64 



L. W. SOWL 



We can sample marbled murrelet numbers 

 by using standard transect methodology; 

 however, I have some very serious reserva- 

 tions about our ability to convert these data 

 into a population estimate. This is not an un- 

 usual assessment for Alaskan seabirds in 

 general, but I think it is particularly apropos 

 to this species. 



We are still able only to guess at where the 

 marbled murrelet nests and we have not a clue 

 as to what sort of nesting strategy they pur- 

 sue. I am not prepared to accept, on the basis 

 of one North American record (Binford et al. 

 1975), that tree nesting is its habit through- 

 out its range. What has been proved is that 

 the marbled murrelet nests in trees and not, 

 as these authors would have us believe, that it 

 does not nest on the ground. It has become 

 rather fashionable to ignore the Chichagof Is- 

 land record (a ground nest), but it has not 

 been discredited. The color of the Chichagof 

 egg differs from that of the Big Basin egg, but 

 does agree with the one taken from an oviduct 

 by Cantwell (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959). 

 My own experience leads me to believe that 

 tree nesting, if it occurs, is not the common 

 habit of marbled murrelets nesting in the 

 Prince William Sound region. 



After many hours of observing marbled 

 murrelets over a period of several years, I am 

 intrigued by a number of things. These birds, 

 as often as not, appear to be clustered in 

 "pairs" as they feed. This occurs even at what 

 should be the height of the breeding season. 

 On several occasions I have noted a very pro- 

 nounced evening flight of these birds from 

 gathering areas on the water up into the sur- 

 rounding mountains at sunset. This has 

 moved me to wonder if their nesting strategy 

 includes incubating at night but less than full- 

 time attendance on days when the eggs can be 

 warmed by the sun. We know that periodic 

 egg-neglect is an aspect of storm-petrel be- 

 havior (Pefaur 1974). Is this behavior also 

 possible on a more regular basis in an alcid? If 

 so, it would certainly help explain why nests 

 are hard to find. 



It is apparent that more needs to be known 

 about the population dynamics and life his- 

 tory of the marbled murrelet before we can 

 make a proper estimate of its abundance. In 

 spite of the fragmentary record, I conclude 

 that the marbled murrelet probably enjoys 



the same relative abundance and distribution 

 that it did at the beginning of the century. 



Kittlitz's Murrelet (Brae hy ramp hus 

 brevirostris) 



The Kittlitz's murrelet is not as abundant 

 as the marbled murrelet, but locally it is some- 

 times found in large numbers. FWS surveys 

 conducted during July- August 1972 provide 

 an estimate of 57,000 murrelets of this species 

 in Prince William Sound. Almost a fifth of 

 these were concentrated in Unakwik Inlet 

 above Unakwik Reef. Even more interesting, 

 about 2,500 of these birds were concentrated 

 in one loose flock. 



In addition to Unakwik Inlet, Kittlitz's 

 murrelets concentrate in College Fjord in 

 Prince William Sound and in the waters front- 

 ing the Bering-Malaspina icefields (Isleib and 

 Kessel 1973). Common as they are in these 

 waters, this species is supposed to be even 

 more abundant at Glacier Bay. The common 

 feature of these waters is the amount of ice 

 that can be found below their tributary 

 glaciers. 



The Kittlitz's murrelet is apparently dis- 

 tributed from LeConte Bay, east of Peters- 

 burg, Alaska, north to Point Barrow and west 

 across the Aleutians to Attu, where Murie col- 

 lected a pair (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959). I 

 once flushed a murrelet from an area of tread 

 and riser topography near the top of the 

 highest point on Kiska Island in heavy cloud 

 cover, and although I could not see this bird 

 well, I thought it to be of this species. From 

 the range description in Gabrielson and 

 Lincoln (1959) and Udvardy's (1963) range 

 map, it is apparent that the distribution of 

 this species is rather patchy, but I suspect 

 that for the more mountainous part of its 

 range this is more apparent than accurate. 

 The record is too fragmentary to allow an as- 

 sessment of any change in status during the 

 historical period. 



Ancient Murrelet (Synthliboramphus 

 antiquus) 



Chase Littlejohn (Bendire 1895) spent the 

 spring and summer of 1894 collecting eggs on 

 islands south of the Alaska Peninsula. He has 

 left us a detailed record of what he saw but 

 not where he saw it. Bent (1963) stated flatly 



