Albayrak et al. • MORPHOMETRICS OF KRUPER’S NUTHATCH 
737 
TABLE 2. Measurements 
(mm) 
of primary. 
secondary, and tail 
feathers of 
Kriiper’s 
Nuthatch, Anatolian 
Peninsula, Turkey. 
Primary length 
Secondary length 
Tail lenglli 
» 
Mean ± SD 
Min 
Max 
« 
Mean 2 
SO 
Mtn 
Max 
« 
Meat 
t ± SD 
Min 
Max 
10th 
61 
18.77 ± 1.52 
15.0 
22.0 
1st 
64 
53.65 ± 
2.23 
46.0 
58.0 
6th 
18 
37.83 
± 3.88 
25.0 
44.0 
9th 
65 
50.86 ± 1.78 
47.6 
57.0 
2nd 
64 
53.70 ± 
1.68 
50.0 
57.0 
5th 
18 
38.72 
± 2.30 
33.0 
44.0 
8th 
65 
57.82 ± 1.92 
54.0 
65.0 
3rd 
64 
52.95 ± 
1.96 
48.0 
58.0 
4th 
18 
38.53 
± 1.56 
35.0 
42.0 
7th 
64 
58.89 ± 1.93 
52.5 
64.0 
4th 
63 
51.19 ± 
2.80 
40.0 
55.0 
3rd 
18 
37.92 
± 2.09 
35.0 
43.0 
6th 
65 
60.05 ±1.91 
55.0 
64.0 
5th 
63 
48.79 ± 
2.19 
42.0 
55.0 
2nd 
17 
37.35 
± 2.12 
35.0 
42.0 
5th 
65 
59.75 ±2.19 
50.0 
65.0 
6th 
60 
45.45 ± 
2.95 
32.0 
53.0 
1st 
18 
36.36 
± 1.71 
34.0 
40.0 
4th 
65 
56.22 ±2.13 
49.0 
59.0 
7th 
60 
40.90 ± 
2.41 
31.0 
45.0 
3rd 
65 
53.92 ± 2.25 
45.0 
58.0 
8th 
62 
31.76 ± 
2.58 
22.0 
37.0 
2nd 
61 
53.11 ± 2.45 
44.0 
58.0 
9th 
57 
23.46 ± 
1.91 
19.0 
30.0 
1st 
62 
5192 ± 2.03 
47.0 
57.0 
procedure correctly classified only 30 birds, i.e., 
50% (Table 4), which is low. The ALA popula¬ 
tion is quite different from the others even though 
it overlaps with population BUK and marginally 
with population KAR. Cross validation confirmed 
these results by correctly assigning 75% of the 
birds. Cross validation of the three other popula¬ 
tions confirmed the large overlap in morpholog¬ 
ical characteristics, although population BUK was 
intermediate between population ALA and the 
KAZ-KAR complex. 
DISCUSSION 
The morphometric charateristics of Kriiper’s 
Nuthatch are poorly known. Only measurements 
of wing length, tail length, bill length, tarsus, and 
body mass, which are similar to our results, have 
been recorded from small numbers of individuals 
(Cramp and Perrins 1993. Roselaar 1995, Harrap 
and Quinn 1996). Differentiation among Kriiper's 
Nuthatches is not known although a few 
measurements for both males and females were 
given by Cramp and Perrins (1993) and Harrap 
TABLE 3. Stepwise discriminant analysis of morpho¬ 
metric characteristics of Kriiper's Nuthatch, Anatolian 
Peninsula. Turkey. 
Step 
Variable 
Wilks' X 
p 
1 
Body mass 
0.72 
0.0003 
2 
Back nail 
0.60 
<0.0001 
3 
P 8 
0.52 
<0.0001 
4 
Wing 
0.38 
<0.0001 
5 
Alula 
0.33 
<0.0001 
6 
BH 
0.29 
<0.0001 
7 
Left nail 
0.26 
<0.0001 
and Quinn (1996). We compared measurements 
of morphometric characteristics among popula¬ 
tions using males that were captured using 
playback of calls during the breeding season 
and which did not exhibit a brood patch. There 
was slight dimorphism in the species, and 
verification of the measurements of males and 
females now depends on molecular identification 
of individuals. 
Geographical distance and habitat fragmenta¬ 
tion are considerable among populations in the 
Anatolian Peninsula. Our results indicate there 
may be exchange among populations, possibly 
because of the existence of suitable corridors, 
especially between BUK and the KAR-KAZ 
complex. Kriiper’s Nuthatch is probably capable 
of long distance movement, and it is unlikely that 
only isolation by distance can produce differen¬ 
tiation among populations. We detected some 
differentiation among populations in the data set. 
The ALA population is quite different from the 
three other populations even if it overlaps with 
population BUK and marginally with the popula¬ 
tion in the KAR-KAZ complex. 
This could be the result of the existence of both 
southern and northern refugia during glacial 
periods which were partially reconnected after 
isolation by distance. ALA and BUK are both in 
the southern refugia and overlap in morphologic 
characters was observed between them. The 
KAR-KAZ complex is localized in the northern 
part of Anatolia and populations are probably 
sufficiently close to exchange some individuals. 
ALA is distant from these two northern popula¬ 
tions. These two complexes are also separated by 
habitat fragmentation and high mountains, which 
are unoccupied by the species (Fig. 1). 
