begun May 16, the day after the last egg was laid. The length of the incubation period is not known. Females collected on May 12 (Peet), May 17 (Van Tyne), and May 20 (Sutton) had well-marked incubation patches; males collected at the same time had no patch.
Plumages.—The Colima warbler differs from its nearest relative, the Virginia’s warbler, in being larger; darker, less gray, above; crown paler; rump and upper tail coverts darker and richer in color; yellow of throat and breast absent or, if present, more green and more diffuse; sides and flanks more brownish; crissum darker, more aniline yellow; sexes much more nearly alike. The adult female Colima warbler is slightly darker than the male and is more brown below. It is apparently never yellow on the breast.
The juvenal plumage (known from only one specimen) differs from the adult plumage in lacking the crown spot and in having two buffy wing bars. The rump is also much more yellow (less green) and the crissum is more yellow (less orange). The young Colima warbler differs from the young Virginia’s warbler in having a larger bill, darker plumage, and a less ochraceous rump.
The fall plumage differs from that of the spring in being “darker and browner throughout, the gray of head a good deal obscured by deep olive or light brownish olive; crown patch orange rufous; under parts darker with whitish area in middle of belly more distinct and under tail-coverts duller, more nearly aniline yellow” (Bangs, 1925).
George Miksch Sutton’s fine color plate (Van Tyne, 1936, frontispiece) of the Colima warbler is apparently the only published figure of the species.
Behavior.—In Texas, the Colima warbler was observed feeding on insects (which were not identified), but nothing further has been recorded about its food. All observers seem to agree that it is not a shy bird, although in its preferred cover, the female seems elusive and nests are difficult to find. Sutton has remarked that they are “rather deliberate, even vireo-like in their movements” (Van Tyne and Sutton, 1937). In the Chisos Mountains, they frequented especially the young maples and deciduous oaks along the banks of the dry, boulder-strewn stream bed, and elsewhere on the steep mountain slopes their preference for clumps of small oaks was noted.
Voice.—The call note of the Colima warbler is a very sharp, almost explosivepsit. Its common song is a continuous trill, like that of the chipping sparrow, but shorter (lasting 3 to 4 seconds), more musical, and ending with two separate notes slightly lower in scale. A second, rarer, and more varied song is so clear that it can be heard for threeor four hundred feet through the woods although it does not seem loud when heard from nearby. It is perhaps this song that Brandt (1940) describes as resembling the song of the eastern redstart. E. C. Jacot (MS.) reports that the males usually start singing when “a person approaches the territory of a pair, and continues to sing until the intruder has passed.” In the Chisos Mountains, Tex., the males were persistent singers. Once several sang even after a dense fog had silenced most other species. They sang usually from bushes and small trees between periods of feeding and moving about but sometimes remained for a while on a higher perch (up to 20 feet), singing at frequent intervals.
DISTRIBUTION
Range.—Chisos Mountains, Tex., and mountains of northeastern Mexico; probably winters in Colima, Michoacán, and Sinaloa.
The Colima warbler has been recorded from: Texas (Chisos Mountains); Coahuila (Sierra Guadalupe and Diamante Pass); Tamaulipas (Miquihuana); Michoacán (Patamba and Sierra Ozumatlan); Sinaloa (5 miles north of Santa Lucia); Colima (Sierra Nevada).
Egg dates.—Texas: 2 records, May 15 and 20.
VERMIVORA LUCIAE (Cooper)
LUCY’S WARBLER
Plates 18, 19
HABITS
Dr. J. G. Cooper discovered this tiny and inconspicuous warbler at Fort Mojave, on the Arizona side of the Colorado River, in the spring of 1861, and named it in honor of Miss Lucy Baird, daughter of Prof. Spencer F. Baird. It might well have been named the mesquite warbler, as its distribution coincides very closely with that of this tree, which seems to furnish its favorite home, most of its nesting sites, and much of its foraging area.
Harry S. Swarth (1905) wrote of conditions then existing:
South of Tucson, Arizona, along the banks of the Santa Cruz River, lies a region offering the greatest inducements to the ornithologist. The river, running underground for most of its course, rises to the surface at this point, and the bottom lands on either side are covered, miles in extent, with a thick growth of giant mesquite trees, literally giants, for a person accustomed to the scrubby bush that grows everywhere in the desert regions of the southwest, can hardly believe that these fine trees, many of them sixty feet high and over, really belong to the same species. This magnificent grove is included in the Papago Indian Reservation, which is the only reason for the trees surviving as long as they have, since elsewhere every mesquite large enough to be used as firewood has been ruthlessly cut down, to grow up again as a scraggly bush.
But this magnificent forest did not long remain in its pristine glory. When I was in Arizona with Frank Willard in 1922, we had looked forward with keen anticipation to visiting the mesquite forest, where he had told me that we should find a thick stand of big trees covering a large area, and some wonderful bird life. We were disappointed in the forest, for the Papago Indians had been cutting down the larger trees unmercifully and had made a network of cart roads all through it for hauling out the firewood. There were only a few large trees left, more or less scattered, and between them many open spaces in which were thickets of small mesquites and thorn or patches of medium-sized mesquites and hackberries. But we were not disappointed in the bird life, for here and in other parts of Pima County, wherever there were mesquites, we found Lucy’s warblers really abundant and breeding. The forest fairly teemed with bird life, from the graceful Mexican goshawks soaring overhead to the Gambel’s quails whistling on the ground. The constant cooing of the white-winged doves was almost too monotonous, but the rich song of the Arizona cardinal, mingled with the voices of the orioles, towhees, wrens, and vireos made a delightful chorus, among which the sweet song of Lucy’s warbler was prominent.
Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1914) writes, referring to the Colorado Valley: “On the California side, both at Riverside Mountain and above Blythe, Lucy warblers were numerous, and very closely confined to the narrow belt of mesquite. The singing males, each representing the forage area and nesting site of a pair, were spaced out very uniformly, so that an estimated strip of about 200 yards in length belonged to each. The birds foraged out to a limited extent from the mesquites towards the river into the arrowweed and willows, and away from the river at the mouths of washes into the ironwoods and palo verdes. But the metropolis was always most emphatically the mesquites.”
Nesting.—M. French Gilman (1909) had considerable experience with the nesting habits of Lucy’s warbler along the Gila River in Arizona, of which he says:
Four general types of nesting sites were noticed, in the following order of frequency: in natural cavities, under loose bark, in woodpecker holes, and in deserted Verdins’ nests. Of 23 nests observed, 12 were in natural cavities, 4 under loose bark, 4 in woodpecker holes, and three in Verdins’ nests. Natural cavities were of various kinds. Some were where a limb had been broken off; others in the crack made by a large branch splitting from the trunk; and again a decayed spot furnisht a sufficient hollow to conceal the nest. In all cases the site was in a sheltered or protected position; that is, the trunk leaned enough to shade the entrance from above. A mesquite tree was usually selected, tho others were taken. Of the nests observed, 15 were in mesquites, 5 in palo verde, 2 in ironwood, and one in catsclaw.* * *The nests were small and compact and well hidden in their cavity. Only twice did protruding material betray the location. In one case nesting material protruded from a woodpecker hole, and the other was a bulky nest that showed from each side of a split branch. This last nest I thought must belong to a House Finch, but investigation showed warbler ownership. Nests were made of bark, weeds, and mesquite leaf-stems, and lined with fine bark, horse and cow hair, a few feathers and sometimes a little rabbit fur. The site averaged six and one-half feet from the ground, the lowest being 18 inches and the highest 15 feet.* * *In nest-building the female seems to do all the work, her mate sometimes accompanying her on trips to and from the tree, but more frequently flitting about the tops of adjacent trees, occasionally uttering his little warble. One pair I watcht had a nest in a Texas Woodpecker hole in a palo verde tree about 15 feet from the ground. The female brought material to the nest three times in two minutes, then a seven minute interval, followed by two trips in three minutes. The male accompanied her on two trips then made himself scarce. He indulged in no singing and both birds were silent, tho in many cases one or both gave the call note at intervals.
Four general types of nesting sites were noticed, in the following order of frequency: in natural cavities, under loose bark, in woodpecker holes, and in deserted Verdins’ nests. Of 23 nests observed, 12 were in natural cavities, 4 under loose bark, 4 in woodpecker holes, and three in Verdins’ nests. Natural cavities were of various kinds. Some were where a limb had been broken off; others in the crack made by a large branch splitting from the trunk; and again a decayed spot furnisht a sufficient hollow to conceal the nest. In all cases the site was in a sheltered or protected position; that is, the trunk leaned enough to shade the entrance from above. A mesquite tree was usually selected, tho others were taken. Of the nests observed, 15 were in mesquites, 5 in palo verde, 2 in ironwood, and one in catsclaw.* * *
The nests were small and compact and well hidden in their cavity. Only twice did protruding material betray the location. In one case nesting material protruded from a woodpecker hole, and the other was a bulky nest that showed from each side of a split branch. This last nest I thought must belong to a House Finch, but investigation showed warbler ownership. Nests were made of bark, weeds, and mesquite leaf-stems, and lined with fine bark, horse and cow hair, a few feathers and sometimes a little rabbit fur. The site averaged six and one-half feet from the ground, the lowest being 18 inches and the highest 15 feet.* * *
In nest-building the female seems to do all the work, her mate sometimes accompanying her on trips to and from the tree, but more frequently flitting about the tops of adjacent trees, occasionally uttering his little warble. One pair I watcht had a nest in a Texas Woodpecker hole in a palo verde tree about 15 feet from the ground. The female brought material to the nest three times in two minutes, then a seven minute interval, followed by two trips in three minutes. The male accompanied her on two trips then made himself scarce. He indulged in no singing and both birds were silent, tho in many cases one or both gave the call note at intervals.
Others have mentioned nests of Lucy’s warblers in verdins’ nests, probably all old winter nests of the male verdin, relined to suit the warbler. O. W. Howard (1899) records such a nest and adds: “Other nests were placed in crevices along river banks where roots of trees were sticking out and one or two were found in natural cavities of the Giant Cactus, or in woodpecker holes therein.” We found a nest with young in a cavity in the bleached skeleton of a fallen giant cactus, where I set up my camera and took several photographs of the bird feeding the young. A very pretty nest of this warbler is in the Thayer collection in Cambridge; it was evidently built in the fork of a mesquite limb, supported by a cluster of old and fresh, green twigs; it is made externally of the leaves, petioles, fine green twigs, and flower clusters of the mesquite and is decorated with a few feathers of the white-winged dove; it is lined internally with fine fibers, white cows' hair and black horsehair, and more dove feathers; it measures 4 by 3 inches in outside diameter and 2 by 11⁄3inside; the outside height is nearly 3 inches, and the inside cup is about 13⁄4inches deep. A set in my collection was taken from a hole 3 feet above the base of a sandy bank along a wash near the San Pedro River, in Arizona.
Eggs.—Lucy’s warbler lays from 3 to 7 eggs, but the set usually consists of 4 or 5; the larger sets are rare, but O. W. Howard has found two sets of 7, and several sets of 6 have been recorded. The eggs are ovate to short ovate and have very little lustre. The white or creamy white ground color is finely speckled with shades of “chestnut,” “bay,” or “auburn.” The eggs that have markings in the darker shades of “chestnut” and “bay” frequently have a scattering of minute spots of “brownish drab” that are often lacking on eggs with the lighter markings of “auburn.” The spots are usually concentratedat the large end. The measurements of 50 eggs average 14.6 by 11.4 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure16.5by 11.5, 14.6 by12.0,13.2by 11.2, and 13.7 by10.7millimeters. (Harris.)
Young.—The period of incubation seems to be unknown, and I can find no information on the development and care of the young. Evidence points to the conclusion that incubation and brooding are performed entirely by the female, and that at least two broods are reared in a season. Mr. Swarth (1905) says that “several broods are probably raised, as unfinished nests and incomplete sets were found at the same time that broods of young as large as the adults were seen flying about.”
Plumages.—Ridgway (1902) says that the young in juvenal plumage are “essentially like adults, but much clearer white beneath; no trace of chestnut on crown; upper tail-coverts ochraceous-buff instead of chestnut; middle and greater wing-coverts tipped with whitish or pale buffy, producing two rather distinct bars.” He might have added that the tertials are edged with cinnamon, and that the primaries and rectrices are edged and tipped with white.
There is apparently a partial postjuvenal molt, some time during the summer, when all the plumage except the flight feathers, remiges, and rectrices, is renewed. Young birds now become very similar to adults, but can be recognized by the juvenal wings and tail until the edgings wear off. I can find no evidence of a prenuptial molt in either young or old birds. I have seen adults in complete postnuptial molt in August. Fall birds are tinged with brown above and with pale brownish buff below; the chestnut crown patch is concealed by very broad brownish gray tips. Females are not always distinguishable from males, but usually the chestnut on the crown and upper tail coverts is paler and more restricted.
Food.—Nothing definite seems to have been published on the food of Lucy’s warbler, but it is evidently largely, if not wholly, insectivorous, as it is often seen foraging in the foliage and flower clusters of the mesquites and in other trees. Dr. W. P. Taylor tells me that he has seen it feeding on the pendant sprays of ocotillo flowers, probably gleaning insects or other materials from the exterior. In late spring when the mesquites, palo verdes, the various cacti, and even the saguaros burst into full bloom, these gorgeous desert plants are a blaze of color and attract myriads of insects.
Behavior.—Mr. Gilman (1909) says that “shyness about the nest seems to be characteristic of these birds.” He was seldom able to flush one from its nest. "In three cases only, did the parent birds show what might be called proper amount of solicitude when the nest was approacht. Some of them seemed rather touchy about their nests,leaving them if the nest were toucht even so lightly.” Some nests, with incomplete sets, were deserted after they had been inspected; but others were not. “They took good care not to sing in the nest tree, preferring to confine their performances to trees some distance away. The male would frequently meet me several rods from the nest and flit from tree to tree singing at short intervals. Once I made a complete circuit of the nest tree and he accompanied me the entire distance. This was an exceptional case of course. While going from tree to tree and singing, the bird usually tried to keep hidden as much as possible and was rather successful in the effort.”
However nest-shy the bird may be when there are eggs in the nest that she does not want discovered, the bird that I watched was not at all shy about her nest, nor was she lacking in parental devotion. For, although my camera stood within a few feet of the nest and I was standing beside it in plain sight, she came repeatedly to feed her young. I should say that these birds are more retiring than shy.
W. L. Dawson (1923) writes: “Albeit an active creature and zealous in song, the Lucy Warbler becomes almost invisible in its habitual setting, and the difficulty of detection is heightened by the bird’s instinctive wariness. Again and again I have known a bird which had seemed quite engrossed in song to fall silent at the stir of a footstep a hundred yards away.”
Voice.—Mr. Dawson (1923) says: “The Lucy Warbler is a loud and industrious singer, but the song has a curious generic quality very difficult to describe. It isWarblersong, rather than the song of the Lucy Warbler. It is, perhaps, most like that of the Pileolated Warbler (Wilsonia pileolata) in quality. After that, it reminds one of the Yellow Warbler’s song, having the same vivacious cadence, but not being so sharply piercing. Again its breathless, haphazard quality suggests one of the Buntings; and I once followed its tantalizing seductions for half an hour under the delusion that I was on the track of the coveted Beautiful Bunting (Passerina versicolor pulchra).”
Dr. Grinnell (1914) says that the song “resembles the song of the Sonora yellow warbler in length and frequency of utterance and somewhat in quality, but with a distinct hurried and lisping effect reminding one of the song of the Lazuli bunting.” Several others have noted the resemblance to the song of the yellow warbler. Mrs. Florence Merriam Bailey (1923) puts the song in syllables as follows: “whee-tee, whee-tee, whee-tee, whee-tee, whee-tee, whee-tee, whee-tee, whee-tee, whee-tee, wheet, and its call was a faintchip.”
Field marks.—There are no very striking marks on Lucy’s warbler; it is clothed in quiet colors and in general appearance suggests a warbling vireo. The chestnut crown patch of the male can be seen under favorable conditions, but on the female it is seldom in evidence.The chestnut upper tail coverts can be seen only when the bird is in certain positions. Its activity will mark it as a wood warbler, and it is the only one of this family likely to be found on its breeding grounds among the mesquites in the nesting season.
Enemies.—Mr. Howard (1899) says that “many nests are destroyed by wood-rats and snakes.” And Mr. Dawson (1923) writes:
Dwarf Cowbirds are prominent in the formidable host of enemies which this tiny bird must face. Sometimes the warblers are able to entrench themselves behind apertures so narrow that the Cowbird cannot get in; and once we saw the Cowbird’s foundling resting unharmed, but also harmless, upon the “doorstep,” not less than two inches distant from the warbler’s eggs. Another nest, more exposed, contained three eggs of the arch enemy, and had been deserted by the troubled owners. The Gila Woodpecker is an especially persistent enemy. Accustomed as he is to poking and prying, he seems to take a fiendish delight in discovering and devouring as many Lucy Warblers’ eggs as possible. We caught several of these villains red-handed, and we found reason to believe that more than half of the nests in a certain section had been wrecked by them. Add to these the depredations of lizards, snakes, and, possibly, rats, and the wonder is that these tiny gray waifs are able to reproduce at all.
DISTRIBUTION
Range.—Southwestern United States to central Mexico.
Breeding range.—Lucy’s warbler breedsnorthto southern Utah (Beaverdam Wash, Zion National Park; Calf Creek, Garfield County; and the San Juan River); and southwestern Colorado (Montezuma County near Four Corners).Eastto Colorado (near Four Corners); western New Mexico (Shiprock, possibly San Antonio, mouth of Mogollon Creek, and Redrock); southeastern Arizona (Bisbee); and northeastern Sonora (Moctezuma).Southto northern Sonora (Moctezuma and Sáric); southern Arizona (Baboquivari Mountains, Menager’s Dam, and Gadsden); and southern California (Picacho and Silsbee).Westto southern California (Silsbee, Mecca possibly, and Chemehuevis Valley); western Arizona (Fort Mojave); and southwestern Utah (Beaverdam Wash).
Winter range.—The few available records place the winter home of Lucy’s warbler in central western Mexico from Jalisco (Bolaños and Lake Chapala) to eastern Guerrero (Iguala).
Migration.—Few migration dates are available for a species with such a limited range. Early dates of arrival are: Arizona—Tucson, March 12. California—Mecca, March 29. Utah—St. George, March 23. A late departure date is: Arizona—Tombstone, October 3.
Egg dates.—Arizona: 58 records, April 22 to June 27; 30 records, May 2 to 21, indicating the height of the season.
PARULA AMERICANA PUSILLA (Wilson)
NORTHERN PARULA WARBLER
Plates20,21
HABITS
I have always preferred the old name, blue yellow-backed warbler, as originally used by Wilson and Audubon, to the modern common name; it seems more descriptive of this dainty wood warbler. As to the origin of this newer name, Dr. Spencer Trotter (1909) writes: “The name ‘parula’ recently in vogue for the warblers of the genusCompsothlypisis clearly borrowed from the old Bonaparte genusParula(diminutive of titmouse). The bird (C. americana) has appeared under various titles—‘the Finch Creeper’ of Catesby (I, 64), ‘the various coloured little finch creeper’ of Bartram (Travels, 292), and the ‘Blue Yellow-backed Warbler’ of Wilson, Audubon, and later authors.”Parulawas extensively used as the generic name during the last century, and is now reinstated to replaceCompsothlypis.
The 1931 A. O. U. Check-List of North American Birds recognizes only two races of this species, the subject of this present sketch,P. a. pusilla, and the southern race,P. a. americana. The two forms together occupy a breeding range covering practically all of the United States east of the Great Plains, as well as parts of southern Canada, the type name being restricted to the birds breeding from the District of Columbia southward to Alabama and Florida.
Ridgway (1902) describes the northern bird as “similar toC. a. americana, but slightly larger, with smaller bill and darker, richer coloration; adult male with blue of upper parts deeper, and black of lores more intense; lower throat or upper chest (sometimes both) blackish or dusky (the feathers sometimes tipped with chestnut), forming a more or less distinct, often very conspicuous band; lower chest orange-tawny, tawny, or chestnut (the feathers usually margined with yellow) forming usually a distinct and often abruptly defined patch; sides usually more or less tinged or spotted with chestnut.”
In the same work, he describes a third form,C. a. ramalinae, as “similar in coloration to” the northern bird, “but smaller even thanC. a. americana.” He gives as its range the Mississippi Valley, from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas to Minnesota and Michigan. This western race is not recognized in the 1931 A. O. U. Check-List.
Our experience with the northern parula warbler in Bristol County, Mass., well illustrates the successive changes that nature and man have wrought in the distribution of so many of our birds. Manyyears ago, perhaps early in the last century or before, some hardy pioneers hewed out a clearing in the forest that clothed the slopes of Rocky Hill in Rehoboth, Mass., planted an apple orchard, and surrounded it with stone walls. All traces of the old farm, if ever there had been one, disappeared before I first visited the locality in 1888, and the forest had begun to encroach on the old clearing. The apple trees even then showed signs of old age and were profusely covered with long festoons of that picturesque tree lichen, often called beard-moss or old-man’s-beard (Usnea barbata,U. longissima, orU. trichodea). This old orchard was a mecca for all local oologists, and many a set of eggs of the blue yellow-backed warbler was taken from it during succeeding years. As time passed, the old trees gradually died, theUsneadisappeared, the warblers ceased breeding there, and the forest eventually reclaimed the land until today only the ancient stone walls remain to mark the locally famous haunt of the blue yellow-backs.
I can remember several other old, neglected orchards that were similarly decorated with the long, gray-green lichen and that were inhabited by parula warblers as nesting sites, but they all suffered the same fate; the orchard trees decayed and were replaced by woods and thickets. During the early part of the present century this warbler continued to breed commonly in Bristol County wherever it could find trees infested withUsnea—around the edges of swamps and along the shores of ponds, lakes, and sluggish streams; but now this lichen seems for some reason to have entirely disappeared from the County, and the parula warbler has likewise disappeared, although it may still breed in a few similar localities on Cape Cod, Mass., where I have found it a few times in more recent years.
Localities such as those described above seem to be typical of the breeding haunts of the northern parula warbler, at least in New England, southern New York, and New Jersey. Whether the presence ofUsneais a sine qua non for the breeding haunts of this wood warbler is an open question; but it may safely be said that where this lichen grows in abundance one is almost sure to find it breeding; and conversely, where this lichen is scarce or lacking, the warbler breeds sparingly or not at all.
Farther westward, northward, and southward, whereUsneais scarce or entirely absent, these warblers seem to find congenial haunts in hemlock ravines and in other coniferous woods and swamps; but even there they are more likely to be found where there is at least some of one species or another of this lichen, or where the somewhat similar Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) grows.
Spring.—Parula warblers that have wintered in the West Indies reach southern Florida during the first week in March. Dr. Wetmore (1916) says that it "was the most common of the migrant warblers inPorto Rico.* * *Migratory movement was apparent among them by February 14, and after this the birds were very restless, especially during early morning, and there was tendency to work from the east to west. In March and April there were distinct waves of migration.” But it is well on toward the middle of May before the first migrants reach the northern limits of their breeding range.
Professor Cooke’s (1904) records show that the migrants from Mexico and Central America reach the Louisiana coast by the very last of February or early March, while the first arrivals on the lower Rio Grande, in Texas, come two or three weeks later. He observes:
A comparison of the dates shows, first, that the parula warbler arrives in Texas much later than in either of the other States, and hence does not reach the Mississippi Valley by way of Texas; second, that it arrives in northern Florida at least ten days later than it attains the same latitude in Louisiana. From these two facts it would appear that Louisiana is reached by direct flight across the Gulf of Mexico. The average date of arrival at New Orleans coincides closely with the date when the first migrants arrive at the southern end of Florida. It would seem that the birds of Mexico and Cuba are prompted to move northward at the same time, but the flight over the Gulf of Mexico being so much longer than that from Cuba to Florida, the Mexican birds reach a higher latitude by their initial flight.
There are other interesting details in Cooke’s account to which the reader is referred.
During migration the parula warbler does not frequent haunts typical of its breeding ground; in fact such are not to be found in much of the country over which it travels; nor does it especially frequent the coniferous woods to which it is partial in summer. It is to be found almost anywhere, in many kinds of trees, though it seems to show a decided preference for deciduous woods. There, it may often be seen drifting through the highest tree-tops in mixed groups of migrating wood warblers, gleaning insects amidst the freshly opening foliage. Referring to the Buckeye Lake region in Ohio, Milton B. Trautman (1940) writes: “The transient Parula Warblers usually displayed a preference for large pin oak and shingle oak trees and a marked preference for one shingle oak in particular. This oak was in the Lakeside Woods, and more Parula Warblers were observed in it than in all of the remaining trees of the woodland. A transient often displays a marked preference for certain types of trees, but it appears unusual for a single tree among many of the same kind to retain yearly so marked an attraction for a particular bird species.”
The migrating parula warbler is often seen in roadside trees and in shade trees in parks and gardens. It even visits our orchards, where one of the most charming sights of springtime is to see this gay-colored, tiny warbler flitting about in search of insects among the apple blossoms, a delightful bit of color contrast in a beautiful setting.
Nesting.—The nests of the northern parula warbler that we used to find in southern Massachusetts were all located in haunts similar to those described, and mostly in old orchards heavily festooned with beard moss (Usnea). We could usually find three to five nests in a well-populated orchard, but they were so well hidden in the hanging moss that we may have overlooked some. A casual observer would never notice one, but with practice we learned to recognize a rounded, cuplike, thick place in a bunch ofUsneaas indicating a nest. The nests were usually made in bunches of moss that hung from horizontal or sloping branches and were from 5 to 15 feet above the ground, more being below than above 12 feet. Some nests were in red cedars, or savins (Juniperus virginiana), scattered among other trees or growing in open stands by themselves; they were located in bunches ofUsneaclose to the center of the tree and often within reach from the ground. Occasionally, isolated trees on the edges of swamps or on the shores of ponds were sufficiently covered with the lichen to contain nests, and these were sometimes as much as 20 feet above the ground. The nearest approach to a colony that I ever found was in a small cedar swamp, not over an acre in extent, that jutted out from the shore of a lake into rather deep water.
The white cedars (Chamaecyparis thuyoides) were growing in water that was waist deep or more in places, and the whole place was so obstructed with fallen trees and sunken snags that it was very difficult to explore thoroughly; I managed to find some half a dozen nests, and there may have been others, for many of the trees were well “bearded.”
The nests that we have found have all been very simple affairs, apparently merely pockets hollowed out in bunches of hangingUsnea, with side entrances slightly above the cups. Some nests were small and suspended only 2 or 3 inches below the supporting branch, practically open baskets accessible from directly above; others were found in long, thick bunches, a foot or more in length, with long streamers hanging below the nest. External measurements were therefore quite variable. Many of the nests were unlined, save with a soft bed of fine shreds ofUsnea, some were scantily lined with a few pieces of fine grass, two or three pine needles, one or two horsehairs, or a few bits of buff-colored down from the stems of ferns; rarely, a nest was more elaborately lined with the latter material but never as profusely as are the nests of other wood warblers.
Apparently the nests were also difficult to find in Connecticut; “J. M. W.” (C. L. Rawson, 1888), who has probably taken more eggs of the blue yellow-backed warbler than any other man, says that the older ornithologists did not realize “that the three Southern New England States were about the centre of its breeding range,” until hebegan sending eggs to Dr. T. M. Brewer. Thomas Nuttall (1833) remarked: “The nest and eggs are yet unknown.”
Rawson found the parula warbler nesting in colonies near Norwich, Conn., and says:
I know a swamp where may be found seventy-five pairs of these summer residents. The first time I visited the Preston colony on the 31st of May, I took eight sets of four. The first time I visited another large community in this county on June 5, on a point of land trending into salt water, I took eleven sets of four.* * *The nests are built on dead or green trees, and on savins or deciduous trees, at varying heights. I took one from the single filament of moss caught on the green twig of a birch, within five inches of the ground, and others close to the trunks of great oaks fifty feet in the air. On the lower swamp, huckleberry brush in the littoral colony is a favorite site.
I know a swamp where may be found seventy-five pairs of these summer residents. The first time I visited the Preston colony on the 31st of May, I took eight sets of four. The first time I visited another large community in this county on June 5, on a point of land trending into salt water, I took eleven sets of four.* * *
The nests are built on dead or green trees, and on savins or deciduous trees, at varying heights. I took one from the single filament of moss caught on the green twig of a birch, within five inches of the ground, and others close to the trunks of great oaks fifty feet in the air. On the lower swamp, huckleberry brush in the littoral colony is a favorite site.
William Brewster (1906) mentions only one nest taken in the neighborhood of Cambridge, Mass., a region whereUsneais scarce:
In shape and general plan of construction the nest closely resembles that of a Baltimore Oriole. It has no hole in the side but instead a wide-mouthed opening at the top through which the bird entered it as the Oriole enters her nest. The upper edges and sides were securely fastened to the fine terminal twigs of a drooping branch where the nest hung suspended among the evergreen foliage of the hemlock, precisely as the Oriole’s hammock swings in the dropping spray of an elm. The Warbler’s nest has a scanty lining of pine needles and fine grasses but it is otherwise composed entirely ofUsnea, loosely woven or perhaps merely felted together, evidently by the parent birds. They must have been at some pains to collect this material, for the closest scrutiny on the part of a friend and myself failed to reveal more than a few small and scattered tufts ofUsneain the surrounding woods.
Henry Mousley (1924, 1926, and 1928), of Hatley, Quebec, made three attempts to make complete studies of the home life of the northern parula warbler, none of which covered the whole cycle for reasons beyond his control.
The nests were suspended from the branches of coniferous trees, at heights ranging from 26 feet in a spruce to 40 feet in a balsam fir. One of these nests was watched for a total of 24 hours, from May 22 to 31, during the process of construction; during this time the male sang 549 times from a little birch and went with the female to the nest, but brought no material; the female, however, made 206 trips with material, an average of one load every 5.4 minutes. The nest was made entirely ofUsnea, all brought in, and lined with “some black hair-like rootlets, with two bits of plant down”; it was strengthened with a few fine grass stems. It weighed only 100 grains, or .23 ounce! “Outside diameter 3.25, inside 1.75 inches; outside depth 2.50, inside 1.75 inches. The female after selecting some of the longest threads of the hanging bunch ofUsnea, attached them to a little twig a few inches off, following this up with that curious process—inherent—of mouldingthe nest, which in this case, was really an acrobatic performance, there being of course no apparent nest to mould, just a few strands, through which the bird’s tail and wings protruded.”
Outside New England, whereUsneais scarce, the nests are often built in hanging clusters of twigs of hemlocks or spruces, with the use of more or less of this lichen when available. In the lower Mississippi Valley, Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) offers a popular substitute and is generally found growing in profusion. But some nests are built of various other materials. George H. Stuart, 3d, writes to me of a nest he found at Pocono Lake, Pa., on June 22, 1916: “This remarkable nest was placed in a horizontal limb of a spruce, 20 feet up and 12 feet from the trunk, near the tip and overhanging a road near the lake.” It was “composed mainly of fine dry grasses and the thinnest of bark shreds, with a few bits of down, fashioned together oriole-like, though loosely, with a few coarse grasses projecting suggesting the handiwork of the magnolia warbler. The tiny basket was suspended from the under side of the branch, partially supported by inclining twigs. In form it is an inverted cone or pear, measuring 3 inches deep by 3 inches wide at the rim, the thin walls tapering down to a narrow, pointed bottom. The thinness of the walls in places revealed the eggs from a side view.”
Mrs. Nice (1931) reports a curious nest, found by Mr. Kirn near Copan, Okla.; it was fastened to ivy leaves and to a stick which was hanging down, held by the vine. “In this hanging, swaying cluster about two feet long, the nest was built almost entirely of box elder blossoms held together by spider webs on the outside, and sycamore seed down on the inside with a light lining of fine strips of weed stems.”
Several nests have been reported as built of various materials in bunches of leaves and other rubbish deposited by freshlets on branches over streams.
Because of the bird’s habit of using various materials and sites in its nest building, it may be well to mention some nesting records from the southern Gulf States. Andrew Allison wrote to Dr. Chapman (1907):
The invariable nesting site is a clump of Spanish moss—where this it to be had; I have not observed nests from beyond the range of this plant. The nest is generally placed near the branch from which the long filaments of the ‘moss’ depend, so that it is well concealed. The height from the ground varies from about eight feet upwards.* * *The nest is nearly hemispherical in shape, opening directly upward. The usual material, in lower Louisiana, is thistle down, which is abundant during the nesting season. Animal hairs are not used, I think. A nest from Bay St. Louis was composed of the very black horse-hair-like inner fiber resulting from the decay ofTillandsia.
M. G. Vaiden writes to me that he found a nest near Belzoni, Miss., in a heavy oak swamp where there were clusters ofUsneaon practically all of the trees. The nest was 16 feet above the ground and 12 feet out on a limb of an oak; it was made like our northern nests and lined with the “moss” and fine rootlets. Another described in his notes was entirely different. It was in a section of Mississippi where there was noUsneagrowing within 60 miles. The nest was 6 feet from the ground and 4 feet out in the crotch of a limb of a hackberry tree. A pretty nest, it was nicely constructed of leaves and bark from cypress trees, and was lined with small rootlets and very fine twigs.
Eggs.—The usual set for the northern parula warbler consists of 4 or 5 eggs; 3 sometimes constitute a full set, and as many as 6 or 7 have been found in a nest; there are 3 sets of 7 in the J. P. Norris collection. The eggs are ovate or short ovate, have only a slight gloss, and are white or creamy white, speckled and spotted with shades of “russet,” “chestnut,” “bay,” and “auburn,” with a few underlying spots of “brownish drab.” There is much variation; on some eggs the “brownish drab” color is entirely lacking, while on others spots of this color are the most prominent markings; again, the eggs may be almost immaculate, or may have just a few indistinct freckles of “pale wood brown” at the large end. The measurements of 50 eggs average 16.5 by 12.1 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure18.3by 12.7, 16.9 by12.9,14.8by 11.9, and 16.3 by11.2millimeters (Harris).
Young.—The period of incubation does not seem to have been determined, nor do we know how long the young remain in the nest. Incubation of the eggs and brooding of the young is performed mainly by the female, but the male assists in both to some extent. I have seen a male leave a nest in which there were eggs; and Mr. Mousley (1924) saw a male brood the young for a period of 4 minutes in the absence of the female, but he left as soon as she returned. Both parents feed the young. Mr. Mousley’s table shows that during a watching period of 15 hours the male fed the young 45 times and the female fed them only 21 times; the average rate of feeding was once in 13.6 minutes; during this time the male brooded once and the female 34 times, a total of 11 hours and 27 minutes. He “noticed that the food the male brought consisted almost invariably of soft green larvae, whereas, that of the female more often than not consisted of insects, and the portions she brought were usually smaller in proportion than those of her partner.”
Plumages.—Dr. Dwight (1900) says that the natal down is “smoke-gray.” The sexes are alike in the juvenal plumage, which Ridgway (1902) describes as “above plain slate-gray, slightly tinged with olive-green;middle and greater wing-coverts narrowly tipped with white; chin and upper throat pale yellowish; lower throat, chest, sides, and flanks plain light gray (intermediate between mouse gray and gray no. 6); abdomen, anal region, and under tail-coverts white; remiges and rectrices as in adults.”
A postjuvenal molt, involving all the contour plumage and the wing coverts but not the rest of the wings or the tail, begins about the middle of July. This produces a first winter plumage in which old and young birds are very much alike and the sexes are recognizable. The young male differs little from the adult male, but the bluish gray of the upper parts is more heavily tinged with olive-green, the yellow of the under parts is duller, and the dark throat band is more or less obscured by yellowish tips on the feathers. The young female differs from the adult female in a similar way and is without any brown throat band.
Dr. Dwight (1900) says that the first nuptial plumage is “acquired by a partial prenuptial moult which involves chiefly the head, chin and throat, but not the rest of the body plumage, the wings nor the tail. The ashy blue crown feathers faintly dusky centrally, the blackish ones of the sides of the head with a white spot above and below the eye and the yellow or chestnut-tinged chin feathers as far as the pectoral band or farther are assumed by moult. Wear brings the back into contrast with the nape and whitens the lower parts. The wings and tail are browner and more worn than in the adult, especially the primary coverts.”
A first postnuptial molt in July and early August, which is complete, produces the fully adult plumage. Fall males are similar to spring males, but the blue areas are more or less tipped with greenish and the throat bands with yellowish. Fall females differ in the same way from the spring birds, and there is little, if any, chestnut and no blackish in the throat band.
Subsequent molts and plumages are the same as described above for the young birds.
Charles C. Ayres, Jr., writes to me of a bird he observed near Ottumwa, Iowa: “It was a typical parula warbler with the exception that the blue-gray color extended over the throat and terminated abruptly on the upper breast. Immediately below the termination of the blue-gray color was the well-defined orange-brown breast band, below which the rest of the breast was yellow.”
Food.—The parula warbler is almost wholly insectivorous. Its food is mainly obtained in the deciduous trees, where it is often seen among the branches and twigs or hanging downward under a cluster of leaves or blossoms like a chickadee searching for small insects, beetles, flies, moths, larvae, and egg clusters. Some flying insects aretaken on the wing; and occasionally the bird may be seen feeding on the ground.
Dr. Wetmore (1916) reports on the contents of 61 stomachs from Porto Rico, which contained 97.7 percent animal matter and only 2.3 percent vegetable matter. The latter “consisted of seeds of small berries of the camacey (Miconia prasina) and others.” In the animal food, beneficial insects and a large number of spiders amounted to about 35 percent, and the remainder were all harmful pests. “Lantern flies (Fulgoridae) (19.09 percent) were identified in 29 stomachs.* * *Other bugs (3.69 percent) comprise small numbers of leaf bugs, species of the chinch bug family, stink-bugs, and a few predaceous assassin bugs. The birds are fond of beetles, and this order supplies 22.53 percent of the food, nearly all being injurious species. Ladybird beetles (1.36 percent) were present in 14 stomachs. Longicorn beetles (1.68 percent) were taken 11 times, and leaf beetles of several species (7.95 percent) were eaten by 30 of these birds.” Other beetles taken included darkling beetles, skin beetles, scarred-snout weevils, coffee leaf-weevils, stalk borers, and curculios. Among other items were a few ants and other small Hymenoptera (3.57 percent) and flies (1.19 percent). Caterpillars were found in 18 stomachs and moths in 4. Spiders (29.53 percent) were identified in 29 stomachs. Stuart T. Danforth (1925), from Puerto Rico, adds berries ofVarronia angustifoliaand fleabeetles, and says that large moth eggs were eaten by two birds, forming 25 percent of their food. Forbush (1929) says that “it feeds much on small hairless inch-worms, such as the fall canker-worm and the spring canker-worm, and on the younger and smaller hairy caterpillars, such as the gipsy and the tent caterpillar.”
Behavior.—The parula warbler is less active in its movements, more sedate and deliberate, than most of the other tree-top wood warblers.
It creeps along the branches and hops from twig to twig, often clinging to the under side of a cluster like a chickadee, an action that led some of the early writers to refer to it as a small titmouse, and it sometimes clings to the trunk of a tree like a nuthatch in its search for food. The birds are fearless and confiding, and are easily approached. Even when their nest is disturbed they come within a few feet of the intruder, making little, if any, protest or demonstration. George B. Sennett (1878) tells the following story, illustrating the confiding nature of the bird:
Just before we sighted land, imagine our surprise and joy to see a little Blue Yellow-backed Warbler on our mast. It soon flew down to the sail and thence to the deck, where, after a few moments, it felt quite at home. Our sailor caught him, and he was passed around for all to admire and pet. It would nestle in our hands and enjoy the warmth without the least fear. Whenallowed his freedom, he would hop upon us, fly from one to another, and dart off over the side of the boat as if taking his departure; when lo! back he would come with a fly or moth he had seen over the water and had captured. Several flies were caught in this way. He searched over the whole boat and into the hold for insects. Often he would fly to one or the other of us, as we were lying on the deck, and into our hands and faces, with the utmost familiarity. He received our undivided attention, but could have been no happier than we. Upon reaching shore, amid the confusion of landing we lost sight forever of our pretty friend.
Voice.—The parula warbler has a simple, but to my ears a very distinctive, song. In 1900 I recorded the song in my notes as “pree-e-e-e-e-e-e, yip, a somewhat prolonged trill like a pine warbler’s, but fainter and more insect-like, ending abruptly in the shortyipwith a decided emphasis.” I have always been able to recognize it by the explosive ending, which I never heard from any other wood warbler.
Gerald Thayer wrote to Dr. Chapman (1907) as follows: