Cyanerpes (Honeycreepers), one page on "chachalacas" birds, 1963

Cyanerpes, I 1 November 3, 1957 Barro Colorado I have a pair of [[underlined]]C. cyaneus[[underlined]], here, given me by Mrs. [[Marciay?]] ♂ white ring, left leg ♀ yellow ring, right leg These are quite tame and settling down quite well. Haven't shown very much behavior as yet, however When they are disturbed by me, they fly around quite a bit, landing here, there, and everywhere. Generally standing in a variety of unritualized, sleek; elongate postures. When landed, the crown feathers of the ♂ are sometimes sleek, but more often ruffled (CR). Sometimes these feathers go up & down repeatedly quite frequently. The ruffling is almost strictly confined to the turquoise feathers on top of crown, sometimes involving a few of the sapphire feathers of the nape. Both ♂ & ♀ sometimes utter a single, loud, rather harsh "cheep" when flying around. Bill opens & closes. It's noticeable, however, that this call note (CN) is not uttered nearly as frequently as the equivalent CN's of the Goldfinches or Estrildines. (The CN's of the Euphonias are equally rare.) Sometimes; when one bird of the pair lands beside the other, one (usually not the landing bird) or both give a brief display, probably still low intensity. Most of the

Cyanerpes< Nov 3, 1957 II (2) [[continue three-line and squiggle highlighting]] cases I have seent today have been by the [[male symbol]] He is usually sitting fairly relaxed, i.e. with breast &belly feathers moderately fluffed, looking dumpy -- but also with CD (at least sometimes) The then suddenly points his bill up, (without usually stretching his neck up) and utters a soft, whispering wheezy call (WR) This [[an illustration of the bird is on the left hand side of this text]] is most frequently composed of three notes Might perhap be transcribed as "Wheeoo wheeoo wheeoo" or "Wheeee wheee wheeoo"; with sometimes one or two more similar but briefer notes tacked on at the end Bill certainly opened during the call, I think opened &closed with notes Several times, during this performance, the [male symbol] held his wings out slightly and quickly fluttered them. I have seen the [female symbol] give the same performance, without the wing flutter. Several times, when a [male symbol] gave this performance when a [[female symbol]] landed beside him, she quckly turned & jabbed at him with her bill. I don't know whether it was his performance that triggered her off; but it certainly looked like it [[end of three-line and squiggle highlighting]] [[begin three-line and squiggle highlighting]] In general it either bird is dominant, I would say it is the [[female symbol]] [[end of three-line and squiggle highlighting]] [[begin three-line and squiggle highlighting]] I think that CR may be a generalized sign of moder-

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[underlined]], Nov. 3, 1957, III. 3 moderately low intensity, relatively non-aggressive, hostility. These birds do not seem to have any ritualized tail― or wing―flick patterns. An occasional wing flick does occur; but this seems to be a purely [[underlined]]un[[underlined]] ritualized [[int mov]]. (or momentarily thwarted desire to fly). An occasional sideways jerk of the tail also occurs; but never, I think, without a corresponding body movement. The ♀ has just had a fight with one of the Euphonias during which she jabbed at him in a sort of unritualized "head forward threat" posture, with bill partly open, (perhaps a trace of gape here), and uttered loud "Wheeehoo wheehoo" notes (obviously an extreme form of the previously mentioned Wh) Then, immediately afterwards, she stood in an extreme "Bill-up (BU) posture, much taller & thinner than any I have seen before ― and silent ― for a couple of seconds before relaxing [[drawing with following paragraph wrapped around it]]♀ I also saw the ♂ adopt a similar but less extreme posture after jabbing a Euphonia Also silent. This would certainly seem to be comparable to the V&HF complex of many gulls. So far, you know, the display behavior of this

Cyanerpes, Nov. 3, 1957, IV. 4 species (i.e. the Wh-BU complex) looks as if it might turn out to be not unlike A&H's description of [[underline]] Emberiza [[/underline]]! Now I just saw a nice case of the complete Wh & BU & Wing-quivering (Qu) performance of the ♂, when the ♀ landed beside him. Very fluffed underneath Tail raised obliquely, quite high. Only momentary about as low as the wing ever got → [[image - pencil bird drawing]] Cyanerpes, I November 4, 1957 Barro Colorado I may have to modify my previous description of the CN a little. It is not always harsh. Sometimes, perhaps usually, quite clear. Almost always loud. Increases in frequency when the birds move about more. But always really single notes ― so far. I rather think that the clearer CN's contain a stronger escape element than the harsher ones. What one would expect I suppose. During a dispute this morning, I saw the ♀ adopt a brief and not extreme BU with definite CR. This is the first time I have been sure of this last component in her case. Looked just like the ♂'s CR. There is no doubt, however, but that

Cyanerpes Nov. 4, 1957, II 5 the ♀ does CR much less frequently than the ♂ I have seen the ♀ do quite a lot more G this morning. Not quite the same as the G's of the Euphonias in all respects given from an ordinary unritualized but rather aggressive head-forward posture, sometimes in association with jabbing; or even, apparently, from a slight BU. Sometimes bill very wide open; but usually only moderate I rather tend to the opinion that this is really low intensity or a variant of Wh ―into which it sometimes develops ―or which it sometimes follows. I have seen & heard both the ♂ and the ♀ do Wh from unritualized postures. The ♂ once did it actually while looking down at the ♀ flying below him. Cyanerpes, I. November 5, 1957, Barro Colorado Watched the ♀ perform her G pattern at length during a prolonged and violent dispute with the ♂ Pico Gordo. The ♀ seemed to be rather afraid of the ♂ Pico Gordo, slowly retreating from him the length of the branch on which they were perched; but she also fought back from time with sudden jabs at him. [[underline]] These jabs were frequently accompanied by one or more Wh notes! [[/underline]] The G was practically confined to the slow retreats, or the intervals between successive retreats. Sometimes quite prolonged. Usually given with the bill pointed

Cyanerpes, Nov. 5, 1957, II. 6 upwards (sometimes almost vertically), head more or less pulled back, and neck more or less stretched upward ―i.e. in postures quite reminiscent of typical BU. This whole performance looked quite high intensity; so perhaps the G is as high intensity as, or even higher than, the Wh, only containing a stronger escape element. [[image]] Extreme "retreat BU" by ♀ with G. I also saw some more typical "friendly" BU's with Wh, directed by the ♀ at the ♂ [[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]]. These were with slight CR; but much less than most of the corresponding performances by the ♂. The ♂ has CR almost constantly while I am watching him and/or any other bird is nearby. Cyanerpes, I November 6, 1957 Barro Colorado I have now put the 2 birds in the outside aviary. They attract another ♂, in full breeding plumage, who just sits for hours, looking at them, with constant CR. No trace of song.

Cyanerpes, Nov. 6, 1957; II. 7 I noticed today that extreme CR by the captive ♂ may me accompanied by slight ruffling of throat feathers. Cyanerpes, I November 11, 1957, Barro Colorado Not much new to report; but there have been a lot of wild ♂'s (at least two in perfect plumage, and two in molt) which come to watch the captive ♂. Sometimes (most often, in fact) just sit and peer intently. One ♂ in full nuptial plumage sat on top of the cage for 15 minutes, uttering constant "pure" CN's at regular two or three second intervals. (I didn't get a good look at him, but I am fairly certain he just sat with CR's). Then, when I approached, he flew up in tree and began to give a whole series of equally "single" but rapid "harsh" or "wheezing" CN's (HCN). Does this mean that the HCN's contain a stronger escape component than the other CN's. I rather think so. I have also seen the same or another ♂ in perfect plumage give a whole series of HCN's from the tree when I was sitting quietly beside the cage. I did notice that this ♂ never did CR. This might confirm the "anxiety" nature of the HCN's; and it might also suggest that the CR contains at least an

Cyanerpes, Nov. 11, 1957, II. 8 appreciable aggressive component. The ♂ in the aviary usually reacts to the presence of the wild ♂'s by peering intently, occasionally flying about excitedly, and an occasional CN or HCN. Sometimes quite a bit of silent CR, sometimes not. Cyanerpes, I. November 13, 1957 Barro Colorado Another ♂ in perfect plumage tried to join the captive bird today. He wasn't very active; but he wasn't very shy either; and he did do CR and utter the ordinary pure CN's. Cyanerpes, I. November 17, 1957 Barro Colorado The attraction of the captive birds (the ♂ I think) for the wild birds seems to be as strong as ever. I have seen up to five birds, males in all plumages (but most of them perfect) sitting on the tree above the cage & peering. I am also still amazed by the lack of display by the captive birds, the wild birds toward the captive bird, or the wild birds to each other (they sometimes sit within a few inches of each other, on the same branch). Just a lot of CR and a few CN's and HCN's. In this latter connection, it should be noted that I saw one of the wild birds today sit for a long time with more or less

Cyanerpes, Nov. 17, 1957, II. 9 permanent CR, only interrupted when it gave an occasional HCN and smoothed down its crown feathers, momentarily, at the same time. This is certainly the most highly social of the tanagers around here, with the probable exception of the Jaugara species. These little wandering flocks of ♂'s tend to move around as a unit. One bird flying off tends to set the others off too. (And the sudden departure of one or more of the wild birds, also sets off the captive birds, who try to follow) It should be stressed that these mobile flocks, at least as they appear near the aviary, are almost always composed of ♂'s only. I have seen only one wild ♀ come near the captive birds; and I am not sure that she was "really" part of a flock. The most peculiar aspect of the lack of display by visiting birds and the captive birds while being visited is that they are quite obviously greatly "excited." The captive birds tend to dash madly back & forth (particularly the ♂); and the wild ♂'s make constant little rallies toward & away from the aviary, or sit obviously torn by conflicting desires.

Cyanerpes, I. November 30, 1957 Barro Colorado 10 = Blue Honeycreeper = cyaneus. These birds are fairly common around the clearing on the island, and I have also have 2 captive birds in the large aviary (one male, banded white left, and one female, banded yellow right) Both the captive birds are in unusually good condition, as I got them from Mrs. [[Marclay?]]. The wild birds are not usually very conspicuous, except when "visiting" the captive birds (see below). They usually range from moderate to high vegetation except during the visits. I am rather puzzled about what stage in their annual cycle the birds have reached now. Most of the ♂'s (including the captive ♂) seem to have completed the molt into full nuptial plumage at least several weeks ago (although there are, of course, some laggards); but I haven't seen any signs of "real" reproductive behavior yet. Both wild and captive ♂'s and ♀'s have WF's & TF's of more or less the usual tanager type the TF's are little developed, but the WF's are both relatively and comparatively quite extreme and exaggerated (in comparison with both the TF's of this species and the WF's of most of the other species). This may be correlated with the yellow wing patches. Both ♂'s and ♀'s have CN's of the usual type. Thin but rather surprisingly loud "Trits", uttered as single

Cyanerpes, Nov. 30, 1957, II. 11 notes, or in twos and threes, while flying about or perched or hopping on twigs. The ♂'s (and possibly the ♀'s) also have a definitely harsher and hoarser call note (HCN). This is morpholically quite distinct from the ordinary CN (intermediates are very rare or non-existent). It seems to be more strongly hostile than the ordinary CN. I have seen a "visiting" ♂ (in perfect plumage) utter a whole series of ordinary CN's while clinging to the cage beside the captive birds, and then fly up (as I approached) and utter a whole series of HCN's from a nearby tree. This might suggest that the HCN contains a stronger escape component than the CN, (although I must admit that the overt signs of escape have been few or non-existent in the other cases of HCN I have observed). A very common and conspicuous ritualized pattern is crest-raising (CR). This is done by the ♂'s very frequently when they are slightly disturbed. It seems to be a sign of low intensity hostility in general. All the feathers of the turquoise crown patch (and perhaps a few of the sapphire feathers just behind the crown patch) are raised very conspicuously. Definitely ruffled rather than fluffed. (In extreme cases the throat feathers may also be raised a little). I have only seen the captive ♀ show a brief, slight, CR, in one case ―during a dispute with a Euphonia. There seems to be some sort of correlation between the CN's and CR. Almost all the (non-flying) CN's are accompanied by CR (the CR often or usually being maintained in the

Cyanerpes, Nov. 30, 1957, III. 12 intervals between CN's). It is noticeable, however, (at least among the visiting ♂'s) that the crest is usually or always smoothed down when HCN's are uttered. [[image]] This species certainly has an "anxiety" pre-escape posture; but I rather doubt if it is ritualized. Very sleek and long; (the sleekness, the smoothing of all feathers may be significant in helping to interpret various display movements and postures.) The whole "visiting" business is really quite remarkable in a way. As soon as I put the captive birds out in the aviary, they began to be visited by lots of ♂'s (in both perfect and incomplete plumage) and at least one ♀. Most frequently in early morning, just after dawn. The visitors may just sit in the tree above the aviary, or fly about excitedly, or even come down and fly about and even land on the cage itself, apparently trying to get. (It should be noted, incidentally, that the visitors do not seem to be interested in the food of the captive birds; they don't usually come to that side of the cage) The most remarkable thing about the whole situation is the relative scarcity of elaborate display. This is just the situation in which I would expect all sorts of elaborate hostility ―particularly as there may be several wild ♂'s visiting at the same time, and flying or sitting close together― but nothing of the sort! The visitors may do the TF's and WF's, CR, and utter CN's and HCN's, but I have never seen anything

Cyanerpes, Nov. 30, 1957, IV. 13 which seemed to be obvious threat, among the wild birds or directed by the wild birds toward the captive ones. The captive birds may fly about excitedly (although they sometimes seem to remain quite calm), and give the same range of apparently low intensity displays as the visiting wild birds, and the captive ♂ sometimes seems to be trying to "get at" the visitors; but they don't do anything very exciting either. It should be noted, incidentally, that the aviary doesn't seem to be in the territory of any wild birds ―and it certainly couldn't be in the territory of all the visitors― so it is a little difficult to see what the attraction is. It may be just general gregariousness. This species does seem to be quite gregarious in some ways. I have never seen flocks assemble, except in the cases when 3 or 4 visitors are gathered together; but it is noticeable that whenever one of the visitors flies off suddenly all the others tend to follow it ―and the captive birds try to follow too. This species does at least have the follow-the-leader tendencies of many gregarious species; (and this may also be correlated with the brilliant yellow wing patches) When I first got the 2 captive birds, they were put in a small cage (with the Euphorias); and I saw a couple of displays in these circumstances which I have not seen again since they were put in the aviary. There were Gaping; and an elaborate stretch (St) pattern with breast & belly feathers fluffed (BF) and Wing-fluttering (Wfl) and a peculiar soft husky call (Wh). All the latter may be included in a "Wh complex."

Cyanerpes, Nov. 30, 1957, V. 14 The G was most often done by the ♀ during disputes with the ♂ Rio Gordo Just a simple opening of the bill, sometimes quite wide, but usually not extreme. Usually given with head drawn up and perhaps pulled back a little. The ♀ sometimes did this where she showed a slight tendency to retreat (alternating it with Wh Notes when she showed a slight tendency to advance), so it probably doesn't contain a very strong aggressive component. It certainly seems to be relatively little ritualized. I only saw the ♂ do the same thing once, very briefly. The Wh Complex performance may vary greatly in elaboration. Usually done by the ♂, whenever the ♀ approached him closely (and once or twice apparently directed at the ♀ when she was a little farther ―almost a foot― away). At its lowest intensity it seems to consist of one, two, or three soft, husky "Wheeoo wheeoo..." notes uttered from an unritualized posture, with a slight tendency to point the head and bill upward. At higher intensities this pointing becomes more extreme (a real St being achieved), the breast & belly feathers are fluffed more and more conspicuously, the wings are lowered more & more; and, finally, at highest intensities, the wings are also fluttered and the tail may be somewhat raised. (The above description is somewhat misleading, as I never saw a case of slowly rising intensity. All the Wh Complex performances I saw were very brief. The ♂ just suddenly went into the performance at a particular intensity level and then quickly stopped again. Once or twice

Cyanerpes, Nov. 30, 1956, VI 15 there was a very fast "build up" of one or two elements ―e.g. the wing fluttering might begin a second or so after the rest of the complex began― but this was relatively rare.) The highest intensity Wh Complex posture was about as follows: Check with p. 4 [[image]]←Yellow wing patch not usually visible The Wh Notes themselves are rather reminiscent of the HAC Notes of other species ―although less harsh; but they must be less aggressive (this ♂ certainly made no attempt to attack the ♀; and the whole posture & accompanying movements looks like appeasement or a sexual pattern). The ♀ did utter similar notes once or twice, but without any elaborate movements or postures, nothing more than a mere indication of the St. Cyanerpes, I. December 1, 1957, Barro Colorado Well ―after writing yesterday that I hadn't seen a Wh Complex performance since the birds went into the aviary, of

Cyanerpes, Dec 1, 1957, II. 16 course one occurred today. Given by one of the birds when the ♂ landed suddenly beside the ♀. And, of course, I didn't manage to catch any of the details! The ♀ also did one G during feeding. Probably directed at, and provoked by the ♂ (although it is possible that the ♂ Rio Gordo was the culprit instead). Just put head up and opened bill [[image]] This looked almost like an intention movement of a Wh Complex performance; and I rather got the same impression before, once or twice, when the birds were in the small cage. One thing I have noticed, whenever the birds seem to be disturbed in any way, by my approach or a visitor, they both, and particularly the ♂, peck at the bands on their legs very frequently & vigorously. Redirection? As further evidence to support the theory that the HCN contains a relatively stronger escape component than the ordinary CN, I should mention that a visiting ♂ this morning gave a lot of HCN's in the tree (with smooth crown as usual) and then changed to CN's when it flew down and tried to get at the birds inside the cage. The ordinary CN is certainly the usual form given by the captive ♂ flying about excitedly inside the cage when visitors are present. I am now rather tending to the conclusion that visiting must be a hostile pattern ―although general gregariousness may be involved in some of the patterns that occur, at least affecting the form they usually take.

Cyanerpes, Dec. 1, 1957, III. 17 As further evidence of the low intensity nature of the CN (and its lack of appreciable escape element) I can cite the case of the captive ♂, this afternoon, who gave a whole series of CN's, at rapid intervals, for at least 5 minutes, in a perfectly relaxed posture. This perfectly relaxed posture was, as usual, an extreme case of fluffing or ruffling. Extreme fluffing seems to be characteristic of birds half asleep- especially in the sun [[image]] Blue of rump remarkably conspicuous (Black of back extends up head & looks very velvety). CN with extreme relaxed fluffed posture Blue of rump quite light ―almost turquoise like the crown. The bill is opened & closed conspicuously with each CN, and the tail jerks upward slightly just as the call is uttered. Cyanerpes, I. December 2, 1957 Barro Colorado One visiting ♂ in perfect plumage just gave a HCN (perhaps not the very harshest type) with CR. This must, I suppose, be considered an ambivalent case. The captive birds seem to ignore or pay little attention to a

[[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]], Dec. 2, 1957, II 18 visiting ♂ in incomplete plumage. This is in quite striking contrast to their usual reaction to a visitor. (It may be significant that the head of the visitor is still the non-nuptial dull green.) Another burst of Wh-calling when the ♂ suddenly landed beside the ♀. Couldn't see which bird did it, but there didn't seem to be any ritualized postures or movements involved. The call itself could best be transcribed as "Waah waah waah waah waaaash" ―the last particularly nasal. A wild ♀ has just come visiting. Stayed around a long time; more interested in the captive birds than any wild ♀ I have seen before. Seemed particularly interested in the ♂ (And he largely ignored her.) Gave a burst of typical HCN's at one time ― so this must be a normal component of the ♀ repertory too. [[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]], I December 7, 1957, Barro Colorado When I went into the aviary today, the ♀ uttered repeated Wh Notes, with CR but no St or anything else, apparently provoked by and directed toward me. I put a stuffed hawk in the aviary today, to see the birds' reactions. I think they were quite upset; but the reaction wasn't as spectacular as I had hoped. A lot of flying around, in association with the usual TF's & WF's, and a lot of calling. The ♀ began flying around very nervously, with a lot of loud and rather shrill but apparently "ordinary" CN's. I do

Cyanerpes, Dec. 7, 1957, II 19 not think that there were a distinct "Al" CN pattern. If not, why doesn't this species have an AlCN??) Then, particularly when the ♂ began his HCN-ing, she gave a lot of HCN's too, almost antiphonally. Gradually quieting down. Now just flying a bit, with the usual Fluking, and an occasional CN. The ♂ just sat at first, with an occasional flick; then began a whole host of HCN's, quite regular, each note a few seconds apart. Crown feathers usually smooth; a trace of CR between notes, otherwise no ritualized postures or movements (except for occasional flicking, of course). This continued for a long time, and then, while the HCN's remained the same and almost as frequent, the posture gradually changed. CR gradually developed quite strongly, and a trace of breast & belly feather fluffing appeared, until finally the ♂ was giving his HCN's from a posture like this [[imgage]] This was ended by the ♂ flying away, feeding, relaxing a little. He is now just flying around with a few ordinary CN's These incidents weren't awfully illuminating; but they would indicate that the HCN is definitely higher intensity, without containing a relatively stronger escape component, than the ordinary CN. It was the ♀ who was making all the escape movements who gave most of the ordinary CN's. The ♂ may have given a few ordinary CN's from time to time; but he was stationary, in the

Cyanerpes, Dec. 7, 1957, III. 20 middle of the cage (i.e. not plastered against the walls with fright), when he gave most of the HCN's. And there were so loud, quick & long-sustained that I am compelled to think they were relatively high intensity. Cyanerpes, I. December 8, 1957, Barro Colorado There was a slight dispute (with a few pecking [[intmovs?]]) between the ♂ Honey Creeper and the Yellow-bellies, when the latter jostled the Honey Creeper as they all came down to bathe, (shortly after the Yellow-bellies were let loose in the aviary. The ♂ Honey Creeper certainly gave a series of Wh Notes, (with only the slightest trace of St) during this dispute. Would seem to indicate that the Wh Notes may be purely hostile. Cyanerpes, I December 14, 1957, Barro Colorado Have introduced 2 new birds, bought at El Valle, into aviary with the others. Both ♂'s in very good condition. One, banded green right, is apparently fully adult (completely black wings and tail), just beginning to molt into nuptial plumage, largely green, with a few blue feathers underneath. The other, banded black right is apparently immature. Just acquiring black wings & tail, no trace of blue yet. There was some reaction when I introduced these 2 ♂'s; but nothing very violent.

Cyanerpes, Dec. 14, 1957, II. 21 Most of the reaction; of course, was by the pair which has been in the aviary a long time. Lots of CR; the ♂ doing it in a rather low, obviously unritualized, ordinary sitting posture, the ♀ doing it in a much more erect posture, which I shall call the Upright (U). Some flying about by almost all birds; but not too much All the CN patterns surprisingly rare. A few ordinary CN's, but no HCN's! A lot of Wh Notes by both the ♂ and ♀ of the established pair, whenever one of the newcomers sat or flew too near some of this from completely unritualized postures. Others with St. (and often with CR). When a marked St developed, it was usually combined with an apparently ritualized body posture ―which was different in the 2 sexes. The ♂ went into a more or less low intensity version of the posture drawn on page 6 (Nov 30, VI.) Definite BF, and body more or less horizontal, tail perhaps slightly higher than breast. I shall call this posture of the body L. There was no trace of Wfl during any of these encounters. The "St" posture accompanying some of the ♀'s Wh Notes was rather different. Much higher posture, inclined more forward, which I shall call HSt. Quite like the posture with G drawn on page 7 (Dec 1, II.) [[image]] ♀ UaCR (wings sometimes out of feathers). Slight fluffing of lower belly feathers. Whole body & neck sometimes inclined (diagonally) further forward) Both ♂ and ♀ of the established pair attacked the intruders

Cyanerpes, (22) Dec. 14, 1957, III occasionally. Often without any ritualized preliminaries or post-attack displays. The ♀ was more often aggressive than the ♂ (This confirms the impression I got months ago, when I first got the pair.) Once she gave Wh Notes from an unritualized posture before attack, St (with perhaps a slight trace of G) after attack. Twice she stood in the U posture drawn on the preceding page before attack, then advanced with unritualized movements & posture, attacked, & gave Wh Notes in an unritualized posture after attack The ♂ and ♀ of the pair showed a slight tendency to redirect the hostility provoked by the newcomers toward one another (i.e. turned to face one another during Wh and associated patterns) Once the ♀, in the midst of a dispute with a newcomer, turned to her "mate" and did G in HSt. Both ♂ & ♀ of the pair showed a definite tendency to pick at their bands on their legs during the general excitement. The newcomers did very little. At first just flew around and sat or stood very sleek. Then, gradually, began to do quite a bit of CR ―the older newcomer first. They may also have given a few CN's from time to time; but I am not sure of this. The whole disturbance subsided quite soon. The patterns displayed during this encounter would seem to confirm the impressions I got earlier. CR is the lowest intensity ritualized hostile pattern (with the possible exceptions of the CN's ―which weren't important.

Cyanerpes, Dec. 14, 1957, IV 23 this encounter); probably usually appears when the attack and escape drives are approximately in balance. Wh Notes are probably the next highest intensity pattern; probably also produced when a. & e. are in approximate balance ―with attack probably slightly predominant. G is apparently less aggressive than the Wh Notes. The St's never appear at quite such low intensities as some of the G's and Wh. The other "Wh complex" patterns; e.g. BF, are higher intensity still. It should be noted that the ♂ of the established pair tolerates the approach of the newcomers rather better than does the ♀. It is possible that the newcomers tend to approach the ♂ of the pair more than they do the ♀. Anyhow, the net effect is that the 3 ♂'s are sometimes more or less close together; while the ♀ is a little set apart. This may be significant ―especially when it is remembered that ♂'s are more common "visitors" than ♀'s. It may be that the ♂'s of this species are more gregarious than the ♀'s. Both the intruding ♂'s sometimes gave Wh Notes (usually in doublets "Wheeeoo Whoo") when flying away from an advance or attack by one of the pair birds. These Wh Notes seem to be louder; and perhaps slightly harsher, than some of the Wh Notes between the old established ♂ and ♀; but there seem to be all sorts of intermediates between the 2 types. Later, several hours after being introduced into the cage, the older of the 2 newcomers is making lots of vigorous short flights around the cage, with lots of slightly harsh CN's (possibly intermediate between CN and HCN's). Escape behavior? Little CR between flights

Cyanerpes, I 24 December 22, 1957 Barro Colorado Very early this morning, just after dawn, the captive juv. ♂ was very active flying back & forth repeatedly. Uttered both single notes and series of 2 or 3 (_ _ _) , both when flying & perched between flights In all circumstances, the quality of the notes varied from pure HCN to pure Wh, through all possible intermediates. No ritualized postures or movements, except for the usual flicks (F), and perhaps a trace of CR. Cyanerpes, I January 4, 1958 All the Blue Honeycreepers slept very close together in the same Chinese Pagoda Bush last night not, I think, touching Two ♂ Shining Honeycreepers (= lucidus) came to visit very briefly this morning! I didn't get a good view of them. All I can say is that they uttered a lot of call-notes of some kind, more often & in longer series, than most ♂ Blue Honey Creepers in the same situation. The notes were rather clear & sharp. Well Well! It never rains but it pours (literally as well as figuratively. During the first part of the morning all the captive Blue Honeycreepers were persecuted by the Green ones (see today's notes on Chlorophanes), fleeing before their attackers without making any attempt to fight or display back. Then, as soon as the Green Honeycreepers were removed

Cyanerpes, Jan 4, 1958, II 25 the captive ♂ Blue Honeycreeper in perfect nuptial plumage began to display violently, off and on for quite a long time; toward the ♀. Obviously primarily hostile. Presumably due to the same cause(s) as the aggressiveness of the Green Honeycreepers today (or merely, perhaps, due to the "stirring up" effect of the Green Honey creeper attacks). The ♂'s display took the form of a series of "Wh complex" patterns; somewhat different from any I have seen before, although incorporating most of the same elements. When I first saw the ♂ he was uttering CN's (apparently just ordinary CN's) in a St Posture comme ça: [[image]] [[image]] Head very ruffled, looking very large. Under feathers not very ruffled. Yellow of wings not visible most of the time. Legs flexed. This posture varied considerably in height; i.e. the extent to which the breast was lowered varied considerably at different times. This St Posture was combined & alternated with a variety of movements. The ♂ hopped from twig to twig from time to time, and kept turning in order to present his chin & breast to the ♀

Cyanerpes, (26) Jan. 4, 1957, III (this orientation was maintained [very[underlined]] well). He also did nearly constant & obviously ritualized Pivoting (Pvt); swinging [[fore]] part of body from side to side (without hopping like the [[Maurilius?]], except, perhaps, when moving from twig to twig). This seemed to be nothing more than a great exaggeration of the body movement which seems to be the essential part of ordinary Tail-flicking. This was also accompanied by nearly constant WF of the usual sort. I think that the WF's were synchronized with the Pvt movements; but everything happened so fast that I can't be absolutely sure about this. Occasionally, the WF's would develop into even more extreme Wing-flirting movements (Wflrt), in which the wings were flicked horizontally much farther than in the usually WF, revealing a flash of yellow. The Wflrt's were single movements, like the ordinary WF's. I saw no trace of wing-fluttering ([[Gu/Qu?]]). The ♂ frequently lowered the bill to a more or less horizontal position, or even looked down at his feet, in the midst of all this; but this was variable and occurred at rather irregular intervals, so that it did not seem to be a form of regular ritualized bowing. The frequency of CN's by the ♂ during this performance was also variable. Sometimes silent for a few seconds, sometimes uttering CN's one right after the other as fast as possible (I didn't notice any regular difference between the St and accompanying movements during silent periods and periods of CN-calling__ although I rather imagine that there must

Cyanerpes, (24) Jan 4, 1957, IV be some motivational difference between the 2 periods) The CN's were sometimes replaced by Wh Notes of the usual sort; but only occasionally. Sometimes without change in the accompanying posture or movements. Probably the highest intensities of the performance. Otherwise associated with attacks by the [[male symbol]] on the [[female symbol]]. (These attacks were nothing more than brief forward jabs; but I think that they were quite unmistakably hostile). Wh Notes were probably given by the [[male symbol]] during & after the attacks. There also seemed to be a tendency for the [[male symbol]] to adopt a particularly extreme St posture (with or without CN or Wh Notes), momentarily, immediately after delivering the attack. The [[male symbol]] eventually simmered down, at least moment-arily, without doing anything more. The [[female symbol]] responded to all this with similar but slightly different patterns [[sketch of bird with head and beak pointed upward]] She also spent most of her time in a St. Posture, but it was almost always higher than that of the [[male symbol]] Relatively little CR, I think. She also did at least some Pvt and WF; but rather less regularly than the [[male symbol]] Most of the time her wings were crossed over the base of her tail. She seemed to be trying to face the [[male symbol]] quite as steadily as he was trying to face her. She certainly relaxed this St. posture from time to time; but I am not sure that she ever actually looked down at her feet (except "by chance"). Most of the time she also uttered ordinary-

Cyanerpes, (28) Jan. 4, 1958, V sounding CN's (perhaps less frequently than the [[male symbol]]). She also seemed to switch to Wh Notes when the [[male symbol]] did; and showed a definite tendency to utter Wh Notes and/or assume an extreme St after being attacked. The [[female symbol]] also did a lot of WF's during this encounter with the [[male symbol]]; but no Wflrt or [[Qu/Gu?]]. Later on, however, dur-ing a temporary lull when all the Blue Honeycreepers went down to feed, she did several Wflrt's, very extreme; without any trace of St. These were probably provoked, and directed toward, one of the juvenile [[male symbol]]'s feeding near her. (This may be a threat pattern). Aside from this last incident, the [[female symbol]] and the full-plum-age [[male symbol]] both ignored the young [[male symbol]]'s throughout. The absence of pronounced ruffling of the breast & belly feathers and [[Qu/Gu]] by the [[male symbol]] during this encounter might suggest that these last 2 patterns, as I saw them performed during the first few days after getting the birds, were partly due to an act-ivated sex drive. I have often, today and on earlier days as well, heard one or more birds utter Wh Notes without any sign of either rit-ualized postures or movements when the whole bunch of Honey-creepers comes down together to feed. The youngest juvenile [[male symbol]] seems to do this more often than the others. This would seem to be a very low intensity pattern if so, how does it differ from such patterns as CR or St alone. More aggressive? This would cert-ainly be very difficult to prove

Cyanerpes, I (29) January 5, 1958 Barro Colorado Several times this morning the adult captive [[male symbol]] went into a brief St (with CR) when the [[female symbol]] landed beside him That is all, however. No call, little or no WF, no Pvt. These St's were of the more erect type- which would suggest that this type is relatively low intensity. Cyanerpes, I January 7, 1958 Nothing much of interest today, except a visit by a pair of wild birds, [[male symbol]] in full nuptial plumage and [[female symbol]]. Behaved much as usual; except that once, when the [[male symbol]] came close to the [[female symbol]], he went into an extreme if brief Wh complex performance. St & CR, WF's, breast lowered (I shall call this component BL), and Wh Notes. This is the first time I have seen this close by wild birds. The breading season must be coming along. I hope! I have also been trying to check up on the Fluking of this species. I think my statement on page 10 is approximately correct at least as a description of the usual behavior of the birds here now. The TF! seem to be eventually lateral, like Uiore of the Euplioucis [[right arrow]] or [[left and right arrow]]. Very little mutual component; and that apparently always U-D.

Cyanerpes, I 19 January 14, 1958; Barro Colorado There has been nothing of any real interest for days It is probably that there are fewer visits by wild birds now than earlier. I saw one adult ♂ in full plumage today who seemed to be flying around with a flock of Plain Tanagers (& one or two Blues & Palms)! An violated ♂ [[?]]lugts in a tree near my house, and fairly far from the aviary, uttered a lot of HCN's for quite a long time. He certainly didn't seem to be alarmed by anything; and I wondered if this HCN-ing might not be the "equivalent" of "song." (I should like to see a sound specrograph of this HCN. I wonder if it is at all like the R of other species??) Cyanerpes, I January 20, 1958; Barro, Colorado Yesterday I saw a flock of closely associated wild birds,including at least 5♂'s in full nuptial plumage 20's, flying around the trees in the claring. The largest flock I have seen. There was absolutely no display in this flock. And the other visitors to the aviary birds (which have become numerous again) have been doing nothing but HCN's CR, and not too much of these. This species, at this time, seems to be a good example of a gregarious form in which overt hostility is presented Hi transcriber, use the following symbols: ♂ ♀

Cyanerpes, Jan 20, 1958 II (31) [3-line and squiggle highlighting] by a general suppression of weakengin of the hostile dives, a peculiar modificatoin or general raising of the releasing threshold levels. But it should also be noted that the HCN's (and CN's, I think) and CR of the visitors are far more often given by birds sitting in the trees some distance from the aviary than by birds actually perched on the aviary itself This might suggest that such manifestations of "un-overt" hostility are suppressed by too close appreach to another bird! How is this achieved? By increase of the escape dive? But birds perched on the aviary don't show any overt regris[?] of stronger escape than birds in the trees. [end of 3-line and squiggle highlighting] [begin 3-line and squiggle highlighting] Perhaps I should modify the above statement a little, in view of the fact that I have just been watching more adult [male symbol]'s in full nuptial plumage making visits These visitors were quite silent when perched on the aviary -- in spite of the fact the captive birds did utter a lot of HCN's -- but they did sit with CR (or at least crest feathers raised) -- and even, in one case, with the breast &belly feathers rather fluffed (this looked almost like a completely relaxed sitting posture) These visitors were not, however, very close to the captive birds inside the cage; so the smoothing of the crown feathers may be only characteristic of cncounters when birds are literally face to face only a few inches apart. [end of 3-line and squiggle highlighting] [begin 3-line and squiggle highlighting] It is also barely conceivable that the HCN is not a hostile pattern at all, but a gregarious pattern; the resultof "frustrated" gregariousness, and attempt to "call in" another bird. [end of 3-line and squiggle highlighting] [begin 3-line and squiggle highlighting] Most of the wild flocks I see seem to contain an excess of [male symbol]'s. Is this real or deceptive? And I think that visiting [male symbol's are

Cyanerpes, Jan. 20, 1958, III 32 more apt to give more HCN's than are visiting ♀'s. Could the ♂ of this species be more gregarious than the ♀? Cyanerpes,I January 23, 1958 Barro Colorado There have been very few visitors the last few days. This would seem to indicate that the relatively large flock that was around on the 19th-20th has moved on. Which would mean that these non-breeding flocks are mobile [[rather?]] than territorial. Well - I take this back a little (although I still think the flocks of this species tend to be mobile at this time). We have had a couple of wild ♂'s, in complete [[seuptial?]] plumage, and one wild ♀ visiting this [[noon]]. Much as usual - HCN's the usual pattern. But the ♀ did [[St.?]] with the Wh Notes on top of the cage. Apparently directed at the birds inside the cage - as the wild ♂'s were rather far away from her at the time. This is about the first time I have seen this. Cyanerpes,I January 25, 1958 Barro Colorado The younger of the 2 captive juvenile ♂'s suddenly went into quite full display, for a very brief period, when the adult ♂ came near him. St & CR & BL & Wh Notes - but none of the other "Wh complex components). This would seem to be a further indicator that most, at least, of this complex is non-sexual.

Cyanerpes, I 33 January 29, 1958 Barro Colorado Well! Well! Well! I just realized that the youngest captive juvenile ♂ was singing this afternoon (He may well have been doing so for several days, at least, without my noticing it.) The utterance itself was a soft, rather prolonged, warbling sound, (not too unlike the WS of the wild Palui Tanagers or even the song of the young captive ♂ Yellow-bellied seed-eater, but lacking the distinctive notes, e.g. the "Sreeeee"s of the Palius, which are sometimes conspicuous in the songs of other birds). Rather ventriloquial, in the sense that it was sometimes difficult to tell exactly where the sound was coming from. Uttered with the bill closed, or only opening & closing very slightly, with the throat visibly moving in and out (and possibly the wings vibrating a very little) in rhythm with the notes. Not associated with any particular ritualized movements or postures (not even [[fleebing?]]), with the possible exception of some preening movements (see below) I think I shall call this "song" WS. The circumstances of this WS were rather peculiar in some ways. When I first noticed the bird, he was spending most of his time flying actively back and forth from one end of the aviary to the other. Just pausing briefly between flights from time to time Sometimes he just landed and clung to the sides of the aviary, and uttered one or more WS's while he clung there. Sometimes he landed on a branch of a bush and uttered one or more WS's there. All these pauses were very brief. But he did

[[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]], Jan. 29, 1958, II 34 sometimes pause on a branch long enough to do a little preening, sometimes alternating several WS's with several preening movements (usually preening breast and belly feathers or under wings). He also, at such times, did a lot of bending down "to look at feet" in what were presumably rit. movs. of preening (I shall call these BD). The WS sometimes continued through the BD. His plumage was usually quite smooth throughout this whole performance (without even a trace of CR), although he did one general ruffle during a WS immediately before a general shaking-out of the whole plumage. This preening looked as if it might be "really" significant, i.e. definitely linked to the WS by particular internal factors - like the comfort movements associated with the song of the Bananaquit, (although the actual performance of a complete preening movement suppressed the WS, momentarily, as the bird could hardly sing and preen absolutely simultaneously); but this apparent correlation may have been coincidence. The bird certainly always gave WS's and preened whenever it landed where it could do both conveniently; but it may be that it just had a high preening drive anyhow. This must be checked by further observations! The preening movements themselves certainly looked perfectly normal and "autochthonous". None of the other Blue Honey creepers reacted to the WS's of this young juvenile. The older juvenile sometime flew back & forth in the cage, more or less following the younger bird in his flights, but this is a common performance in any circumstances. The adult ♂ once landed beside the young juvenile

[[underline]]Cyanerpes, Jan. 29, 1958, III 35 [[triple line and squiggle down left side of page accompanying first three paragraphs]] while the latter sang, but nothing came of this, and the adult ♂ soon flew away again. I wonder if this relatively elaborate song of the young bird might be comparable to the song of young ♂ Swallow Tanagers - i.e. a case of ontogeny repeating phylogeny??? It may possibly be significant in connection with this outburst of WS that the young juvenile ♂ twice tried to pick up long straws this afternoon. These straws are the sort of thing which might well be used for nest material eventually. (There wasn't any very strict temporal correlation between these attempts to pick up straws and particular bursts of WS, but they did occur during the general period when he was doing a lot of WS from time to time.) [[squiggle down left side of page next to following paragraph]] I should also note that the molt of this young juvenile (and the older juvenile ♂ as well) seems to be retarded. His wings were only partially black when I got him, and they are still the same. He has added a few, very few, blue feathers since his arrival - but that is all. [[underline]]Cyanerpes, I January 30,1958 Barro Colorado [[triple line and squiggle down left side of page accompanying final paragraph]] The captive young juvenile ♂ hasn't done much WS-ing, yet, this morning, but the little that he has done has [[underline]]not been associated with preening or BD's.

[[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]], I (36) February 1, 1958 Barro Colorado Watching a large flock of Blues (all the ♂'s in complete nuptial plumage I think), including perhaps 20 birds, perhaps evenly divided between ♂'s and ♀'s, in a Balio tree by Chapman House this evening. At first feeding more or less peacefully, but then a couple of pairs of Green Honey creepers in the same tree (see today's notes on [[underline]] chlorophanes [[/underline]]) began to get aggressive, and shortly after the Blues began to chase one another back and forth. Eventually all the birds seemed to get involved in the disputing, and the whole imbroglio lasted over a half an hour - until sunset. This seemed to be very "general" disputing. None of the birds seemed to be defending a specific territory; nor did particular birds seem to have particular enemies. It was just that every bird seemed to resent it whenever any other bird came close!!! The whole thing obviously very aggressive. Most of the hostility took the form of [[supplanting?]] attacks, with or without accompanying ritualized patterns, or bouts of face-to-face mutual display. The common displays were just the same as those I have seen performed by the captive birds. Lots of CR, and St (taking the characteristically slightly different form in ♂'s and ♀'s), and HCN; with lots of WF's and TF's (these were about the most extreme I have seen in this species yet). There were also one or two actual fights, the birds tumbling over and falling in the air. These were accompanied by Wh Notes. There were probably also some Wh Notes during mutual displaying

Cyanerpes, Feb. 1, 1958, II 37 without actual fighting. There was also a lot of G-ing by birds during mutual displaying, especially by [symbol for female]'s, but it would be difficult to say exactly how much, as some of the apparent G's may have been accompanied by notes which I didn't catch. As far as I could determine, the Blues confined their hostile attentions strictly to their own species. (Contrast with the behavior of the Greens during the same disputing today!!) This was so much more hostility than I have ever seen before in a flock of Blue Honeycreepers that it suggested that the breeding season may be ready to start. Cyanerpes, I, February 4, 1958, Barro Colorado A pair of Shining birds showed up again today. Feeding in the Balia by Chapman House. I watched them for quite a long time. Quite silent, and without a trace of any ritualized postures or movements (not even CR), except for TF's and WF's quite like those of Blue Honey creepers. Quite ignored the HCN's of Blue Honey creepers in the same tree. This species looks possibly a trifle heavier-billed and shorter tailed than the Blue Honey creepers. I watched a pair of wild [symbol for male]'s uttering HCN's this evening near the Balia Tree. They were sitting quite hunched, with all feathers quite ruffled, including CR; but this may have been some sort of after-effect of a terrific rain storm we had last night. Lots of birds seem to be unusually fluffed or ruffled today

[[underline]]Cyanerpes, I (38) [[A sketch of the bird as seen from the back, turning its head to the right, appears at the top left of the page. Some of the text wraps around the sketch. Three vertical lines and squiggle go down length of left side of page.]] February 5, 1958 Barro Colorado Watching a pair of birds in orange tree at sunset. [[male symbol]] sitting in fluffed posture, with the black nape particularly conspicuous -- very ruffled indeed, crown flat (very flat!_, wings crossed or ruseting[[??]] over tail, so that the blue rump was almost completely covered. Sometimes sitting looking straight ahead, but frequently turned to look over one side -- to give the effect drawn above. I think he was silent. His mate was with him, and one of the 2 birds was giving HCN's, but I think it was she. He may have done a little "tongue pumping" in this posture, but I am not sure of it, as the light was fading fast. This posture, in some ways, appeared to be just a "normal" unvitalized[[??]] relaxed fluffed posture -- more or less equivalent to the quite different looking relaxed fluffed posture shown on Dec. 2, p 17. But it is so different from the latter, presenting such different visual stimuli to an observer, that I think it must have some visual function of some sort. I shall call the posture drawn on this page the "Black Fluff" (Bckfluff), and the one drawn on p. 17 the "Blue Fluff" (BueFluff). I can't imagine really waht visual this was meant to convey--except that it may have been hostile (and it may be significant that the [[female symbol]] was giving HCN's at the time). It may have been provoked by and/or directed toward several larger

Cyanerpes [[underline]], Feb 5, 1958, II (39) tanagers (1 Blue and 1 Summer) in the same tree. I couldn't see what this posture eventually led to, as the pair eventually moved behind some leaves. Earlier this afternoon I saw what was presumably a different [symbol for male) showing traces of what was probably the same pattern beside the Balia Tree near Chapman House. He was apparently single, sitting quietly most of the time in a more normal posture than the one [[?]] above -- except that his black hood was more or less "swollen" most of the time/looking almost like a t...our. This bird also left before I could see if some more overt behavior could develop. I saw a little more usual hostility during another incident at about the same time. A [symbol for female] landed right near a [symbol for male], who immediately when into a "Wh couples" performance, with extremely vertical ft but not very extreme other components, and with 2 notes which seemed to be intermediate between typical HCN and typical HAC. [Symbol for male] relaxed quickly as the [symbol for female] ignored him and started to preen in the usual way. [[image: bird with dark wings and nape, head thrown back in vertical posture] (Posture comme ça, with no trace of wing-quivering or wing-flashing.) I seldom or never seem to hear any ordinary CN's during my observations of wild birds. Is this just because they are relatively faint? I wonder. I suppose so.

[[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]], I (40) February 6, 1958 Barro Colorado Both juvenile captive Blues have been giving a lot of WS's this afternoon. Much as before Bill [[underline]] absolutely closed [[/underline]] throughout all the performances of both birds. Both usually sitting in a very low [[?]] briefluff posture (with crown feathers raised as usual) Occasionally associated with preeding and other comfort movements, but not frequently enough to prove that the associate was "significant". The older juvenile occasionally interrupted song with single HCN's (provoked by some stimulus outside cage?); and sometimes sang in a slightly more rigid, more "typically song-like" posture than the younger juvenile. comme ça: [[image]] Extremely elongate WS Posture Again none of this seemed to provoke any particular response, or lead to any particular activity by the performing bird, (although I should add that both the young Blue Honeycreepers seem to have been a little more active than usual this afternoon - flying back and forth suddenly across the cage.) Whenever (or very frequently when) a wild bird joins another (no matter what sex) one or both birds may briefly point the head & bill upward. Without obvious signs of ritualization (except for a CR which may or may not be present in almost any circumstances). This might be a very weak form of St; but I rather think that it is nothing more than an int. [[?]] of sizing up (The captive birds also do it sometimes; but more rarely

Cyanerpes, I (41) February 9, 1958 Barro Colorado Watching the aviary early this morning. Both the captive juveniles have been very vocal indeed. HCN's, Wh Notes, and WS. All given by birds sitting more or less by themselves, in a more or less relaxed posture (sometimes a slight trace of blue fluff), with CR, but no other ritualized patterns). There is no doubt but that all 3 calls are closely related; i.e. the Wh Notes seem to intergrade with both the others. I was particularly surprised at the frequency of Wh N's this morning by birds which were not engaged in overt fighting. They gave their Wh N's in definite, apparently organized, series of 3 or (less frequently) 4 notes. Sometimes definite series [[comme ca]]: [[hand-drawn pitches]] All these Wh N's were accompanied by definite opening & closing of the bill with each note; and this seems to be one of the best distinctions (in the case of dubious utterances) between the Wh N's and WS. None of these calls indicted any obvious response by other birds (both the juveniles have had [[?]] attacks made by adults upon them, but such attacks did not seem to be definitely correlated with calls by the young birds). Some of the series of Wh N's of the younger juvenile are even longer than those described above. Including at least six notes. Some of these also done with little or no CR. I wonder why the adult male isn't being nearly so vocal? Is it because he is already "mated"???

Cyanerpes, I (42) February 13, 1958 Barro Colorado [Begin 3-line and squiggle highlighting] There was quite a lot dupicting [?] in a large flock (including 8-10 birds) in a bare tree this evening The usual stuff, e.g., CR, HCN's, & St's; but more frequent than I have ever seen before. Breeding season coming on? [End 3-line and squiggle highlighting] Cyanerpes, I February 10, 1958 Barro Colorado [Begin squiggle highlighting] I caught 2 new Honeycreepers today, a [male symbol], just completing the molt into full nuptial plumage, banded blue left; and a [female symbol], banded light green left. Probably a pair before they were caught. I released them in the aviary. [End squiggle highlighting] The general excitement when they were let loose attracted 3 visitors, an apparently mated pairs first, and then a visitor. [Begin 3-line and squiggle highlighting] When the pair first came, the [male symbol] visitor just did CR, while the [female symbol] visitor did lots of HCN-ing in a moderately alert-looking posture (without CR) This seems to be quite a common arrangement; i.e., [female symbol]'s do seem to give more HCN's than [male symbols]'s. [End 3-line and squiggle highlighting] [Begin squiggle highlighting] When the second visiting [male symbol] showed up, he wandered close to the [male symbol] of the visiting pair, whereupon the latter advanced toward him, in St. with CR and BL (and presumably some Wh N's as well, although I didn't actually hear them) This caused the second [male symbol] to retreat [End squiggle highlighting] [Being 3-line and squiggle highlighting] There was very little hostility by the other capture Blue

Cyanerpes, Feb. 16, 1957, II. Honeycreepers when the new ones were introduced. Just a little disputing when they all came down to feed. The old (male) and (female) both became aggressive (at different times). Just stretched head & neck forward toward the new-comers, or obliquely upward & forward. Apparently unritualized int. mov. of attack. Accompanied by a few forward jabbing movements which did not actually come into contact. When the new birds did not retreat before this, the old (male) then went into ft. and CR, and eventually retreated himself! (This was the new (female) who withstood his threat. Perhaps she will turn out to be dominant too.) Both the old (male) and the old (female) uttered a few Wh W's during these disputes. Just as usual except much fainter (but not particularly "ruffled" sounding) Low intensity? Cyanerpes, I February 14, 1958 Barro Colorado A little disputing going on between the old & new pairs this morning. Much like the noise of the disputing I have seen in the wild (e.g., in the Balsa Tree) All sorts of things but little BL and apparently no ritualized wing movements (except WF), and, perhaps surprisingly, little G. I have only near one or two points which deserve comment. The old (male) several times made jabbing attack movements toward the new (male) when they were both feeding. Each attack movement immediately followed by St & CR by the attacker. App

Cyanerpes, Feb. 17, 1958, II arently silent I have seen the old male give Wh Notes from a perfectly unritualized looking sitting posture & CR. I have seen the old female give Wh notes from a quite unritualized sort of pre-attack posture [[underline]] without [[/underline]] CR. There may be a slight tendency for the old female to dispute with the new female, and the old male with the new male; although I have certainly seen the old male dispute with the new female also. The tongue is certainly raised and very conspicuous (it is whitish) during HCN's [[image]] Ordinary CN's can be given with [[?]] smooth as well as CR at least in the case of the male) The new female has been rather strongly persecuted by the old one; and it may possibly be significant that she has spent most of the morning sitting very quietly in a rather hunched very fluffed posture (In what seems to be the usual, unritualized, resting fluffed posture; i.e. what I have called Buefluff[[?]] in the case of males.) The older young male has continued to do quite a lot of WS this morning. In a posture which I think must now be recognized as the "typical" WS posture. Very little ritualized if at all. The bird stands (or, rather, sits--as its legs are flexed) more or less erectly, with head more or less horizontal, and CR. The wings are slightly drooped, but not spread, and the wing feathers aren't spread either. There is usually some very slight fluffing all over. This is particularly conspicuous (although still very slight) in the case of the rump feathers. The line of the back is then comme ça:

[[Cyanerpes/underline]], Feb. 17, 1958, III (45) The wings & tail always vibrate a little in rhythm with the notes. The bill is certainly usually closed; (but I have seen the younger juvenile, once, open & close the bill slightly but definitely during the WS, again in rhythm with the notes). The old adult male has done one thing repeatedly this morning which rather puzzles me. Sitting by himself, in the posture described above as the typical WS posture, but with head and bill inclined slightly obliquely upward. From time to time, it is then noticeable that his wings (and tail?) are moving just as they are during the WS's of the juveniles. I haven't yet been sure that I have heard any real WS rounds during this performance by the old male, (although he does utter both CN's and HCN's occasionally in association with the performance); but this certainly [[looks/underline]] as if it were a case of "silent song." The bill is always completely closed throughout (except during the CN's and HCN's); and I have not yet been able to detect any unmistakable throat movements. The old male is always sitting alone when he does this; and I have yet to see it provoke any unmistakable response by the other honey creepers in the aviary. I am almost certain that the old male gave a little "silent song" (SS) this afternoon in a perfectly ordinary, but rather slight [[?]] posture. [[Cyanerpes/underline]], I February 21, 1958 Barro Colorado I have got a female Shining Honey creeper from Mrs. Marciag,

[[underlined]] Cyanerpes [[/underlined]] Feb. 21, 1958, I 46 which I will only be able to keep temporarily. Have put it in the large aviary. The commonest note of this bird is a loud CN, much like the ordinary CN of the Blues in quality, but much louder (Mrs. M. also describes it as more metallic). Often uttered in long series. Often accompanied by WF's and TF's; but [[underlined]] never [[/underlined]] any CR. I think that many of these CN's may well contain a relatively strong escape component. They were uttered very commonly by the bird during the trip from Balboa to BCI; and there was another long and rather rapid burst of them just now when I entered the aviary. These CN's would certainly appear to be homologous with the ordinary CN's and/or the HCN's of the Blues. They may be sharply distinguished from a suddenly and greatly accelerated burst of notes which seem to form an R. Each "syllable" of the R is apparently identical with a CN; but they are much more rapidly repeated than the notes of even the most rapid series of CN's I have heard. (I.E. there is a discontinuity here. This R pattern of the Shining Honeycreepers is very reminiscent of the R's of the [[underlined]] Tangara [[/underlined]] tanagers in sound; and also in the way it obviously seems to be derived from a rapid series of ordinary CN's, and yet has become sufficiently ritualized, is itself alone, to be considered a distinct pattern by itself alone.) The R of the Shinings may be introduced by 1 or 2 preliminary CN notes; in which case the R does indeed appear to be a literal acceleration. I presume that the R's are at least partly higher intensity than the CN's. They sometimes appear to be the "climax" of a burst

Cyanerpes, Feb. 21, 1958, II 47 But the R's may also contain a relatively stronger attack component than at least some of the CN's. The captive [[female symbol]] did not give her first R's until this morning, when she was getting used to her travelling cage (i.e. her escape component was probably becoming relatively weaker). She also did more R after I left her loose in the aviary the first time, in the midst of all the other birds; when she seemed to be quite hostile but not overwhelmingly panic-stricken. And the R was also done by the [[male symbol]] of a visiting pair. This pair came to visit the aviary briefly very shortly after I let the captive [[female symbol]] go. Do you imagine that there are lots of Shinnings around all the time, although one doesn't see them very much? The [[female symbol]] of the visiting pair didn't seem to do much. Just sat and stared the [[male symbol]], however, alternated lots of CN's with many series of R's. He may also have uttered a few Bzz's - see below - but I can't be sure of this, as the captive [[female symbol]] certainly uttered some Bzz's at this time) I didn't get too good a view of him, as everything happened very fast and leaves were in the way; but he certainly uttered almost all his CN's and some of his R's from an apparently perfectly unritualized posture (no CR, and even very little fluking), just uttering and peering more or less forward (neck probably inclined slightly upward, head & bill probably pointed slightly downward) But during some of his R's he turned to the [[female symbol]] in a posture roughly [[connsin?]], and stood in this posture very briefly. Was this redirection? And is it really homologous with some of the posture- [[sketched illustration of bird]]

[[underlinded]]Cyanerpes[[/underlinded]], Feb 21, 1958, III 48[[circled]] [al] components of the Wh Complex of the Blues??? It certainly looked like it, but, if so, it is peculiar that it is associated with the R which certainly does [[underlined]]not[[/underlined]] seem to be related to the Wh N's of the Blues The captive [[female symbol]] has, however, uttered some notes which may be related to the Wh N's of the Blues in one way or another. Single short buzzy notes, with a pronounced twang (rather like the LCN's of Bonaparte's Grill) which I shall call "Bzz's" She has uttered quite a lot of them from time to time, always (or almost always) when an adult [[male symbol]] Blue has come too close to her. Apparently very [hostile]. Usually uttered from posture which is very reminiscent of the less extreme St's of [[female symbol]] Blues. [[Comme ça?]]: Again, no trace of CR. (This species may be larger headed, heavier billed, and shorter tailed than the Blues). I think the bill opens [[and symbol]] closes slightly with each Bzz note, (it certainly does with some!). The bill is certainly opened and closed quite widely with each CN. The general sound of these CN's is much more like that of the CN's of the Green Honeycreepers that is that of the Blue CN's. The general effect of all the Shining Honeycreeper behavior I have seen this morning, in fact, is quite reminiscent of the Greens (although obviously related to Blue behavior). Certainly much more so than I expected). The captive [[female symbol]] Shining has certainly shown no tendency to advance toward or join the captive Blues, except more or less accidentally.

Cyanerpes[[underlinded]], Feb. 21, 1958, IV [[page number]] 49 Early this morning, while still in her travelling cage, the [[female symbol]] uttered a burst of R's, which were fluctuating and interrupted in such a way that the whole thing was slightly reminiscent of a "rattling version" of the ws's of the young captive [[male symbol]] Blues. She has not done this again, however, so it may not have been significant. I have caught a lot of Blue Honey creepers this afternoon, in my unavailing efforts to catch the Shinings. Several [[male symbol]] Blues have uttered long hoarse screams when handled. These are similar to the HCN's and WhN's in quality but much longer and louder. I shall call them HSer. Must be very high intensity, and probably contain an appreciable attack component, (as these birds try to bite when handled!) I think the usual low intensity series of WhN's, unaccompanied by ritualized postures or movements (except, perhaps, a trace of St and/or CR) is made up of only 2 notes "_ _" Watching the [[female symbol]] Shining this afternoon, I am rather coming over to the idea that R's can develop quite smoothly out of a series of accelerating ordinary CN's. Cyanerpes[[underlinded]], I February 22, 1958 Bano Colorado There were no visits by wild birds for a long time this morning, and the [[female symbol]] Shining was relatively placid as compared with yesterday. It may be significant, therefore, that she gave lots of CN's, and lots of Bzz's (when other birds came too near), but no[[/underlinded]] R's, during this calm period. Would suggest that R is definitely higher intensity than at least some of the other notes.

[[underlinded]]Cyanerpes[[/underlinded]], Feb. 22, 1958, II 50[[Circled]] I think that the notes of the Blues that I called HSer yesterday must be strictly homologous with what I called the HC of the Greens (see notes of Jan. 4, p. 12, on [[underlinded]]Chlorophanes[[/underlinded]]). Sound just the same; (I have caught some more Greens in the net today, so I have been able to compare). HSer is the better name, and I shall use it for both species from now on. The wild pair of Shinings (presumably the same pair as yesterday) finally paid a brief and unexciting visit to the aviary late in the morning. Just sat and looked from high up in the branches of a tree (rather like [[underlinded]][[Dacuis?]][[/underlinded]]). I did notice, however, the the [[male symbol]] visitor tended to sit in a posture comme ca [c with cedilla] [[Illustration of posture is surrounded by more text]] Either facing the birds in the aviary, or turning to face his [[female symbol]] when she approached. This was apparently silent; but I think that it may be ritualized -- and is presumably correlated with the distinctive black throat patch. I should say that the WS's of the young [[male symbol]] Blues are becoming louder. They certainly couldn't be described as "sub-song" or "whisper song" any longer. Still done in the same way with the same postures though. Various Blues have been down to visit the captive birds as usual [Illustration of two birds heads and breast] But one of the [[male symbol]]'s stood most of the time in Bckfluff, sometimes with CR, sometimes without. It was noticeable that the light

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Feb. 22, 1958, II 51 cap was quite separate from the black ruff during CR [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I February 23, 1958 Barro Colorado A pair (presumably the same pair) of Shinings came back for a very brief visit this morning. Just sat in the tree-tops and peered The general habits of this species certainly are like [[Dainis?]]! [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I February 24, 1958 Barro Colorado Just at dawn this morning, the captive [[female symbol]] Shining sat and gave several R's, each one immediately followed by one or more Bzz's. Rather [[remini?]]s of the R-Rsp performances of the Greens. She does tend to do St's with her Bzz's when another bird comes too close, but these are always short-necked (like my drawings on previous pages) and she doesn't seem to have anything like the reg erect St's of the [[female symbol]] Blues. She once definitely did Bzz's before, during, and after an attack on a [[male symbol]] Blue. She also sometimes gives Bzz's when she is sitting more or less by herself, in a moderately relaxed posture, with all plumage slightly fluffed. Further proof that Bzz's can be very low intensity. Finally the wild pair came to visit again. Nothing very exciting, behavior much as usual, but a little more interesting than yesterday. Again, the [[male symbol]] was in all degrees of St for much [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Feb. 24, 1958, II 52[circled page number] of the time he was around (but none with tail raised like the one I saw & drew on Feb. 21, p. 47). He certainly gave an R from an St. posture like the one I drew on Feb. 22, p. 50. Once he went into an even more extreme St, without call of any sort. Comme ca: [[image of bird on twig, head and beak arched up towards sky]] Definitely hanging on the bent legs. I couldn't see what released this, or what response, if any, it induced. [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I February 25, 1958 Barro Colorado The youngest of the two immature Blue [[male symbol]]'s has been singing a lot this morning. Most (but not all) of his WS's were by 1 or (more frequently 2) notes which seem to be indistinguishable from ordinary HCN's, and a few of the phrases ended with a single similar note. This would seem to indicate that the motivation of the WS contains a hostile component I have once seen this immature make a supplanting attack on the new [[female symbol]] immediately after a WS; but this is the only case of the sort I ever remember observing. So the WS cannot possibly contain a relatively very strong aggressive element. I have seen quite a number of long & violent disputes between wild Blue [[male symbol]]'s (in full nuptial plumage) yesterday and [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Feb. 25, 1958, II 53 [circled page number] today I haven't been able to follow this well; but I have seen that the [male symbol]'s tend to sit and look violently right, left, upward & downward, in the pauses between active [chaos?] & fights. This is usually accompanied by extreme TF and WF (usually upward I think). The head & body movements are very conspicuous, and they are presumably what [[Shutch?]] calls "bowing"; but they do not seem to form a ritualized whole. Just extreme [[int. movs.?]]; the result of "inhibited" desire to move off. The captive [[symbol: female]] Shining did some more vocalizing early this morning just as she did at dawn yesterday. Lots of rather irregularly spaced R's, usually introduced by gradually accelerating CN's, and terminated by one or more Bzz's. The whole thing is rather reminiscent of a "song"; and she seemed to slur or modify a few of the CN's or R Notes in such a way that the effect was almost "warbling" at times. I have now been listening to more songs by the young captive Blues; and it is obvious that many of them (possibly a majority) are not associated with HCN's. It is only that HCN's are the only "overt" patterns with which their WS's are ever associated with any appreciable frequency at all. The Blue left [[symbol: male]] has been following & flying after the light green left [[symbol: female]] much of the time this afternoon. This hasn't led to anything much, except once, when he got the [[symbol: female]] into a corner above [[underscored]] him, he went into an extreme St & CR posture, just like the ordinary St. of [[symbol: female]]'s, very tall & thin. I.E. the [[symbol: male]] is perfectly capable of assuming a "feminine" pattern - when the orientation factors are suitable. [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Feb. 25, 1958, III (54) The younger miniature captive [[male symbol]] Blue suddenly flew to a [[female symbol]] this evening, and gave a few Wh Notes in an extreme St, with CR, BL, wings drooped, a [[underlined]]tail raised[[/underlined]] posture (i.e. a posture very much like the Shining posture drawn on Feb. 21, p. 47)!! The [[female symbol]] immediately flew away and the [[male symbol]] then relaxed and made no attempt to follow her. [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I. February 26, 1958 Barro Colorado The old white left [[male symbol]] Blue did a little "silent song" (SS) again this morning. Again looked like the WS of the younger [[male symbol]]'s, without any trace of bill movements or apparent sound during most of the performance. But this white left [[male symbol]], this morning, did utter a few very soft notes, which appeared to be a very soft but just barely audible version of HCN's, during his SS - and his bill did open & shut visibly during these particular notes. I should mention the fact that the crest is always oral - most always raised during these WS's and SS's, and that it remains raised during the HCN's and HCN-like notes associated with the singing. [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I March 1, 1958 Barro Colorado I have taken the captive [[female symbol]] Shining out of the aviary, put her in a small cage under the Balsa, and watched the behavior of all the Shinings in the neighborhood. [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[underlined]], Mar. 1, 1958, II 55[[circled page number]] There are at least 3 Shinings around here, 2 [[male symbol]]'s and 1 [[female symbol]] and possibly more. It is certainly my impression, in general, that Shining Honeycreepers are a good deal more common on BCI than previously thought - certainly much more so than I thought before I got this captive [[female symbol]]. One wild [male symbol] came and sat on the [[female symbol]]'s cage in an extreme St. Posture with definite BL and fluffing. Comme ca: [[drawing of bird]] No CR No wing fluttering. Bill remained quite closed throughout This performance was accompanied by some R by some bird; but I think that the R was actually uttered by the [[female symbol]] in the cage There was one long fight, largely supplanting attacks between 2 of the [[male symbol]]'s, which I couldn't follow well; but it was certainly accompanied by lots of R's and Bzz's by one or (more probably) both birds. Something about this fluffing, in at least one case, made me think of the Gfluff of the Greens. This whole pattern of the Blues and Shinings, in fact, is essentially the same as that of the Greens, except that they have an St. instead of a V. I have acquired a new [[female symbol]] Blue, banded red right, which has lost its primaries. This bird has been very quiet indeed, ever since I got it - not answering the wild birds or any of its cage mates. Its accident seems to have completely suppressed all its hostility. It doesn't attack other birds; nor does it seem particularly afraid of them. All it does is defend itself when absolutely necessary. [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I 56[[circled]] March 2, 1958 Barro Colorado More behaviour as before near the captive [[female symbol]]. In particular, I noticed some fights between the wild [[male symbol]]'s. As usual with R's, Bzz's, and silent St's (with BL and B fluff). I am now certain that the St pattern is usually, and perhaps always, silent. I have also seen a [[male symbol]] in an unusual St and B fluff posture which seems to confirm the relationships of this pattern to the U fluff of the Greens. In the case of these Shinings,this may be just a low intensity form of the more extreme St + BL pattern). One thing I have noticed about both the [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]] honey-creepers: they are both extremely clever in avoiding the mist nets (in strong contrast with the Greens which just pile in pell-mell, one right after the other). [[Illustration of bird in mentioned posture]] The captive [[female symbol]] Shining did her usual peculiar "singing" this morning, i.e. repeated R's and Bzz's, and I was able to confirm the fact that some of her single R notes were unusually flute like , less sharp and abrupt than usual. This is what makes the whole performance sound so much like the WS of the Blues. I should be inclined to think that the WS of the Blues was derived from some such performance - were it not for the fact that so many other tanagers have WS's. [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I 57[[circled]] March 7, 1958 Barro Colorado Well! I finally managed to catch a [[male symbol]] Shining in the net this morning. Banded white left. The initial response by the [[female symbol]] when he was let loose in the aviary was flying to him with a burst. This [[male symbol]] several times gave the same Bzz & St performance both before being caught and after being let loose. Adopted an St much like the one drawn on Mar. 1, p. 55, with pronounced BL and belly-fluffing - but with wings meeting over the lower back. Each time he did this - and he must have done it at least 4 times - he gave a few Bzz notes. They seemed to be an integral essential part of the performance. This would certainly suggest very strongly that the Bzz's are homologous with the Wh N's of the Blues - a conclusion which rather surprises me, I think, but seems quite plausible. There was also a small dispute between the 2 fully adult captive [[male symbol]]] Blues. The aggressor just advanced down a twig toward his opponent, in a more or less unritualized posture with jabbing int. movs. The less aggressive bird, however, [[underlined]]stood in extremely high, stretched up St[[/underlined]] (like that of some [[female symbol]]'s I have seen at times) [[underlined]]with extreme CR[[/underlined]] and a relatively little fluffing of the heart & belly feathers. He would stand in this extreme posture for a second or two, retract a fraction of an inch, stand in the same posture, again, etc. Finally flew off. Both birds seemed to be quite silent throughout. This incident would certainly suggest that the high St and CR cannot be very aggressive. [[end page]]

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[\underline]] Mar. 7, 1958, II (58) Before I forget, I should add that the capture ♀ Shining gave excited R's toward mating wild ♂ Blues this morning before I caught the ♂ Shining. I.E. she seemed to be reacting to them as if they were members of her own species. I don't remember seeing this before, however; so it may be just that her motivation was very high. The captive ♂ Shining is now giving a Bzz & St & BL & belly fluffed performance every time the ♀ comes near him. (Actually, in many of these cases, I am not sure that it is not the ♀ who is giving the Bzz's But this doesn't affect the general conclusions, as she usually shows some St, too.) Now I have just seen a particularly extreme case in which it was certainly the ♂ doing the Bzz's But it is obvious that the Bzz is only accompanied by pronounced opening & closing of the bill when it is very high intensity (This may be the only time that the wings are slightly drooped too.) I have now seen the ♀ rush again & again toward visiting Blues (of both sexes) with pronounced R, in spite of the fact that she now has a ♂ of her own species with her. This pronounced aggressiveness is also rather reminiscent of the Greens. (This sort of reaction might certainly be considered an indication that the R is more aggressive, on the average, than the Bzz.) [[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]], I March 9, 1958 Barro Colorado [[end page]]

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] Mar. 9, 1958, I (59) Caught a new pair of Shinings in the net this morning; and finally let them loose in the aviary this afternoon. God! What a mess! A few minutes of very violent disputing; and the new ♀ was so badly injured that I had to pull the new pair out (the new ♂ was pretty battle-scarred too!) The eventual outcome of the whole encounter was that the old pair rushed to the new one, displayed violently, the new pair displayed back violently, the old pair attacked, and the new pair fled. The displaying was unbelievably fast on the whole; and I certainly couldn't follow all of it, but I did notice the following. Mostly R and Bzz calls with [[underline]] a huge variety of St postures!! [[/underline]] The relationship between the Bzz and R is a little clearer now. The old birds began violent R-ing when I first put the new ones in -- and the new ones R'd back -- during a brief initial lull before the actual fighting broke out. The Bzz's began when the real violent fighting began, when they were uttered by all 4 birds. At this time the R's almost stopped completely. This would confirm my theory that the Bzz is higher intensity than the R. And this afternoon it was also very noticeable that the Bzz seemed to intergrade with the R; i.e. [[underline]] some R's became faster & faster until they developed into perfectly typical Bzz's. [[/underline]] It was my impression that the relative level of aggressiveness was much the same in both the Bzz and the R (certainly both or either could be given by either retreating or advancing birds.) It is possible that some Bzz's are more aggressive than any R's -- as it was Bzz's rather than R's which were given by the attacking birds during the fight -- but I think that this appearance was deceptive -- just the result of the fact

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] Mar. 9, 1958, II (60) that the dispute as a whole was so high intensity. These calls were accompanied by all sorts of St - all the St's I have ever seen before and some others as well. [[image - three pencil drawings of birds, A. B. & C.]] These 3 postures (with all their intermediates) are obviously what can be called the "common St's." They may all be accompanied by slightly dropping (but not spread) wings, or the wings may be folded over the edge of the wing. They may all be accompanied by Bzz's, or R, or be completely silent. I am not sure of the causal differences between them; but the one labeled "C." above may contain a relatively strong escape component (birds in this posture seem rather alarmed, and they do apparently [[need?]] to escape more than birds in other St's). A new St which I saw today for the first time was as follows: A sort of "Forward St" (FSt). The figure on the right is the most extreme and probably the most typical. [[image - three pencil drawings of birds]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Mar 9, 1958, III. (61)Circled This F St was accompanied by B53 Notes, and was performed by the old ♂ advancing down a twig to attack the new one. Obviously very aggressive (as its mere form would suggest). There were two cases of definite wing-fluttering or wing-quivering (Qu). Both by ♂'s. Once (I didn't catch which ♂ was doing it) in the St posture labeled "B." on the previous page. Once by the new ♂ in the posture labeled "C." This seemed to be one of the less aggressive patterns. The birds stood still while doing it. Almost certainly accompanied by B33 Notes. The actual movements of Qu seemed to be rather simple. The wings were just held straight out from the body (not obviously either up or down), the primaries were slightly drooped, and the whole wing was fluttered very rapidly. The new ♂ once stood in the ".c" (or Erect Stretch -- E St) posture and uttered a call which I haven't heard before either. Like a series of fairly rapid CN's (much slower than the syllables of R); but much softer and thinner, less sharp, than the ordinary CN's. Possibly due to partial physical exhaustion; but more probably a definite distinct call, one of the less aggressive calls certainly. There was a general tendency for ♀'s to fight ♀'s, and for ♂'s to fight ♂'s; but there were exceptions of all kinds. Again the female (of the old pair) seemed to be more aggressive than the ♂ The general effect of this encounter was to demonstrate even more firmly the remarkable resemblance in general social behavior between these Shining Honeycreepers and the Greens (and the [[end page]]

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] Mar. 9, 1958, IV (62) Saugre do Toros too, to a less extent). (It has become obvious, ever since I had captive Shinings, that this species is quite as prone to visit as any other; but it is also obvious that this visiting is as little the result of general gregariousness as it is in the case of the Greens). The great problem in determining the relationships of the genus [[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]] as a whole is, of course, the obvious resemblances between [[underline]] lucidus [[/underline]] and [[underline]] chlorophanes [[/underline]] and [[underline]] Tangara [[/underline]] on the one hand, and between [[underline]] cyaneus [[/underline]] and [[underline]] Rhamphocelus [[/underline]] on the other. The whole group of genera may be linked together by something like [[underline]] Thraupis. [[/underline]] One wonders which (if either) is the more primitive: the excessive gregariousness of the Blues, or extreme aggressiveness of the Shinings. If the former, then the behavior of the Shinings must be a secondary reversion to the type of social relations characteristic of primitive passerines (this might possibly explain the peculiar nature of the "song" of the captive ♀ Shining). If the latter, then the Blue may be considered another example of the general tendency of the tanagers and tanager-derivatives to form complex societies. It may have followed the same sort of evolutionary development as the Plain Tanagers, but not have progressed so far. I might just mention, before I forget, that the Shinings involved in this free-for-all did do some of that irregular and obviously unritualized "bowing" which Blues also do during hostilities. They did alternate their St's with some irregular & variable looking down and from side to side.

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] I (63) March 12, 1958 Barro Colorado I have been catching Shining Honeycreeper after Shining Honeycreeper in the nets. As soon as I catch one pair, another shows up. It is now quite obvious, therefore, that these birds are very common around here (although probably somewhat less so than the Blues or Greens); and that they merely seem rare because they are relatively inconspicuous. And this latter in turn, must be the result of their extreme gregariousness. I presume that whenever one comes into contact with another, in the wild, one attacks immediately and the other retreats without more than a brief argument. I am keeping several of the birds I have caught, at least temporarily. The second pair is now banded ♂ light blue right, ♀ light green left. The third pair is banded ♂ dark green right, ♀ black right. A lot of these birds (both ♂'s and ♀'s) seem to be just completing a molt. Either young birds just assuming adult plumage, or this species (including the ♀'s?) has an eclipse plumage like the Blues. When I first put the dark green ♂ in with the second pair, in the small travelling cage, they chased him quite a bit, but the whole dispute was relatively mild compared with the fight a few days ago in the aviary, (no actual pecking and occasional paures). It is probably significant, therefore, that the commonest patterns of both the ♀ and ♂ of the second pair were all sorts of of more or less E St's, with or without BL & BF, but almost all quite silent. This would seem to confirm the hypothesis that silent St's are lower intensity than St's with calls.

[[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]] Mar. 12, 1958, II (64) The first [[female symbol]] seems to have stopped her peculiar early morning "song" now. Is this because she has a [[male symbol]] with her and is apparently "mated"? I think that I may have somewhat misinterpreted the Bzz in my earlier accounts. I think that there may be 2 somewhat distinct types of Bzz. I noticed that the [[male symbol]] of the record pair tends to go into an E St with BL (I think I shall call this EL ST -- to distinguish it from the very tall "alert" St Postures --like the usual St of [[female symbol]] Blues) with considerable BF (this stands for Belly-fluffing), whenever the female came near him. This was usually accompanied by some sort of Bzz - type note (This whole thing is just the same as the common reaction between the [[male symbol]] and [[female symbol]] of the first pair I watched earlier.) But there Bzz's were perhaps softer than some others I have heard earlier (during actual fights?) and seems to lack the twang completely. It is possible that the lack of twang is a secondary sexual character, but I don't think the Bzz's can be very aggressive. I also noticed the [[male symbol]] of the record pair went into the same EL St with BL & BF & the same soft Bzz Notes where wild Shining Honeycreepers came to visit, and that he simultaneously faced toward his [[female symbol]] (without moving his body). This seems to be obviously redirection; and I think that it must indicate an escape drive of some appreciable strength. I have now heard one of the birds of the record pair give one of these soft Bzz Notes when I passed by the cage! [[end page]]

[[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]] Mar. 12, 1958, III (65) [[image of bird with bill up, arrow to left leads to label "venter" arrow to right leads to female symbol]] This is a diagram of the situation during the redirected St's described on the preceding page. These incidents must indicate that the Bzz's are not overwhelmingly aggressive on the whole. They probably occur when attack and escape are nearly equal; the soft notes (SBzz) occurring when both the drives are weak, the load notes (LBzz) occurring when both the drives are strong. (This interpretation is not really contradicted by the amount of the fight between the first and second pairs a few days ago. The initial response of the first pair to the second pair was a rush forward and R -- and this must have been the most aggressive response -- although not the the highest intensity. The LBzz's -- ("L" I think) -- were the patterns that did precede attack during the highest intensity fights -- but these fights tended to be preceded by an infinitesimal pause while the 2 opponents stood face to face.) I wonder if the fact that the black throat is most prominently displayed during the less aggressive displays is in accordance with my interpretation of the valence of the black & blue colors in the Blue Honeycreepers? I think so. In the case of the Blues, it would seem that the raising of the most prominent blue feathers (i.e. the crown) is characteristic of a display which does not (to say the least) contain a very prominent escape element.

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[underlined]], Mar. 12, 1958, IV (66) I might add that the rather vulturine Bckfluff "relaxed" posture might be result of a general relaxed fluff plus an added escape component just strong enough to depress the crown feathers. Well! Well! Well! ??? I would swear that a [[male symbol]] Blue which I caught in the net (and gave a lot of the usual HSer when handled) gave a quite definite R as it flew away after being released. Don't tell me this species has an R pattern too, but confined to the very very highest intensities?? I doubt it. I must be mistaken I might add a few details about the distribution of the wild Shinings before I forget, I have seen a lot of apparently single birds and a lot of apparent pairs. I have never seen more than 2 birds going around together naturally. Some of the pairs are composed of a [[male symbol]] and a [[female symbol]]; but others seem to be composed of 2 [[male symbol]]'s! (I have seen [[underlined]]at least[[/underlined]] 2 such pairs). Rather manakin-like March 13, 1958 [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]] Barro Colorado Today I got rid of a lot of captive birds, i.e. the 2 young [[male symbol]] Blues (banded green right and black right), leaving me just the 2 pairs of this species, and the second pair of Shinings ([[male symbol]] light blue right, [[female symbol]] light green left), leaving me just 2 pairs of this species too.

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[underlined]], I (69) March 22, 1958 Barro Colorado Aha! I think sex may be rearing its ugly head--in the notated pair of captive Shining Honeycreepers ([[male symbol]] dark green right, [[female symbol]] black right) Every once in a while (usually just after I sit down after standing up and disturbing the birds) the [[male symbol]]flies to the corner, where the [[female symbol]] has taken refuge from my disturbance, and goes into an St. Posture, (of the E St type, sometimes very extreme, sometimes less so). He usually falls more or less in the same direction as the [[female symbol]], his body parallel with hers, occasionally turning his head toward her. [[schematic with arrows]] comme ca:[[with cedilla]] He usually utters Bzz Notes when he goes into these E St's, the usual apparently--not very--aggressive Bzz's uttered between [[male symbol]]'s and [[female symbol]]'s. Sometimes, however, his E St's are quite silent. In any case, the [[female symbol]] immediately responds by going into a Hunched Posture and uttering a "silent" or "squeaky" or "sex" Rattle (SR). Her Hunched (H) is not usually very extreme. More or less comme ca:[[with cedilla]] [[sketched illustration of bird]] Somewhat, but only slightly fluffed. The SR is obviously just a modification of the usual R. Sometimes sounds just like a very soft version of the R (so soft as to be inaudible part of the time) without tone change. Sometimes (but less frequently) not only very [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Mar. 22, 1958, II (68) soft but also very high-pitched and squeaky. Her bill is held quite widely open diving both the plain raft and squeaky SR’s, and her tongue is partly raised, at the base, so that the inside "angle" is quite conspicuous (see drawing on previous page.) Both her lower mandible and the tongue vibrate conspicuously rhythm with the call. The 2 birds may sit side by side doing this for several seconds. The ♂ may interrupt his E St’s and Bzz’s to peer at the ♀, silently, or even make a more or less gentle poke toward her crown, cheeks, or chin. This [[underlined]]looks[[/underlined]] very much like an attempt at mutual preening! But the ♀ has never responded in what I presume would be the right away - as yet. The ♂’s peering and poking seems to irritate her, and she usually responds by turning her head toward him, continuing the SR, sometimes making a few tentative jabbing movements (Even when the ♂ doesn’t begin to peer and poke, the ♀ usually interrupts his E St’s and Bzz’s in the same way) The ♂ may respond to these actions by the ♀ in any one of several different ways. He may hop back a fraction of an inch, stand a minute, and then fly off. Or, most frequently, he may remove his E St’s, with Bzz’s, after a momentary pause. Or, less frequently but not really uncommonly [[underlined]]he may go into an H & SR pattern too[[/underlined]]!!! The 2 birds may then sit side by side doing more or less the same thing. His H seems to be essentially identical with hers, and so is his SR in most respects. But I think that his SR usually tends to be even squeakier than hers. And he often responds to her apparently irritated turning [[end page]]

[[underlined]] Cyanerpes [[/underlined]], Mar. 22, 1958, III [[circled]]69[[/circled]] toward him by first doing a lot of G which only gradually turns into an SR. I.E. he first does a G with wide open bill, in a sort of semi-St-semi-H pattern; (head rather low on the whole but bill definitely inclined obliquely upward); and then his tongue gradually becomes visible, his tongue and mandible begin to vibrate, and the squeaky SR gradually becomes audible (I should think, perhaps, from this sequence, that the G contains a stronger escape element than the SR). This relationship between G and SR is certainly reminiscent of the relationship between G and WGN's in the ♀ Blues. All the cases I have seen (and there have been a lot more during the period I have been writing these notes) have petered out without further developments. The ♂ seems to get discouraged and eventually moves off. The only unusual variation in this procedure that I have seen was once where the ♀ responded to an E St & Bzz by the ♂ by giving SR in a "hanging" flight int. mov. posture. Comme ça: [[drawing of bird]] This would seem to indicate that the SR itself contains an appreciable escape element Which I would expect anyhow. When I first saw this SR & H pattern I thought that it was probably largely or completely sexual. If so, it's form is certainly unusual for a passerine. But I now think that the sexual component, although almost certainly present, may be weaker than the hostile component. Certainly, it is the H & SR by

[[underline]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], Mar. 22, 1958, IV (70) the ♀ which seems to be the thing that discourages the ♂ I am still taking a look at wild Blues from time to time The only pattern which I have seen performed by wild ♂'s which could possibly be the equivalent of the song of lower passerines in the HCN. I have seen apparently single ♂'s sit in the top of bare trees and give single HCN's (with CR) repeatedly for long periods of time. Calling a mate??? [[underline]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], I March 23, 1958 Barro Colorado Watching the same pair of captive Shinings as yesterday They are behaving much as yesterday. I can amplify a few points in connection with the E St-Bzz-H-SR performances. The ♂ often sort of leans over the back of the ♀ when he goes into E St more or less facing her. It is this which makes it look so much like he wants to mount her. Perhaps he does. The ♀ doesn't have any real CR in her H, but her crown feathers are slightly fluffed. This is the only display posture of this species I have seen which doesn't look very flat-headed. Aside from the one incident yesterday (in which the ♀ gave SR from a flight int. mov. posture), she has never shown any tendency to retreat from the ♂ during her SR's. (Her turning toward him might be considered quite the contrary in fact.) So the escape component in SR maybe definitely weaker than the counteracting motivation -- whatever it may be. I should note, however, that the ♂ of this pair may be [[end page]]

[[underline]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], Mar.23, 1958, II 71 the dominant bird in most circumstances aside from display. I.E. when the 2 birds are just hopping back & forth across the cage, the ♀ usually flies off when the ♂ lands beside her (It is possible, however, that part of this apparent timidity of the ♀ is due to the fact that she is more alarmed by my presence than the ♂ - as she certainly seems to be.) Conveniently enough, this afternoon I saw the ♀ of the other pair of Shinings (unbanded) give a SR with H, just like the ♀ described above, when her ♂ approached her too closely. [[underline]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], I April 5, 1958 Barro Colorado A most peculiar and prolonged incident between 2 of the Blues today--the yellow right ♀ and the blue left ♂, of all birds! Late in the evening just about when the birds were going to roost My attention was first called to the incident by a long series of loud HCN's, coming from inside one of the Pagoda Bushes (The leaves of this damn bush obscured a good deal of the birds from time to time, but I am sure of the following.) The ♂ was uttering HCN's quite rapidly, rather irregularly, only a few seconds apart. This was accompanied by quite rapid Bowing, rather like the more variable bowing sometimes accompanying hostile disputes between ♂'s, but much

[[underlined]]Cyaneyres[[underlined]], Apr. 4, 1958, II 72[[circled]] more standardized and almost certainly ritualized. Almost straight up and down, (very occasionally a downbeat was combined with turning to one side-- in the way that [[male symbol]] often do during the day disputes among themselves). [[drawing of two birds]] The picture at the top of the upbeat was obviously related to the St; but differed in that the black area of the back was prominently ruffled. (CR was also present - even during the HCN's; the lower breast and belly feathers were more or less ruffled as in Gfluff; and the feathers of the throat were also ruffled - forming a separate "tuft" - presumably in connection with the uttering of the notes.) The posture at the bottom of the downbeat was a rather hunched sitting posture, also with the CR and black back feathers ruffled (The head was sometimes lower - but still horizontal - than in my sketch above.) The HCN's were uttered during all phases of Bowing, at the peak, on the down beat, at the low point, and on the upbeat; but I think that they were most common as the beat went down from the high point (i.e. during the down- [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Apr. 5, 1958, III 73[[circled]] beat). This Bowing was also accompanied by conspicuous WF’s (I don’t know about TF’s). These could occur during all phases of the performance, but they were also most common during the downbeat I think. Aside from these assessory patterns, the up-beat and down beat seemed to be "emphasized" equally. The ♂ tended to face straight toward the ♀ during this performance, (she moved about a lot - so he wasn’t facing her directly all the time.) The only conspicuous variation in this Bowing, aside from the ones mentioned above, was the occasional substitution of an ordinary CN for the HCN. This was relatively very rare, but it apparently could occur during any phase of Bowing. The ♀ responded to this rather peculiarly. She hopped from twig to twig, back and forth rather irregularly, always very near the ♂, without really retreating or attacking the ♂ (but see below.) She also uttered a lot of HCN’s during this (and possibly CN’s too), but I think that she uttered rather fewer than the ♂ . She did not assume any ritualized posture or perform any ritualized movements (aside from fluking and, probably, CR). This didn’t lead to anything very definite - as far as I could see. The 2 birds eventually disappeared completely behind a leaf, and then, a few seconds later, came tearing out in a vigorous and prolonged aerial fight. Then other birds intervened and the whole thing ended. I am rather at a lost on how to interpret all this. Both birds were obviously motivated by strong hostile drives, but was there any other motivation present as well? It is possible [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Apr. 5, 1958, IV 74 [[circled]] that this was merely a particularly vigorous dispute over roosting perches; but I rather doubt it. I have never seen any roosting perch dispute of comparable vigor or length. And the fact that the ♀ didn't retreat may be significant. (If this dispute was purely hostile, the fact that the ♀ didn't retreat may help to explain the particularly standardized form of the ♂'s Bowing). All in all, I rather think that sex must have played a role during this encounter The usual forms of obviously pure hostility are still common in both the Blues and the Shinings, during encounters among themselves and disputes with visitors. I haven't noticed anything new during such disputes for a long time; but I might just add a word about Quivering. I don't think I have ever seen a bird of either species ever do Qu in a dispute in which its "mate" was not involved--either as a participant or a very close spectator. I am becoming more and more convinced that those hostile patterns which display a lot of blue are usually comparatively aggressive and those patterns which display a lot of black contain a relatively strong escape component. This seems to be equally true of both species. The Shining seems to be much more of a "creeper" during feeding than the Blue. [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I April 6, 1958, Barro Colorado A somewhat unusual incident among the Shinings

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Apr. 6, 1958, I [[circled]]75[[/circled]] today. Noticed the ♂ and ♀ in the aviary hopping about one another, rather excitedly and irregularly. The ♂ mostly just uttering Bzz's. The ♀ in a more or less conventional St, apparently silent, and doing Qu movements with the wings definitely raised well [[underlined]]above[[/underlined]] the back. [[drawing of bird with wings raised above back]] I don't know whether this was "really" different from the ordinary Qu performance, but it certainly looked peculiar. Could it be sexual??? [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I April 11, 1958 Barro Colorado I have now seen the ♂ Shining do this St with wings [[underlined]]raised[[/underlined]] and quivering, (I shall call this UQu). Toward the ♀. No call at all during the performance. The wings are raised so much that one can hear them click together as they meet over the back with each quivering movement. This does seem to be something quite distinct from the usual St&Qu performance. The usual St&Qu is always, I think, accompanied by Bzz's. (Unfortunately, this UQu performance by the ♂ was not associated with any unmistakable overt activity, except for hostile display, ie. St's & ordinary Qu provoked by, and directed toward the ♀ and/or visiting ♂'s.) I have now seen a little visiting party of Shinings which consisted of 2 ♂'s & 1 ♀! [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I. [[circled]]76[[/circled]] April 12, 1958 Barro Colorado I took the 2 ♀ Blues out of the large aviary this noon, and put them in a small cage about 15 or 20 ft away from the aviary — just to see what the ♂'s would. The blue left ♂ first began by flying back and forth along the side of the aviary nearest to the ♀'s cage. He uttered quite a lot of ordinary CN's during this. All these CN's seemed to be [[underlined]]without[[/underlined]] any trace of CR. Then, gradually, as the afternoon wore on, this blue left ♂ began to spend more time flying back and forth along the length of the aviary (from the side near the ♀'s to the side away from them and back, etc. etc.) in a rather excited manner. [[underlined]]This was accompanied by lots & lots of WS's[[/underlined]]. (Mostly during the brief intervals when the ♂ perched on the far side, [[underlined]]away[[/underlined]] from the ♀'s). The sound of this WS was more or less similar or identical with the WS's of the young birds I used to have. A soft prolonged warble. Usually introduced, and almost always followed, by [[underlined]]HCN's[[/underlined]]. (Also a lot of HCN's uttered when this ♂ was flying about in the intervals between WS's). His WS was uttered from a rather different posture from that in which the young birds gave their WS's He gave his in quite sleek (i.e. no CR or fluffing of body feathers) pre-flight, rather alert, postures Whenever this ♂ seemed to be particularly highly motivated, ie. when he was flying about most excitedly and giving WS's most frequently, the WS's became louder — but I still find it difficult to believe that they could ever carry further than about 20 yds — at best [[end page]]

[[underline]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], Apr. 12, 1958, II 77 The other ♂, white left, doesn't seen to have reacted to the absence of the ♀'s at all. He has just sat, slept, fed, & preened all afternoon, in an apparently perfectly relaxed manner. (In this connection, it might be mentioned that the blue left ♂, although he has completed the pre-nuptial molt, still has a little green on the tertials__so he may be a first-year bird. The white left ♂ doesn't have any green anywhere. It is also quite possible that the difference between the 2 ♂'s is due to the fact that the white left bird is already passed the peak of the breeding season.) As far as I can tell the 2 ♀'s have done nothing but fly about and utter a few CN's and (less frequently) HCN's. [[underline]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], I April 13, 1958 Barro Colorado The blue left Blue ♂ has done fewer WS's today. Is this a sign of negative conditioning? It is obvious, watching this ♂ yesterday and today, that he only begins WS when all other drives (except preening) are low. It almost appears to be a "residual" activity (This also seems to be true of the singing of all or almost all the other species I am studying.) The white left ♂ hasn't done any WS's at all yet. (In this connection, it may possibly be significant that the blue left ♂ seems to be the dominant bird. At least, it can make supplanting attacks on white left, and force the latter to retreat.)

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I [[circled]]78[[/circled]] April 19, 1958 Barro Colorado Nothing much new recently among the Blues. The white left ♂ still hasn't begun WS'ing yet. (The ♀'s are still being kept apart in a separate cage.) I am beginning to think this may be significant; as he does spend quite a bit of time flying back and forth in the aviary uttering calls. This afternoon he mostly uttered ordinary CN's (with head feathers very smooth rather than CR.) The blue left ♂ still sings from time to time; but it is obvious now, I think, that he sings much less than the 2 young birds I kept earlier. This may also be significant. I have been paying a little more attention to some of the vocal patterns of the Shinings too; and I am now quite certain that slow series of CN's can merge with the most rapid R's through any possible intermediate. The ♀ Shining did a peculiar "Wing flailing" performance yesterday. Started to give a lot of single CN's when a ♂ Blue came to visit; and each note was accompanied by a single, only moderately fast, "flail". The wings suddenly flicked out, and slightly down. Slightly spread. And then folded normally again. No trace of the up-and-down vibration of Qu. I rather imagine that this was just a slightly exaggerated form of ordinary WF.

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I [[circled]]79[[/circled]] April 23, 1958, Barro Colorado I finally put the 2 ♀ Blues back in the aviary with the males this afternoon. There wasn't much in the way of a reaction. The ♂'s flew to them and followed them, off and on, but I couldn't tell what the motivation of the ♂'s was. The Shinings were quite hostile to the ♀ Blues. The ♀ Shining in particular attacked both ♀'s Blues at first. It is obvious, in fact, that the Shinings react to Blues almost as if they were the same species (as if the Blues were "sub-normal" members of the same species). This is also evident in the reaction of captive Shinings to wild visiting Blues. Shutch is probably correct in saying that ♀'s only attack ♀'s, and ♂'s only attack ♂'s, (although both sexes may display at birds of the opposite sex). This seems to be true of both species of [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]]. Both [[female symbol]] Blues spent a lot of time in a fluffed posture this afternoon after being let loose in the aviary. Difficult to interpret Looked perfectly "normal", occasionally associated with preening and/or other comfort activities. Notice shape of head [[sketches of two birds]] The ♀'s have a "crest" too.

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], Apr 23, 1958, II. 80 [[circled]] But it also was particularly conspicuous after the ♀'s had been attacked and threatened by the ♀ Shining and during general "panic freezes" provoked by the appearance of an Accipiter hawk near the aviary, so it may conceivably have been a hostile performance. Perhaps comparable to that general fluffing Hinde et al talk about. But it couldn't have been the result of a relatively very strong escape drive Seldom or never preceded overt escape; and twice a ♀ sitting in this fluffed posture attacked a ♂ Blue when he came too close! This fluffed posture, incidentally, was rather different from any of the fluffed or ruffled postures of ♂'s I have drawn. Head, breast, & belly feathers [[underlined]]very[[/underlined]] ruffled, but upper back only smoothly fluffed, and wings definitely meeting or crossed over base of tail. During one of the "panic freezes" I noticed that the ♀ Shining was sitting in the H posture drawn on Mar. 22, p. 68, giving SR. The ♂ was also sitting in the same posture, and gave a little of the same "call"!! This might suggest that the SR is really just an inhibited form of the ordinary R, and that the inhibition may be due to different factors in different cases. I would presume that the factor was fear [[underline]]Cyanerpes[[/underline]], I May 5, 1958, barro Colorado The yellow right ♀ Blue apparently died over a week ago, shortly after I put both ♀'s back in the aviary She was apparently more or less mated with the white

Cyanerpes, May 5, 1958, II left ♂; and it is undoubtedly significant that two ♂ didn't do any WS after her death either. It is also significant that the other ♂ Blue stopped WS-ing after his ♀ was restored to him. I have now caught another ♀ (unbanded) and let her loose in the aviary. The ♂ Shining in the big aviary I has started to give SR now (each note could be nicely transcribed as "[[Jeeek?? Possibly unprintable?]]") when he is feeding in the Pagoda Bush flowers, whenever another bird (and particularly the ♀ Shining) comes near. [underline]Cyanerpes[/underline], I August 3, 1958 Barro Colorado The Blues seem to have been almost or completely absent from the neighborhood of the clearing, ever since I returned on June 23rd. There are still Shinings around, however. I have just noted one interesting aspect of their social behavior. When I first put out the Plain and Golden-[[hooded?]] in the large aviary, they were both very noisy, with all sorts of CN's and CN [[Fill?]]'s. It is probably highly significant, therefore, that three captive Tanagers were frequently visited by a wild ♀ Shining Honeycreeper (probably ? always the same ♀), in spite of the fact that there were no other Honeycreepers in the aviary. I think that the female sum Shining must have been attracted by the sounds of the tanagers.

82 [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I. September 26, 1959 London Zoo There is a single ♂ Red-leg here, in a small cage by itself. In full nuptial plumage. It may be significant that this bird has shown no tendency to sing in any way during the period I have been watching him [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I June 23, 1960 Barro Colorado I have long had 2 ♂ Shinings here. One in left outside cage. The other in a small cage in the Animal House. Yesterday afternoon we caught a ♀. I put her in the left outside cage with the ♂ this morning shortly before 6:30 a.m. The ♂ reacted to her appearance quite strongly. As soon as the ♀ was released in the cage, she flew to a perch and sat there, motionless, for several minutes. Presumably panic-struck. The ♂'s initial reaction to her appearance was to utter R. In unritualized posture at first; but he flew to the ♀ after 2 or 3 seconds, still continuing R, and started to hop around her & near her, in an FSt Posture Quite extreme BL (but probably with very little "Belly-fluffing") Then, standing still beside the ♀, he began to perform a more elaborate display. In a moderately extreme St Posture (see [[arrow pointing to drawing of bird]]) he spread his wings [[underlined]]approximately[[/underlined]] horizontally and began to Quiver them. This horizontal stretching of the wings was much more extreme than any similar stretching I have ever seen performed by this [[drawing of bird]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], June 23, 1960, II 83[[circled]] species before. Sometimes both wings were held straight out at the same level. Perhaps more frequently, however, one wing was held higher than the other In this case, it was always the wing nearest the ♀ which was higher than the other, (this is the position of the wings shown in the drawing on the preceding page). (The drawing on the preceding page is perhaps slightly misleading, insofar as it is drawn from above. The wings were usually at least level with the back. Not infrequently raised somewhat above the back - even when both wings were at the same level.) As soon as the ♂ began this extreme horizontal Q display, he stopped uttering R's The first part of this extreme Q display was apparently quite silent, but after a few seconds the ♂ uttered 2 (or 3?) very soft, muffled, Bzz's (no twang), still continuing the horizontal Q display as vigorously as ever. The extreme horizontal stretching of this Q pattern was quite reminiscent of the BV of the large black Diglona{{?}} I have watched on Cerro Atacaso in Ecuador! The ♀ did not respond to this display by the ♂ for some seconds. When she flew away from the ♂ , to the opposite side of the cage, where she hung, vertically, on the wire. The ♂ stopped his horizontal Q and Bzz display immediately, and followed the ♀. He landed on a perch below her, and immediately started to utter a long series of essentially uniform, rather prolonged and definitely high pitched "Tweeeet" Notes. Comme ca: [[8 horizontal lines]] In a slight St Posture, without other ritualized postural components or movements, (it is possible that his slight "St" was little more than looking up at the ♀). These notes were definitely more prolonged, and probably higher pitched, than the ordinary CN's. Definitely another type of display. The w [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], June 23, 1960, III 84[[circled]] way in which these notes were repeated so rapidly for such a long period of time made me think that they might form a "song" of some sort. The ♀ failed to respond to this performance in any way. The ♂ eventually began to utter R again. Almost immediately after starting the R he flew to the wire beside the ♀, and hung there vertically too. In this peculiar position he started Q again; Q of a more ordinary type than earlier, with the wings drooped and held out horizontally to a much lesser extent. At the same time, he assumed a not very extreme St Posture (he could hardly have assumed an extreme St in the peculiar position he was in). As soon as he began the Q, he also stopped uttering R and began to utter a few [[underlined]]very[[/underlined]]soft and muffled Bzz's. Again the ♀ refused to respond in any way. After a few seconds, the ♂ stopped his Q - Bzz display and began to fly back & forth & around the cage in a rather excited manner. He uttered lots of R during this whole period of flying (I was able to confirm that the individual notes of an R are harsher than ordinary CN's.). Eventually he seemed to relax a little. Continued flying back and forth, but stopped R. Just uttered ordinary CN's from time to time. Every once in a while, he would stop and BW; but I don't know if this was significant or not. At the same time, the ♀ also started to fly around the cage. Apparently not paying much attention to the ♂. Apparently silent all or almost all the time (she may have uttered a few CN's, but I am not sure about this). Eventually, the ♂ flew straight to the ♀ again and landed right beside her on the same perch. He immediately assumed an extreme E St, with BL, and slight Belly-fluffing. He remained quite silent, however, and did not Q. Again the ♀ seemed to ignore him completely, and [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], June 23, 1960, IV 85 he just flew away from her. About this time, (ca. 7:30 a.m.), both birds seemed to be calming down appreciably. Both birds flying about less excitedly, with only a few CN's. Both birds fed from time to time. Every once in a while, however, the ♂ would fly to the ♀ and start to perform a little more St. display. Usually definitely E St. Tail sometime a little raised Wings sometimes a little drooped or held away from the body, but without Q (the Q of this species must be a relatively very high intensity posture!). Sometimes silent, sometimes accompanied by a few soft, muffled Bzz Notes. The usual St posture of the ♂ during these approaches was more or less comme ça: [[sketch of bird]] Very little Belly fluffing Body looking relatively long The ♀ did not respond to any of these approaches Eventually, she just sat quietly, rather fluffed, even slightly ruffled, apparently half asleep, quite ignoring the ♂. The ♂ continued to fly around, approaching the ♀ from time to time. Each time he approached her, he assumed some sort of an St posture, but then gradually changed a little.[[sketch of bird]] Became more like the UG Fluff Posture of the Green Honeycreeper Definite Belly-fluffing. The appearance of such postures after the ♂ has "relaxed" a little, and the ♀ had begun to sit quietly, would suggest that these postures (especially the Belly-fluffing component) are either an indication of low intensity motivation

[[underline]] Cyanerpes [[/underline]]. June 23, 1960, V. 86[[circled]] ion, or more probably, produced when the sex drive is relatively stronger, and the drives relatively weaker, than in St patterns without Belly-fluffing. Belly-fluffing, in other words, may be taken as an indication of sex. (It may also be significant that the [[male symbol]] was apparently always silent when he approached the [[female symbol]] in an St with Belly-fluffing. The Bzz's seem to be an indication or expression of hostility.) None of these St & Belly-fluffing approaches were accompanied by Q of any sort. The [[female symbol]] usually ignored these approaches. Only once did she turn toward the [[male symbol]] and open her bill. I couldn't hear any sound when she opened her bill, but it looked very much as if she might be uttering SR. She remained fluffed, in an H or semi-H posture, during this bill-opening. The [[male symbol]] responded by retreating at once. The [[female symbol]] eventually went to sleep, head tucked under scapulars!!! She must have been exhausted by all the excitement of being captured, etc. (So I cannot interpret her previous fluffing and ruffling as the result of a relatively strong escape drive She may just have been preparing to go to sleep) After the [[female symbol]] woke up, both birds flew around some more. Not very excited. Occasionally feeding. The [[male symbol]] tended to assume a very weak St Posture, without BL and/or tail-raising ("TU") each time he approached the [[female symbol]] or the [[female symbol]] approached him. Only once did the [[female symbol]] assume a weak St Posture (without other ritualized components) when the [[male symbol]] approached her. All these St's were silent. I stopped observing about 9:15. I must say that the occurrence of all these display patterns today definitely confirmed my previous experiences of the motivation of these displays.

[[circled]]84[[/circled]] [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I. March 29, 1961 Bano Colorado During the last week or so, I have made a few casual observations of Blue Honeycreepers around the clearing. In the intervals of watching tanagers. Among the reactions I have noted are the following: Where a snake tried to get 2 young Sangre de Toros, the parents fluttered about very excitedly, uttering lots of "Aah"[[long a-sound indicator]] Notes. Their behavior attracted a lot of birds of other species. A sort of incipient mobbing reaction. Among the other birds attracted was a ♂ Blue Honeycreeper. He flitted about uttering a lot of HCN's. No other ritualized patterns, except fluking (not even CR's). Time and again I have seen apparently single ♂ Blues sitting at the top of tall trees (especially bare trees), uttering HCN after HCN, for minutes on end. Quite regularly. [[7 horizontal lines]] Such ♂'s usually sit in unritualized postures (only very occasionally do they CR, with or between the HCN's). Usually do not hop from perch to perch while they utter the HCN's. The behavior of such ♂'s is very reminiscent of ♂ Blue Tanagers and Palm Tanagers uttering SN's in order to "call in" a mate. The HCN's of such ♂ Blue Honeycreepers also seem to [[sub?]] some of the functions of the SN's of Thraupis spp. At least, a ♂ usually or always stops uttering such HCN's when he is joined by his mate (see below) --- unless other Blue Honeycreepers arrive at the same time and a general dispute develops. It is remarkable that HCN's are used for this purpose. Because they are hoarse and harsh. Almost all other species "call in" mates [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Mar. 29, 1961, II. [[circled]]88[[/circled]] by uttering clear (often plaintive and/or whistle-like) notes. I have seen no form of WS and/or SS among the wild birds. The Blue Honeycreepers around here still associate in flocks quite frequently. Especially in the afternoons. Such flocks may be maintained almost steadily, in the afternoons, for at least a couple of hours. They usually include approximately 4 to 8 birds. The flocks often appear to include more ♂'s than ♀'s; but this appearance is quite possible deceptive, as ♀'s are often difficult to see. While they are in these flocks, the ♂'s tend to be very active, flitting here, there, and everywhere. They sometimes appear to prefer to flit about a ♀, but this appearance may be deceptive (see below). They may be flitting about one another. All this flitting is very irregular. Obviously not ritualized in form itself. This flitting is usually accompanied by a lot of low to moderate intensity hostility. Sometimes all or most of the ♂'s tend to perform a lot of St's. These St's are often quite extreme. Usually or always with CR. Sometimes but not very frequently with a very slight trace of BL or BF (breast-lowering and belly-fluffing) I have not seen any Q or even wing-drooping or wing-spreading with the St's in these flocks. Nor have I heard any Wh Notes in such flocks. All or most of the St patterns of ♂ Blue Honeycreepers in these flocks must be silent (see below). The ♂'s tend to make a lot of irregular up-and-down and/or side-to-side movements whenever they are in these flocks. Such movements seem to be most vigorous and frequent, on the average, when the ♂'s are performing St's; but I have not seen anything like "real," stereotyped Bowing or Pivoting this year. Some of the ♂'s St's seem to be directed to one another. Other [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Mar. 29, 1961, III (89) s seem to be directed to ♀'s. (I consider an St to be directed in the direction in which the black chin is displayed.) Sometimes the ♂'s in these flocks perform few or no St's but do a lot of CR and assume a lot of Black Fluff Postures. These Black Fluff Postures are quite variable. They are usually more or less similar to the postures drawn below: [2 birds drawn] Sometimes a bird assumes both CR and Black Fluff, at the same time; but I do not think this is usual. Usually one or the other. I have seen ♂'s in Black Fluff point their bills nearly straight downward [[down pointing arrow]] or [[down pointing arrow]] This might be an intention movement of BW. There seems to be a definite tendency for ♂'s to assume Black Fluff's when they are near birds of other species. This might confirm the theory that the Black Fluff contains a relatively strong escape component. But the ♂'s in these flocks also assume Black Fluff's quite frequently when there are no other birds of other species nearby. I presume that the Black Fluff - CR performances are lower intensity, on the average, than the St - CR performances. I am almost certain that the ♂'s in Black Fluffs are usually or always silent. Sometimes the ♂'s in these flocks do little or nothing except CR

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Mar. 29, 1961, IV, 90[[circled]] (in the way of hostile displays). This is presumably even lower intensity than Black Fluff -CR. Quite a lot of single HCN's are uttered in these flocks. But I have not been able to determine who utters them. I rather think that all or most of these HCN's are usually uttered by the [[female symbol]]'s. The [[female symbol]]'s (also) assume a lot of CR's, without uttering and sounds, in theses flocks. No other ritualized hostile movement and/or postures. HCN's are the only sound I have heard in these flocks. At one time, I thought that all their flitting, etc., flocks might be some form of communal display. But I rather doubt it now. I think that these flocks are just the result if the inter-species gregariousness of the species still expressing itself in the breeding season. The hostility is presumably the inevitable result of the birds coming together at this season. The behavior of Blue Honeycreepers in these flocks may be strictly comparable to the behavior of the plain-colored Tanagers in the flock I watched yesterday (see today's notes on [[underlined]]Tangara[[/underlined]]). It may be significant that these flocks of Blue Honeycreepers are found most frequently and maintained for the longest periods of time in the afternoons. Sexual relations are probably relatively rare in the afternoons. All the [[male symbol]] Blue Honeycreepers seem to be in complete nuptial plumage now. They are probably all also mated (although they sometimes become separated from their mates). I have never seen a [[female symbol]]apart from a [[male symbol]] during the last few weeks. As far as I can tell none of the females are incubating yet. And there certainly don't seem to be any young around. [[end page]]

91 [[circled page number]] [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I. April 4, 1961 Barro Colorado Early this morning I watched a single ♂, in full adult plumage, sitting alone, in the top of a tall bare tree, uttering lots of single CN's [[[underlined]]not[[/underlined]] HCN's). With CR. Occasionally stopped vocalizing to preen vigorously. Uttered a few CN's with Blue Fluff as well as CR. This Blue Fluff may have been an intention movement of preening. [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I May 3, 1961 Barro Colorado I have been concentrating on Shining Honeycreepers recently. Before I forget, I should mention that when I got the 2 ♂ Shinings mentioned above on June 23, 1960, one of the ♂'s still had a few juvenal plumage feathers showing. This is the ♂ that was kept alone in the left. outside cage for several months. During this period it was alone, I heard and saw it "sing" several tunes, in the more or less early morning. These "songs" were quite distinctive. Sounded very much like the warbling WS's of Red-legged Blue Honeycreepers, [[underlined]]translated into buzzes[[/underlined]]! A "buzzy warble." As far as I can recall, these "songs" were uttered from a perfectly normal, unritualized-looking sitting posture. The ♂ stopped uttering these songs after the ♀ was put in with him. A couple of weeks ago, I took this ♂ out of the left cage, and left the ♀ alone. Then I noticed that the ♀ also uttered "buzzy warble" songs in the morning. As far as I could tell, exactly like the [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], May 3, 1961, II. 92 songs the ♂ uttered last year when alone. Also uttered from unritualized sitting posture. Yesterday morning, I put the ♂ back with the ♀, around 7:15 a.m. Both birds flew around excitedly for a few minutes, landing from time to time, but seldom very close to one another. One or both birds uttered quite a lot of the usual hard "CN"'s of the species. (Such "CN"s might be transcribed as "Tsit," or even "Tuck." I am beginning to think that they may be definitely hostile —see below.) I think that the ♀ uttered more of these "CN"s than the ♀. Both birds also uttered a few R's, within a few seconds after the ♂ was introduced. Some (probably) in flight. Others when perched. The ♂ uttered one R (at least) in a conventional, fairly high St. With little or no BL or BF. And no trace of Q. The ♀ uttered at least one R in an St. Posture like the one drawn on Feb. 24, 1958, p. 52. When the ♀ began to utter thin, high, "Tseeet" Notes. Essentially single, but repeated quite frequently. These were probably the same as the "Treeeeet" Notes of the ♂ described above on Jan. 23, 1960, p. 83; although the ♀ probably did not repeat them as rapidly as did the ♂ last year. The ♀ sat in apparently unritualized perching and/or "pre-locomotory" postures while she uttered these "Tseeet" Notes. She also flew about from perch to perch, a little bit, after she began to utter "Tseeet"s ; but I [[underlined]]think[[/underlined]] that she never actually uttered any "Treeet"s in flight. I think that these "Tseeet" Notes (and the "Tseeeeet"s of the ♂) are probably strictly homologous with the SN's of the Plain-colored, Palm, & Blue Tanagers, the PCN's of the Sangre de Toro, and re

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]] May 3, 1961, III (93) lated notes of other species. I shall call these "SN"s too. The ♀ also performed quite a number of BW's, when perched, during the period in which she uttered SN's. These may well have been an indication of frustrated or thwarted sex or pairing drive(s) - see below. She also performed 1 Pr movement during the first period of SN's Sometimes the ♀ uttered notes which were more or less obviously intermediate between typical "CN"s and typical SN's. It was my impression that there may be complete intergradation between the 2 patterns. During the first few minutes after the ♂ was introduced, while the ♀ was uttering SN's, the 2 birds uttered a few more R's The ♂ uttered these R's in conventional, rather erect, St Postures. The ♀ probably also assumed a slight indication of St when she uttered her R's. Then the behavior of the birds changed a little. Every few minutes one of them would approach (usually land) within a few inches of the other. (Sometimes it was the ♀ landing beside the ♂, sometimes the ♂ landing beside the ♀.) Each time this happened, the ♂ would suddenly sidle rapidly toward the ♀. Whenever the ♂ suddenly sidled toward the ♀ in this way, both birds would assume a more of less extreme St. Posture. The first 7 or 8 times this happened, the St's of both were accompanied by extreme Q and soft Bzz's (like the ones described above on June 23, 1960). The ♂ also usually did more or less extreme Bowing, with his St-Q-soft Bzz patterns, as he sidled. This Bowing was a rather regular alternation of rather high St's and F St's. The ♀ did not do Bowing. her head & bill were usually [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], May 3, 1961, IV. 94 pointed nearly vertically upward, or even upward and backward, but her body was not usually tilted very much. The 2 extremes of her St-Q Postures, during her first burst of this behavior, were more or less comme ça: [[sketch of bird]] Relatively low intensity St & Q Posture (during a period of high intensity St & Q). Drawn from slightly above and behind. [[sketch of bird]] The highest intensity St & Q Posture by the ♀ Not exaggerated! All the ♂'s Q when he approached the ♀ the first 7 or 8 times was the extreme, horizontal "BU" type. Sometimes the ♀ performed similar BU-type Q. But her wings were drooped rather than spread horizontally during her most extreme St & Q perfomances (see drawing above). The ♂'s Bowing postures with Q were more or less the same as his later Bowing pastures without Q (see below).

[[underlined]] Cyanerpes [[/underlined]], May 3, 1961, V. (95) After a while, the birds began to calm down a little. The ♂ still sidled toward the ♀ whenever the 2 birds came close together; but these displays gradually became less elaborate. This decline took slightly different forms in the 2 birds. The ♀ stopped soft Bzz's first. Then continued to assume St Postures & Q (sometimes quite extreme) without uttering a sound of any sort. The ♂ stopped Q first. Sometimes he performed quite extreme Bowing & SB, without moving his wings at all. His Bowing Postures at such times were comme ça: [[two bird drawings with red arrows - image. Caption:]] Quite long-necked and small-headed in appearance Notice shape of crown. This is probably typical of almost all St Postures (My earlier drawings of St. Postures were probably wrong in this respect.) There was probably some BL during this (and earlier) Bowing; but the belly feathers did not appear to be very conspicuously ruffled. Every time the ♂ sidled toward the ♀, he always stopped just short of her. Then he would suddenly stop display, perform 1 or 2 BW movements, and then fly away or, at least, retreat precipitately [[end page]]

[[underlined]] Cyanerpes [[/underlined]], May 3, 1961, VI. (96) down the branch away from the ♀. The ♀ usually or always continued her St & Q (with or without soft Bzz's) until the ♂ did BW and/or until he retreated, but then she would stop without further display. It looked very much as if the ♂ got "cold feet" whenever he got too close to the ♀. The BW at the end of sidling and display performances would certainly appear to have been an indication of very strong frustration of some sort. It may be significant, in this connection, that the ♂ interrupted all his other activities, quite early in the morning, to perform a lot of comfort activities, for 2 or 3 minutes on end. This long burst of comfort activities did not follow immediately after sidling and display toward the ♀; but it did begin with quite a lot of BW movements, followed by intensive preening of both wings (the wings were stretched out and downward during preening, in a manner which appeared to be perfectly "normal" but did increase the amount of black visible in the plumage of the ♂ to a very considerable extent.) The whole behavior of these birds would suggest that the ♀'s sex or pairing drive was relatively stronger than that of the ♂, and that the ♂'s hostility was relatively stronger than that of the ♀. If so, this might suggest that the Soft Buzzes are largely hostile, and that extreme Q is largely or at least partly sexual The ♂ did not appear to be very aggressive. It is obvious that the "forward"-type St's are not always relatively aggressive. Just include a strong intention movement of advancing component. Gradually the displays between the 2 birds died down alm [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], May 3, 1961, VII (97) ost completely. The ♀ stopped all display. The ♀ stopped sidling performances. Just went into slight silent St, without Q, whenever he happened to be close to the ♀. These low intensity ST's were comme ça[[with cedilla]]: [bird drawing with red arrows to tail and back] Body more or less horizontal Pronounced TU. (This TU was more or less characteristic of all or almost all the St. Postures I saw during this encounter. May possibly be characteristic of all the St's of the species. Perhaps I overlooked it in some of the St patterns I saw on previous years.) The ♀ still continued to utter SN's from time to time this morning, after the ♂ began to sidle and display. Usually or always between sidling & display performances. I think that the ♂ also uttered some SN's (like those of the ♀) from time to time when he flew around the cage. This morning I began to observe the 2 birds before dawn. They were very quiet until well after sunrise. Occasionally one or both birds would utter one or a few hard "CN"s. The ♂ spent most of his time sitting hunched and fluffed. An indication of anxiety? The ♀ spent less time sitting hunched and fluffed. The ♂ did one slight & silent St. when the ♀ approached him. He also did a lot of preening —much more than the ♀— but not only when the ♀ approached him.

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], May 3, 1961, VIII. [[circled]]98[[/circled]] Then the ♂ suddenly started to chase the ♀. Again and again. Both birds uttered "CN"s during these chases. The ♂ perched from time to time, in intervals between chases, in an St Posture (usually showing his black chin to the ♀) and tried to sidle toward the ♀. No Q or soft Bzz's. No display at all by the ♀. She usually just flew away when the ♂ approached too closely. Then the birds just flew around the cage, not together, perching briefly from time to time. The ♂ uttered SN's and/or notes intermediate between typical SN's and typical "CN"s, both in flight and when perched. The the ♂ started sitting fluffed again. Then, when the ♀ landed beside him, he suddenly darted toward her in an extreme F St (with BL) & soft Bzz's. This would suggest that his previous fluffing was partly sexual. The ♀ just flew away from him. Then both birds started to fly around the cage again. Not very excitedly. ♂ usually following ♀. No display, except SN's and/or [[circled]] SN - "CN"[[/circled]]s by one or both birds. [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I June 12, 1961 Frijoles Very early this morning, just at dawn, I observed a ♂ Red-leg perched in a tree uttering a long series of CN's mingled with HCN's comme ça: "CN-CN-HCN-CN-CN-CN-HCN-CN-CN-HCN-CN-CN-CN-HCN-CN-CN-CN....." I couldn't see the ♂ well while he uttered these notes (it was still quite dark). Seemed to be sitting in a more or less ordinary sitting posture (I couldn't tell if he had CR or not), frequently looking from side to side. [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], Jan. 12, 1961, II 99 The CN's he uttered were somewhat hoarse and urgent-sounding. I don't know if this hoarseness is typical of all CN's heard close up or not Possibly these CN's were slightly intermediate with HCN's ???? This is the nearest thing to a "dawn song" I have heard uttered by Red-legs. Quite reminiscent of tanagers and finches !!! Later in the morning I watched a family group of Red-legs. 1 adult ♂ (possibly the same as the ♂ who gave the dawn song earlier), 1 adult ♀, and 1 juvenile. The juvenile begged persistently from the ♀, and was eventually fed. During the begging, the juvenile remained in an H posture with slight TU, and Q'd vigorously. No trace of St or BF. This begging was probably accompanied by a faint begging call, which I did not hear clearly "Zee zee zee zee ...." ??? The bill was kept open throughout the whole begging [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I February 4, 1962 Barro Colorado A pair of Red-legs were very noisy outside my house this morning ♂ banded pink left. ♀ unbanded. Both uttering constant HCN's. ♀ did not have CR while she uttered the notes (I could not see the ♂ ). Then the ♀ flew to join the ♂. As she came close to him, I heard a sort of "GHAC" uttered by one or both birds. A hoarse "Ta zee zee zee" Then both birds flew away. [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I February 22, 1962 Rio Piedras !!! All the Red-legs here seem to be in pairs of 1 ♂ & 1 ♀.

100 [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I. February 25,1962 Rio Piedras This morning, ca. 8:00 a.m, I came across a single ♂ Red leg perched on a high exposed branch. Uttering many HCN's in a rather regular rhythm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Very long sustained. Answered by HCN's from another (invisible) bird about 50 ft away. Eventually, the ♂ flew[[underlined]]away[[/underlined]] from the other bird. This would suggest that HCN's may be threat [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I August 2, 1962 Barro Colorado 5:30 p.m. Came across a juv. Yellow-leg, begging from, and being fed by, an adult ♀. (No ♂ in sight). Juvenile uttering Begging Call in H with Q. Wings way out and quite high(about level with back)in Q. H with considerable to extreme Belly-fluffing. Head moderately to very low. Bill more or less horizontal. [[underlined]]No St[[/underlined]]! But (sometimes at least) considerable TU! Tail not spread in TU. Usually Begging Call "Zaa zaa zaa zaa zaa....." Very loud and hoarse. Quite rasping. Sometimes accelerated (and slightly softened) to "Zuhzuhzuhzuh....." (Once, at least, this occurred immediately [[underlined]]after[[/underlined]]the bird was fed.)

101 [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I May 14, 1963 Barro Colorado I have had a pair of Yellow-legs here for a long time. Don't know if they are a pair I have studied in detail before or not. Kept in small outside cage. A couple of months ago, I separated them. Leaving ♂ in old cage. Putting ♀ in new cage, about 15 ft from ♂. Going to put them together again this morning. Putting her in 6:15 a m ♂ immediately utters R. Declining into 2 or 3 soft Bzz's. With St?. Then flies away, perches some feet from ♀. Difficult to see, as it is still somewhat dark here. ♀ just sits in corner. ♂ flits about, some distance from ♀. Does brief silent St. occasionally on landing. 6:17. Sometimes facing in direction of ♀. Sometimes facing away. ♀ flies to branch near ♂. ♂ responds by rocketing around cage, in very fast and unusually noisy whirring flight, uttering R's as he does so. ♀ flies away. ♂ relaxes Falls silent 6:20. ♀ goes down to feed. Utters 2 or 3 single CN's as she does so Both birds sitting quietly now, Not together. ♂ down to feed. Then ♀ goes down. ♂ immediately flies up. Apparently frightened of ♀. ♀ feeds. ♂ flies about excitedly near top of cage. Then ♀ finishes feeding, starts to fly up. Both birds silent except for occasional CN's until now. As the ♀ flies up, the ♂ swoops or pounces on her!! Brief chase. No vocalizations. Wings whirrs very noisy Chase ends with the two birds hanging on wires side cage. Can't see the

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[underlined]], May 14, 1963, II. 102 em well. ♂ apparently hanging upside down, performing extreme BU-type Q. Can't see if he is in St or not. One of the birds uttering long soft, [[underlined]]fluctuating[[/underlined]], warble of Bzz's!!!! More or less like song of isolated individuals! But the ♂ is apparently only an inch or so from ♀ while this song is uttered. Then birds separate and fly apart. There was apparently no mounting attempt during this encounter. 6:35 a.m. ♂ repeatedly approaches ♀. Sidling along branch in St Posture. Uttering soft but otherwise regular Buzzes as he does so. [[underlined]]Not[[/underlined]] fluctuating or warbling. ♀ usually just retreats. Once she flew at him and supplanted him. She uttered one [[underlined]]loud[[/underlined]] Buzz, with real twang as she did so. He flew away without display. 6:40 ♂ down feeding. Then flies straight to ♀. Lands an inch or so from her. Hanging upside down from top cage. Performs extreme BU-type Q in this position. At same time utters accelerated series soft Buzzes. Not fluctuating or warbling [[set of 5 symbols]].... ♀ just flies away. ♂ relaxes. ♂ lands near ♀. In FSt. No Q. Utters a few soft Buzzes. ♀ flies away. ♂ relaxes. ♀ goes down to feed. ♂ remains perched above. Utters a few [[underlined]]PN's[[/underlined]]. No special posture or movements. The ♂ flies about. Utters occasional soft single CN. Then ♀ flies up. Lands on branch some distance from ♂. ♂ flies to her, repeatedly follows and supplants her. Goes into FSt facing ♀ each time he lands during the process. Each FSt accompanied by Buzzes 6:46. Then both birds relax again. ♂ BW's and preens. Then suddenly rockets into flight, whirring around cage. Lands on perch. Utters loud R in St. Then comes out of St, stops R, begins to utter loud PN's. At first very rapid. Almost no pauses between notes. Then gradually slo

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], May 14, 1963, III 103 ws down, pauses become longer. Unfortunately I can't see ♀. She isn't anywhere near ♂. ♂'s performance apparently provoked by outside stimuli (a wild ♀?) ♂ continues PN's for a long time; at least 3 minutes. Then shuts up 6:55. Then ♀ lands on branch a foot away. ♂ starts to approach her in F St with Buzzes. Stops. Utters 2 PN's. Flies away. ♀ just sits. ♂ back. Lands beside ♀. Goes into FSt, uttering Buzzes, facing her. She moves away. ♂ follows, still in FSt. Starts to utter R, in same posture. At same time, begins to Q wings! Wings held out only slightly, horizontally during Q. ♀ doesn't respond. ♂ stops R & Q, comes out of St. Then immediately utters series PN's. In unritualized posture, except that tail is raised above wing-tips (probably [[?]] of previous Q performance). ♀ just sits. ♂ shuts up & flies away. 7:01 ♀ continues to sit. ♂ occasionally approaches her. In St or FSt. With Buzzes or R's. But she doesn't respond and he always flies away again immediately. [[underlined]]None[[/underlined]] of ♂'s Buzzes this morning have been loud or had any real twang. ♂ approaches ♀ again. In FSt with Buzzes. ♀ retreats. ♂ follows. As soon as ♀ retreats ♂ begins to utter R. Still in St. ♀ retreats again & again. ♂ follows each time. Always in St, with R, when ever he gets close to the ♀. Then both birds relax. ♂ seem to switch from Buzz to R as soon as he realizes that the ♀ is not going to respond sexually and/or aggressively. ♂ starts to follow and supplant ♀ with St & R again. All his St's during such behavior are more or less FSt's. Usually with TU. Some BL. But [[underlined]]no[[/underlined]]BF

(104) [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], May 14, 1963, IV Again ♂ approaches ♀ with St & Buzzes. ♀ flies away. Instead of following with R's, ♂ remains where he was. Goes into extreme St, bill nearly vertical, with BL, quite a lot of BF, TV, and [[underlined]]utters series of PN's in this posture[[/underlined]]. Wings slightly out, horizontally, and [[underlined]]Q'd[[/underlined]] slightly at same time! ♀ doesn't respond 7:13 ♂ certainly seems to be highly motivated! ♂ occasionally approaches and supplants ♀, with St & R's. Both birds utter occasional single CN's almost all the time, even in close association with elaborate displays, but I have been too busy to record them this morning. One or both bird(s) utter(s) Buzzes, without special postures or movements, when Chachalaca lands on top of their cage. ♂ again approaches ♀ with St & Buzzes, switching to R when she retreats. ♂ somewhat less active now 7:25. Preening. ♀ flying about more actively than before. Uttering occasional CN's. ♂ again approaches ♀ with St and Buzzes. ♀ again retreats. ♂ stops display and BW's as soon as she leaves, instead of following her with R's. Is he getting discouraged? 7:33 ♀ goes down to feed. ♂ remains perched about 3 ft above her. He utters 2 or 3 PN's. Also a number of soft "CN"s There are definitely 2 types of "CN"s. Commonest type is loud, hard and metallic "Trit" This is the type that is accelerated into R. Must contain a hostile component, but is is uttered so frequently (these birds are so nearly constantly hostile) that it may also function as a "real" contact note. Probably homologous with the SHN's of other species. I shall call it by the same name. It is probably an example of a late stage [[end page]]

105 Cyanerpes, May 14, 1963, V. of the transformation of a hostile signal into a contact note. The other type of "CN" is softer, a rather muffled "chuk". Probably the "real" CN (I shall continue to call it this). Probably homologous with the CN's of other species. Probably contains little or no hostility. CN's & SHN's intergrade. Difficult to tell how frequently, as even the extremities are not very different in sound. Everything very quiet now 7:53. ♂ sitting alonge, in rather hunched but apparently unritualized posture. Uttering occasional PN's I presume that these PN's are homologous with the "HCN"s of the Red-legs? ♂ suddenly lands near ♀. Goes into extreme St with R, followed by rapid series of PN's, still in extreme St. ♀ does retreat. (Is this why ♂ switches to PN's???) Then ♂ flies away. Lands a couple of feet away. Does R in St again, facing toward ♀. Then stops, BW's repeatedly, then flies away. 8:04 a m. Both birds sitting quietly. Both preening. Far apart. Then ♂ flies to ♀, lands about 6 inches from her. Utters Bzz's in extreme St. Usual form St. FSt, some BL, no BF. Wings out slightly. Apparently no Q. TV. ♀ just sits. ♂ hops toward her. She flies off. He remains in St, but stops Buzzes. Then relaxes 8:09. ♂ suddenly starts to chase the ♀ violently and repeatedly with lots & lots of Buzzes. This starts at the exact instant that a chachalaca lands on the cage. Redirection? This, I think, is the only pair of Yellow-legs I have ever watched in which the ♂ was dominant over the ♀. Leaving 8:15 am

(106) [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], I May 15, 1963 Barro Colorado Going to put another ♂ and ♀ Yellow-leg together. Not the same birds as those observed yesterday. (I shall call these birds "II," and the ones observed yesterday, "I".) The II birds have never met one another before. They have been kept in small cages in the animal house. Going to put them together in outside cage. Let loose in cage together 6:12 am. Both obviously exhausted by now, after being chased and caught. Finally see one another 6:22. ♂ utters R in ESt. Then both just sit quietly. Then ♂ lands near ♀. He is in St, with BF. Pivots irregularly and [[underlined]]silently[[/underlined]]. Then flies away. ♂ occasionally approaches ♀ later. ♀ usually responds by assuming a weak St. ♂ then retreats. ♂ repeatedly approaches ♀ again. In St with BF and Buzzes. ♀ just retreats or pokes her bill toward ♂, causing him to retreat. Sometimes ♂ performs irregular Bowing & Pivoting when he approaches. Once he stopped Buzzes and started R when ♀ did int. movs. of retreat. In all cases, he broke off display & flew away after a couple of seconds 6:35 am Again ♂ approaches ♀. In St with extreme BF. TV. Wings out a little bit (possibly Q'd). This is the sort of St which looks very much like Ufluff of Green Honeycreepers. Accompanied by Bowing and continuous [[underlined]]very[[/underlined]] soft Buzzes. ♀ goes into H. Can't tell if she utters SR or not. In any case, ♂ retreats, flies away 6:42. [[end page]]

(107) [[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[/underlined]], May 15, 1963, II. Again ♂ approaches ♀. Both utter R's in St! 6:44. 6:45 ♂ approaches ♀ in St with extreme BF and soft continuous Buzzes. ♀ responds by going into some sort of low posture (H?) which I can't see well. At the same time she definitely holds wings out slightly and performs slight Q! But ♂ hesitates, retreats, flies off. ♂ utters soft Buzzes without display postures or movements when ♀ lands beside him. She does silent ESt, then flies away. ♂ again approaches ♀ in St with soft Buzzes. She just sits in semi-H. ♂ retreats stops display 6:53. Again. This time ♂ BW's at instant of breaking off display. Again ♂ approaches ♀ as before. This time she responds by doing silent ESt, then turns her head toward the the ♂ and [[underlined]]does SR[[/underlined]]. Opening of bill and tongue movements very conspicuous in SR. (The ♀'s posture, except for her head, remained the same during SR as during the previous ESt. Quite erect. Definitely [[underlined]]not[[/underlined]] H.) ♂ stopped display and retreated immediately as soon as ♀ did SR. SR seems to be quite remarkably effective as a signal. 7:00 a.m. Cop attempt. ♂ sidles down branch to ♀. In St with extreme BF and soft Buzzes as usual. Little or no Bowing or Pivoting (certainly no more than int. movs. — if that). ♀ apparently just sits, in H or semi-H. ♂ hops on her back. She flies off. Lands 6″ away. Stands in ESt with wings out horizontally and definitely Q'd quite vigorously. I think ♂ just stands in silent Q. Then both fly off and relax. This cop definitely unsuccessful. ♂ approaches ♀ again several times in next few minutes. His approach takes usual form. ♀ doesn't respond. ♂ always flies off within a couple of seconds. [[end page]]

[[underlined]]Cyanerpes[[underlined]], May 15, 1963, III [[circled]]108[[/circled]] Both birds flying about quite actively now 7:05. Surprisingly enough ♀ often following ♂. She often does silent St when landing next to him. 7:07 Another cop. attempt. ♂'s approach just as in previous attempt. Can't see ♀'s pre-cop patterns very well. Possibly just sits in H. Cop [[underlined]]possibly[[/underlined]] successful. ♂ slips off. ♀ faces him. Does Q in [[underlined]]low[[/underlined]] St. ♂ just stands. Then both birds relax. 7:10. ♂ approaches ♀ usual fashion. She does definite Q in St. Then apparently SR, turning head to face ♂, while Q continues. ♂ flies off. Again ♂ approaches ♀ as before. She does St with Q. He tries to mount, but she slips away. He flies off. She continues St & Q for a second, then stops. 7:15. Still another cop. attempt. Usual approach by ♂. ♀ goes into St. Bill extremely vertical, with extreme BL (apparently [[underlined]]no[[/underlined]] BF). Apparently silent. Wings possibly drooped or held out very slightly. But no visible Q (this is definite). ♂ tries to mount twice, but slips off each time ♀ remains in same posture. After ♂ slips off for the second time, she remains in same posture, [[underlined]]but begins to Q[[/underlined]]! [drawing of bird labeled ♀ pre-cop] So ♀ Q is definitely more post-cop than pre-cop. ♂ just stands after slipping off. In unritualized posture [[underlined]]except[[/underlined]] for BF. Then makes a few [[end page]]

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] May 15, 1963, IV (109) irregular and obviously unritualized bowing and pivoting movements. Still with BF. Then flew off. BF must be definitely copulatory. Also BL in ♀'s. Q must be definitely hostile. 7:25 ♂ approaches ♀ again in usual way. She goes down into H, turns head toward him, and utters SR, with bill open & tongue visible in usual way. He flies away immediately and she relaxes immediately. Again ♂ approaches ♀ in usual way. This time she just does St and he retreats. St would certainly appear to be threat. SR is either threat or some sort of negative response comparable to the notes of ♀ toads when they don't want to be clasped. ♂ making less vigorous approaches now 7:25. All ♀ has to do is a very brief St and he leaves immediately. From the behavior of the birds now, I would presume that one of their cops earlier this morning was successful. Approaches still continuing, but all very dull 7:50. After approaching ♀ with St and Buzzes, and being repulsed, ♂ often stands near ♀ in unritualized and/or semi-hunched posture with extreme BF comme ça. [[image]] position of wings probably variable.

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] May 15, 1963, V. 110 7:58 Wild ♂ Yellow-leg comes to visit captives. Hangs on outside of cage. Both II Birds inch toward it, utter many R's in St. No Q. ♀ II stops rather soon. ♂ II continues longer. Visitor eventually flies away. Visiting ♂ back again. This time one or both of the II's (almost certainly the ♂ if only one) "greets" visitor by uttering Buzzes (fairly soft, no Twang) in St!!! Visitor flies away again. Again visitor back. Again greeted with St & Buzzes by ♂ II. Visitor leaves again. Leaving myself 8:10 am. [[underline]] NOTES [[/underline]] The reason that Bowing and Pivoting are not mentioned in connection with most of the ♂'s approaches in the preceding account is that they simply did not usually occur in such circumstances. This species seems to lack the ritualized Bowing of some related species. It is possible that the female showed a trace of St and/or [[underline]] very [[/underline]] slight Q which I did not see before some of copulation attempts described above, [[underline]] but, [[/underline]] if so, they must have been very weak indeed. pm. Going to let another ♂ & ♀ Yellow-leg together, by removing partition between them. Call these birds "III". ♂ III has been in cage with ♂ II for months; ♀ III with ♀ II. Let together 4:30 pm. Rush close to one another. Both in extreme St's, bodies nearly vertical. Both utter R's. Then ♂ utters a few loud Buzzes (without twang). Then they separate. Sit silently at opposite ends of the cage. ♀ utters long series PN's in unritualized posture. Then sudden

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] May 15, 1963, VI [[encircled]] 111 [[/encircled]] begins to Q, violently, in St posture. [[image of bird]] Upward Q Wings sometimes out horizontally, sometimes raised, in Q. Part of this Q-St performance silent. Then ♀ utters a few muffled notes that soundd very much [[underline]] like Wh Notes of Red-legs [[/underline]]!!!! (Possibly soft muffled fluctuating Buzzes?) ♂ just looks. 4:35. ♀ stops display, starts to fly about excitedly ♀ starts to explore ♂'s half of cage. ♂ doesn't look at her. He starts to preen. Then pecks vigorously at the band on his leg for a long time. [[underline]] Obviously [[/underline]] displacement. He has had this band for months and has quite ignored it for a long time. 4:40. Both do silent St when ♀ happens to land close to ♂. Again. Again. ♀ utters occasional SHN. Otherwise both birds silent. ♀ supplants ♂ without display ♂ does silent St when ♀ approaches. ♀ doesn't display 4:50. ♂ suddenly starts to hop around ♀. He is in extreme St, with extreme BF, and [[underline]] extreme TU [[/underline]] —but without Q. At first with R. Then silent. Then with R again. ♀ responds by assuming extreme Q. Silent. Does one brief burst of extreme Q, then stops. Remains in St after stopping Q. ♂ stops display. BW's twice at instant of stopping. Then ♂ starts display as before. And ♀ responds by St without Q. ♂'s wings are slightly drooped with TU — but only very sli

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] May 15, 1963, VII. 112 ghtly! 4:55. ♂ approaches ♀ again. His approach takes usual form. Flitting about in St with extreme BF, TU. Lots of R. No Buzzes or Q. ♀ responds by assuming St. Bill vertical but with [[underline]] extreme BL. [[/underline]] Also extreme Q. Horizontal. ♂ tries to mount ♀ immediately jabs at him. He flies away. Both birds stop display. It is beginning to look as if ♀'s of this species will not allow ♂'s to mount if they perform St beforehand. St & Q is probably produced by exactly the same [[underline]] type [[/underline]] of motivation as Q alone. Just higher intensity Two more cop. attempts. Just like the one described immediately above. Except that during the last attempt the ♀ turned toward the ♂, with her head low, and did SR. Her Q continued during the SR. ♂ flew away and both birds relaxed (Also during this last attempt one or both birds may have uttered 1 or 2 Buzzes, briefly, after a long period of R, just before the ♂ tried to mount.) This ♂ seems to be both very aggressive and very strongly motivated sexually. As far as I can tell, the ♀ doesn't have any sexual motivation at all. Again ♀ repells ♂ by performing SR, in H or semi-H, after he has approached her with St, BF, & R. 5:08 pm. Then ♂ hops near ♀, in St with extreme BF. [[underline]] And [[/underline]] with both Buzzes & Bowing! (Both may be an indication of relatively strong motivational conflict.) ♀ doesn't respond. ♂ stops. ♂ hops around ♀ again. In St, with BF & TU. Uttering both R & Buzzes. No Bowing. ♀ turns to him, does SR, in H. ♂ stops displaying and retreats 5:15. [[end page]]

[[underline]] Cyanerpes, [[/underline]] May 15, 1963, VIII 113 ♂ is now performing silent St with BF & TU whenever ♀ comes near him. But she ignores him. Flying about uttering SHN's. 5:25. ♂ hops around ♀. In St with BF, TU, and R as usual. Tries to mount her repeatedly (at least 4 times in as many seconds). She goes into extreme St with [[underline]] extreme BL, [[/underline]] whole rear part of body raised, with very extreme BU-type horizontal Q. [[image: female with bill up]] ♀ St-Q (Head perhaps more vertical). Probably utters Buzzes at same time (at least one of the birds certainly does) [[underline]] And each time the ♂ tries to mount, she jabs at him and forces him to retreat. [[/underline]] So BL [[underline]] cannot [[/underline]] be sexual. Probably purely hostile. May indicate that A & E are not far from balance (more nearly balanced than in other forms of St.). EXPLANATION: Whenever the ♂ does TU, he tilts the tail up at an angle to the body. Seldom or never raises whole rear end of body. Certainly [[underline]] never [[/underline]] raises it much. This is quite different from the BL pattern of the ♀. I must make sure not to confuse the two in my notes. Again ♂ approaches ♀, in usual way. ♀ repells him first by St & Buzz and then by SR in H. Leaving myself 5:30.

[[underline]] Chachalaca [[/underline]] (1) April 20, 1963 Bano Colorado Three young Chachalacas hatched in captivity March 31. One died. Leaving 2. Left with parents. One very vigorous now. The other seems weak and very shy. Taking it out of cage of parents. Putting it alone in small cage in animal house 9:30 am. Utters lots of loud, single but repeated, "Treet" Notes. With metallic + nasal quality. Both when running about and when sitting down, neck up, looking alarmed. Here notes seem to be alarm. Increase in frequency when a human being approaches. Decrease when human being goes further away. Now 9:40. Bird just sitting quietly. Neck relaxed. Then start uttering same notes again. Neck goes up as soon as notes begin. Then bird shuts up. Neck relaxes. Then starts again. Neck goes up immediately. Then quiet again. Neck relaxes again. Etc. Etc.