Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
2006 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 5(3):547–554
Breeding Biology of Red-winged Blackbirds in
John W. Prather1, ** and Alexander Cruz2,*
Abstract - We studied the breeding biology of two Agelaius phoeniceus (Redwinged
Blackbird) populations in south Florida. Red-winged Blackbirds in our study
bred at low relative abundance in a wide variety of habitats, were rarely socially
polygynous, and were highly aggressive toward intruders. The breeding season
extended from March through August and coincided with the rainy season. Nesting
periods were similar to those reported for other subspecies of Red-winged Blackbirds,
but clutch sizes were small, with 2- and 3-egg clutches predominating. Nesting
success varied from 28% on Sanibel Island to 63% on the Florida Keys. Both
populations accepted a majority of artificial eggs into their nests, although cowbird
parasitism has been rarely reported in south Florida.
Agelaius phoeniceus L. (Red-winged Blackbird; hereafter redwing) is a
widespread breeding species in North America, with a continuous range from
southern Alaska and Canada throughout the continental United States and
Mexico (Beletsky 1996, Yasukawa and Searcy 1995). Disjunct populations
also exist on the Bahamas and in Central America as far south as Costa Rica
(Dickerson 1974, Jaramillo and Burke 1999, Yasukawa and Searcy 1995). A
closely related species, A. assimilus Jaramillo and Burke (Red-shouldered
Blackbird), which was formerly considered conspecific with the Red-winged
Blackbird, occurs in Cuba (Jaramillo and Burke 1999). Over their range,
redwings show wide variation of morphological and plumage characteristics,
and at least 26 subspecies have been recognized (Yasukawa and Searcy 1995).
Additionally, populations vary in their breeding biology, including degree of
polygyny, territoriality, and aggressiveness (Beletsky 1996, Dyer et al. 1977,
Orians 1973, Prather et al. 1999, Yasukawa and Searcy 1995).
In south Florida, two subspecies are recognized, A. p. mearnsi Howell
and van Rossem (Florida Red-winged Blackbird) and A. p. floridanus
Maynard (Maynard’s Red-winged Blackbird) (Stevenson and Anderson
1994). These subspecies are of interest for several reasons. First, they
represent the southernmost breeding populations in eastern North America.
Second, most redwing populations breed primarily in Typha Linnaeus (cattail)
marshes and/or wet grasslands, with breeding in woody vegetation
being uncommon (Yasukawa and Searcy 1995). South Florida redwings, in
contrast, breed extensively in mangroves and other woody vegetation in
flooded areas (Prather and Cruz 2002, Stowers et al. 1968). Third, while
1Center for Environmental Science and Education, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, AR 86011-5694. 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University
of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0334. *Corresponding author -
548 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 3
redwing populations are generally well studied, especially during the breeding
season (Beletsky 1996, Yasukawa and Searcy 1995), most of the available
information on the breeding biology of the Florida subspecies is anecdotal
(e.g., Curnutt 1989, Harrison 1981). Finally, in contrast to other
populations, south Florida redwings have not historically been sympatric
with Molothrus Boddaert (cowbirds). Breeding Molothrus ater Boddaert
(Brown-headed Cowbird) have been recorded in south Florida only since
1985 (Cruz et al. 1998, 1999; Hoffman and Woolfenden 1986), and
Molothrus bonariensis Gmelin (Shiny Cowbird) is also currently colonizing
south Florida (Cruz et al. 1998, 1999; Post et. al. 1993). We present here
information on the breeding biology of two south Florida subspecies, and
compare our data to those available from other subspecies of redwings.
From 1990–1993, we studied populations of A. p. floridanus nesting in
mangroves on the Florida Keys (especially on Key Largo) and on small
mangrove islands in Florida Bay (25o00'N, 80o30'W). In 1994 and 1995, we
studied populations of A. p. mearnsi nesting on the J.N. “Ding” Darling
National Wildlife Refuge and properties owned by the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation
Foundation on Sanibel Island (26o25'N, 82o11'W). Site descriptions
are provided in Prather and Cruz (1995, 2002). Our arrival time varied from
year-to-year, with our earliest arrival dates in early April of 1993 and 1995.
In areas that we visited frequently, we observed and recorded behavior of
redwings on and around the nest and located nests and checked their contents
every 2–3 days until they were no longer active. We documented social
polygyny by observing the movements of individual male redwings in relation
to nest sites and recording which male redwings defended each nest.
During counts, and other visits to breeding areas, it was relatively easy to
identify the number of individual male redwings in each habitat patch
visited. We could then observe male redwings, both while visiting nests, and
from a distance, to see which nests they defended or visited regularly. In
addition, it was possible to identify the area within each habitat patch in
which the male redwing responded to intrusion or spent time singing. These
areas were considered to lie within the male’s territory. A male was considered
socially polygynous if it defended more than one nest and/or more than
one nest fell within the territory it typically defended. Typically, due to the
low numbers of redwings on these sites, it was easy to find every nest in a
habitat patch and identify which male was responsible for each nest. Since
only one female was responsible for each nest, we defined harem size for
males as being equal to the maximum number of concurrently active nests
within their territory. We did not record any males that failed to have an
active nest in their territory for the entire breeding season.
Once nests were no longer active, we recorded the substrate in which the
nest was placed, the height of the nest above the ground or water, and an
estimate of the percent vegetation cover over the nest.
2006 J.W. Prather and A. Cruz 549
We undertook point counts to determine the abundance of redwings in
various habitats on the Florida Keys and Sanibel Island, using 120-m fixedradius
(Hutto et al. 1986) counts of 10-minute duration. Each male redwing
seen or heard during the count was considered to have a territory within the
count radius. As individual males could have been polygynous, we counted
the number of singing males and assumed that each singing male represented
We undertook egg-rejection experiments on 20 redwing nests, 10 on
Sanibel Island and 10 in the Florida Keys, using artificial eggs that mimicked
cowbird eggs in size, ground color (white), and in having dark spotting.
Real Brown-headed Cowbird eggs from a study in Colorado averaged
21.1 x 16.3 mm (Ortega and Cruz 1988), while real Shiny Cowbird eggs
from a study in the West Indies averaged 20.7 x 16.5 mm (Cruz and Wiley
1989). Eggs of both species are white to off-white and heavily speckled with
brown. The artificial eggs used in our experiment were made of hollow
plastic and measured 21.1 x 16.1 mm. Each egg was filled with water to
mimic the weight of a real egg and painted with acrylic polymer paint to
simulate the color and spotting density of real cowbird eggs (Ortega and
Cruz 1988). The eggs differed from real cowbird eggs in texture and reflectance,
but were considered suitable for obtaining a general indication of how
Florida redwings would respond to brood parasitism. In order to mimic
patterns of cowbird parasitism as effectively as possible, we added eggs to
nests only during the morning hours and only to nests in the egg-laying
stage. Responses were scored as “accepted” if the egg model remained in the
nest for 5 days, and “rejected” if the model disappeared from the nest during
the 5-day period. All eggs were removed from nests if they were still present
after day 5.
We used Wilcoxon two-sample tests with normal approximation to compare
nest-site characteristics of redwings on the Florida Keys with those on
Sanibel Island. We used chi-squared tests to compare between-population
clutch size, fledging success, and egg-rejection rates. We used logistic regression
to test for effects of nest height and canopy cover on nesting success at
each site. Means and standard deviations are provided for all appropriate data.
Statistical procedures were carried out using JMP Statistical Software Ver.
4.04 (SAS Institute 1998, Cary, NC), and significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.
The nesting season in Florida started as early as April 21 on Sanibel
Island and April 29 on the Florida Keys, and extended into July. New nests,
many of which were second nesting attempts after an initial success, continued
through June 23 on the Florida Keys and July 14 on Sanibel Island. The
July 14 record appears to be a very late date, with no other new nesting
550 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 3
attempts recorded after July 1 despite a continuous presence in the field until
late July in both 1994 and 1995.
On Sanibel Island, our point-count data indicate that redwing relative
abundance ranged from 6 to 13 territories/ha in marshes dominated by
Spartina alterniflora Loisel (cord grass) and Typha spp. Yasukawa and
Searcy (1995) report a mean 6.15 territories/ha (based on mean territory
size) in other studies (n = 9) in marshes. Relative abundances were lower in
mangroves, however, averaging only 4.9 territories/ha on Sanibel Island,
and ranging from 1.5 to 3.0 territories/ha in 7 habitat patches on the Florida
Keys. Few Florida redwings appeared to be polygynous. Of 22 territorial
males in frequently monitored areas on Sanibel Island, only 7 (31%) were
confirmed to be polygynous. On the Florida Keys, we confirmed polygyny
in only 3 males out of 20 (15%) in frequently monitored areas. Average
harem size was 1.41 on Sanibel Island and 1.20 on the Florida Keys.
Eighty-five of the 89 nests on the Florida Keys were placed in mangroves.
Rhizophora mangle Linnaeus (red mangrove), Laguncularia
racemosa Gaertn (white mangrove), and Avicennia germinans Linnaeus
(black mangrove) were all used regularly as nest sites. The remaining four
nests were located in Conocarpus erecta Linnaeus (buttonwood) and
Coccoloba uvifera Linnaeus (sea grape) trees adjacent to mangroves. On
Sanibel Island, 18 nests were found in mangroves, 19 in cattails (Typha
spp.), and 16 in shrubs of various species, especially Cephalunthus
occidentalis Linnaeus (buttonbush).
Mean cover was significantly higher (n = 93, z = -6.96, P < 0.001) at
redwing nests in the Florida Keys (50.2 ± 18.1%, range 20–90%), than on
Sanibel (21.0 ± 12.5%, range 10–60%). Mean nest height was significantly
higher (n = 93, z = -4.93, P < 0.001) on the Florida Keys (1.87 ± 0.56, range
1.01–3.14 m) than on Sanibel Island (1.44 ± 0.45 m, range 0.70–3.23 m).
Both of these differences are primarily attributable to the large number of
nests in cattails on Sanibel Island.
Clutches ranged from 2 to 4 eggs, but 4-egg clutches were found only
four times (Table 1). Clutch sizes were similar on the Keys (2.81 ± 0.53, n =
52) and Sanibel Island (2.77 ± 0.48, n = 43), and the relative frequency of
clutch sizes did not differ significantly between the two sites ( χ2 = 0.723,
v = 2, P = 0.693). At both sites, the incubation period averaged 12 days and
the brooding period averaged 10 days (Table 1), and were within a range
reported for other Red-winged Blackbird subspecies (Martin 1995, Nero
1984). We found almost no instances of cowbird parasitism (2 records from
Sanibel, none from the Keys) of redwing nests in Florida despite the presence
of both Brown-headed and Shiny Cowbirds at some of our sites (see
also Prather and Cruz 2002).
The proportion of successful nests was significantly higher (v = 1, χ2 =
0.013, P = 0.910) on the Florida Keys (33 of 52, 63.5%) than on Sanibel (12 of
43, 27.9%). However, the mean number of fledglings per successful nest was
similar at the two sites (Florida Keys: 2.67 ± 0.48, Sanibel Island: 2.50 ± 0.52;
Table 1). We found no significant within-site relationships between nest
success and nest height (Florida Keys: v = 1, χ2 = 0.384, P = 0.535; Sanibel
2006 J.W. Prather and A. Cruz 551
Island: v = 1, χ2 = 0.013, P = 0.910) or vegetation cover (Florida Keys: v = 1,
χ2 = 0.011, P = 0.912; Sanibel Island: v = 1, χ2 = 0.096, P = 0.757).
Redwings accepted artificial eggs designed to mimic cowbird eggs in 7
of 10 cases in the Florida Keys and 8 of 10 cases on Sanibel Island. Eggrejection
rates did not differ between the two Florida redwing populations
(v = 1, χ2 = 0.268, P = 0.605), but our statistical power was too low to make
strong conclusions regarding this result.
Redwings have been documented nesting in Florida from mid-March
through early August (Stevenson and Anderson 1994), and we found active
nests mainly from late April through early July. In our study areas, nesting
appeared to coincide with the summer rainy season, which normally begins in
May (South Florida Water Management District 1993). This was especially
true on Sanibel Island, where redwings began breeding only when areas
beneath the cattails and shrubs, in which they normally nest, were flooded.
Relative abundance of redwings in our study sites were within a range
reported in other studies (Yasukawa and Searcy 1995). However, relative
abundance in mangroves were on the low end of this range. In addition, the
incidence of social polygyny in Florida redwing populations is low as
compared to other studies in which over 50% of territorial male redwings
were reported to be socially polygynous (Searcy and Yasukawa 1995,
Yasukawa and Searcy 1995). In a review of 26 studies, Beletsky (1996)
reports harem sizes ranging from 1.6 to 6.2, well above the numbers in our
study. These data suggest that territory quality may have been low in our
study sites (Orians 1973, Robertson 1973, Weatherhead and Robertson
1977), especially in mangroves. We note that West Indian Agelaius species
that nest heavily in mangroves are socially monogamous (Post 1981,
Whittingham et al. 1996).
Two- and 3-egg clutches are typical of Agelaius blackbirds breeding in
tropical climates. The mean clutch sizes from our study areas are similar to
Table 1. Aspects of the breeding biology of Maynard’s and Florida subspecies of Red-winged
Blackbirds in south Florida.
Variable Florida Keys1 Sanibel Island2
2-egg clutches 13 (25.0%) 11 (25.6%)
3-egg clutches 36 (69.2%) 31 (72.1%)
4-egg clutches 3 (5.8%) 1 (2.3%)
Total complete clutches 52 43
Mean ± SD clutch size 2.81 ± 0.53 2.77 ± 0.48
Incubation eriod (days) 12.0 ± 1.3 (n = 8) 12.5 ± 0.9 (n = 9)
Nestling period (days) 10.5 ± 1.1 (n = 8) 9.5 ± 1.2 (n = 8)
Total nesting period (days) 22.5 ± 2.1 (n = 8) 21.0 ± 1.2 (n = 8)
Percent successful nests 63.5 27.9
Mean # fledglings / nest 1.69 ± 1.35 (n = 53) 0.70 ± 1.17 (n = 43)
Mean # fledglings / successful nest 2.66 ± 0.48 (n = 33) 2.51 ± 0.52 (n = 12)
1Maynard’s Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus floridanus).
2Florida Red-winged Blackbird (A. p. mearnsi).
552 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 3
those reported for Red-winged Blackbird populations in Costa Rica (2.75 ±
0.55, n = 144; Orians 1973) and for West-Indian Agelaius species, such as A.
xanthomus Sclater (Yellow-shouldered Blackbird), in Puerto Rico (3.03 ±
0.65, n = 30; Post 1981), A. icterocephalus Linnaeus (Yellow-hooded Blackbird)
in Trinidad (2.41 ± 0.71, N = 189; Cruz et al. 1990), and A. humeralis
Vigors (Tawny-shouldered Blackbird) in Cuba (3.5 ± 0.3, N = 5; Whittingham
et. al. 1996). Clutch sizes from our study were generally smaller
than those found for temperate subspecies of the redwing (mean of 3.28 for
20 studies), where 3- and 4-egg clutches often predominate (Dyer et al.
1977). Even as far south as Louisiana, clutch size averages 3.82 eggs (Brown
and Goertz 1978). This pattern suggests that either the quality of nesting
habitats in Florida is poor, or that Florida redwings follow a pattern of
reduced clutch sizes observed in some passerines in more tropical climates
(Cody 1966). Dendroica discolor paludicola Vieillot (Florida Prairie Warbler)
and D. petechia gundlachi Linnaeus (Cuban Yellow Warbler) that
breed in southern Florida also have smaller clutch sizes than their northern
conspecifics (Prather and Cruz 1995). We cannot exclude either hypothesis,
but the habitat-quality hypothesis would be better supported if mangrovenesting
redwings tended to have smaller clutch sizes. We did not find this to
be the case, but it is possible that birds in poor habitat may compensate by
having larger territories and low levels of polygyny.
We could find no significant correlations between nest success and nest
height or vegetation cover over the nest, despite evidence for such patterns
in other studies (Brown and Goertz 1978, Goddard and Board 1967). We did
not test whether the depth of water under the nest affected predation rates as
reported by Searcy and Yakusawa (1995). However, nesting success was
much higher for redwings in the Florida Keys, where many nests were found
on small keys offshore of the main islands. These keys lack many predators
common on the mainline Florida Keys, such as Procyon lotor Linnaeus
(raccoon), Rattus rattus. Linnaeus (black rat), Didelphis virginiana Kerr
(Virginia opossum), Quiscalus quiscula Linnaeus (Common Grackle), and
Coluber constrictor priapus Linnaeus (Southern Black Racer). The breeding
distribution of the Columba leucocephala Linnaeus (White-crowned Pigeon),
which is highly vulnerable to nest predation, is negatively correlated
with the distribution of mammalian predators in the Florida Keys (Strong et
al. 1991). Predator abundance may play an important role in determining the
breeding success of many species nesting in south Florida.
Neither this, nor previous studies, have recorded high rates of cowbird
parasitism in Florida redwings (Hoffman and Woolfenden 1986, Prather and
Cruz 2002), despite the abundance of this species in south Florida and the
regularity with which cowbirds use other populations of redwings as hosts
(Ortega and Cruz 1991, Searcy and Yasukawa 1995, Ward et al. 1996,
Yasukawa and Searcy 1995). The lack of parasitism did not appear to be
related to egg-rejection behavior, as 75% of the artificial eggs that we placed
in redwing nests were accepted. We propose three alternative hypotheses:
1) cowbirds are selecting other host species at present, 2) Florida redwings
use other behavioral mechanisms, such as aggression responses to deter
2006 J.W. Prather and A. Cruz 553
parasitism (see Prather et al. 1999), or 3) cowbird densities are still so low
that parasitism rates are difficult to detect. Testing these alternative hypotheses
appears to be warranted.
We thank the National Geographic Society and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
for providing funding for this study. We additionally thank the personnel of the
National Audubon Society on Plantation Key, and the J.N. Ding Darling National
Wildlife Refuge and Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation on Sanibel Island for
their assistance during this study.
Beletsky, L.D. 1996. The Red-winged Blackbird. The Biology of a Strongly Polygynous
Songbird. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Brown, B.T., and J.W. Goertz. 1978. Reproduction and nest-site selection by Redwinged
Blackbirds in north Louisiana. Wilson Bulletin 90:261–270.
Cody, M.L. 1966. A general theory of clutch size. Evolution 20:174–184.
Cruz, A., and J.W. Wiley. 1989. The decline of an adaptation in the absence of a
presumed selective pressure. Evolution 43:55–62.
Cruz, A., T.D. Manolis, and R.W. Andrews. 1990. Reproductive interactions of the
Shiny Cowbird Molothrus bonariensis and the Yellow-hooded Blackbird
Agelaius icterocephalus in Trinidad. Ibis 132:436–444.
Cruz, A., W. Post, J.W. Wiley, C.P. Ortega, T.K. Nakamura, and J.W. Prather. 1998.
Potential impacts of cowbird range expansion in Florida. Pp. 313–336, In S.I.
Rothstein and S.K. Robinson (Eds.). Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts: Studies in
Coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Cruz, A., J.W. Prather, W. Post, and J.W. Wiley. 1999. The spread of the Shiny and
Brown-headed Cowbirds into the Florida region. Pp. 519–540, In S.G. Sealy, and
J.N.M. Smith (Eds.). Ecology and Management of Cowbirds. University of Texas
Press, Austin, TX.
Curnutt, J.L. 1989. Breeding-bird use of a mature stand of Brazilian Pepper. Florida
Field Naturalist 17:53–76.
Dickerson, R.W. 1974. Review of Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) of
eastern, west-central, and southern Mexico and Central America. American
Museum Novitiates 2538:1–18.
Dyer, M.I., J. Pinowski, and B. Pinowski. 1977. Population dynamics. Pp. 267–300,
In J. Pinowski and S.C. Kendeigh, (Eds.). Granivorous Birds in Ecosystems.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Goddard, S.W., and V.V. Board. 1967. Reproductive success of Red-winged Blackbirds
in north central Oklahoma. Wilson Bulletin 79:283–289.
Harrison, H.H. 1981. Nesting Birds of Sanibel-Captiva and the Barrier Islands.
Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation, Sanibel, FL.
Hoffman, W., and G.E. Woolfenden. 1986. A fledgling Brown-headed Cowbird
specimen from Pinellas County. Florida Field Naturalist 14:18–20.
Hutto, R.L., S.M. Pletschet, and P. Hendricks. 1986. A fixed-radius point-count
method for nonbreeding and breeding season use. Auk 103:593–602.
Jaramillo, A., and P. Burke. 1999. New World Blackbirds: The Icterids. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Martin, T.E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation,
and food. Ecological Monographs 65:101–127.
554 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 3
Nero, R.W. 1984. Blackbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Orians, G.H. 1973. The Red-winged Blackbird in tropical marshes. Condor 75:28–42.
Ortega, C.P., and A. Cruz. 1988. Mechanisms of egg-acceptance by marsh-dwelling
blackbirds. Condor 90:349–358.
Ortega, C.P., and A. Cruz. 1991. A comparative study of cowbird parasitism in
Yellow-headed Blackbirds and Red-winged Blackbirds. Auk 108:16–24.
Post, W. 1981. Biology of the Yellow-shouldered Blackbird (Agelaius xanthomus)
on a tropical island. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biological Science
Post, W., A. Cruz, and J.B. McNair. 1993. The North American invasion pattern of
the Shiny Cowbird. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:32–41.
Prather, J.W., and A. Cruz. 1995. Breeding Biology of Florida Prairie Warblers and
Cuban Yellow Warblers. Wilson Bulletin 107:475–484.
Prather, J.W., and A. Cruz. 2002. Distribution, abundance, and breeding biology of
potential cowbird hosts on Sanibel Island, FL. Florida Field Naturalist 30:21–35.
Prather, J.W., C.P. Ortega, and A. Cruz. 1999. Aggressive responses of Red-winged
Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) toward Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus
ater) in areas of recent and long-term sympatry. Bird Behavior 13:1–7.
Robertson, R.J. 1973. Optimal niche space of the Red-winged Blackbird: Spatial and
temporal patterns of nesting activity and success. Ecology 54:1085–1093.
Searcy, W.A., and K. Yasukawa. 1995. Polygyny and Sexual Selection in Redwinged
Blackbirds. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
South Florida Water Management District. 1993. Lower East Coast Regional Water
Supply Plan: West Palm Beach, Florida. South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm Beach, FL.
Stevenson, H.M., and B.H. Anderson. 1994. The Birdlife of Florida. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Stowers, J.F., D.T. Harke, and A.R. Stickley, Jr. 1968. Vegetation used for nesting
by the Red-winged Blackbird in Florida. Wilson Bulletin 80:320–324.
Strong, A.M., R.J. Sawicki, and G.T. Bancroft. 1991. Effects of predator presence on
the nesting distribution of White-crowned Pigeons in Florida Bay. Wilson Bulletin
Ward, D., A.K. Lindholm, and J.N.M. Smith. 1996. Multiple parasitism of the Redwinged
Blackbird: Further experimental evidence of evolutionary lag in a common
host of the Brown-headed Cowbird. Auk 113:408–413.
Weatherhead, P.J., and R.J. Robertson. 1977. Harem size, territory quality, and
reproductive success in the Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Canadian
Journal of Zoology 55:1261–1267.
Whittingham, L.A., A. Kirkconnell, and L.M. Ratcliffe. 1996. Breeding behavior,
social organization, and morphology of Red-shouldered (Agelaius assimilus) and
Tawny-shouldered (A. humeralis) Blackbirds. Condor 98:832–836.
Yasukawa, K., and W.A. Searcy. 1995. Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius
phoeniceus). Pp. 1–28, In A. Poole and F. Gil, (Eds.). The Birds of North
America, No. 184. American Ornithologist Union, Washington, DC.