SHORT COMMUNICATIONS 485

My wife Marian helped with the field work. Financial LACK, D. 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding aid was supplied by the Frank M. Chapman Memorial in birds. Methuen and Co., London. Fund and by the Peabody’ Museum of Yale University. LEA, R. B. 1942. A study of the nesting habits of NSF funds administered by the University of Mich- the Cedar Waxwing. Wilson Bull. 54:225-237. igan covered my fees while I was at the biological MESSERSILIITH, D. H. 1963. Birds in a red pine station. plantation. Wilson Bull. 75:235-243. PUTNAM, L. S. 1949. The life history of the Cedar Waxwing. Wilson Bull. 61:141-182. LITERATURE CITED SAUNDERS, A. A. 1911. A study of the nesting of ALLEN, A. A. 1930. Cherry bird-the Cedar Wax- the Cedar Waxwing. Auk 28:323-329. wing. Bird-Lore 32:29S_307.’ YOUNG, H. 1949. A comparative study of nesting BENT, A. C. 1950. Life histories of North American birds in a five-acre park. Wilson Bull. 61:36- wagtails, shrikes, vireos, and their allies. U.S. 47. Natl. Mus., Bull. 197. Accepted for publication 25 January 1971.

TONGUE STRUCTURE OF THE SUNBIRD HYPOGRAMMA HYPOGRAMMICA

FRANK B. GILL Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Hypogramma hypogrammica is an aberrantly-plu- maged Malaysian sunbird usually allied to Anthreptes “on account of the straight keel of the lower mandible” (Shelley 1878) or Nectarinia on account of “its gen- eral coloration and apparently primitive nature” EXPANDED TIP [2X) (Delacour 1944). In the most recent revision of the Nectariniidae, Rand (1967a) considered Hypogramma a monotypic genus which he placed between An- threptes and Nectariniu. Hypogramma hypogrammica is dull olive green in color, somewhat yellower below with bold streaking CROSS SECTION (>c, on most of the underparts, resembling in this respect certain Arachnothera (A. it&e for example) and certain female Necturinia such as N. iohannue. Iri- descent coloration is restricted to males, which have a purple crescent on the nape and similar purple coloration on the lower back and upper tail coverts. Often concealed on study skins and rarely remarked upon are (in the male only) elongated tufts of white feathers at the base of the lower back. The pattern FIGURE 1. Tongue structure of Hypogramma hy- of metallic coloration, especially the nuchal patch, pogrammica. is unlike any other sunbird, although several species of Anthreptes have similar purple lower backs. Because Aethopyga-Arachnothera sunbirds are easily distinguished from Nectariniu and Anthreptes fer from other sunbirds in having lateral splits at the by their tongue tip structure Scharnke 1932; Delacour ( tongue tip instead of a single median one; this sepa- 1944), I wanted to examine the tongue of Hypo- rates a single, flat center piece from two lateral grammu to establish its affinities with Anthreptes- grooved structures (Scharnke 1932). The one im- Nectarinia. W. E. Lanyon kindly gave me permis- portant exception, Anthreptes singalensis ( = Chal- sion to remove for examination the tongue from a copariu phoenicotis), has a flat tongue with a slight skin of Hypogramma hypogrammica intensior ( AMNH brush tip (Gardner 1925; pers. observ.); this was 685539) in the collections of the American Museum considered a significant enough departure from of Natural History. typical sunbirds to cause the species ’ removal from The tongue of most sunbird species is for the major the family at one time (Scharnke 1932), but not part of its length a closed tube formed by inward permanently. The South African sugarbirds, Prome- rolling and meeting of the edges (see cross sections raps, have semitubular, quadrifid, brush-tipped in Skead 19167:28). The tongue tip is split and bi- tongues which resemble honeyeater tongues in some tubular, but it lacks elaborate fimbriation. Virtually aspects and those of sunbirds in others (Rand 1967b; all species of sunbirds that have been examined have similar tongues; I have personally examined Skead 1967). the tongues of 12 sunbird species in addition to those The essential features of Hypogrammas’ tongue 23 species listed by Gardner ( 192,5 ), Scharnke ( 1932)) structure are as follows (see fig. 1). a) The tongue and Skead ( 1967). Aethopyga and Arachnothera dif- is nontubular. The edges are curled inwards, form- 486 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS ing an open semitubular structure, but this is prob- of the sugarbird (Promerops) ol South Africa. How- ably an artifact of preservation as found by Moreau ever, the superficial resemblance of the tongues of et al. (1969) in white-eye (Zosteropidae) tongues. Hypogramma and Promerops needs to be sup- The tongue of Hypogramma is definitely not the plemented by additional lines of evidence before closed tubular structure of most sunbirds but re- speculation as to their possible relationship will be sembles instead the tongues o,f Promerops and honey- worthwhile. Certainly Promerops ’ quad&d tongue eaters. structure is of even less value now than before as a b) The tip is quadrifid. The primary division ex- taxonomic character indicating relationship with the tends from the distal tip for about one sixth of the Meliphagidae. tongues’ total length; the secondary division is about I am grateful to Walter J. Bock and Austin L. one-half the length of the primary division. Rand for their comments on earlier drafts of this c) The tip is fimbriated, forming a rather simple paper. brush tip. Fimbriation is confined to the inner edges of the outer tips which are extensively split, LITERATURE CITED but the inner ones narrow into sharp, &rayed tips. DELACOUR,J. 1944. A revision of the family Nec- d) It appears to be cuticular throughout most of tariniidae ( sunbirds ). Zoologica 29: 17-38. its length, thus resembling sunbird and sugarbird GARDNEIR, L. L. 1925. The adaptive modifications tongues rather than the fleshy tongues of honey- and the taxonomic value of the tongue in birds. eaters. However, fresh material is needed for detailed Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus. 67:149. study of the cuticle and musculature as well as nat- MAYR, E., AND D. AMADON. 1947. A review of the ural groove relationships. Dicaeidae. Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1360. Brush-tipped, quadrifid tongues are characteristic MO~EAU, R. E., M. PERRINS,AND J. T. HUGHES. 1969. of Meliphagidae, certain Dicaeidae (Mayr and Ama- Tongues of the Zosteropidae ( white-eyes). Ardea don 1947; Rand 1961), Zosteropidae (Moreau et al. 57:2947. 19#69), and the “Pro~meropidae” (Rand 1967b). How- RAND, A. L. 1961. The tongue and nest of certain ever, the toague of Hypogramma differs from other flowerpeckers ( Aves:Dicaeidae) Fieldiana-Zool. known quadrifid tongues in having the fimbriation 39:581-587. restricted to the inner edges of the outer pair of tips. RAND, A. L. 1967a. Family Nectariniidae. p. 208- The simple unfrayed inner pair of tips of Hypo- 289. In R. A. Paynter, Jr. [ea.] Checklist of birds grammas’ tongue resembles the simple central elements of the world. Vol. XII, Mus. Comp. Zool., Cam- of Promerops ’ tongue. In overall structure the tongue bridge, Mass. of Hypogramma is closer to those oh the Nectariniidae RAND, A. L. 1967b. The flower-adapted tongue of than to those’ of the Meliphagidae, but it especially a Timahinae bird and its implications. Fieldiana resembles Promerops.’ -Zool. 51:53-61. Except for tongue structure, there is little reasoa ROBINSON, H. C. 1927. The birds of the Malay to doubt that Hypogrammu is a sunbird, despite ex- Peninsula. Vol. 1. The commoner birds. H. F. amples of known convergence in such flower feed- and G. Witherby, London. ing birds (e.g., Neodrepanis, Myzomela, Myzornis, SCHARNXE, H. 1932. Uber den Bau der Zunge der etc. Hypogrammds feeding behavior and nest ) . Nectariniidae, Promeropidae, und Drepanididae. structure (see Rosbinson 1927:365) support the J. Ornithol. 86:114-123. traditional sunbird relationship, and its peculiar plu- SHELLEY,G. E. 1878. A monograph of the Nec- mage pattern obscures only its subfamilial affinities. tariniidae, or family of sunbirds. Publ. by au- Its aberrant tongue structure, described here, sup- thor, London. ports its generic separation from other sunbirds but SKEAD, C. J. 1967. The sunbirds of southern in no way allies Hypogramma to Anthreptes-Nec- Africa. Cape and Transvaal Printers Ltd., Cape- tarinia as opposed to Aethopyga-Arachnothera. town. The resolution’ of Hypogrammus’ true affinities may ultimately bear on the question of the relationships Accepted for publication 7 January 1971.

HORNED GREBE SPECIMEN Grebe, Phillips, Marshall, and Monson (The birds FROM ARIZONA of Arizona, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, 1964) con- sider it a rare transient, noting several sight records LAWRENCE N. HUBERI and one specimen record from along the Colorado 6832 E. 38th Street River. This previous specimen (presently in the Tucson,Arizona 85710 United States National Museum Bird Collection, Washington, D. C.) was taken on 27 October 1952 On 23 November 19567, I collected a Horned Grebe on Lower Havasu Lake. My specimen is the first (Podiceps au&us) on an irrigation pond about 7 mi. record of this species in Arizona, east of the Califor- N of Tucsoa, Pima County, Arizona. It is a juvenile nia-Arizona border. Its plumage lends much support with dark patches of feathers below the eyes, on the to the suggestion of Phillips et al. (op. cit., p. 2) front of the neck, and on the upper breast. Except that “the scarcity of records for the state may reflect for size, it was nearly indistinguishable from the only the extreme difficulty of distinguishing the approximately 15 Eared Grebes (P. caspicus) also Homed Grebe in its winter plumage.” present on the pond. My thanks to H. B. Tordoff (University of Mich- Although the AOU Check-list of North American igan) for confirming my identification of the speci- Birds (Fifth ed., AOU, Baltimore, 1957) does not men. The bird has been deposited in the University include Arizona within the range of the Homed of Arizona Bird Collection, Tucson, Arizona.

1 Deceased. Accepted for publication 11 December 1970.