236

SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS

were remarkably small for a bird as large as theChannel-billedToucan.
The holes measures 2% X
2% and 2ss x 2% inches, respectively, and the adultbirds literallv had to “wrieele”
in and out witha type of lateral pivoting movement,
their bodies
totally filling the nest hole. Nest A was accessible
by means of a short ladder, while nest B could be
examined from ground level; the interiors and contents
were examined by means of a small light and mirror.
The visibility at nest B was better than at nest A.
Both nest holes were approximately 1218
inchesdeep and both had a basal “lining” of seeds, mainlyof one type measuring 1.0 x 1.5 cm, though a few
other larger and smaller seeds were present. Skutch(lot. cit.) has pointed out that a similar phenomenon
is known for other species in the family, and thatthe seeds do not constitute a true nest lining fabricatedby the parent birds, but are merely due to regurgitation when the parents are sitting.
Clutch sizes were four and three respectively (cf.
Herklot’s value of two, lot. cit. ), the eggs being ovate
and white with some dark fleck markings. Nest B
was located, complete with three eggs, on 26 April,
and at least two eggs hatched between 1 and 10 May.
The chicks were (presumably)
predated between 10and I5 May and the nest unused again during theremainder of the season. The interior of nest A wasfirst successfully examined on 1 April, and found tocontain four eggs; the nesting birds had first been
heard calling in the nest vicinity on 16 March, andone was flushed from the nest on 20 March. Threeof the eggs hatched between 1 and 8 April. One chickmay have died and been removed by the parents
between 5 and 10 Mav. and onlv two fledned. Fledning was apparently a&chrondus,
one chick leavingon 21 May and the other the following day. Thus
the minimal duration of the nesting period was 44-45days, the maximal, 59-51 days. The first value corresponds almost exactly with that given by Chenery(lot. cit.) for a nest whose interior was not examined,
the nestling period being judged from the adult birds’
behavior.
A few other aspects of nesting behavior are worth
mentioning. At one nest the egg shell remains were
found approximately 100 ft from the nest shortly afterhatching.
The young were completely featherless
when hatched and development was slow; the eyes ofthe chicks opened in the second to third week after
hatching and the first feather tracts emerged throughthe skin approximately three weeks post-hatching. The
characteristic blue hue of the facial skin and theyellow throat feathers were apparent only 6-12 days
prior to fledging. Both parents fed the young in thenest, sometimes coming simultaneously, sometimes.separately. On synchronized visits first one and thenthe other parent would feed the chicks, completely
entering the nest hole to do so, unlike the pair citedby Chenery (lot. cit.). Nest depth may be the criticalfactor determining whether or not the parents actuallyenter the nest to feed the young. The approach of aparent bird to the nest elicited vocalizations in theyoung audible to the observer at a distance of 35
yards. The few nest watches carried out indicatedthat there were distinct feeding bouts when both adultbirds fed the young intensively for 36 min or so,gathering food near the nest site, while at other times
adults visited the nest at widely spaced intervals.
Although Channel-billed Toucans generally feed highin trees, the pair at nest A often descended to theforest floor to pick up fallen fruits and nuts to carryto the nestlings. During the early stages of nesting
the same pair exhibited what appeared to be mobbing
behavior towards a 6ft long tree boa (Boa enydris)on the ground 20 ft from the tree in which the birds
were nesting. Since this species of snake readily climbs
trees, it may well be a potential predator of R. uitellinus eggs and young.
The main significance of the findings reported hereis that they confirm the four previous records for thespecies in Trinidad in suggesting a main March-June
breeding season, while indicating that clutch size andnest height are more variable than previously suspected. From the available information it seems thatthe major breeding season for the species coincides
with that of the majority of Trinidad landbirds (Snowand Snow, Zoologica 49:1, 1964).
The observations were made while I was holding
grant no. AF-AFOSR 125467 from the U.S. Air Force
Office of Scientific Research.

INGESTION
OF STONES BYGOATSUCKERS(CAPRIMULGIDAE)

chitinous bodies of beetles (Coleoptera)
which forma large part of their diets.
Unless otherwise stated, the specimens mentioned
below are in the Universitv of Kansas alcoholic collection or are ones for wh&h skins are in the U. S.
National Museum and for which carcasses have been
sent to the University of Kansas. In most cases thestomach contents have been saved.
Caprinmlgus carolinensis. In the springs of 1963-67,
we made extensive observations of numerous Chuckwill’+widows,
chiefly in an area of about one square
mile near Lecompton, Douglas County, Kansas. As iswell known. Chuck-will’s_widows
regularly sit on
gravel roads at night, and we could often easily
watch them there, without disturbing them, by using
7 x 35 binoculars and the light of a nearly full moon,sometimes supplemented by the light of a sealed-beam
flashlight covered with several layers of red cellophane. On many such occasions we saw a bird pickup a small stone in the tip of its bill, raise its head,tilting it noticeably upwards, and swallow. For example, our notes for 12 May 1965 read: “Clear, stillnight, 72” F, moon two days short of full. At 23:OO

MARIONANNE

JENKINSONANDROBERT M. MENGEL
Museum of Natural History
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66044

Many birds regularly ingest small stones or grit,apparently to help grind their food. This seems primarily to be a practice of granivorous and herbivorous
birds (Famer 1960:433; Meinertzhagen1964).
Although there are in the literature a few scatteredreports (see below) of stone-eating by caprimulgids,
which are almost strictly insectivorous, most of thesereports state or imply that this is a novel occurrence
among these birds. We here present evidence to thecontrary, indicating that the practice of stone-eating
is widesnread in the familv Canrimulgidae and thatit occur~regularly in at least some s&ies.
The birds
probably use these stones to help grind the heavy,

Accepted for publication 25 September 1968.

SHORTtwo chucks in the road about six or eight inches apartallowed approach within 25 feet with the car. Carefully studied through binoculars under excellent conditions with a red light. At least four times the female
elegantly shoveled up a pebble, tossing her head
upwards and visibly gulping each time. After thisthe birds flushed and flew away.”
Also, stones have been found in the stomachs ofChuck-wills-widows.
Of three adults taken in theabove-mentioned area in 1963, one had one stone(measuring 8 x 5 mm) in its stomach, and one hadsix stones ( 9 x 5-3 x 2 mm).
Sievert A. Rohwer(pers. comm.) found four pebbles (11 X 8-7 x 7mm) in a bird he took in Edwards County, Kansas,
on 10 May 1968. Rohwer also tells us that he has
noticed rather large amounts of sand in the stomachs
of several Chuck-wills-widows
he collected on anisland at the mouth of Tampa Bay, Pinellas County,
Florida, an area where stones are in very short supply.
Additionally, we have in hand a specimen taken by
M. G. Vaiden (collector’s number 2898, housed in theUniversity of Mississippi), the label of which reads:“2 beetles; rock in stomach.”
We know of no published records of stone-eatingby Chuck-will’s_wido-vs,
but Sprunt (in Bent 1940:154) expressed surprise that a bivalve was among
the food items found in one bird’s stomach. We
suspect that, rather than representing a food item,
this mollusc had been taken as grit.
Caprimulgus uociferus.
We have examined only
one stomach of a Whip-poor-will,taken in Kansas,
and found no stones. However, Jones ( 1933), writingof Virginia, stated: “almost every night . . . [Whippoor-wills] from time to time alight on the bare spots
near the foundations of the house, where they creep
about over the red clay, and apparently pick up grit.”
Jones found no insects on the ground in these spots.
Caprimulgus europaeus. We found no stones in thetwo specimens of the European Nightjar
we hadavailable. Marples ( 1939), however, found 16 stones,
the largest of which was 10 x 8 mm, in a bird founddead in England.
Remmert(1953)
also found anumber of stones (the largest being 8 x 5 mm) inthe stomach of one of this species and suggested, as
do we, that these were taken in for the purpose offood processing.
Caprimulgus ridgwayi. Of three stomachs of Ridgway’s Whip-poor-will,
one contained a 6 x 5 mmstone. Otherwise that stomach was empty.
Phalaenoptilus nuttallii. Of four stomachs we examined of the Poor-will,
one, which was otherwise
essentially empty, contained five stones, 7 x 5-3 x 2mm, and several small fragments apparently from oneof these stones. Rohwer (pers. comm.) examined thestomachs of two Poor-wills taken in Colorado andfound no stones. Without special comment, Brauner( 1953: 69 ) mentioned that on many occasions a captive
Poor-will swallowed small bits of gravel from thesoil filling the bottom of its cage.
Nyctidromus albicollis. One young Pauraque (remiges and rectrices still one-fourth
to one-thirdsheathed) taken on 21 July 1962 near Piste, Yucatan,
had four stones in its stomach, the two largest being
7 x 5 and 4 x 2 mm. The food in this bird’s stomach
was thoroughly digested, nothing being identifiable.
We examined the stomach contents of 46 fullygrown Pauraques, from many localities in Central andSouth America, and found no stones. In about onethird of these stomachs, however, we found from one
to three hard, triangular-to-round,
undigested heads(about 4 x 5-8 x 6 mm) of beetles, with digestion

COMMUNICATIONS

237

being otherwise well advanced; in one case a beetle’shead was the only item present. We think that theseheads may substitute for stones. According to Meinertzhagen (1964),
diving ducks similarly use thehard outer coverings of the molluscs and crustaceans
they eat to serve as grit.
In any event, these data suggest that a comparisonof the food and feeding habits of young and fullygrown Pauraques might be interesting. There is also
the question of whether our young bird obtained its
own stones or was given them by a parent.
Chordeiles acutipennis. Of 10 stomachs of the Texas
Nighthawk examined, one had three stones, 5 x 44X3mm.
Chordeiles pudlus. Only one specimen of the Least
Nighthawk was available. a bird taken 21 March 1967
near Maripa, Bolivar, Venezuela.
This bird had onestone (8 x 5 mm) in its otherwise empty stomach.
Podager nacundu. A Venezuelan specimen of aNacunda Nighthawk examined had three stones (12x 8-4 x 3 mm) in its stomach; four birds taken in
Brazil had no stones.
Other species examined, the stomach contents ofwhich included no stones, were as follows (numberof specimens in parentheses) : Caprimdgus rufus ( 1) ,C. nigrescens (2)) C. parvulus (5)) C. maculicaudus( 1 ), Lurocalis semitorquatus (2), and Chodeiles
minor (10).
In summary, 9 of the I5 species here considered
have been shown to ingest stones. These species
represent both of the caprimulgid subfamilies, Chordeilinae and Caprimulginae.
We think it very likelythat at least some of the other species take grit, but
our generally small samples failed to demonstrate this.
This may not be true. however. of Chordeiles minor
or adult Nyctidromus albicollis, for which we examined
10 and 46 specimens, respectively, finding no stones.
In several instances the stones (or heads of beetles
which may substitute for stones) were the only items
present. This indicates that these birds retain grit intheir stomachs, as apparently do most birds.
We wish to thank various persons at the Universityof Kansas: P. S. Humphrey made available to us
many specimens from Brazil; J. K. Jones, Jr., and J.
D. Smith have been esneciallv diligent in collectine
various South and Central American caprimulgids fo;
our continuing work on these birds; S. A. Rohwer
permitted us to use some of his data; and G. D.
Schnell rendered various assistance.
LITERATURE

CITED

BENT, A. C.
1940.
Life histories of North American
cuckoos, goatsuckers, hummingbirds
and theirallies. U. S. Natl. Mus., Bull. 176.
BFLNINER, J. 1953.
Observations on the behavior ofa captive Poor-will. Condor 55:68-74.
FARNER, D. S. 1960.
Digestion and the digestivesystem. p. 411467.
In A. J. Marshall[ed.]
Biology and comparative physiology of birds.
Academic Press, New York.
JONES, G. W.
1933.
An apparently unnoticed traitof Whip-poor-will.
Auk 50:436437.
MARPLES, G. 1939.
Stones in gizzard of Nightjar.
Brit. Birds 33:81-82.
MEINERTZHAGEN, R. 1964.
Article “Grit.”
p. 341342. In A. L. Thomson Ted.1 A new dictionarvof birds. McGraw-Hill,New- York.
RFNMERT, H.
1953.
Kieselsteine im Magen einer
Nachtschwalbe( Caprimulgus europaeus) . Ornithol. Mitteil. 5:231-232.
Accepted for publication

19 December

1968.