DOCSLIB.ORG

Aggression Among Hooded Robins Melanodryas Cucullata and Other

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aggression Among Hooded Robins Melanodryas Cucullata and Other AGGESSIO AMOG OOE OIS Mlndr llt A OE IS LULU L. FITRI1,2 and HUGH A. FORD1 1Division of Zoology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351 ² Present address : Laboratoire de Psychophysiologie et d'Ethologie, University de Paris X, 200, Avenue de la République, 92001 Nanterre Cedex, FRANCE Received: 20 August 1996 Ml dd bn Mlndr llt dpld r rn trd npf thn dd fl, nd b nvlvd n r rn th thr p. Intrpf rn nfrnt, th 2. t pr hr, prbbl b th p occurs t l dnt nd t rp hv f nhbr. Mt ntrpf rn drtd t lll lr rnd r rl frn ntvr, h thr rbn, Wntr Mr fnn nd Wll Wtl hpdr lphr. h ld hv bn d t drtd ntrpf rn, th p rbl thr l r fl dd bn, r d t ptntl pttn fr fd. Sllr rndfdn ntvr, such as thrnbll, r l th rpnt f dd bn rn. Svrl ntrtn nvlvd th ntrl rv hntr, thh bn r ftn th rr rthr thn rpnt f rn. bn t ttd ptntl nt prdtr, h hn Kbrr l nvn. l bn hd njrfnn bhvr t n ntrdn Kbrr nd ftn t ppl nr t hr nt. INTRODUCTION STUDY SITES AND METHODS The Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata is a The study was carried out in eucalypt woodland at three sites widespread species in Australia (Blakers et al. 1984), within 50 kilometres of Armidale (Gara, Strathaven, Torryburn, yet it appears to be common nowhere. Furthermore, described in Fitri and Ford 1997). From April 1991 to April 1992, L. L. Fitri collected time budgets of Hooded Robins by following there is evidence that it has declined markedly in individual birds and recording all activities and their duration. eucalypt woodland in southern Australia (reviewed by When aggressive acts occurred, she recorded their frequency nd the Fitri and Ford 1997). It is one of a large number of identity of the aggressor and the aggressed birds. The aggressors ground-foraging birds that occur in agricultural areas were individuals that either chased or threatened other species, and whose decline is giving rise to concern for their whereas the aggressed birds were individuals that were chased or long-term conservation (Recher and Lim 1990; Barrett threatened. An aggressor was considered to be threatening another individual when it approached within 0.5 metres of it, leading the et al. 1994). threatened bird to respond. Sometimes either threatening or threatened Although many hypotheses have been proposed birds performed agonistic displays, which included exposing for the loss of birds in fragmented and degraded wood- contrasting wing feathers and/or pointing the open beak at their opponent. land in Australia, few data are available to test these (Ford et al. in prep.). One hypothesis, which is During the breeding season (September to December 1991), supported by data and experiments, is that aggressive aggressors were considered to be threatening the Hooded Robin's nest honeyeaters, such as Noisy Miners Manorina if they went close enough to the nest to cause the parents to scold, melanocephala, exclude many insectivorous birds from fly away or display injury-feigning behaviour. degraded woodlands (Dow 1977, Grey et al. in press). Four groups of species were identified: honeyeaters, nest predators, A second hypothesis, which has some support, is that ground-feeding insectivores and others (Table 1). The third group nest predators have increased, leading to inadequate included species that glean or pounce on prey on the ground, and to breeding success and recruitment. Thirdly, simplifi- some degree capture aerial prey. Hooded Robins mostly glean or pounce on the ground throughout the year, but may spend up to 16% cation of ecosystems is believed to lead to a reduction of their time in summer in aerial pursuit of prey (Fitri 1993). in species diversity, due to competition amongst Thornbills were sometimes not identified, but as most were Yellow- ecologically similar species. This idea is best rumped and Buff-rumped, they are included in the ground-foraging developed for birds on islands (e.g. Diamond 1975), insectivore group. The final group, though heterogeneous, included but has not been applied to birds in remnant woodland a number of aerial feeding or foliage-feeding insectivores. in Australia. G tests and χ ² tt r d t pr frn f In this paper we describe aggressive behaviour by ntrpf rn nvlvn h x nd th fr n rptvl A thr- AOA d t tt vrtn n Hooded Robins. We quantify the frequency of intra- nbr f ntrtn pr hr (ntrtn rt n x f and interspecific aggression, and the extent to which dd bn t nd n fr th hl td prd t this aggression involves honeyeaters, nest predators and r l-trnfrd f th vrn r nl v pr nt ecologically similar species. lvl f nfn r d fr ll tt TABLE 1 Species that interacted aggressively with Hooded Robins. G = ground-foraging insectivore, H = honeyeater, P = predator, 0 = other. Number of cases of aggression towards Hooded Robin (>HR) and aggression from Hooded Robin (HR>). Yellow-rumped and Buff-rumped Thornbills were combined as they were not always identified to species. Species >HR HR> Sacred Kingfisher (G) Todiramphus sancta 0 1 Brown Treecreeper (G) Climacteris leucophaea 3 7 Buff-rumped Thornbill (G) Acanthiza reguloides 4 33 Yellow-rumped Thornbill (G) Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Jacky Winter (G) Microeca fascinans 14 35 Scarlet Robin (G) Petroica multicolor 1 15 Yellow Robin (G) Eopsaltria australis 0 2 Grey Shrike-thrush (G) Colluricincla harmonica 4 1 Restless Flycatcher (G) Myiagra inquieta 1 2 Willie Wagtail (G) Rhipidura leucophrys 26 22 White-eared Honeyeater (H) Lichenostomus leucotis 2 2 Fuscous Honeyeater (H) L fuscus 6 6 White-plumed Honeyeater (H) L penicillatus 8 11 White-naped Honeyeater (H) Melithreptus lunatus 1 0 Eastern Spinebill (H) Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris 0 1 Laughing Kookaburra (P) Dacelo novaeguineae 2 4 Pied Butcherbird (P) Cracticus nigrogularis 1 0 Australian Magpie (P) Gymnorhina tibicen 6 0 Pied Currawong (P) Strepera graculina 2 0 Australian Raven (P) Corvus coronoides 7 0 Scaly-breasted Lorikeet (O) Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus 1 0 Eastern Rosella (O) Platycercus eximius 1 0 Rainbow Bee-eater (O) Merops ornatus 0 2 Crested Shrike-tit (O) Falcunculus frontatus 1 0 Golden Whistler (O) Pachycephala pectoralis 1 1 Rufous Whistler (O) P rufiventris 3 1 Grey Fantail (O) Rhipidura fuliginosa 1 2 White-winged Triller (O) Lalage sueurii 1 1 Dusky Woodswallow (O) Artamus cyanopterus 16 2 Diamond Firetail (O) Emblem guttata 0 3 Total 113 154 RESULTS that the roles of individuals were hard to follow. After stopping for a few seconds at a perch, they Description of Aggressive Behaviour sometimes continued chasing until lost from sight. In general, the aggressive displays of Hooded Robins Chasing was frequent between males and females, were not spectacular. The following intraspecific and among males. Some of this chasing could have interactions were noted: been courtship. When males chased each other, sometimes females took part, by following their a) Threat display: dominant birds landed on a perch partners in chasing the other male. This behaviour and either held their body low with wings close to was similar to the aggression shown in border the body or fluffed their feathers, flicked their disputes, but occurred between members of a group. wings, and pointed their bill at their opponent. Sometimes the threatened bird gave a `squee' sound, d) Pecking: where one bird pecked another. On two followed by either displacement to another perch or occasions, a male pecked a female at Torryburn in flying away. Displacement comprised the dislodging order to take prey from his partner's bill. Once, at of a threatened bird from its perch with the Gara, an adult male was seen to peck an immature approaching bird then occupying the same perch. male which was still in grey plumage. Dominant females more frequently threatened submissive females rather than supplanting, chasing, Intraspecific Interactions or pecking them. Hooded Robins may live as pairs or in groups, including one or more non-breeding helpers (Fitri and b) Supplanting: where the dominant bird landed near Ford 1997). Interactions between groups were seen less another bird, causing the latter to leave its perch. frequently than those within groups. Interactions Supplanting was rarely followed by any threat display. Females were usually supplanted by males. between neighbouring groups were usually seen during border disputes. Most disputes were between males c) Chasing: where the birds chased one another, with rather than between males and females or between agitated piping sounds. They chased irregularly, females. Border disputes commonly involved two sometimes high through the trees and so rapidly males from neighbouring territories, which had come within 10 metres of each other. Trespassing birds were interactions differed significantly between seasons, usually chased from perch to perch by the territory being most frequent in autumn and least frequent in owner. This was accompanied by agitated piping and spring (Table 4). There was no significant difference scolding. Birds never made physical contact in the air in interaction rate between sites and none of the (i.e. one had already left a perch before the other statistical interactions among sex, site or season was arrived at the same or different perch). Disputes lasted significant (Table 4). up to 4 minutes and traversed up to about 40 metres, From 9-21 per cent of aggressive encounters with chasing occurring among the canopy of trees involved honeyeaters at each site (Tables 1 and 3). rather than near the ground. Hooded Robins were as likely to be aggressive towards Members of a group maintained close proximity for honeyeaters (20 observations) as they were to be the most of the time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Intense Nest Predation in the Decline of Scarlet Robins and Eastern Yellow Robins in Remnant Woodland Near Armidale, New South Wales
    The role of intense nest predation in the decline of Scarlet Robins and Eastern Yellow Robins in remnant woodland near Armidale, New South Wales S. J. S. DEBDSI A study of open-nesting Eastern Yellow Robins Eopsaltria australis and Scarlet Robins Petroica multicolor, on the New England Tablelands of New South Wales in 2000-02, found Iow breeding success typical of eucalypt woodland birds. The role of intense nest predation in the loss of birds from woodland fragments was investigated by means of predator-exclusion cages at robin nests, culling of Pied Currawongs Strepera graculina, and monitoring of fledging and recruitment in the robins. Nest-cages significantly improved nest success (86% vs 20%) and fledging rate (1.6 vs 0.3 fledglings per attempt) for both robin species combined (n = 7 caged, 20 uncaged). For both robin species combined, culling of currawongs produced a twofold difference in nest success (33% vs 14%), a higher fledging rate (0.5 vs 0.3 per attempt), and a five-day difference in mean nest survival (18 vs 13 days) (n = 62 nests), although sample sizes for nests in the cull treatment (n = 18) were small and nest predation continued. Although the robin breeding population had not increased one year after the cull, the pool of Yellow Robin recruits in 2001-03, after enhanced fledging success, produced two emigrants to a patch where Yellow Robins had become extinct. Management to assist the conservation of open-nesting woodland birds should address control of currawongs. Key words: Woodland birds, Habitat fragmentation, Nest predation, Predator exclusion, Predator removal.
    [Show full text]
  • Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment
    UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.10 Annex 2b CMS Scientific Council: Flyway Working Group Reviews Review 2: Review of Current Knowledge of Bird Flyways, Principal Knowledge Gaps and Conservation Priorities Compiled by: JEFF KIRBY Just Ecology Brookend House, Old Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SQ, U.K. June 2010 Acknowledgements I am grateful to colleagues at BirdLife International for the input of analyses, technical information, advice, ideas, research papers, peer review and comment. Thus, I extend my gratitude to my lead contact at the BirdLife Secretariat, Ali Stattersfield, and to Tris Allinson, Jonathan Barnard, Stuart Butchart, John Croxall, Mike Evans, Lincoln Fishpool, Richard Grimmett, Vicky Jones and Ian May. In addition, John Sherwell worked enthusiastically and efficiently to provide many key publications, at short notice, and I’m grateful to him for that. I also thank the authors of, and contributors to, Kirby et al. (2008) which was a major review of the status of migratory bird species and which laid the foundations for this work. Borja Heredia, from CMS, and Taej Mundkur, from Wetlands International, also provided much helpful advice and assistance, and were instrumental in steering the work. I wish to thank Tim Jones as well (the compiler of a parallel review of CMS instruments) for his advice, comment and technical inputs; and also Simon Delany of Wetlands International. Various members of the CMS Flyway Working Group, and other representatives from CMS, BirdLife and Wetlands International networks, responded to requests for advice and comment and for this I wish to thank: Olivier Biber, Joost Brouwer, Nicola Crockford, Carlo C. Custodio, Tim Dodman, Roger Jaensch, Jelena Kralj, Angus Middleton, Narelle Montgomery, Cristina Morales, Paul Kariuki Ndang'ang'a, Paul O’Neill, Herb Raffaele and David Stroud.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaggregation of Bird Families Listed on Cms Appendix Ii
    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 2nd Meeting of the Sessional Committee of the CMS Scientific Council (ScC-SC2) Bonn, Germany, 10 – 14 July 2017 UNEP/CMS/ScC-SC2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II (Prepared by the Appointed Councillors for Birds) Summary: The first meeting of the Sessional Committee of the Scientific Council identified the adoption of a new standard reference for avian taxonomy as an opportunity to disaggregate the higher-level taxa listed on Appendix II and to identify those that are considered to be migratory species and that have an unfavourable conservation status. The current paper presents an initial analysis of the higher-level disaggregation using the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World Volumes 1 and 2 taxonomy, and identifies the challenges in completing the analysis to identify all of the migratory species and the corresponding Range States. The document has been prepared by the COP Appointed Scientific Councilors for Birds. This is a supplementary paper to COP document UNEP/CMS/COP12/Doc.25.3 on Taxonomy and Nomenclature UNEP/CMS/ScC-Sc2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II 1. Through Resolution 11.19, the Conference of Parties adopted as the standard reference for bird taxonomy and nomenclature for Non-Passerine species the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Non-Passerines, by Josep del Hoyo and Nigel J. Collar (2014); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Biology and Behaviour of the Scarlet
    Corella, 2006, 30(3/4):5945 BREEDINGBIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUROF THE SCARLETROBIN Petroicamulticolor AND EASTERNYELLOW ROBIN Eopsaltriaaustralis IN REMNANTWOODLAND NEAR ARMIDALE, NEW SOUTH WALES S.J. S.DEBUS Division of Zoology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351 E-mail: [email protected] Received:I3 January 2006 The breeding biology and behaviour of the Scarlet Robin Petroica multicolor and Eastern Yellow Robin Eopsaltria australis were studied at lmbota Nature Reserve, on the New England Tableland of New South Wales,in 200G-2002by colour-bandingand nest-monitoring.Yellow Robins nested low in shelteredpositions, in plants with small stem diameters(mostly saplings,live trees and shrubs),whereas Scarlet Robins nested high in exposed positions, in plants with large stem diameters (mostly live trees, dead branches or dead trees).Yellow Robin clutch size was two or three eggs (mean 2.2; n = 19). Incubationand nestling periods were 15-17 days and 11-12 days respectively(n = 6) for the Yellow Robin, and 16-18 days (n = 3) and 16 days (n = 1) respectivelyfor the ScarletRobin. Both specieswere multi-brooded,although only YellowRobins successfully raised a second brood. The post-fledging dependence period lasted eight weeks for Yellow Robins, and six weeks for Scarlet Robins. The two robins appear to differ in their susceptibilityto nest predation, with corresponding differences in anti-predator strategies. INTRODUCTION provides empirical data on aspects that may vary geographicallywith seasonalconditions, or with habitator The
    [Show full text]
  • Translocations of North Island Tomtits (Petroica Macrocephala Toitoi) and North Island Robins (P
    63 Notornis, 2013, Vol. 60: 63-69 0029-4470 © The Ornithological Society of New Zealand, Inc. Translocations of North Island tomtits (Petroica macrocephala toitoi) and North Island robins (P. longipes) to Zealandia-Karori Sanctuary, an urban sanctuary. What have we learned? RAEWYN EMPSON* Karori Sanctuary Trust, P.O. Box 9267, Wellington 6141, New Zealand DENISE FASTIER Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 644, Napier 4140, New Zealand Abstract Transfers of North Island robin (Petroica longipes) and North Island tomtit (P. macrocephala toitoi) were undertaken from various sites around the Wellington region to within the mammal-proof fence at the Zealandia-Karori Sanctuary from 2001-2004. Differing methodologies were trialled to test translocation protocols for these species. Robin translocations (34 males and 42 females from Kapiti I translocated in 2000 and 2001) were straightforward and robins established in the sanctuary despite the fence not being a physical barrier to dispersal. They bred from the first season and numbers have since increased rapidly. Tomtits were transferred from 2 source populations (Kapiti I and Akatarawas; 39 males and 12 females over 4 years from 2001-2004) but failed to establish. To hold tomtits in an aviary and avoid aggression it was necessary to keep sexes apart. Although successful tomtit breeding was observed both within and outside the sanctuary, predation pressure was higher outside the sanctuary. A progressive move of tomtit territories out of the sanctuary may have been a response to increasing aggression from the expanding robin population. Empson, R.; Fastier, D. 2013. Translocations of North Island tomtits (Petroica macrocephala toitoi) and North Island robins (P.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on the Breeding Behaviour of the Red-Capped Robin Petroica Goodenovii
    VOL. 12 (7) SEPTEMBER 1988 209 AUSTRALIAN BIRD WATCHER 1988, 12, 209-216 Notes on the Breeding Behaviour of the Red-capped Robin Petroica goodenovii by PETER COVENTRY, 12 Baroona Avenue, Cooma North, N.S.W. 2630 Summary Three pairs of Red-capped Robins Petroica goodenovii were studied on the Southern Tablelands of' New South Wales during a temporary invasion in 1981-1983, at the end of a drought. The birds arrived in spring, the males ahead of the females, and defended territories against Scarlet Robins P. TTUilticolor. One male Red-capped Robin uttered the Scarlet Robin's song during territory advertisement. After raising one or two broods the birds dispersed for the winter, the adults either at the same time as or after the departure of juveniles. After breeding the adults moulted, the females starting before the males. Nests were built, by females only, at a height of 2-6m (mean 3.6 m), and took 5-9 days (mean 8 days) to complete. Eggs were laid between mid October and late December. Mean clutch size was 1.9 eggs (1-2, mode 2), and mean brood size at fledging was 1.4 (1-2, mode I). Incubation lasted 14 days (three clutches), the nestling period was 11-16 days (mean 12.5 days) and the post fledging dependence period lasted at least two weeks. The breeding success rate was 54% (7 fledglings from 13 eggs), and the nest success rate was 63% (5 nests successful out of 8 for which the outcome was known). Nest-building, courtship, parental behaviour and vocalisations are described.
    [Show full text]
  • Fleurieu Birdwatch Newsletter of Fleurieu Birdwatchers Inc June 2002
    fleurieu birdwatch Newsletter of Fleurieu Birdwatchers Inc June 2002 Meetings: Anglican Church Hall, cnr Crocker and Cadell Streets, Goolwa 7.30 pm 2nd Friday of alternate (odd) months Outings: Meet 8.30 am. Bring lunch and a chair — see Diary Contacts: Judith Dyer, phone 8555 2736 Ann Turner, phone 8554 2462 30 Woodrow Way, Goolwa 5214 9 Carnegie Street, Pt Elliot 5212 Web site: under reconstruction Newsletter: Verle Wood, 13 Marlin Terrace, Victor Harbor 5211, [email protected] DIARY DATES ✠ Wednesday 14 August Onkaparinga Wetlands ✠ Wednesday 12 June Meet at the park by the Institute, Old Kyeema Noarlunga Meet at corner of Meadows to Willunga Road ✠ Friday 16 August and Woodgate Hill Road. Annual Dinner ✠ Saturday 22 June Cox Scrub — north-eastern corner Meet in car park at northern end of park off Ashbourne Road. Once-a-year night ✠ Friday 12 July Meeting Program to be arranged Dinner ✠ Sunday 14 July at the Hotel Victor Goolwa Effluent Ponds 7 pm Friday 16 August Meet at the effluent ponds, Kessell Road, Goolwa. 3 Courses — $15 ✠ Wednesday 24 July Normanville and Bungalla Creek Bookings essential Meet in the car park on the foreshore. Contact Gaynor 8555 5480 ✠ Saturday 3 August or Verle 8552 2197 [email protected] Cox Scrub — south-eastern corner Meet in car park on the southern boundary at junction of Ashbourne and Bond Roads. MEETING WELCOME Friday 10 May 16 members attended this meeting and were Ruth Piesse, Parkholme welcomed by Gaynor Jones, Chairperson. Gaynor reported that Alexandrina Council We hope you will enjoy is working on extensions to the stormwater your birdwatching activities mitigation wetlands development at Burns Road, with us.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Plan Wildlife Landscapes a Guide for Community Organisations
    How to plan wildlife landscapes a guide for community organisations Department of State Government Natural Resources and Environment HOW TO PLAN WILDLIFE LANDSCAPES 1 2 HOW TO PLAN WILDLIFE LANDSCAPES How to plan wildlife landscapes a guide for community organisations Department of State Government Natural Resources and Environment HOW TO PLAN WILDLIFE LANDSCAPES 3 © The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 2002 All rights reserved. This document is subject to the Copyright Act 1968. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Copyright in photographs remains with the photographers mentioned in the text. First published 2002. Disclaimer—This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purpose and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. ISBN 0 7311 5037 6 Citation—Platt, S.J., (2002). How to Plan Wildlife Landscapes: a guide for community organisations. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Publisher/Further information—Department of Natural Resources and Environment, PO Box 500, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3002. Web: http://www.nre.vic.gov.au Typeset in AGaramond. Acknowledgements—this guide is founded on the work of many individuals who have contributed to biological and social research. Their work is acknowledged with gratitude and many of their names appear as reference footnotes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Flame Robin on Wilson's Promontory by Roy P
    April COOPER, Flame Robin 227 1970 ] The Flame Robin on Wilson's Promontory By Roy P. Cooper*, Melbourne. SUMMARY Although the Flame Robin, Petroica phoenicea, breeds on Wilson's Promontory and the off-shore islands, there is no evidence of migration to Tasmania. It would appear that Wilson's Promontory and the adjacent grasslands, possibly to the timbered fringe of the Yanakie foot­ hills, constitute a complete community for a large population of Flame Robins. The huge isolated mass of Devonian granite of the Promontory, with the Pleistocene and Recent sands of the Yanakie isthmus, make an area that is unique in south-eastern Australia. The unusual nesting sites on Mount Oberon indicate a natural nesting adaptation to the changed environment on Wilson's Promontory, and the number of nests placed in Leptospermum juniperinum is unique in the published nesting records of the Flame: Robin. HISTORICAL Between the visit to Wilson's Promontory of Gregory and Lucas (1885) in 1885 and 1961, there have been only four reports of the occurrence of the Flame Robin, Petroica phoenicea, in that area. C. McLennan has left a typed list of the birds (unpublished) dated March 5, 1909, on which the Flame Robin is merely listed. A. G. Campbell (1937) gave no details of the species beyond stating that "During a week's walking holiday recently I was able to add another ten (species) namely:-Flame Robin, Petroica phoenicea-". In January 1950, W. B. Hitchcock took part in a visit by members of the National Museum of Victoria, the results being recorded on a typed schedule that is now in the archives of the National Museum.
    [Show full text]
  • Canberra Bird Notes [email protected] [email protected]
    canberra ISSN 0314-8211 Volume 31 Number 4 bird December 2006 notes Registered by Australia Post — Publication No. NBH 0255 CANBERRA ORNITHOLOGISTS GROUP PO Box 301 Civic Square ACT 2608 2006-07 Committee President Jack Holland 6288 7840 (h) Vice-President Chris Davey 6254 6324 (h) Secretary Sandra Henderson 6231 0303 (h) Treasurer Lia Battisson 6231 0147 (h) Conservation Jenny Bounds 6288 7802 (h) Field trips Anthony Overs 6254 0168 (h) Newsletter Sue Lashko 6251 4485 (h) Webmaster David Cook 6236 9153 (h) Member Tony Lawson 6161 9430 (h) Email contacts Website www.canberrabirds.org.au Canberra Bird Notes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Gang-gang monthly newsletter [email protected] GBS coordinator David Rosalky 6273 1927 (h) [email protected] Unusual bird reports [email protected] [email protected] Other COG contacts Databases Paul Fennell 6254 1804 (h) Rarities Panel Barbara Allan 6254 6520 (h) Records officer Nicki Taws 6251 0303 (h) Sales Carol Macleay 6286 2624 (h) Waterbird survey Michael Lenz 6249 1109 (h) COG no longer operates an office in the Griffin Centre. If members wish to access the library, please contact Barbara Allan on 6254 6520; to borrow equipment, please contact the field trips officer. Canberra Bird Notes 31 (4) December 2006 THE STATUS OF HOODED ROBINS IN THE HALL TO NEWLINE WOODLAND CORRIDOR Jenny Bounds PO Box 403, Woden, ACT 2606 Abstract. This article documents the occurrence and abundance of Hooded Robins Melanodryas cucullata in what is regarded as the largest woodland corridor in the ACT from Hall to Newline.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversification of Petroica Robins Across the Australo-Pacific Region: First Insights Into the Phylogenetic Affinities of New Guinea’S Highland Robin Species
    Emu - Austral Ornithology ISSN: 0158-4197 (Print) 1448-5540 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/temu20 Diversification of Petroica robins across the Australo-Pacific region: first insights into the phylogenetic affinities of New Guinea’s highland robin species Anna M. Kearns, Leo Joseph, Aude Thierry, John F. Malloy, Maria Nandadevi Cortes-Rodriguez & Kevin E. Omland To cite this article: Anna M. Kearns, Leo Joseph, Aude Thierry, John F. Malloy, Maria Nandadevi Cortes-Rodriguez & Kevin E. Omland (2018): Diversification of Petroica robins across the Australo- Pacific region: first insights into the phylogenetic affinities of New Guinea’s highland robin species, Emu - Austral Ornithology, DOI: 10.1080/01584197.2018.1498744 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2018.1498744 View supplementary material Published online: 06 Aug 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=temu20 EMU - AUSTRAL ORNITHOLOGY https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2018.1498744 Diversification of Petroica robins across the Australo-Pacific region: first insights into the phylogenetic affinities of New Guinea’s highland robin species Anna M. Kearns a,b, Leo Josephc, Aude Thierryd, John F. Malloya, Maria Nandadevi Cortes-Rodrigueza,e and Kevin E. Omlanda aDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA; bCenter for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA; cAustralian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO National Research Collections Australia, Canberra, Australia; dSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; eDepartment of Biology, Center for Natural Sciences, Ithaca College, Ithaca, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Complex spatial and temporal phylogenetic patterns have emerged among Pacific Island radiations Received 13 December 2017 and their Australian and New Guinean congeners.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Left: Uncoloured PINK ROBIN (Petroica Rodinogaster). from a Colour Transparency by D
    2 THE S.A. ORNITHOLOGIST PHOTOGRAPHS: Top left: Uncoloured PINK ROBIN (Petroica rodinogaster). From a colour transparency by D. B. Mack. Top right: Uncoloured RED-CAPPED ROBIN (Petroica goodenovii). Bottom left: Uncoloured ROSE ROBIN (Petroica rosea). See page 19. From colour transparencies by J. & D. Paton. THE S.A. ORNITHOLOGIST 19 THE PINK AND ROSE ROBINS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA By JOAN PATON, DAVID PATON and MAX WATERMAN Since 1962 three new State records have savannah at Culburra in the upper S.E. of been obtained of the so-called Flycatcher S.A. (It is worth noting that on the same group of passerines, as well as confirmation stay in this area another visitor from the of the presence of another not definitely re­ Eastern States, the Yellow-tipped Pardalote corded for nearly 130 years (apart from (Pardalotus striatus), a new record for South sight records). Australia, was caught and banded and a Reports of two of these, the Leaden (1) specimen obtained for the S.A. Museum (6).) and Satin (2) Flycatchers have already been The widely different habitats in which published and this paper records the pre­ these three robins were found supports our sence of the Pink and Rose Robins. The belief that they were migrating. astounding thing about two of these species, ROSE ROBIN (Petroica rosea) the Rose Robin and Leaden Flycatcher, is The Rose Robin is primarily a bird of that they were both caught in a mist net in southern Queensland and northern New a suburban garden 4t miles S.E. of the Ade­ laide G.P.O., and it is believed that Gould's South Wales but its range extends to Vic­ specimen of the Pink Robin was probably toria and it has been known to breed in the collected in 1839 from Waterfall Gully only Otway Peninsula west of Melbourne.
    [Show full text]