|
Loggerhead
Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Contributed by Alexander Sprunt, Jr.
[Published in 1950:
Smithsonian Institution United States National Museum Bulletin
197: 131-148]
Among the earliest ornithological memories of the writer is the
search for nests of the "French mockingbird" amid the
myrtle bushes of the back beach of Sullivans Island, near
Charleston, S.C. On this narrow barrier of sea sand, which has
figured so largely in history since the days when Sir Peter
Parker's fleet was turned away by the batteries of palmetto-logged
Fort Moultrie, many Low Country bird records have helped make
ornithological fame locally. It was a happy hunting ground for
several kindred spirits of schoolboy days, and birds' eggs were
mediums of exchange for various and sundry other specimens of
beach and marsh. In few other areas since has the writer ever
found the loggerhead shrike such a characteristic bird and will
always associate it with this spot for it was among the first half
dozen species of his "life list." Though having shown it
to many others for their "first" since, long
acquaintance with it has not dimmed interest in its attractive way
of life.
Misunderstood and rather frowned upon by the uninformed, the
loggerhead is one of the decidedly beneficial and valuable birds
of its range and its activities are a natural asset of no mean
proportions. As its name implies, it was described from Louisiana,
by Linnaeus, but the bird is no more typical of that State than
many other parts of its habitat.
Spring.--There is little change in
the seasonal numbers of the loggerhead in most of its range except
in the northern limits. Elsewhere the population remains largely
static as the species is resident throughout most of the country
it frequents. Certainly, numbers in coastal South Carolina,
Georgia, and most of Florida, and the Gulf coast do not vary
appreciably. In North Carolina (eastern) there is a slight
southward movement in fall and a return in spring but it is not
pronounced. Some confusion may exist in that State by the
overlapping occurrence of L. l. migrans and the difficulty
of differentiating between the two in the field. That both ludovicianus
and migrans occur together there has been demonstrated by
T. D. Burleigh, who secured specimens of each at Tarboro,
Edgecombe County, N. C., in January 1931 (Pearson and Brimley,
1942).
Courtship.--The courtship
performance is not particularly elaborate or widely commented
upon. It is undertaken with much fluttering of the wings and some
spreading of the tail in display on the part of the male.
Considerable erratic chases of the female occur at times, the
birds twisting and turning almost like sandpipers over the surf,
for apparently the female does not take very kindly to watching
the male display at length.
Audubon (1842) was somewhat cavalier in his opinion of this
phase of the loggerhead's way of life. He says flatly that
"the male courts the female without much regard, and she, in
return, appears to receive his haughty attentions with merely just
as much condescension as enables her to become the mother of a
family, whose feelings are destined to be of the same cold
nature." He follows this later in his account with a
quotation from Rev. John Bachman as follows: "You speak of
the male showing but little attachment to the female. I have
thought differently, and so would you were you to watch him
carrying. . .a grasshopper or cricket to her, pouncing upon the
Crow and even the Buzzard, that approach the nest, and invariably
driving these intruders away. Indeed I consider these birds as
evidencing great attachment toward each other."
Living in the same area from which Dr. Bachman wrote these
words, and where he saw so much of the loggerhead, the writer
agrees with him completely. He has never noted any trait that
would tend to prove that the loggerhead was lacking in domestic
responsibility.
Nesting.--This species is an early
nester, even in regions where early nesting is indulged by other
avian forms. It is another point of similarity to the birds of
prey, for the loggerhead is decidedly reminiscent of that order in
many ways. Though Florida shows the earliest dates for nesting
(which is to be expected) there is not a great deal of difference
between it and coastal South Carolina or Georgia. In all of these
the loggerhead sometimes begins nest-building in February, but
March is more nearly normal.
Arthur H. Howell (1932) lists February 9 as an early Florida
record, this nesting being near Gainesville. The birds usually
begin to build in the Lake Okeechobee region late in February, and
are incubating during the first week of March. In the Pensacola
area (much to the north and west) the latter part of March is more
typical, and F. M. Weston states that the first brood is raised by
"early April." Nests with eggs found by him in mid-May
he says are "almost certainly a second brood." Similar
dates are typical of southern Georgia. Fresh eggs on or after the
middle of May in either region are doubtless a second laying.
C. H. Pangburn (1919) believes that the loggerhead is the third
commonest nesting bird in Pinellas County, Fla., and that the
young are flying the last week in March. S. A. Grimes (1928) puts
it second in the Jacksonville area, outnumbered only by the
mockingbird.
Dr. E. E. Murphey, of Augusta, Ga., has a nesting date of March
at that locality. Arthur T. Wayne (1919) states that he was
informed by G. R. Rossignol that the latter found a nest and five
eggs at Savannah on February 15, 1919. Nest-building by this pair
began on January 16. This is a very early date and may be
considered the earliest Georgia record.
Nesting in South Carolina in some years varies little from that
in Florida. Wayne (1910) has noted birds mated by mid-February and
says that nests are often built late that month. Bad weather in
March frequently delays nest construction, however, and not
infrequently the birds abandon original efforts and start new
nests. Average time for the Charleston region is late in March.
Files at the Charleston Museum show that incubating birds were
found by F. M. Weston on March 18, 1913, and March 19, 1911.
Wayne's earliest breeding record was March 13, 1917. The writer
found a nest with five fresh eggs on March 28, 1914. While living
in the city of Charleston he was accustomed to find nests of this
species every year on the street in front of his home. There was a
line of small live-oak trees planted there (the area was all
"made" land, having been reclaimed from the Ashley
River), and their thick, tough twigs were ideal nesting sites. One
tree, about 12 or 15 feet high, across the street from his house,
always had a nest in it every season, and in 1924 one was built
and the young raised by mid-April. On June 22 another nest was
built in the same tree about 5 feet from the first one (same pair
of birds doubtless), which was still in excellent condition. H. K.
Job visited the writer while the first nest was in use and
photographed it.
In the northern rim of its range (eastern North Carolina) the
loggerhead nests noticeably later than elsewhere. T. Gilbert
Pearson and the Brimleys (1942) list fresh eggs as having been
found in Columbus County on May 6, in Bladen County, May 7,
completed nests but no eggs. At the same date, however, young just
out of the nest were seen! Probably late in April would be normal
for many breeding pairs, just about one month later than South
Carolina birds. Again, at the western terminus of its range the
loggerhead is late. Dr. H. C. Oberholser (1938) states that
"it breeds in Louisiana from April to June, and there is
record of eggs as early as April 16." If the latter is an
early date for Louisiana it is obvious that the loggerhead is far
behind its eastern dates in its western home.
The nest itself is built at medium elevations, never very high
and seldom close to the ground; 8 to 15 feet is normal. It picks
out heavily twigged growth, though its early habits often reveal
the nest to any observer as it is completed before the leaves come
out. Young oaks are favorites, and these, of course, retain their
leaves. Such trees are widely used in coastal South Carolina, and
the species often nests in towns and cities, even on streets
carrying considerable traffic.
The loggerhead is a good architect and builder. Though somewhat
bulky, the nest is well made and lasts long after its usefulness
is over. The materials are usually thick twigs, firmly woven and
lined with rootlets or fibers and, in the rural sections, often
padded with cotton. The latter is a characteristic item among a
varied range of material. Others are string (often used), feathers
of various kinds, hair, palmetto fiber, weeds, small sticks,
grass, "rabbit-tobacco" (everlasting), rags, and
occasionally paper. M. G. Vaiden, of Rosedale, Miss., once found a
piece of blue bottle glass in a nest!
Both sexes work on the nest and very assiduously. Incubation
consumes 10 to 12 days, and both male and female engage in the
duty. S. A. Grimes (1928) gives 14 days for incubation.
E. R. Ford (1936) gives an account of an unusual nesting site
with regard to elevation, which he found at Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
on March 5. The birds began building that day "on one of the
lower branches of a long-leafed yellow pine. The site was a little
more than fifty feet from the ground. . . . Except on one
occasion, I had never seen the nest of any Shrike more than eight
or ten feet up [and] I made it a point to observe this one
particularly." This height is very abnormal and can be
considered the extreme.
Two broods are usually raised, though in coastal South Carolina
there are often three in a season. It is interesting to note that
Audubon's (1842) account is contradictory in that he says in the
early part of his biography of the species that "loggerheads
rear only one brood in the season" and later, quoting Rev.
John Bachman, that "this species breeds twice in a
season." The latter is the correct statement, applying to the
greater part of the range.
An example of what amounts to practically colony nesting of the
loggerhead is furnished by M. G. Vaiden, or Rosedale, Miss. He
says that on April 9, 1937, he was driving near the site of the
old town of Concordia (Miss.) now inundated by the river. Along
the levee was a hedgerow of dwarf thorn bushes or small trees (Crataegus
uniflora), and shrikes were noted flying in and out of them.
Careful investigation revealed that nearly every tree held
occupied nests, and 14 were found in 13 trees! Eight nests
contained eggs; the others were either just completed or still
building. Eggs were found in them a few days later. This is a
remarkable observation, and the writer has never heard it
approached, but Mr. Vaiden says that he once saw another similar
instance. This was the finding of seven nests in thorn trees along
an unused road also in Mississippi. No two nests were more than 60
feet apart, and it was not over 200 feet from the first to the
last nest in a straight line down the road. The writer has often
found two or three loggerhead nests in trees fairly close
together, the distance of a city block for instance, but never
anything that would justify an illustration of colony nesting.
S. A. Grimes (1928) gives an interesting observation of
communal use of the same nest by loggerheads as follows:
A nest about eight feet up in an oak, found March 15, 1925,
was built on a thrasher nest of the preceding year. Revisiting
this nest a week later, I was much astonished to find seven eggs
in it, and two broken eggs on the ground below. The eggs were
obviously not all laid by the same bird, for five were of a dark
ground color and minutely speckled with dark brown, whereas the
set of four, two of which were on the ground, were of a much
lighter ground color. . . and there were three solicitous
Loggerheads berating me on all sides. This was a plain case of
avian bigamy. The nest was destroyed a night or two later,
apparently by someone's treacherous house cat. Within a day or
two, the "pair" began making a new nest fifteen feet up
in a pine sapling. . . . On April 5th, this nest held five dark
eggs and one light egg. Nine days later it contained three
light-colored eggs and only four of the dark variety, and in the
grass beneath were two of the less densely speckled eggs. This
nest subsequently met the fate of the first. At least nineteen
eggs, but from them not one Loggerhead to enhance, with futile
loquacity and sprightliness, the attractiveness of a bit of shaded
street or tree-lined field.
Eggs.--[AUTHOR'S NOTE: The sets of
eggs laid by the loggerhead shrike may consist of four to six
eggs, though four and five are probably commoner numbers than six.
These are practically indistinguishable from those of other races
of the species, which are well described under the California
shrike.
The measurements of 50 eggs of this southeastern race, in the
United States National Museum, average 24. 2 by 18.7 millimeters;
the eggs showing the four extremes measure 25.9 by 18.3,
23.6 by 19.9, 22.3 by 18.7, and 23.4 by 17.8
millimeters.]
[[EDITOR'S NOTE: The egg description for the
"California Shrike" referred to above (Smithsonian
Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 197: 165-166)
follows:
Eggs of the loggerhead shrike vary from dull
white to either light neutral gray or buff in ground color. The
spots are usually small, the maximum diameter in most eggs being
about 2 1/2 millimeters, but occasionally spots and splotches as
large as 6 1/2 millimeters occur. The sharply defined surface
markings vary from neutral gray to various tones of yellowish
brown and umber. There also are indistinct light gray spots
deposited in layers beneath the surface of the eggshell.
Occasionally, fine black scrawlings appear near the large end of
the eggs. Spots are more concentrated at the large end but rarely
are grouped into pronounced blotches with intervening unpigmented
areas. A wreath of spots about the large end rarely is present.
Out of 150 eggs of Lanius ludovicianus examined by me, 6
instances of reversal of the color pattern, that is, heavy
pigmentation on the small end of the egg, have been noted. Four of
these examples were in the same set of eggs.]]
Plumages.--[AUTHOR'S NOTE: The
sequence of molts and plumages is the same as for the migrant
shrike, to which the reader is referred.]
[[EDITOR'S NOTE: The plumage description for the
"Migrant Shrike" referred to above (Smithsonian
Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 197: 152-153)
follows:
Plumages.--A very full account of all
the plumages of all the North American shrikes has been published
by Dr. Alden H. Miller (1931), to which the reader is referred, as
the descriptions are given in too much detail to be quoted here.
Dr. Dwight (1900) describes the juvenal plumage of migrans
as follows: "above, drab-gray, faintly vermiculated and with
pale buff edgings; rump slightly paler. Wings and tertiaries buff
tipped, palest on the tertiaries; the outer rectrices largely
white, the central ones buff, with terminal mottling. Lores,
orbital region and auriculars dull black. Below, dull white on
chin, abdomen and crissum, washed on breast and sides with very
pale buff or drab, vermiculated with dusky subterminal bands on
each feather. Bill and feet dusky becoming black."
The first winter plumage is acquired by a
partial postjuvenal molt, "in September and October, which
involves the body plumage, tertiaries, wing coverts and tail, but
not the rest of the wings. Similar to previous plumage but grayer
above and the vermiculations absent or very indistinct on the
breast. Above, plumbeous gray, paler on rump, the posterior
scapulars white.
"Wings and tail black except for the brown
juvenal primaries, secondaries and primary coverts, the lesser
coverts plumbeous, white tips to the new tertiaries and white
terminal spots on the lateral rectrices. Below, dull white with
dusky vermiculations sometimes faintly indicated. A broad, black
bar through the eye."
He says that in both young and old birds there
is a partial prenuptial molt in February and March, "which
involves chiefly the chin, throat and head, and a few scattering
feathers elsewhere, but neither the wings nor the tail." All
individuals have a complete postnuptial molt, mainly in September,
but sometimes beginning in July or August, and sometimes prolonged
into October or even November.]]
Food.--The local name of loggerhead
in many localities, i.e., butcherbird, is indicative of the
popular opinion of its food habits. However, popular opinion in
this case, as in so many others, is often erroneous in its
conclusions. The basis for the rather generally held belief that
this species is injurious lies in the undoubted fact that it
sometimes does take small birds. This habit, however, is not
widely or even generally indulged and is much more the exception
than the rule. The condemnation of the bird for it, therefore, is
again reminiscent of the treatment meted out to the birds of prey,
so widespread and detrimental to that group.
In certain respects the loggerhead exhibits predatory habits,
and if such a combination can be visualized it might be said to be
a passerine raptor! Not possessing talons with which to grip prey
while feeding, it resorts to the well-known and thoroughly
characteristic trait of impaling its victims upon thorns, barbed
wire, or other sharp projections; hence the local name
butcherbird.
Naturally, what birds are taken are small ones. Little of
definite information appears in the literature regarding specific
varieties, but there is much generalization. Sparrows and warblers
appear to make up the bulk of small-bird prey. The writer has seen
myrtle warblers (Dendroica coronata) victimized on at least
two occasions, and English sparrows (Passer domesticus) are
fairly often taken in cities and towns, probably because of the
ease with which they are secured.
Wright and Harper (1913) relate that they saw a loggerhead
chasing a red-cockaded woodpecker (Dryobates borealis) in
the Okefenokee Swamp in southeastern Georgia and found the remains
of one young and one adult bluebird (Sialia sialis) on a
stump, also the work of the shrike. Pearson and the Brimleys
(1942) record the finding of the dried body of a myrtle warbler on
a thorn by C. S. Brimley and a similarly treated chipping sparrow
(Spizella passerina) by Pearson. The brains of the sparrow
had been eaten from a cavity in the back of the skull.
Observations by F. H. Craighill are quoted by these authors to the
effect that he has seen "young birds" hanging in small
plum trees but apparently no identification was made of the young.
Craighill is further quoted as saying: "Last week I saw a
shrike pursuing a small bird with evident felonious intent. I had
never before seen that here [Rocky Mount, N. C.] except when there
was snow on the ground and shrike food was scarce." Again,
there is no identification of the "small bird."
H. L. Stoddard writes me that a shrike got into a banding trap
of one of his neighbors near Beachton, Ga., and killed a chipping
sparrow. "The queer part of the thing was that there was a
stiff straw through the sparrow's neck," he says. "I
went down and got the bird and found that the shrike had pinched
at the neck and broken it in several places. The only explanation
of the presence of the straw that occurs to me is that the
instinct to hang prey on a twig or thorn is a very strong one. The
shrike would have been unable to eat the sparrow in the usual way
as there was no place in the trap to hang it (and shrikes are
probably unable to hold prey in the feet as do birds of prey).
Hence it had worked the stiff straw through the neck in an attempt
to anchor the bird for eating. At first glance this would seem
impossible, but when we remember the skill in nest-building it
does not seem so remarkable. The straw was stuck through between
the gullet and windpipe just above the breast in the exact spot
where shrikes usually hang the small birds they kill."
E. G. Holt (1913) watched a loggerhead near Barachias, Ala.,
kill a mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). It was during a
severe freeze, and the shrike attacked and pinned down the mocker,
striking it repeatedly with its beak and soon killing it. Holt
then interrupted proceedings by picking up the dead bird and
examining it; then, as he held it in his outstretched hand, the
shrike returned and attempted to take it. Subsequent observation
revealed that it removed the mockingbird's entrails through a
small hole above the kidneys.
Loggerheads rather frequently incur the wrath of owners of
canaries in attacks on these cage birds. When a cage is placed on
a porch or anywhere outside, it seems to be an irresistible
attraction to shrikes in the vicinity. When one alights on the
cage it produces panic in the canary, which, instead of remaining
in the middle of the perch where it would be perfectly safe, often
sticks its head out between the bars. Thereupon it is clipped
neatly off by the shrike, or so pierced by its beak that death is
the result. The writer's mother lost three canaries in this way
while summering on a beach resort near Charleston, S. C., a place
where loggerheads were abundant.
The food of the loggerhead is nearly entirely animal in
character. Food of eastern shrikes is wholly of this category,
though examination of some of the western subspecies showed that
vegetable matter amounted of 2.5 percent (F. E. L. Beal, 1912).
Professor Beal's researches further revealed that the eastern bird
shows a breakdown of 68 percent insects, 4 percent spiders, and 28
percent vertebrates. These studies were based on the contents of
88 stomachs. Distinct seasonal variation appears in the food take,
for it has been established that the warm seasons show a
preponderance of insect prey secured, while in winter the greater
part consists of mice and small birds.
Among the insects the Orthoptera compose the largest item.
Grasshoppers and crickets make up 39 percent. In August and
September these constitute 70 percent of the total food, though
they are taken in every month of the year. Among the crickets,
which are not so acceptable as grasshoppers, the so-called wood
cricket is often taken, numbers of the genus Stenopelmatus
being particularly noticeable. These insects usually live under
leaves and stones and avoid light but not to the extent of
remaining undetected by the remarkable vision of the loggerhead.
Beetles are eaten to the amount of somewhat in excess of 16
percent. Ground beetles (Carabidae) and carrion beetles (Silphidae)
compose 7 percent of this total; the rest are harmful varieties.
Ants and wasps are represented by only 3 percent, the latter
outnumbering the former. Moths and caterpillars form 4 percent.
Bugs, flies, and a few other odd insects total 5 percent.
Spiders make up 4 percent of the loggerhead's diet, while the
vertebrates (28 percent) include mammals, birds, and reptiles. Of
these, mice compose by far the bulk. A. H. Howell (1932) quotes
Judd (1898) as saying that mice are taken "at all seasons and
in winter comprise half the food." He adds that "birds
make up only 8 percent of the food for the year." Certainly,
this predilection of the loggerhead for mice, and the fact that
half the winter food is made up of these animals, should go far to
prove the great value of the shrike to agricultural interests.
Audubon went the length of saying that mice "form the
principal food of the grown birds at all seasons."
Alexander Wilson (Wilson and Bonaparte, 1832) wrote that on the
rice plantations of Carolina and Georgia "it [the loggerhead]
is protected for its usefulness in destroying mice." He
describes it as sitting near stacks of rice and "watching
like a cat; and as soon as it perceives a mouse, darts on it like
a Hawk." Evidently the loggerhead was more appreciated in
Carolina then than it is now.
Occasionally, extraneous items appear in the shrike's food, or
attacks are made on forms not usually associated with its diet.
N.C. Longee, of Gainesville, Fla. (Howell, 1932), saw a shrike
bring a number of large, live cattle ticks to a barbed-wire fence
and impale them thereon. Howell once saw a lizard being eaten. F.
M. Weston states that he witnessed near Pensacola, Fla., the chase
of a bat by a shrike on "a bright summer day," but the
animal eluded two attacks and escaped. The writer has seen a
loggerhead chase a bat once and failed to secure it. Weston adds
that he once found a small terrapin of "quarter-dollar
size" that had been taken and impaled by a loggerhead. E. S.
Dingle, of Huger, S.C., writes that he saw a loggerhead kill a
frog, fly away with it in the beak for a short distance, and then
transfer it to the feet in flight. The frog was carried about 200
feet in this manner to a live-oak tree.
Audubon (1842) quotes the Rev. John Bachman as saying: "I
have seen one [shrike] occupy himself for hours in sticking up [on
thorns]. . .a number of small fishes that the fishermen had thrown
on the shore. . . . The fishes dried up and decayed."
Pearson and the Brimleys (1942) give an interesting observation
on the shrike "larder" in a residential section of High
Point, Guilford County, N.C. It was composed of "no less than
fifteen small snakes" impaled on the thorns of a bush. They
also state that F. H. Craighill, of Rocky Mount, N. C., found a
loggerhead's cache of a snake, a crayfish, and a grasshopper.
Alluding once more to its bird-killing propensities,
observations by S. A. Grimes, of Jacksonville, Fla. (1928), reveal
that the loggerheads "take fledgling English Sparrows from
their nests in holes made by woodpeckers. Perched in the entrance,
heedless of the frantic chattering of the sparrows without, the
Shrike, in each instance, appeared to be having no little
difficulty seizing one of the young sparrows. The squealing victim
was invariably held by the head. On one occasion the struggling
sparrow succeeded in freeing itself, but was recaptured and
promptly thrust on a barb of a nearby fence."
Behavior.--The loggerhead
presents a striking combination of absolute immobility and intense
activity. To see one sitting on a telephone wire awaiting prey is
to see a bird as motionless as if it were cast in bronze. The next
moment it may be dashing through the air like a winged meteor to
pounce accurately upon a spot many yards away. These alternating
periods of activity and inactivity are very characteristic.
Essentially a bird of open country, it is a still hunter in the
main and always chooses an elevated and conspicuous perch. This
may be the topmost twig of a tree or bush, roadside wires or
fences, or any such advantage giving a wide and uninterrupted
view. Charlotte H. Green, however (1933), states that the bird has
"another method of hunting. Like the crows, he sometimes
sneaks up on his victim from the ground." She gives no
specific observation relating to such procedure, and it must be a
rather uncommon occurrence. The writer has never happened to
witness it in his long experience with the species, and certainly
it is not freely indulged.
The vision of the loggerhead is phenomenal, even for a bird.
That it can and does see insects at remarkable distances is
unquestioned. When living in the Battery Section of Charleston in
an area then being developed residentially, the writer has often
sat on the porch and watched loggerheads hunting in adjacent
vacant lots. Frequently a bird would pitch off the wires and
glide, or fly, 50 to 70 yards in a direct line to a spot in the
grasses and seize a grasshopper. No hovering or hesitancy is shown
in these sudden dashes. The bird goes directly to a specific spot,
and there is no doubt whatever that the intended prey was seen
before the bird left the perch.
Weather affects the activity of the loggerhead because it
reacts on the food supply. S. A. Grimes (1928) says: "Two of
the elements greatly facilitate the capturing of food for the
Shrike. Heavy rains drive the subterranean inhabitants to the
surface, where they are exposed to the bird's keen sight; and the
grass fire, routing numberless insects, form a veritable
cornucopia for this and other species." Weather has adverse
effects also as witnessed by F. M. Weston, of Pensacola, Fla., who
says: "After the prolonged freeze of January 1940, both
shrikes and sparrow hawks (Falco sparverius) disappeared
from this region for the rest of the winter." The absence of
two species sharing the same sort of food leads him to believe
that intense and prolonged cold "did away with the
winter insect life right down to the grass roots," a most
reasonable and logical conclusion.
The flight of the loggerhead is accomplished by very rapid
vibrations of the wings, an almost labored fluttering, it seems.
It does not, however, give the impression of wasted energy.
Periods of sailing intervene, and the course is usually at low
elevations. When selecting a perch it sweeps upward to it in a
steep glide. When leaving, it drops a few feet, then catches the
air with the wings, and proceeds with the characteristic rapid
beats. The speed attained in flight has been given by Gordon Aymar
(1935) at 22 to 28 m.p.h. based on "specific records."
A sidelight on the flight is indicated by A. L. Pickens, of
Paducah, Ky., who writes: "Another name for the loggerhead
shrike in the south is cotton-picker, probably from its bobbing
waves of flight above the cotton rows, as if darting down here and
there to pluck off a fleece." The writer has never heard this
name applied to the bird anywhere in its range but would think
that its derivation would be much more apt to apply to the
frequent use of cotton in nest-building than the
"probable" reason given above.
The outstanding trait of the loggerhead is its habit of
impaling victims on thorns, barbed-wire fences, and similar sharp
projections. This accounts for the local name so universally in
vogue--butcherbird. Supposedly, it is done for the reason of
storing a food supply, but probably also to assist in tearing the
prey apart in many cases, as the loggerhead does not have very
strong claws. The future food supply idea is, no doubt, much more
applicable to the northern shrike (Lanius borealis), for
the food of the loggerhead's range is so abundant and constantly
available that there is rarely an occasion when the bird has to
resort to already secured prey. Conversely, there are doubtless
times when the northern bird is hard put to it in winter and uses
a larder far more frequently. Regarding the loggerhead, indeed,
many have questioned whether it ever does return to impaled prey.
The frequent finding of dried bodies of birds, snakes, and insects
by many observers, ignored completely by the bird, leads to such
an impression.
Pearson and the Brimleys (1942) states: "Whether this bird
hangs up food for future use has not been definitely established.
The authors of this book have not known shrikes to return to the
grasshoppers, beetles. . .that they had impaled." However, it
is certainly the case that this is sometimes done. H. H.
Stoddard writes me: "There used to be a question in my mind
as to whether shrikes ever returned to their food caches, after
such prey had dried out through hanging on a twig or wire. I
settled this question to my satisfaction one day in the yard here
at home [Sherwood Plantation, Grady County, Ga.]. Noticing a
shrike flying through the yard with a sizable object, I grabbed up
a clod and threw it at the shrike, which dropped the object. This
proved to be a brittle dead twig about 2 inches long, to which
firmly adhered the dried remains of a myrtle warbler. Evidently
the shrike had returned to prey hung many days before and in
trying to remove the warbler had broken off the twig that anchored
it."
So, then, it is safe to conclude that the loggerhead does not
ordinarily return to impaled prey but occasionally does so.
Curiously enough, Audubon (1842) makes this remarkable
statement: "I have never seen it attach birds, nor stick its
prey on thorns in the manner of the Great American Shrike."
Whether he means that he did not actually see this accomplished,
or whether he never found any evidence of it, is not clear, but it
seems that the latter was meant. If so, it is almost beyond
belief, since he spent much time in the loggerhead's range, and it
would be most natural to conclude that he would have found
something of the sort during his expeditions. He does, however,
quote the Rev. John Bachman, who wrote him that he had "never
found either this or the Northern Shrike return to such prey for
food. . . . I have seen them alight on the same thorn bush
afterwards, but never made any use of this kind of food."
Some evidence that the loggerhead occasionally indulges in a
kind of play, reminiscent of certain hawks, is contained in an
observation related to me by Herbert R. Sass, of Charleston, S.C.
He happened to be watching a pigeon sitting on the roof of his
house one day, when a loggerhead suddenly appeared in the air
behind and above the pigeon and, diving straight at it, struck it
a resounding blow in the back! The startled pigeon was knocked
completely off the roof and fell several feet before recovering
its balance and spreading its wings. No effort was made by the
shrike as a follow-up; apparently it simply indulged a sudden
impulse, as it cannot be supposed that it meant to seek the pigeon
as prey.
An observation of E. J. Reimann (1938) reveals a rather unusual
encounter between a loggerhead and a yellow chicken snake (Elaphe
q. quadrivittata) at Marco Island, Fla. While perhaps an
indication of an attempt to secure food, it may have been an
instance of the tendency to play, similar to that above, for the
size of the snake would rather preclude the idea of the bird being
able to dispatch it. At any rate, Reimann says that noting a group
of men watching something on the ground, he found the shrike
attacking a snake. He says:
The snake would crawl forward over the ground, and the
shrike would fly down from a telegraph wire and, hovering over the
snake, would pounce down, grasp the snake by the tail, rise in the
air about six inches, and let the tail drop. The snake would
immediately fall into a defensive coil and the shrike would alight
on the ground about two feet away. It remained there until the
snake again wandered off; then it would hover, pounce, and grasp
the tail as before. Sitting along a telegraph wire close by, were
four newly fledged young shrikes. . .a Mockingbird was also
perched on the wire, but the young shrikes took no part in the
combat. Due to coming dusk, the shrikes finally moved off and I
threw the snake under an old building, to save it from the crowd
that had gathered there.
Another instance of a shrike-snake encounter is submitted by M.
G. Vaiden, but it appears to be directly an attempt at securing
food. Driving along a country road on July 4, 1926, he saw a
shrike flying across ahead of him carrying, with great difficulty,
a snake in its beak. At last it reached the top of a telephone
pole, and there a real battle took place. The snake was very much
alive and twisted, beat, and turned energetically while the shrike
kept striking at it with its beak. After several minutes of
watching, he states, "I broke up this feeding, as I had more
feeling for the snake than for the shrike." Throwing a clod
or two at the pair was enough to drive the bird off, and the snake
dropped to the ground, still alive but somewhat "bunged
up." It proved to be a rough-scaled green snake (Opheodrys
aestivus) and measured 16 1/2 inches long. He concludes by
adding: "Unfortunately I did not weigh this reptile, but I
know that the shrike was handling much more than its own weight.
The lifting power of the shrike must be more than the average
expected of small birds." This is a very interesting
observation as it reveals the loggerhead as proportionately more
powerful than the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
The latter is said by most authorities to be unable to lift more
than its own weight, or at the maximum, very little more. The
shrike in the foregoing account was handling "much more"
than its own weight, though Mr. Vaiden does admit that the snake
was not actually weighed. None the less, it is a striking
illustration of the virility and determination embodied in this
passerine species.
The loggerhead maintains definite territorial limits and
protects them assiduously. S. A. Grimes states that he has often
noticed that "each pair of shrikes has an apparently
well-defined domain of its own, which it holds defiantly to the
exclusion of others of its kind." Other species often nest in
fairly close proximity, however, without molestation.
Some observers have considered the loggerhead as a quarrelsome
species, but, though instances of it no doubt take place, the
writer has never been impressed with this as a characteristic. On
the whole, the bird gets along very well with its avian neighbors,
some of which are very close neighbors at times. Audubon (1842)
had a rather poor opinion of the loggerhead's disposition, for he
says, in explanation of his drawing, that "I have given you,
kind reader, the representative of a pair of the Shrikes,
contending for a mouse. The difference of plumage in the sexes is
scarcely perceptible; but I have thought it necessary to figure
both, in order to shew the quarrelsome disposition of these birds
even when united by the hymeneal band."
Voice.--Though the loggerhead has
little reputation in vocal performance, it has always seemed to
the writer that what attainment is reached has been rather
cavalierly treated in the literature. Few descriptions of its
notes are complimentary! While it can hardly be said to be a
singer, its efforts in spring are worthy of some notice and, in
certain individuals at any rate, possess a surprisingly melodious
quality. It is true that such notes are interspersed with others
anything but musical, but the general effect is a liquid tone that
is definitely pleasing.
Howell (1932) says: "The birds are not noisy but most of
their notes are harsh and unmusical; occasionally one makes an
attempt at singing, which Chapman describes as 'a series of
guttural gurgles, squeaky whistles and shrill pipes.' " It is
the impression of the writer that all male shrikes
"make an attempt at singing" during the nesting season.
In coastal South Carolina and the Okeechobee region of Florida he
feels certain that the song is indulged by all mated birds.
Shrikes are abundant in both areas, and the writer is intimately
acquainted with them. While "guttural" is apt enough to
describe many of the notes, and it is the case that "most of
the calls are harsh and unmusical," this applies more to the
alarm and call notes than the song, if this term can be employed.
Some of the latter are very liquid, flutelike, and appealing, so
much so that many observers are surprised to find them issuing
from a loggerhead.
Peterson (1939) is rather more generous in his comments, saying
that the song of the loggerhead is "similar to that of the
Northern Shrike," which he describes as "a
long-continued thrasher-like succession of phrases, harsher on the
whole than the Thrasher's song." It is this writer's
experience that the loggerhead's efforts are seldom
"long-continued," but it is refreshing to hear the bird
compared to the thrasher! One could ask little better.
Peterson has an able foundation in his comparison in a
statement made long ago by one who knew the loggerhead well--the
Rev. John Bachman, of Charleston, S. C. It was this genial
gentleman's observations that considerably augmented Audubon's
account of the loggerhead in the Birds of America, the
latter saying without reservation that "my friend the Rev.
John Bachman has had much better opportunities of studying
them." In regard to the vocal efforts he (Bachman) wrote
Audubon (1842): "You say it has no song. This is true in
part, but it has other notes than the grating sounds you attribute
to it. During the breeding season, and indeed nearly all summer,
the male. . .makes an effort at a song, which I cannot compare to
anything nearer than the first attempts of a young Brown Thrush. .
. . At times the notes are not unpleasing, but very
irregular."
Yet another allusion to similarity with the thrasher's song
comes from A. L. Pickens, of Paducah, Ky., who writes: "At
times I have had to pause and take note to determine whether the
birds' notes, softened in spring by the mating urge, and in fall
and winter by distance, might not be thrasher, sparrow, or
bluebird."
A. T. Wayne (1910) states: "Although the song of this
species is considered by most ornithologists to be hard and
unmusical, I have heard a few individuals which sang very
sweetly."
Economic Status.--Aside from its
undoubted value to agriculture in its considerable destruction of
injurious small mammals and insects, a fact well recognized by
informed people, the loggerhead assumes added importance to
stockmen by reason of a comparatively recent discovery. At the
1929 meeting of the American Ornithologist's Union in
Philadelphia, a paper was read by Dr. Eloise B. Cram (1930)
dealing with birds as factors in the control of a stomach worm in
swine. While the details of it cannot be quoted here it is of
great interest to note the conclusions reached. The investigation
resulted "from the discovery made by H. L. Stoddard several
years ago that the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius l. ludovicianus)
in northern Florida, chiefly in Leon county, and in southern
Georgia, chiefly in Grady County, were infested with large numbers
of roundworms encysted in the wall of the digestive tract. These
parasites were identified by the writer as spirurid larvae and the
infestation as a case of aberrant parasitism. . .the larvae being
a host other than the correct final host and therefore incapable
of further development." Careful study was undertaken of
birds so infested, and it was found that the dung-beetle (Phanaeus
carnifex) remains in shrikes' stomachs were "practically
one hundred percent heavily parasitized with the same larval round
worm as was found in the shrikes." Extensive feeding
experiments were carried out in order to find the final host of
the parasite, larvae taken from the shrikes being fed to a series
of experimental animals. Coming to the summary of the entire
undertaking the writer quotes Miss Cram again:
Larval roundworms found. . .encysted in the walls of the
digestive tract of Loggerhead Shrikes. . .were identified. . .as Physocephalus
sexalatus, the adult form of which occurs in the stomach of
swine. The dung beetles. . .were found to serve as the first and
normal intermediate hosts of the parasite in this locality [northern
Fla. and southern Ga., in counties named above named].
Reencystment of the larvae was found to occur in a wide variety of
animals. . . . It is pointed out that beetle-consuming animals, of
which birds are the most important, are therefore a significant
factor in limiting the degree of infestation of swine with Physocephalus
sexalatus in such an area.
This is a most interesting account and revelation and should be
of value to those engaged in hog-raising probably in other parts
of the Southeast. The loggerhead is an abundant bird in the
cattle-ranch areas of Florida, notably the Lake Okeechobee and
Kissimmee Prairie regions, and it may be that its value in that
area is equal to good done in the more northern parts of the
State. At any rate it is commended to all who are interested in
the welfare of the loggerhead and its economic importance to
humanity, directly and indirectly.
Field marks.--The loggerhead is
hardly to be confused with any other species except the
mockingbird. To the latter, however, it bears such a resemblance
that many inexperienced observers confuse the two birds, though
the similarity is largely superficial. Casual acquaintance on the
part of the general public has resulted in the often heard local
name of "French mockingbird," but even this term infers
that there is a variation between the two for, as some put it, the
prefix "French" implies a more striking appearance and
the result is a fancy mockingbird!
A. L. Pickens states: "The Cherokee Indians appear to have
confused the mockingbird with the loggerhead under a common name
meaning 'heads-it-eats' or 'head-eaters,' which has given rise to
the legend among them that the mockingbird attains its wonderful
powers of mimicry by eating the heads (singing parts) of other
birds."
The shrike, however, is a much chunkier bird than the mocker,
and the gray is markedly lighter in shade, much resembling that of
the gray kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensis). The large head,
which is the reason for the name loggerhead, is always very
noticeable even in silhouette; while the black line through the
eye, amounting almost to a mask, is easy to see and contrasts
sharply with this lack in the mockingbird.
The entire plumage pattern is very contrasting, the blacks,
grays, and whites being distinctly defined and not blending. The
tail while at rest appears very slim, and the very heavy forepart
of the bird suggests a somewhat top-heavy appearance. Unlike the
larger northern shrike, there is no barring on the breast.
These characters, together with the habit of the bird in
selecting such conspicuous perches and its rapid vibratory flight,
combine to render it plainly distinctive after a little experience
in the field.
Loggerhead Shrike*
Lanius ludovicianus
Contributed by Alexander
Sprunt, Jr.
*Original Source: Bent,
Arthur Cleveland. 1950. Smithsonian Institution United
States National Museum Bulletin 197: 131-148. United States
Government Printing Office
Return
to FAMILIAR BIRDS Home Page
Return to
beginning of document
|
