Chapter C: J. Maynard (1896) says (6)

On May 27th, 1927, while observing Chimney Swifts at
Bethany, Brooke County, West Virginia, I saw a Kingfisher
fly rapidly across an open field from a near-by deep
pool in Buffalo Creek. Wondering that it should thus
cross overland, I watched it as it flew to a large, dead
sycamore, not far from me, and disappeared in a hole at the
end of a short, thick, horizontal stub. Upon going to the
tree I heard the buzzing cries of the young birds. Shortly
thereafter the male parent flew away as the female came in.
The nest was located about ten feet from the ground in a
large cavity near the juncture of the bough and the main
trunk. The young birds were lying about seven feet from the
entrance. The cavity was almost as dark as a bank burrow
would have been. It is odd that the Kingfishers chose such
a site for their nest, since earthen banks admirably suited
to their needs were available along the creek.

_Eggs._--The number of eggs laid by the eastern belted kingfisher varies ordinarily from five to eight, the commonest numbers being 6 and 7; on rare occasions as many as 11 or 14 eggs or young have been found in a nest. If the first set of eggs is taken, the birds will dig another burrow, often within a few feet of the first, and lay a second set; sometimes a third, or even a fourth, attempt will be made. But only one brood is raised in a season. The eggs are short-ovate or rounded-ovate in shape; the shell is smooth and rather glossy; they are pure white in color. The measurements of 54 eggs average 33.9 by 26.7 millimeters, the eggs showing the four extremes measure =36.8= by =27.9=, =30.8= by 26.4, and 33 by =25.4= millimeters.

_Young._--The incubation period is said to be about 23 or 24 days. Bendire (1895) says:

The male does not assist in incubation, but supplies his
mate with food while so engaged, and she rarely leaves the
nest after the first egg has been laid; at any rate I have
invariably found the bird at home if there were any eggs in
the nest. Incubation lasts about sixteen days. The young
when first hatched are blind, perfectly naked, helpless,
and, in a word, very unprepossessing. They scarcely look
like birds while crawling about in the nest, where they
remain several weeks, their growth being very slow. The
excrement of the young is promptly removed and the burrow
is kept rather clean. They utter a low, puffing sound when
disturbed, and frequently vary considerably in size, as
if incubation, in some instances at least, began with the
first egg laid. The young, even after they have left the
nest for some time, require the attendance of their parents
before they are able to secure subsistence for themselves.

I believe that Bendire’s statement above, that the male does not incubate, is incorrect; perhaps he may not do so regularly, or to the same extent that the female does, but several observers have reported finding the male on the eggs, or at least in the nest. The young remain in the nest for about 4 weeks or more, and do not leave it until they are able to fly.

William L. Bailey (1900) made an interesting study of a family of young kingfishers, by digging a hole in the rear of the nesting cavity on four different occasions, taking photographs of the young at four different ages, and filling up the hole each time, so as not to disturb the birds too much. He says that when the young were about two days old they “were not only found wrapped together in the nest, but the moment they were put on the ground, one at a time, though their eyes were still sealed, they immediately covered one another with their wings and wide bills, making such a tight ball that when one shifted a leg, the whole mass would move like a single bird. This is a most sensible method of keeping warm, since the mother bird’s legs are so short that she could not stand over them, but as they are protected from the wind and weather they have no need of her. Their appearance is comical in the extreme, and all out of proportion. This clinging to one another is apparently kept up for at least ten days, for a week later, when nine days old, they were found in exactly a similar position.”

On his last visit, when the young birds were 23 days old, he made an interesting discovery, of which he says: “Taking the precaution to stop the hole with a good-sized stone, I proceeded to my digging for the last time on the top of the bank. This time I found the chamber had been moved, and I had some difficulty in locating it about a foot higher up and about the same distance to one side. The old birds had evidently discovered my imperfectly closed back door, and either mistrusted its security, or else a heavy rain had soaked down into the loosened earth and caused them to make alterations. They had completely closed up the old chamber and packed it tightly with earth and disgorged fish bones.”

Mrs. Florence M. Bailey (1928) makes the following apt quotation from the writings of Professor Herrick:

From the time of birth the young lie huddled in a cluster
in their dark underground chamber.... As they grow in size
and strength the monotony of sitting still, often with
legs and wings interlocked, must become very great, and
... they soon begin to bite and tease one another like
young puppies. Should one be hard pressed, the only way of
escape lies along the narrow passage, which they naturally
traverse head first; but the instinct to return to the warm
family cluster is strong, and to do this they are obliged
to walk backwards. Again when the rattle of the _alma
mater_ announcing the capture of another fish is heard,
each struggles to get down the narrow passage-way first,
but when the parent enters the hole she hustles them all
back.

The young are fed by their two parents while they remain in the nest, and for some time afterward while they are learning to fish for themselves. Mrs. Irene G. Wheelock (1905) made the following observations:

By care in concealment we were able to discover that the
adult came to the nest on the first day with no visible
supply of food in the bill but with a gullet conspicuously
swollen. We had previously excavated the nest from the rear
making a false back to it so that it would be protected
from the weather and at the same time open easily. As soon
as feeding was completed and the adult out of sight, we
opened the nest at the false back, took out the young, then
one day old, and examined the crops. They contained a dark
gray, oily mass, nearly fluid and very ill smelling, but
with no bones or scales in it. If fish they were very small
and digested. Returning the young fishers to the tunnel, we
closed it. Two days later the experiment was repeated with
the same results. Four days later, or the seventh day after
hatching, we examined again. This time one of the nestlings
had swallowed several small fish about one and one half
inches long and the others were still hungry. As yet we
had not seen either of the adults bring visible food and
the most frequent feedings had been forty minutes apart, I
believe all by regurgitation. No record was kept from the
seventh to the fourteenth day when an examination was made
for the third time. We now found the young showing well
developed pin feathers, and there were traces of disgorged
fish bones and scales in the nest which had not been there
before. The crops examined showed fish only slightly
digested and regurgitative feeding had evidently given
place wholly or in part to fresh food. On this day one of
the adults brought several fish, possibly four inches long
to the nest in different journeys. Examinations made on the
twenty-first day revealed the same food conditions as the
fourteenth. The pile of fish bones and scales was a trifle
larger but was partially buried in the earth. There was
surprisingly little of this debris in the nest or tunnel
but the ground seemed to be saturated with fishy oil. On
the twenty-eighth day the young kingfishers resented being
examined or photographed, and made good their escape when
taken from the nest.

Henry R. Carey (1909) writes:

The food brought to the nest-hole consists of various
kinds of small fish. It not infrequently happens that one
of these fish is too large to be carried by the parent
bird into the narrow passage; it is then dropped upon the
sand and is allowed to rot. * * * I once found a common
salt-water flounder, four and one-half inches long and
proportionately wide, which, being rather unwieldy for the
parent bird to handle, had been left in this way. Another
time I found a young Sculpin (_Callionymus aeneus_) in the
same condition, and, yet again, a live minnow, which, in
spite of a great patch on its side devoid of scales, was
finally freed in perfect health. * * *

The young birds leave the earth about July 25 [in New
Hampshire]. They are a sombre-looking lot, as for several
days they sit tamely about the wharfs or venture on short,
erratic flights, which makes one feel that they have not
yet got used to the light after their long imprisonment
underground. It is at this time that both parents and
young, somewhat crowded in the vicinity of the home nest
by their sudden increase in population, begin to seek out
new fishing-stubs, or to use old ones for the first time in
the year. When the young are able to care for themselves,
the old birds leave them and lead once more the single life
which they seem to enjoy most.

At this time of year, frequent quarrels occur among them,
mostly about the best fishing spots, and now that strange,
whining note, which Herrick describes as resembling the
grating of two tree boughs in the wind, is often heard. It
appears to be a note of anger; I have heard it when one
bird, wanting the perch of another, hovered menacingly over
him. Once I saw two birds dive simultaneously for the same
spot in the water, the same note escaping them as each
reluctantly swerved aside.

Floyd Bralliar (1922) writes interestingly of how the young learn to catch their own fish:

The young birds did not remain in the neighborhood of the
nest more than a few days, but those few days were busy
ones, for in that brief time the mother was teaching her
children how to earn a living. She would perch by their
side on an overhanging limb and patiently wait for the
glimmer of a fish below. The first day or two she usually
caught the fish, beat it into partial insensibility and
then dropped it again into the water. The young were
persistent in their plea for food, but the mother was as
insistent that they catch their living if they got any.
There was very little current where they hunted, and a
fish did not float out of sight quickly. The young birds
would crane their necks and look hungrily at the fish below
until finally one more hungry or more bold than the rest
would make a dive for it. At first the aim was not good,
and the bird would miss even a dead fish more often than he
succeeded in catching it. Usually, however, he fluttered
about the surface of the water until he got his fish, even
tho he had missed it when he made his plunge. * * * During
the first few days when the young birds became too hungry,
the mother would occasionally relent and feed them, but
before the week was over, no matter how hungry they became,
no food was coming until they caught it. Within ten days
the young birds were catching live fish instead of half
dead ones.

Then a young bird would catch his fish, carry it to his
perch, whack it over the limb a few times, toss it in the
air, catch it by the head as it came down and swallow
it with as much skill as his mother. As soon as she was
convinced of the skill of each of her brood, she forsook
them entirely. I do not know whether she ultimately
drove them from the neighborhood or whether they left
voluntarily, but when July was past only the old birds were
to be seen in the neighborhood.

Henry Mousley (1938), who made a prolonged study of a family of belted kingfishers, estimated the period of incubation to be about 24 days. His report says, in conclusion:

On summing up I find forty-two hours were spent with the
birds (May 11-July 24), during which time the young were
fed one hundred times, or at an average rate of once in
every 25.2 minutes. Of course there were periods when the
feeding was much faster, as for instance, once in every
8, 9, 13, 20, and 21 minutes respectively. Sometimes the
parents were absent from the nest for long periods of time,
such as, 150, 120, 105, 97, 93, 90, 85, 75, 70, and 60
minutes at a time, when of course the young were without
food. It was after these long spells that the more rapid
feedings generally took place. As already remarked, the
male seemed to pay the most attention to this part of the
business, for I find of those times when I was perfectly
sure of the sex of the parent, the male fed twenty-eight
times to his partner’s fourteen, or just double. It was the
male parent which was the last seen at the nest previous
to the departure of the one surviving young--a male. The
food for the most part consisted of small fish, crawfish,
minnows, tadpoles, and probably beetles.

_Plumages._--The young kingfisher is hatched naked, blind, and helpless, a shapeless mass of reddish flesh, looking much like a very young puppy with a huge conical bill. Its eyes do not open for about two weeks. Within a week, or less, the pinfeathers or feather sheaths appear, and soon the young bird bristles in all the feather tracts with quills like a young porcupine, which grow to varying lengths and show, before they burst, the pectoral band and the general color pattern of the adult. When the young bird is 17 or 18 days old, a remarkable change takes places within the short space of 24 hours, for the sheaths rapidly burst and the juvenal plumage blossoms out all over the body.

In this plumage the young bird looks strikingly like the adult with only minor differences, and the sexes are alike. Young birds of both sexes, when fully fledged, have the pectoral band more or less heavily tipped or mixed with cinnamon, rufous or dull brown; this usually consists of narrow edgings in young males, but in young females many feathers are half or more brown; the rufous band of the female adult is only partially shown in the young female, mainly on the flanks, and it shows to some extent in nearly all young males, some having nearly as much as young females; the crest is darker than in adults, there is more white in the wing coverts, the white tips of the secondaries are more extensive, and the central tail feathers are spotted, as in the adult female. This juvenal plumage is also a first winter plumage, for it is worn without much change until spring. Young birds have a first, prenuptial molt early in spring, which involves most of the body plumage, perhaps all of it, the tail, and apparently the wings also; this takes place between February and April. Adults have a complete postnuptial molt in August, September, and October.

Mr. Brewster (1937a) made some observations on the roosting habits of kingfishers at Umbagog Lake, Maine, of which he says: “Every evening, a little after sunset, two or three Kingfishers resort to Pine Point to spend the night. They fly directly into the forest and go to roost among the densest foliage, often that of spruces and arbor vitaes, growing anywhere from four to ten rods back from the nearest shore.” One that he watched “flew up into a tall, slender Paper Birch, and alighted near the end of a long branch, about thirty feet above the ground. * * * As darkness gathered, the bird settled lower and lower on the branch, and drew in its neck without, however, burying its head in its plumage, for I could still see its bill pointing outward over the breast. At 9 P. M. I went under the tree, and by the light of a lantern dimly made out the Kingfisher, crouching in the same attitude, in exactly the same place.”

_Food._--The kingfisher is a fish eater and an expert fisherman, well deserving its name. It evidently prefers fish to any other food and would probably live on fish exclusively, if it were always able to secure all it needed. It catches mainly small fish, preferably not over 6 inches long, and mostly those species that are of little use, or even harmful, economically as far as human interests are concerned. The kingfisher has been condemned by trout fisherman as a great destroyer of trout, but in a large measure unjustly. Kingfishers undoubtedly visit trout hatcheries frequently and can easily catch plenty of trout in the open pools, where the trout have no place to hide and where they are congregated in large numbers; they can do considerable damage in such places, but the trout can be easily protected by placing wire screens over the pools. In the trout streams wild trout are not so easily caught, for, as every trout fisherman knows, the trout are seldom seen in the open places except when darting swiftly across them, but spend their time hiding under overhanging banks, or under logs or stones, and only dashing out occasionally to capture their prey. On the other hand, chubs, dace, suckers, and sometimes sculpins are very common in most trout streams, generally in larger numbers than the trout; they frequent the open spaces, are much slower in their movements than the swiftly moving trout, and consequently are more easily caught. The records show that these neutral or harmful fishes make up the greater part, or nearly all, of the kingfisher’s catch in trout streams. Chub and sculpins are very destructive to small trout fry; and suckers eat quantities of trout spawn; consequently the kingfishers are really doing the trout fisherman a favor by reducing the numbers of these fishes in the streams and should be protected rather than persecuted.

The kingfisher must of necessity do its fishing in clear water, so is seldom seen on muddy streams or ponds, or on those that are choked or overgrown with thick vegetation, such as is often found along trout streams. It usually perches on some stake, snag, or pier standing in the water, or on some bare overhanging branch, where it can watch patiently for some passing fish. Favorite perches of this sort in good fishing spots are resorted to regularly and rival kingfishers are driven away, for the kingfisher is a solitary bird except during the nesting season or while training its young. From such a perch the bird may dive obliquely into the water to seize the fish in its powerful bill; or, rising 30 or 40 feet into the air and scanning the water below it in more active pursuit of its prey, it may stop and hover for a few seconds, with rapidly vibrating wings, and then make a straight or spiral dive directly downward, disappearing beneath the water sometimes for several seconds. It is not always successful in its plunges, as the fish may move and cause a sudden change of direction in the bird’s rapid dive either above or below the surface; but it is not easily discouraged and is always ready to try again. Having secured the fish, it flies with it to some favorite perch, where it beats the fish into insensibility, tosses it into the air, or otherwise adjusts it, so that it can swallow it head first and thus avoid any injury to its throat from the sharp spiny fins. Sometimes the fish is too large to be swallowed completely, in which case the tail must be left protruding from the mouth until the rapid process of digestion enables the bird to gradually work it down. Manly Hardy wrote to Major Bendire (1895) of such a case, and says: “I shot a Kingfisher last spring that had swallowed a pickerel considerably longer than the bird from the end of the bill to the tip of the tail, and the tail of the fish protruding from the throat, while the head was partly doubled back, causing a large protuberance near the vent.”

Where fish are not readily obtainable, especially in the arid regions of the Southwest where the streams largely disappear during the dry season, the kingfisher seems able to make a good living on various other kinds of food. The list includes crabs, crayfishes, mussels, lizards, frogs, toads, small snakes, turtles, grasshoppers, locusts, rickets, salamanders, newts, butterflies, moths, beetles and other insects, young birds, mice, and even berries. On the seacoast, it has been known to feed on clams and oysters, which sometimes results disastrously for the bird. H. C. Hopkins (1892) reports finding a kingfisher with “its bill held fast between the shells of an oyster.” The bird had evidently inserted its bill into the open shell of the oyster, which had closed upon it; “the tongue [was] quite black from non-circulation of the blood, which showed that it must have been held prisoner for some time.” The bird would probably have drowned at the next high tide. Dr. B. H. Warren (1890) reports that a friend of his once caught one of these birds on a hook and line while fishing with a live minnow for bait. He also says: “One day B. M. Everhart found a kingfisher lying on the bank of a small stream. On making an investigation, Mr. Everhart ascertained that the bird was unable to fly, as its bill was tightly clasped in the grasp of a large fresh-water mussel. I have heard of several instances where kingfishers have been captured under similar circumstances, which could naturally lead one to suppose that they feed to a limited degree on the flesh of these bivalves.”

In the Bermudas, kingfishers are said to feed on squids. Walter B. Barrows (1912) quotes Professor Aughey, of Nebraska, as follows: “One that was sent to me to identify in September, 1874, had 18 locusts, in addition to portions of some fish, in its stomach. One that I opened in September, 1876, had mingled at least 14 locusts with its fish diet.” Bendire (1895) caught a kingfisher in a trap baited with a mouse, and believed “that not a few mice, and possibly small birds also, are caught by them during their nocturnal rambles, and they are certainly fully as active throughout the night as in the daytime.”

Kingfishers disgorge as pellets the indigestible portions of their food, such as fish bones and scales, the shells of crustaceans and the seeds of berries; the bones and scales found in the nests are the remains of such pellets. Henry K. Carey (1909) writes:

Only once have I seen a pellet of fishbones and scales
being disgorged from the bird’s beak, as he sat on his
hunting perch. These pellets are found wherever the birds
are accustomed to sit for any length of time. I once found
one completely composed of various parts of the shell of
a small crab. Only a few days later I had the pleasure of
seeing a crab actually caught. The bird captured him by
diving in the usual way and took him to a low rock where
he proceeded to bang him just as he would have done to a
minnow. During this process the crab, which measured an
inch and a half sideways across the shell, lost several
legs and was dropped upon the rock, from which by a
considerable effort he managed to fall by scrambling to the
edge with his remaining legs. The bird, perhaps seeing that
he was rather a large morsel to swallow whole, then forgot
him completely and went on with his fishing.

Ora W. Knight (1908) has seen kingfishers chase and capture moths and butterflies, taking them on the wing. Dr. Thomas S. Roberts (1932) says that they have been known to eat young sparrows; also that “crawfish are pounded and crushed before swallowing, and fish that are too large may be divided into pieces by the powerful bill. Miss Densmore, of Red Wing, once saw a Kingfisher that was making unsuccessful attempts to handle a small turtle. This was thoroughly pounded and variously manipulated but had to be discarded in the end.”

Dr. Charles W. Townsend (1918) writes: “Early in August, 1917, Mr. John Hair, gamekeeper of Mr. R. T. Crane at Ipswich, missed six of a four days old brood of Bob-whites. He had seen a Kingfisher nearby and later the same day saw it perched on the gable end of the little house where the Bob-whites had been hatched, and from there pounce on the young birds as they ran in and out. He shot the Kingfisher, and, on opening the bird, a female, found the legs and feathers of the young Bob-whites in its crop.”

When hard pressed for animal food the kingfisher has been known to eat wild cherries and probably other wild fruits. Dr. Elliott Coues (1878) published the following note from Mrs. Mary Treat about a kingfisher that fished regularly from a private wharf in front of her house in Florida: “When the water is so rough that it is difficult for him to procure fish, instead of seeking some sequestered pool he remains at his usual post, occasionally making an ineffectual effort to secure his customary prey, until, nearly starved, he resorts to a sour-gum tree (_Nyssa aquatica_, L.) in the vicinity, and greedily devours the berries. Returning to his post, he soon ejects a pellet of the large seeds and skins of the fruit.”

_Behavior._--The belted kingfisher is a striking and picturesque feature in the landscape whether in action or at rest. The mountain trout stream would lose much of its charm without the rattling call of the lone fisherman and the flash of his broad, blue wings, as he follows the course of the stream, flying well below the treetops until he glides upward to alight on his accustomed perch, there to tilt his short tail nervously up and down and raise and lower his long crest a few times, as he sounds his battle cry again. At the seashore, too, his trim, unique figure and his conspicuous color pattern, as he perches day after day on his favorite stake or goes rattling along the shore, add color and a tinge of wildness to the scene.

The flight of the kingfisher is strong, swift, and graceful, usually low, but high above the treetops when traveling; often there are five or six rapid strokes followed by a long glide on half-closed wings. Mr. Carey (1909) writes of it:

The Kingfisher’s flight is remarkable for its beauty. How
easily those long wings carry him about, as he skims so
close over the water that their tips are sometimes wetted,
or, as he hovers, his body appearing absolutely motionless,
in that wonderful way which few birds can equal, for
indefinite periods of time. Sometimes, especially in water
half a foot or less in depth, he dives while flying nearly
parallel to its surface. Sometimes, in his journeys from
perch to perch when fish are plentiful, he dips again and
again into the water in this way, reminding one of the
Swallow as he gracefully touches the water here and there
in his flight over the mill-pond. Again, he drops like a
falling stone in a nearly perpendicular line upon his fishy
prey.

Again he writes, referring to times of keen competition over good fishing grounds:

On such occasions one bird is often angrily pursued by
another. These pursuits are most reckless and enduring in
character. One sees the two birds swirl by like two blue
flashes of light, to disappear in an instant of time on
perfectly controlled wings perhaps far away in the pine
woods, almost grazing the tough trunk of some mighty tree,
or heading straight for a sheer cliff and rising fifteen
feet or more to clear it when it seems that they must be
dashed to pieces on the rock. I once saw a Kingfisher,
hard-pressed in such a pursuit, adopt a clever means of
escape. His pursuer was close upon him--about five feet
behind. On they came down the creek, neither bird seeming
to gain upon the other. Both were flying at top speed
low over the water. Suddenly there was a splash, and the
foremost Kingfisher disappeared under the water. The bird
behind swept on and lit on a nearby stub, not attempting to
renew the chase when his enemy reappeared.

The above was probably a case of one bird defending its territory against the invasion of it by another kingfisher. Frederick C. Lincoln (1924) saw a striking example of this during his field work in the marshes of the Illinois River; he says: “During the period of greatest abundance, practically every channel had its quota of birds, each of which appeared to patrol or to hold dominion over a certain well-defined section.” As many as 8 or 10 birds were encountered, each always confined to its own limited section. One of the boatmen told him that “he took much pleasure in informing club members and others who might be with him in the club launch, just how far the kingfisher then in sight would go and where the next one would be met.”

William Brewster (1937a) watched a kingfisher at Lake Umbagog that “plunged into the water, striking a fish so large, that he had to let it go after a brief struggle, during which he failed to bring it to the surface, although evidently trying his best to do so.”

_Voice._--There is not much beauty in the voice of the kingfisher, but the loud rattling call always produces a thrill in the listener; it is a wild, weird, wilderness call that enlivens the solitudes and punctuates the stillness of lonely shores or forest streams; it seems to fit in well with the active vigor of this aggressive guardian of his domain, as a warning to his rivals. It consists of a series of harsh, wooden, rattling notes of great carrying power. It has been likened to the sound made by an old-fashioned policeman’s or watchman’s rattle, a very good description for those of us who are old enough to remember such out-of-date sounds; but it may remind the younger generation of the sound made by certain noise-making instruments used at get-together dinners, political rallies, or other joyous gatherings.

It is not easily expressed in syllables, but Mr. Bralliar (1922) has written it fairly well as _rickety, crick, crick, crick_. The call varies some under different circumstances, sometimes being quite soft and low, as if in a conversational tone with its mate. The courtship note, referred to above by Mr. Allen, was “a mewing note uttered in rapid succession, almost if not quite as loud as the familiar rattle.” Then there is the whining note, referred to by Mr. Carey above, “resembling the grating of two tree boughs in the wind,” which seems to be a note of anger while quarreling over fishing rights. Brewster (1937a) says that “on such occasions they often utter a harsh _cah-car-car-car_, quite unlike the usual volley of watchman’s rattle-like notes.”

_Field marks._--The kingfisher could hardly be mistaken for anything else. Its shape is distinctive, its large head and crest and its long, heavy bill are all out of proportion to its small body, short tail, and tiny feet. As it flies its great blue wings, its white collar, and its banded breast are unique. Its loud, rattling note proclaims it beyond doubt.

_Enemies._--The most serious enemies of the kingfisher are the selfish fisherman, who wants all the fish for himself and begrudges the poor bird an honest living, and the proprietor of a trout hatchery, who is unwilling to go to the trouble and expense of screening his pools to protect his fish. The former shoots every kingfisher he can with misguided satisfaction; the latter either shoots or traps any that visit his pools. A small, unbaited, steel trap is set and fastened to the top of a stake or post near the bird’s favorite fishing pool; if the trap is so set that the pan is at the highest point, the bird is almost sure to alight on it and is caught. Hundreds of kingfishers are caught and killed in this way along private trout streams, or about trout hatcheries, every year.

The natural enemies of the kingfisher are of no great menace to its welfare. The Cooper’s and the sharp-shinned hawks often pursue it, perhaps largely for sport; under the accounts of these two hawks, in a previous volume, will be found references to these attacks and the successful attempts of the kingfisher to escape by diving; it even seems as if the kingfisher enjoyed the sport, judged by its derisive “laughter” at the defeat of the hawk.

The remains of a kingfisher have been found in the stomach of a red-tailed hawk; the former must have been caught unaware, for the hawk is no match for it in flight. The kingbird sometimes makes life miserable for the kingfisher; Fred T. Jencks (1881) writes:

The Kingfisher had poised himself several times to look for
fish, and was just moving to do so again as the Kingbird
approached and attacked him. The Kingfisher is not a
troublesome bird, and always minds his own business. He
was entirely unprepared, and acted as though he could not
believe that the other had any evil intentions, for he
tried to poise again. The second attack seemed to undeceive
him, and show him his enemy was in earnest. He vaulted
and turned, vainly endeavoring to rid himself of his
persecutor. He soon saw he could not save himself by flight
and tried diving. As soon, however, as he appeared at the
surface he attempted to fly, but the Kingbird, keeping
up an incessant twittering, forced him to dive again.
Two or three times this was repeated, both birds making
considerable noise, until the Kingfisher seemed convinced
that escape in that direction was impossible, so he sat
like a duck upon the surface, and as his persecutor would
swoop at him he would go under. This lasted for some little
time, until even the Kingbird seemed wearied and flew away.

Snakes and perhaps skunks or minks may crawl into the nesting holes, while the parent birds are away, and destroy the eggs or young; but it would seem that the formidable beak of the kingfisher, if at home, would prove to be an effective weapon of defense. H. H. Bailey (1907) says: “While digging out some Kingfishers’ nests this season I was surprised to find a dead bird in about every fourth or fifth hole. This I was at loss to account for, as the birds showed no signs of combat or disease, while the plumage was not even disarranged. The bodies, though, seemed to be dried up, with no signs of blood in them, so I presumed that something had crawled into the holes and sucked the blood from them, leaving the carcass intact. This surmise proved correct, as the last hole I dug out contained a large black snake, and a dead kingfisher still warm.”

I quote the above for what it is worth, but cannot agree with Mr. Bailey’s conclusion. I have never heard that the black snake is a blood-sucker and doubt if it would attack a bird as big as a kingfisher. If such well-known blood-suckers as minks or weasels had attacked the bird, there would have been evidences of a struggle. I believe that the snake was looking for eggs. The kingfishers may have died from an epidemic of roundworms or ringworms, which have often proved fatal to these birds.

Frederic H. Kennard told me that while he was fishing on Grand Lake, Maine, he and his daughter heard a splash behind them and their guide saw a kingfisher dive, disappear beneath the surface and not come up. Although they all watched for some time, the bird never appeared. They paddled over to the place where the kingfisher dived but could see no trace of the bird in the water or in the air. They suspected that some of the large fish, pickerel, salmon, or togue, that abound in that lake, may have caught the kingfisher.

Arthur W. Brockway tells me of a nest that was dug into by a skunk and the young devoured, the excavation being made from above the nest.

_Winter._--The belted kingfisher is a hardy bird, and remains as far north in fall and winter as it can find open water in which to catch a fair supply of fish. A few kingfishers remain all winter, especially during mild winters, in southern New England, frequenting to some extent the open inland streams, but more regularly along the southern coast from Cape Cod to Long Island Sound.

There, Mr. Forbush (1927) says, “they go into winter quarters in December, especially about river mouths where at that time the little frost-fish come in, and there they remain, unless extreme cold locks rivers and shores in ice.”

They are occasionally seen in winter in the northern tier of States. Dr. L. H. Walkinshaw writes to me from Battle Creek, Mich.: “Along open stretches of water, a few kingfishers can be found during the entire winter. I have several dates for southern Michigan for December, January and February. I have watched them on zero, or near zero, days dive from some dead branch after minnows in the open stream.”

Mr. Skinner says in his notes from Yellowstone Park: “Ordinarily this is a migratory bird, but here a few remain all winter along the streams kept open by hot water. During cold winds and storms, they are often seen in the most protected places, but with feathers all fluffed out. The winter birds noticed have been males, the females not appearing until March 17. In winter, I believe they roost in the tops of the thick cedars in the Gardiner Canyon, but I have no data about the other localities.”

Most of the kingfishers migrate to the more southern States during the late fall, where they find open water and plenty of fish. There they establish regular fishing stations and live their solitary lives, each in its own territory. We often saw one in Florida perched day after day in practically the same spot, presumably the same bird in each case.

DISTRIBUTION

_Range._--North America south to northern South America; accidental in the Azores, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

_Breeding range._--The breeding range of the belted kingfisher extends =north= to central Alaska (Kowak River, Fairbanks, and probably Fort Yukon); Mackenzie (Fort McPherson, Fort Wrigley, Fort Providence, and Fort Smith); central Saskatchewan (Knee Lake and Pelican Lake); central Manitoba (Oxford Lake); Ontario (Rossport and North Abitibi River); Quebec (Lake Mistassini, Godbout, and Romaine River); and east-central Labrador (Grand Falls). From this northeastern station the range extends southward through Newfoundland and along the coasts of Nova Scotia and the Eastern United States to central Florida (Micanopy and Clearwater). =South= to Florida (Clearwater, probably St. Marks, and Chipley); southern Louisiana (Bird Island and Bayou Sara); Texas (Giddings, Corpus Christi, Kerrville, and Pecos); southern New Mexico (Carlsbad and Chloride); and southern California (Escondido). The western limits extend northward through California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (sometimes along the coast) to Alaska (Sitka, Hope, Mount McKinley, and Kowak River).

There are a few records north and west of the range as outlined that may possibly represent occasional nesting. One was seen August 5 and 6, 1915, at a point 100 miles above Bethel, Alaska, and another was seen on July 6, 1917, at Iditerod. MacFarlane (1891) reported seeing several birds in the Fort Anderson region of Mackenzie, but he states that no nests were found. An adult female was taken at Churchill, Manitoba, previous to 1845; one was seen at Fort Du Brochet on September 22, 1920, while the species also has been reported from York Factory.

_Winter range._--In winter the species is found =north= with fair regularity to southeastern Alaska (Sitka and Wrangell); southeastern British Columbia (Okanagan Landing); Wyoming (Yellowstone Park and rarely Wheatland); rarely central Missouri (Marionville); rarely central Indiana (Crawfordsville and Richmond); Ohio (Canton); and southern New Jersey (Cape May). From this point the eastern boundary of the winter range extends =south= along the coast to southern Florida (Royal Palm Hammock and Key West); the Bahama Islands (Nassau); the Dominican Republic (Sanchez); Puerto Rico (Fortuna); the Lesser Antilles (Anguilla, Antigua, St. Lucia, Carriacou Island, and Los Testigos); and northeastern Venezuela (Cariaco). South to Venezuela (Cariaco, Guarico, and Apure); rarely northern Colombia (Santa Marta); Panama (Barro Colorado Island); and Costa Rica (San Jose). =West= to Costa Rica (San Jose and Rio Frio) and northward along the west coast of Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico, the United States, and British Columbia, to southeastern Alaska (Craig, Ketchikan, and Sitka). Occasionally kingfishers will be recorded in winter from points in the northern United States (Montana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts), as well as from northern Ontario (London, Guelph, and Toronto). It also is a winter resident on Bermuda.

The range as outlined is for the entire species, of which two subspecies are currently recognized. The eastern belted kingfisher (_Megaceryle alcyon alcyon_) occupies all the range east of the Rocky Mountains and north to Quebec and Mackenzie; the western belted kingfisher (_M. a. caurina_) is found west of the Rocky Mountains and north to Alaska and Yukon.

_Spring migration._--Early dates of spring arrival are: Pennsylvania--Renovo, February 22; Oil City, March 3; Beaver, March 22. New York--Ballston Spa, March 19; Rochester, March 21; Watertown, March 27. Connecticut--Hartford, March 16. Rhode Island--Providence, February 23. Massachusetts--Boston, March 19; Harvard, March 25. Vermont--St. Johnsbury, March 26; Rutland, April 4; Wells River, April 12. New Hampshire--Tilton, March 28. Maine--Orono, April 6; Portland, April 7; Machias, April 18. New Brunswick--Scotch Lake, April 22. Nova Scotia--Picton, April 6. Prince Edward Island--Alberton, April 17. Quebec--Montreal, April 21; Quebec City, April 24; Godbout, May 5. Missouri--St. Louis, February 25; Kansas City, March 10; Concordia, March 17. Illinois--Chicago, March 11; Odin, March 13. Northern Ohio--Oberlin, February 13. Michigan--Vicksburg, March 8; Detroit, March 20; Sault Ste. Marie, April 11. Ontario--Toronto, March 6; Ottawa, April 5. Iowa--Iowa City, March 7; Sioux City, March 18. Wisconsin--La Crosse, March 11; Madison, March 16; Stevens Point, April 1. Minnesota--St. Cloud, March 23; Minneapolis, March 24. Kansas--Hays, February 7. Nebraska--Valentine, March 3. South Dakota--Vermillion, March 22; Dell Rapids, March 23. North Dakota--Charlson, April 5. Manitoba--Margaret, April 1; Aweme, April 11; Reaburn, April 22. Saskatchewan--Indian Head, April 22; Eastend, April 23. Idaho--Rathdrum, April 9. Montana--Bozeman, March 26; Great Falls, April 13, Alberta--Banff, April 25; Stony Plain, May 12. Northwestern Alaska--Kowak River, May 21.

_Fall migration._--Late dates of fall departure are: Alberta--Lac la Biche, September 27; Banff, September 30; Camrose, October 24. Montana--Great Falls, October 1; Big Sandy, October 9; Fortine, October 31 (winters rarely). Saskatchewan--Indian Head, September 20; Eastend, October 5. Manitoba--Killarney, October 15; Aweme, October 25. North Dakota--Rice Lake, October 2; Kindred, October 22. South Dakota--Yankton, October 16; Sioux Falls, November 11. Nebraska--Valentine, October 24; Lincoln, October 30; Red Cloud, November 10. Kansas (sometimes winters)--Hays, November 21; Wallace, November 24; Harper, November 30. Minnesota--Lanesboro, November 16 (sometimes winters); Minneapolis, November 25. Wisconsin--Madison, November 12. Illinois--Rantoul, October 27; Chicago, November 20. Ontario--Toronto, November 3; Ottawa, November 26. Michigan, Sault Ste. Marie, October 16; Detroit, December 4. Quebec--Montreal, October 23. Prince Edward Island--Alberton, October 10. New Brunswick--Scotch Lake, November 5. Maine--Portland, October 13; Phillips, October 17. Vermont--St. Johnsbury, November 9; Wells River, November 23. Massachusetts--Boston, December 13. Rhode Island--Providence, December 2. Connecticut--Hartford, December 26. New York--Watertown, October 31; Rochester, November 13. Northern New Jersey--Elizabeth, December 15. Pennsylvania--Beaver, November 28; Renovo, November 30.

Further insight into the migratory flights of individual kingfishers is provided by banding records. One banded as a nestling at Noblesville, Ind., on June 21, 1924, was killed in the Naches River Valley, Tex., on November 19, 1924, while another, banded on June 30, 1937, at Waukesha, Wis., was retaken at Society Hill, S. C., on November 22, 1937.

_Casual records._--At least a part of the reported occurrences of the belted kingfisher in the Old World are unsatisfactory. Two cases, wherein specimens were alleged to have been taken in Meath and Wicklow, Ireland, in the autumn of 1845 are now believed to be based upon fraud. A specimen is supposed to have been taken on the island of Flores in the Azores, but neither its disposition nor the details of collection are known. A male bird was taken, however, in Holland on December 17, 1899, and another was collected on Westmann Island, off the south coast of Iceland, in September 1901.

_Egg dates._--California: 16 records, April 7 to June 24; 8 records, April 21 to May 17, indicating the height of the season.

Illinois: 5 records, May 10 to June 8.

Massachusetts: 8 records, May 11 to June 6.

New York: 27 records, April 10 to July 15; 14 records, May 10 to 29.

Ontario: 7 records, May 24 to June 28.

MEGACERYLE ALCYON CAURINA (Grinnell)

WESTERN BELTED KINGFISHER

PLATE 15

HABITS

It has long been known that the kingfishers of the Pacific coast are appreciably larger than eastern birds, but Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1910) was the first to give the western race a name. He characterizes it as “similar to the _Ceryle alcyon_ of eastern and southern North America, but size throughout greater, especially measurements of flight-feathers,” and goes on to say that “the secondary wing quills are _proportionally_ longer in the northwestern birds. This means that in addition to its greater expanse of wing and generally larger size, the wing of _caurina_ is _broader_. In the closed wing this difference presents itself conspicuously in the interval between the end of the longest secondary and the tip of the longest primary. In the northwestern birds this interval averages only 27.3 mm., while in the eastern birds it averages 33.7 mm. This is in spite of the larger size of the former. The ratio to total wing length in the two cases is 17 and 22 per cent., respectively.”

The nesting habits of the western belted kingfisher seem to be very similar to those of the eastern bird; I find no record of its nesting anywhere but in sand, clay, or gravel banks; such banks are often much higher than those in the East, so the nesting burrow is often at a considerable height from the base, but usually near the top of the cliff.

In all other respects its habits are not materially different from those of the species elsewhere. Grinnell and Storer (1924) say: “This bird’s wing-beat is characteristic, three quick beats followed by two executed in a more leisurely manner, like this: one, two, three; four; five.

“A Western Belted Kingfisher watched by Mr. Walter P. Taylor came to a perch on a bare limb overhanging some rapids in the river, and sat there motionless. The outline of the bird’s body at once became indistinguishable from the light and shade of its background; in other words it was obliterated because of the disruptive pattern of its coloration, white and slate areas alternating. If the fishes in the water beneath got the same impression as did the human observer, the kingfisher must have become invisible to them, remaining so until the moment of its headlong plunge in their pursuit.”

The eggs of the western belted kingfisher are similar to those of the eastern bird and average only slightly larger. The measurements of 38 eggs average 34.78 by 26.89 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =36.6= by 27.4, 35.7 by =28=, =31.6= by 27, and 33 by =25.4= millimeters.

MEGACERYLE TORQUATA TORQUATA (Linnaeus).

RINGED KINGFISHER

PLATE 17

HABITS

This handsome bird is the largest of the three species of kingfisher found on the American Continent. Its claim to a place on our list is based on the capture of a single specimen, an adult female, by George B. Benners, on June 2, 1888, about a mile below Laredo, Tex., on the United States side of the Rio Grande. The specimen was presented to the Academy of Natural Sciences, in Philadelphia, of which Dr. Witmer Stone (1894) says: “It was sitting on some old roots which had been washed up into a heap by the current of the river, and was shot immediately, so that he did not see it fly or hear its call. Mr. Benners further states that he never saw one of these birds in the vicinity either before or since. Upon the strength of the evidence just given this species seems entitled to a place in the fauna of the United States, along with several other tropical birds which occasionally reach the Rio Grande valley.”

Col. A. J. Grayson, in his notes from western Mexico, sent to George N. Lawrence (1874), says:

I have seen the largest kingfisher only near the sea coast,
in the vicinity of Mazatlan River, but not on that stream.
They seem to prefer the stagnant pools and lagoons, whose
waters are murky and densely shaded with overhanging trees;
here upon some dried branch it sits quietly watching the
opaque water for whatever finny creature may make its
appearance upon the surface, when if not too large, it
instantly darts or plunges headlong upon it; after securing
the prey in its powerful bill, it bears it to the perch,
and beating it a few times upon the perch swallows it
entire. Small fishes constitute almost its principal food,
but frogs and small water reptiles are often struck and
devoured by it. This species does not seem to be so wary as
its near congener, the Belted. I have approached it quite
near, in order to observe its habits, and it appeared to
be very little concerned at my presence. In examining the
stomach of one shot by me, I found it crammed with the
small fry peculiar to muddy pools, among which was a mud
catfish of considerable size. It doubtless breeds in holes
scratched in sand cliffs, like the other members of this
family, but I have never encountered the nest.

Dickey and van Rossem (1938) say that in El Salvador--

the ringed kingfisher is of general distribution along
the coast where it shows decided preference for mangrove
lagoons. Locally, the species is almost equally common on
fresh water wherever there is a plentiful supply of small
fish. It is notable, though, that the species attains
its upward limit at Lake Guija at 1,450 feet, and seems
to be absent from the higher lakes such as Ilopango. It
is customarily solitary, although local conditions such
as a very favorable stream may result in a number being
found at one point. A great deal of territory may be
covered by individual birds, for they seem to have regular
routes along lake borders and rivers with lookout perches
at intervals of every few hundred yards. In activity
this species is far ahead of any of the other resident
kingfishers and evidently prefers to range widely for its
prey rather than to stake out a limited, private preserve.

Alexander F. Skutch tells me that in the Caribbean lowlands of Guatemala and Honduras they are partial to the larger, more open streams and lagoons, and avoid the narrow, tree-shaded waterways that the smaller species of kingfisher sometimes frequent.

_Nesting._--Major Bendire (1895) quotes Dr. Herman Burmeister (1856) as saying that “it nests in perpendicular banks, occasionally quite a distance from water, in burrows from 5 to 6 feet deep, and lays two white eggs.”

There are two sets of eggs, one of five and one of six eggs, in the Thayer collection, taken for Frank B. Armstrong, on March 21 and 30, 1910, near Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. One of the nests is described as a hole in the bank of a river, 8 feet deep and 10 feet above water.

Dickey and van Rossem (1938) state that “at San Sebastián in late July, 1912, nest holes were occasionally noted in vertical sandy banks. In size these holes were on an average four inches wide and three inches high at the entrance. Those investigated went straight back into the bank, in one case as far as six feet. This particular burrow then may have made a turn, but it was not dug out.”