Vol. XXII 

 1905 



Wiieelock, Regurgitative Feeding of Nestlings. C C 



in this sense I use the term. It does not always imply pre diges- 

 tion. It refers only to food that has been swallowed by the adult 

 and carried in the craw to the young. Oftentimes there is no 

 appreciable digestion of the raw material, as when a Cedar Wax- 

 wing swallows choke cherries and two minutes later disgorges 

 them one by one into the mouth of the nearly fledged nestlings ; 

 or when the Nighthawk comes with throat full of fireflies and, 

 according to Mr. Herrick, pumps the young full of the glowing 

 mass ; or when the Flicker empties her sack full of ant larvae into 

 the eager throat of her hungry offspring. An examination of the 

 crops of the young immediately after feeding, in each of these 

 cases, reveals food in a comparatively fresh condition except for a 

 certain sliminess caused by the saliva of the adult. But, although 

 the result in each of these instances is the same, the methods dif- 

 fer widely. For instance, the Waxwing simply fed the cherries 

 one at a time exactly as he might have done had he brought each 

 one singly. Yet we all accept the fact that the cherries were car- 

 ried in his throat and consequently were regurgitated. The Night- 

 hawk (I cite from Mr. Herrick) placed her capacious bill over, 

 not in, that of the little one and allowed the contents of her throat 

 to escape into the gullet of the nestling. But Mr. Herrick does 

 not hesitate to pronounce this act regurgitation. The long, flabby 

 throat of the young Flicker, on the other hand, requires some fur- 

 ther help in swallowing, and hence the shaking process so distress- 

 ing to witness. But I wish to emphasize the fact that this elabo- 

 rate process is 710 more truly regurgitation than is the quick ejection 

 of food in the case of the Cedar Waxwing. — The three cases cited, 

 although differing so widely from each other, are unhesitatingly 

 accepted by all scientists as examples of regurgitative feeding. All 

 the instances I have recorded follow one of these three modes. 



In obtaining this data several methods have been followed. In 

 about one third of the instances it was possible to watch at close 

 range, concealed either in ambush or by protective coloring in 

 dress and by patience in remaining motionless. By close range I 

 mean from ten to forty feet. With field glasses forty feet is prac- 

 tically two feet. 



In cases where such watching was obviously impossible from 

 the position of the nest or the intervening foliage, I was obliged to 



