DOCSLIB.ORG

Site Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Site Description 11/5/2008 Upland Gamebirds Upland Gamebirds Order Galliformes Order Galliformes Family Cracidea - Central & S. America Plain chachalaca Upland Gamebirds Upland Gamebirds Order Galliformes Family Numididae – guineafowl Family Cracidea – Central & S. America Plain chachalaca Family Meleagrididae – turkeys Family Phasianidea – partridges, Old World Family Tetraonidae – grouse & ptarmigan quail, peafowl, chukars, pheasants Family Odontophoridae – New World quails Family Phasianidae Order Columbiformes Family Columbidae – pigeons and doves pheasants & partridge Note that these are all introduced species in North America; there are no native phasianids in New World 1 11/5/2008 Family Meleagrididae Family Tetraonidae Wild Turkey - Meleagris gallopavo grouse & ptarmigan – 19 species worldwide only in New World 5 species in Idaho 1 species in NA, but 6 subspecies, The 3 North American taxa have Family Odontophoridea different group characteristics Grouse Turkey Quail New World quails – 32 species in western Cooler, mtns, warmer warm, southern hemisphere northern lower elev. 6 species in North America, 1 in Idaho The 3 North American taxa have different group characteristics Grouse Turkey Quail Cooler, mtns, warmer warm, southern northern lower elev. Large bodies largest small Eat leaves & variety of seedeaters, some buds plants leafy parts 2 11/5/2008 Group characteristics (cont.) Group characteristics (cont.) Grouse Turkey Quail Grouse Turkey Quail Feathered upper neck bare legs & Feathered upper neck bare legs & legs & nostrils & head bare nostrils legs & nostrils & head bare nostrils Live 4-6 yrs live 4-8 yrs live 1-3 yrs Group characteristics (cont.) Group characteristics (cont.) Grouse Turkey Quail Grouse Turkey Quail Feathered upper neck bare legs & Renest at a renest at low renest legs & nostrils & head bare nostrils low rate rate readily Live 4-6 yrs live 4-8 yrs live 1-3 yrs (depends on species) Polygamous, polygamous, monogamous, except ptarmigan but different but variable 3 11/5/2008 Group characteristics (cont.) Group characteristics (cont.) Grouse Turkey Quail Grouse Turkey Quail Renest at a renest at low renest Renest at a renest at low renest low rate rate readily low rate rate readily Much of the renesting rate depends on yearly Pheasianids renest at a higher rate, especially conditions and on hen condition pheasants – very important in reproductive productivity of populations Quail & grouse also separate on general habitat features Vegetation Quail Grouse Blue grouse split recently into 2 species: Tundra & alpine ptarmigan Forest dusky, sooty, Dusky Grouse - ID, UT, CO, etc (same sci. name of ruffed, spruce Dendragapus obscurus) Forest, brush edges bobwhite greater prairie- Sooty Grouse - Pacific coastal area – WA, OR, etc – mountain quail, chicken Dendragapus fuliginosus California quail Quail & grouse also separate on general habitat features Vegetation Quail Grouse Tundra & alpine ptarmigan Forest dusky, sooty, ruffed, spruce Forest, brush edges bobwhite greater prairie- mountain quail, chicken California quail 4 11/5/2008 general habitat features Vegetation Quail Grouse Sagebrush 2 sage-grouse general habitat features general habitat features Vegetation Quail Grouse Vegetation Quail Grouse Sagebrush 2 sage-grouse Sagebrush 2 sage-grouse Grass-brush edge sharp-tailed g Grass-brush edge sharp-tailed g lesser prairie- lesser prairie- chicken chicken Desert scrub Gambel’s & scaled quail general habitat features general habitat features Vegetation Quail Grouse Vegetation Quail Grouse Pine-oak Montezuma q. Pine-oak Montezuma q. (AZ,NM) (AZ,NM) Rocky grass-shrub – chukar Agriculture – pheasant, gray partridge 5 11/5/2008 general habitat features Where do turkeys fit in this listing of vegetation types? general habitat features Evolutionary center: Grouse & Quail Where do turkeys fit in this listing of Grouse – boreal regions of North America vegetation types? Coniferous and deciduous forests, grasslands, grassland-forest edges, desert scrub, pine- oak forests, tropical deciduous forests Evolutionary center: Grouse & Quail Evolutionary center: Grouse & Quail Grouse – boreal regions of North America Grouse – boreal regions of North America fossils from 38 million years bp fossils from 38 million years bp morphology for northern regions short legs & wings large, rounded bodies 6 11/5/2008 Evolutionary center: Grouse & Quail Evolutionary center: Grouse & Quail Grouse – boreal regions of North America Grouse – boreal regions of North America fossils from 38 million years bp fossils from 38 million years bp morphology for northern regions morphology for northern regions short legs & wings short legs & wings large, rounded bodies large, rounded bodies pectinations pectinations feathered legs (toes in ptarmigan) feathered legs (toes in ptarmigan) behavior – snow roost Evolutionary center: Quail Evolutionary center: Quail Quail – tropical America Quail – tropical America Fossils, plus more species in S. & central America, & most primitive genera in region Evolutionary center: Quail Evolutionary center: Quail Fossils, plus more species in S. & central Ancestral species are arboreal, there is successive America, & most primitive genera in region tail-shortening in species as birds moved from trees to ground into more open habitats and to the north Ancestral species are arboreal, there is successive tail-shortening in species as birds Limited by cold weather to north. No adaptations moved from trees to ground into more open for snow – don’t snow roost, don’t scratch through habitats and to the north snow, no pectinations, bare legs and feet, small size 7 11/5/2008 The End Quail are cute! Grouse are great! Columbids are cool! Pheasants are fine! Turkeys are tasty! 8.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WATERFOWL ___Cackling Goose
    WATERFOWL ____ Least Sandpiper FALCONS BUSHTITS ____ Pine Grosbeak ____ Cackling Goose ____ Wilson's Snipe ____ American Kestrel ____ Bushtit ____ House Finch ____ Canada Goose ____ Spotted Sandpiper ____ Merlin ____ Purple Finch NUTHATCHES ____ Wood Duck ____ Solitary Sandpiper ____ Peregrine Falcon ____ Red-breasted Nuthatch ____ Cassin’s Finch ____ Blue-winged Teal ____ Greater Yellowlegs ____ Prairie Falcon ____ White-breasted Nuthatch ____ Common Redpoll ____ Cinnamon Teal ____ Red Crossbill CORMORANTS FLYCATCHERS ____ Pygmy Nuthatch ____ Northern Shoveler ____ Double-crested Cormorant ____ Western Kingbird ____ Pine Siskin CREEPERS ____ Gadwall ____ Eastern Kingbird ____ American Goldfinch ____ American Wigeon PELICANS, HERONS, IBIS ____ Brown Creeper ____ Great Blue Heron ____ Olive-sided Flycatcher SPARROWS ____ Mallard ____ Western Wood-Pewee WRENS ____ Chipping Sparrow ____ Green-winged Teal VULTURES, RAPTORS ____ Willow Flycatcher ____ Rock Wren ____ Fox Sparrow ____ Ring-necked Duck ____ Turkey Vulture ____ Least Flycatcher ____ Canyon Wren ____ American Tree Sparrow ____ Harlequin Duck ____ Osprey ____ Hammond’s Flycatcher ____ House Wren ____ Dark-eyed Junco ____ Bufflehead ____ Golden Eagle ____ Gray Flycatcher ____ Pacific Wren ____ White-crowned Sparrow ____ Common Goldeneye ____ Northern Harrier ____ Dusky Flycatcher ____ Marsh Wren ____ Golden-crowned Sparrow ____ Barrow's Goldeneye ____ Sharp-shinned Hawk ____ Pacific-slope Flycatcher ____ Bewick’s Wren ____ White-throated Sparrow ____ Hooded Merganser ____ Cooper’s
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Upland Game Bird Hunting Season Frameworks
    Oregon Upland Game Bird Hunting Season Framework Effective dates: September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2020 Prepared by Wildlife Division Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 4034 Fairview Industrial Dr SE Salem, Oregon 97302 Proposed 2015 -2020 Upland Game Bird Framework Executive Summary Oregon’s diverse habitats support 12 species of upland game birds, 8 of which are native, and 10 of which have hunting seasons. This document contains the proposed framework for upland game bird hunting seasons for the next five years. The seasons are designed to provide recreational hunting opportunities compatible with the overall status of upland game bird populations. The multi-year framework approach for setting upland game bird regulations was first adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 1996 for a 3-year period and again in 1999, 2004, and 2009 for 5-year periods. The role of regulations in game bird management has many functions including protection of a species, providing recreational opportunities, and in consultation with hunters to provide bag limits and seasons. Regulations should be as simple as possible to make them easy to understand. These frameworks are also based on the concept that annual fluctuations in upland bird numbers, which can vary greatly and are normal, should not be the basis for setting hunting seasons year by year. Standardized frameworks are biologically sound management tools that help the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) provide consistent, stable regulations that reduce confusion, assist hunters with planning trips, and lower administrative costs. In an effort to stabilize hunting regulations, the following concepts are the foundation for the frameworks offered in this document: Many upland game bird populations exhibit a high annual death rate and cannot be stockpiled from year to year Similar annual death rates occur in most upland game bird populations whether they are hunted or not.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011, Article ID 423938, 16 Pages Doi:10.4061/2011/423938
    SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research International Journal of Evolutionary Biology Volume 2011, Article ID 423938, 16 pages doi:10.4061/2011/423938 Research Article A Macroevolutionary Perspective on Multiple Sexual Traits in the Phasianidae (Galliformes) Rebecca T. Kimball, Colette M. St. Mary, and Edward L. Braun Department of Biology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118525, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Rebecca T. Kimball, [email protected]fl.edu Received 2 October 2010; Accepted 26 February 2011 Academic Editor: Rob Kulathinal Copyright © 2011 Rebecca T. Kimball et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Traits involved in sexual signaling are ubiquitous among animals. Although a single trait appears sufficient to convey information, many sexually dimorphic species exhibit multiple sexual signals, which may be costly to signalers and receivers. Given that one signal may be enough, there are many microevolutionary hypotheses to explain the evolution of multiple signals. Here we extend these hypotheses to a macroevolutionary scale and compare those predictions to the patterns of gains and losses of sexual dimorphism in pheasants and partridges. Among nine dimorphic characters, including six intersexual signals and three indicators of competitive ability, all exhibited both gains and losses of dimorphism within the group. Although theories of intersexual selection emphasize gain and elaboration, those six characters exhibited greater rates of loss than gain; in contrast, the competitive traits showed a slight bias towards gains. The available models, when examined in a macroevolutionary framework, did not yield unique predictions, making it difficult to distinguish among them.
    [Show full text]
  • What Type of Turkey Is Best for Small and Backyard Poultry Flocks?
    eXtension What type of turkey is best for small and backyard poultry flocks? articles.extension.org/pages/65434/what-type-of-turkey-is-best-for-small-and-backyard-poultry-flocks Written by: Dr. Jacquie Jacob, University of Kentucky Technically, only one breed of turkey exists, but many varieties of turkey are available. If you are interested in raising turkeys, it is important to choose a variety that meets your particular needs. An important distinction to understand is the difference between a commercial-type variety and a heritage variety. Commercial-type varieties have been bred specifically for commercial producers to address consumer preferences and production efficiency. Heritage varieties retain the characteristics of turkey varieties bred long ago in Europe and the early United States. Commercial Varieties Turkeys are used primarily for meat production. Most U.S. consumers prefer the breast meat, or white meat, of a turkey. To accommodate this preference, producers have carried out generations of genetic selection that have resulted in broad-breasted turkey varieties. These commercial-type varieties also have rapid growth rates and high feed efficiency. Many small flock owners raise commercial-type turkeys because of their high breast meat yield, fast growth, and high feed efficiency. The most popular varieties for small flock production are the commercial varieties Broad-Breasted Bronze (also called Bronze) and Broad-Breasted White (also called Large White). The Broad-Breasted Bronze has plumage resembling that of a wild turkey, and the Broad-Breasted White has been selected for white feathering and fast growth. Although both types are good for small flock production, a disadvantage of the Broad-Breasted Bronze is that dark pin feathers sometimes remain on the meat after processing.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Turkey Education Guide
    Table of Contents Section 1: Eastern Wild Turkey Ecology 1. Eastern Wild Turkey Quick Facts………………………………………………...pg 2 2. Eastern Wild Turkey Fact Sheet………………………………………………….pg 4 3. Wild Turkey Lifecycle……………………………………………………………..pg 8 4. Eastern Wild Turkey Adaptations ………………………………………………pg 9 Section 2: Eastern Wild Turkey Management 1. Wild Turkey Management Timeline…………………….……………………….pg 18 2. History of Wild Turkey Management …………………...…..…………………..pg 19 3. Modern Wild Turkey Management in Maryland………...……………………..pg 22 4. Managing Wild Turkeys Today ……………………………………………….....pg 25 Section 3: Activity Lesson Plans 1. Activity: Growing Up WILD: Tasty Turkeys (Grades K-2)……………..….…..pg 33 2. Activity: Calling All Turkeys (Grades K-5)………………………………..…….pg 37 3. Activity: Fit for a Turkey (Grades 3-5)…………………………………………...pg 40 4. Activity: Project WILD adaptation: Too Many Turkeys (Grades K-5)…..…….pg 43 5. Activity: Project WILD: Quick, Frozen Critters (Grades 5-8).……………….…pg 47 6. Activity: Project WILD: Turkey Trouble (Grades 9-12………………….……....pg 51 7. Activity: Project WILD: Let’s Talk Turkey (Grades 9-12)..……………..………pg 58 Section 4: Additional Activities: 1. Wild Turkey Ecology Word Find………………………………………….…….pg 66 2. Wild Turkey Management Word Find………………………………………….pg 68 3. Turkey Coloring Sheet ..………………………………………………………….pg 70 4. Turkey Coloring Sheet ..………………………………………………………….pg 71 5. Turkey Color-by-Letter……………………………………..…………………….pg 72 6. Five Little Turkeys Song Sheet……. ………………………………………….…pg 73 7. Thankful Turkey…………………..…………………………………………….....pg 74 8. Graph-a-Turkey………………………………….…………………………….…..pg 75 9. Turkey Trouble Maze…………………………………………………………..….pg 76 10. What Animals Made These Tracks………………………………………….……pg 78 11. Drinking Straw Turkey Call Craft……………………………………….….……pg 80 Section 5: Wild Turkey PowerPoint Slide Notes The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Has Sprung! in What Should Be One of the Coldest Months of the Year, We Are Having Near Record Highs and Buds Are Starting to Break
    Spring has sprung! In what should be one of the coldest months of the year, we are having near record highs and buds are starting to break. Luckily we have been receiving plenty of moisture in the Pineywoods and from what I can tell from recent browse surveys, we are going into Spring in pretty good shape. In this edition of the Pineywoods Post we will take a look at some of the Pineywoods latest inhabitants, the white winged dove, one of our prettiest plants. a native hibiscus, and get a Eastern Turkey research update from District Leader Gary Calkins. Inside This Edition Page 2 Critter Corner Page 3 Biologist Bio Page 4 Plant Profile Page 6 Outdoor Snapshots Page 7 Research Update If you would like to unsubscribe to this newsletter or if you received this e-mail from someone other than TPWD and would like to subscribe, please send an e-mail indicating such to [email protected] 2 Pineywoods Post Critter Corner Recent Arrivals to the Pineywoods July and August, and biologists are asked to band a certain quota Sean Willis TPWD Wildlife Biologist (Lufkin) for their area. In the past 4 years, District 6 has banded approxi- Doves are one of the most common species of birds found in mately one thousand mourning doves. Bands returned by hunters Texas, and are sought after by more Texas hunters (400,000) than allow us to gain valuable information on migration habits, harvest any other species except deer (600,000). Doves are also one of rates and longevity of the birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Than a Meal: the Turkey in History, Myth
    More Than a Meal Abigail at United Poultry Concerns’ Thanksgiving Party Saturday, November 22, 1997. Photo: Barbara Davidson, The Washington Times, 11/27/97 More Than a Meal The Turkey in History, Myth, Ritual, and Reality Karen Davis, Ph.D. Lantern Books New York A Division of Booklight Inc. Lantern Books One Union Square West, Suite 201 New York, NY 10003 Copyright © Karen Davis, Ph.D. 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of Lantern Books. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data For Boris, who “almost got to be The real turkey inside of me.” From Boris, by Terry Kleeman and Marie Gleason Anne Shirley, 16-year-old star of “Anne of Green Gables” (RKO-Radio) on Thanksgiving Day, 1934 Photo: Underwood & Underwood, © 1988 Underwood Photo Archives, Ltd., San Francisco Table of Contents 1 Acknowledgments . .9 Introduction: Milton, Doris, and Some “Turkeys” in Recent American History . .11 1. A History of Image Problems: The Turkey as a Mock Figure of Speech and Symbol of Failure . .17 2. The Turkey By Many Other Names: Confusing Nomenclature and Species Identification Surrounding the Native American Bird . .25 3. A True Original Native of America . .33 4. Our Token of Festive Joy . .51 5. Why Do We Hate This Celebrated Bird? . .73 6. Rituals of Spectacular Humiliation: An Attempt to Make a Pathetic Situation Seem Funny . .99 7 8 More Than a Meal 7.
    [Show full text]
  • BLUE GROUSE and RUFFED GROUSE (Dendragapus Obscurus and Bonasa Umbellus)
    Chapter 13 BLUE GROUSE AND RUFFED GROUSE (Dendragapus obscurus and Bonasa umbellus) Harry Harju I. CENSUS – A. Production Surveys – 1. Rationale – Random brood counts are a survey method used to assess the reproductive success of blue or ruffed grouse. Unfortunately, these counts are done too late in the year to be considered in setting or adjusting hunting seasons. If the sample size is large enough, the counts can help identify important habitats used by broods and can provide insight to the potential quality of hunting in the fall. 2. Application – Random brood counts can be conducted on foot, from horseback or from a vehicle and should cover all portions of the brood-rearing area. A good pointing dog is invaluable to locate broods. If a flushing dog is used, it should be trained to walk very close to the observer. Each time a grouse is seen, record the species, location, age, sex and habitat on a wildlife observation form. If a count is incomplete, circle the number of birds recorded. The time frame for these surveys is July 15 to August 31. Warm, clear days are best for brood counts. The best results are obtained by searching for broods in the first two and last three hours of daylight. When a well-trained dog is used, counts can be conducted throughout the day. 3. Analysis of Data – Refer to chapter 12 (Sage-grouse), Section II.B (Brood Production). 4. Disposition of Data – All records of brood observations are forwarded to Regional Wildlife Management Coordinators for proofing, and then entered into the Wildlife Observation System Database.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Paul Johnsgard Collection Papers in the Biological Sciences 1983 Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants" (1983). Paul Johnsgard Collection. 17. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Paul Johnsgard Collection by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. HYBRIDIZATION & ZOOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PHEASANTS PAUL A. JOHNSGARD The purpose of this paper is to infonn members of the W.P.A. of an unusual scientific use of the extent and significance of hybridization among pheasants (tribe Phasianini in the proposed classification of Johnsgard~ 1973). This has occasionally occurred naturally, as for example between such locally sympatric species pairs as the kalij (Lophura leucol11elana) and the silver pheasant (L. nycthelnera), but usually occurs "'accidentally" in captive birds, especially in the absence of conspecific mates. Rarely has it been specifically planned for scientific purposes, such as for obtaining genetic, morphological, or biochemical information on hybrid haemoglobins (Brush. 1967), trans­ ferins (Crozier, 1967), or immunoelectrophoretic comparisons of blood sera (Sato, Ishi and HiraI, 1967). The literature has been summarized by Gray (1958), Delacour (1977), and Rutgers and Norris (1970). Some of these alleged hybrids, especially those not involving other Galliformes, were inadequately doculnented, and in a few cases such as a supposed hybrid between domestic fowl (Gallus gal/us) and the lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae) can be discounted.
    [Show full text]
  • Ectoparasites of the Laughing Dove Streptopelia Senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766) (Aves: Columbidae) in Zaria, Nigeria
    Lundiana 9(1):67-71, 2008 © 2009 Instituto de Ciências Biológicas - UFMG ISSN 1676-6180 Ectoparasites of the Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766) (Aves: Columbidae) in Zaria, Nigeria 1Lucas K. Adang, 2Sonnie J. Oniye, 2Augustine U. Ezealor, 3Paul A. Abdu, 4Joseph O. Ajanusi & 1Kennedy P. Yoriyo 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Gombe State University, Gombe, Nigeria. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biological Sciences, 3 Department of Surgery and Medicine, 4 Department of Veterinary Parasitology and Entomology, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. Abstract A survey of ectoparasites of the Laughing Dove (Streptopelia senegalensis Linnaeus, 1766) was carried out in Zaria, Nigeria, to determine the prevalence, intensity and mean intensity of infestation. A total of 382 (231 males and 151 females) doves trapped from different locations in Zaria, Nigeria, were examined through plumage brushing. Eighty-eight (23.0%) of the birds were infested by the following six species of ectoparasites: lice – 32 (8.4%) Menopon gallinae Linnaeus, 1758, 37 (9.7%) Columbicola columbae Linnaeus, 1758, and 18(4.7%) Goniodes sp.; flies – 19 (5.0%) Pseudolynchia canariensis Macquart, 1840; ticks – 12 (3.1%) Argas persicus Oken, 1818; and mite: 1 (0.23%) Dermanyssus gallinae (Degeer, 1778). The frequency of single infestations (59 – 15.4%), was higher than that of double (27 – 7.1%) and triple (2 – 0.52%) infestations, though the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The males had a higher prevalence (55 – 23.8%) than the females (33 – 21.9%). However, this difference was also not significant (p > 0.05). Ectoparasites were collected from the birds through out the year, with highest prevalence (60.0%) in November.
    [Show full text]
  • 11 Blue Grouse
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Grouse and Quails of North America, by Paul A. Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences May 2008 11 Blue Grouse Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscigrouse Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "11 Blue Grouse" (2008). Grouse and Quails of North America, by Paul A. Johnsgard. 13. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscigrouse/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Grouse and Quails of North America, by Paul A. Johnsgard by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Blue Grouse Dendragapw obsctlrus (Say) 182 3 OTHER VERNACULAR NAMES @USKY grouse, fool hen, gray grouse, hooter, mountain grouse, pine grouse, pine hen, Richardson grouse, sooty grouse. RANGE From southeastern Alaska, southern Yukon, southwestern Mackenzie, and western Alberta southward along the offshore islands to Vancouver and along the coast to northern California, and in the mountains to southern California, northern and eastern Arizona, and west central New Mexico (A.O.U. Check-list). SUBSPECIES (ex A.O.U. Check-list) D. o. obscurus (Say): Dusky blue grouse. Resident in the mountains from central Wyoming and western South Dakota south through eastern Utah and Colorado to northern and eastern Arizona and New Mexico. D. o. sitkensis Swarth: Sitkan blue grouse. Resident in southeastern Alaska south through the coastal islands to Calvert Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Observation on a Sooty Grouse Population at Sage Hen Creek
    THE CONDOR--- VOLUME 58 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1956 NUMBER 5 OBSERVATIONS ON A SOOTY GROUSE POPULATION AT SAGE HEN CREEK, CALIFORNIA By ROBERT S. HOFFMANN In recent years there has been considerable interest in two separate aspects of the biology of Blue Grouse (Dendragapus) . The first of these is the controversy concerning their taxonomy. The genus is widely distributed in the coniferous forests of the western states and consists of two groups of races recognized by some as separate species: the fuliginosus group, or Sooty Grouse, along the Pacific coast, and the obscures group, or Dusky Grouse, in the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain areas. Originally these two groups were placed under the name Dendragapus obscurus on the basis of supposed intergradation (Bendire, 1892:41,44, SO). The work of Brooks (1912,1926,1929) and Swarth (1922, 1926), however, led to their separation in the fourth edition of the A.O.U. Check-list (1931) into coastal and interior species. This split stood until the publication of the 19th Supplement to the A.O.U. Check-list (1944) when, following Peters (1934), D. fuliginosus and its subspecieswere replaced under D. obscurus. Al- though at that time some doubt was still expressedabout the correctnessof this merger (Grinnell and Miller, 1944: 113), intergradation in northern Washington and southern British Columbia between the races fuliginosus and pallidus has now been reported by several authors (Munro and Cowan, 1947:89; Carl, Guiguet, and Hardy, 1952:86; Jewett, Taylor, Shaw, and Aldrich, 1953 : 200). The taxonomy of these grouse must rest upon the fact of intergradation between the two groups of races.
    [Show full text]