SHORT COMMUNICATIONS 
839 
(A). Pee-ah-wee Song 
(B). Wee-000 Song 
Time (sec) 
FIG. I. Spectograms of the two main song types of the 
Eastern Wood-Pewee: (A) Pee-ah-wee and (B) Wee-ooo. 
Capital letters show inflection points used to measure 
call variables. 
geographical variation, individual distinctiveness, 
°r individual identification (Fitzsimmons et al. 
2008). Our results indicate both pee-ah-wee and 
wee-ooo songs in male Eastern Wood-Pewees have 
toe potential to code information and contain 
individually-sped fic signatures. Why pee-ah-wee 
^ngs are more variable than wee-ooo songs and 
why pee-ah-wee frequency measures are the most 
variable of the song variables we measured is 
“nclear and requires further testing. The function of 
multiple song types in suboscines is almost entirely 
mtknown (Smith 1988) and requires further study. 
Individual distinctiveness in multiple song types 
ln a suboscine has been shown in only one other 
species: the Buff-breasted Flycatcher (Empidonax 
falvifrons) (Lein 2008). Lein (2008) did not 
explicitly calculate PIC values for Type I and 
T .vpe 2 Buff-breasted Flycatcher songs. However, 
^in (2008: tables 4 and 5) presented values for 
b *Hh CV W and CV„, for song variables measured - 
allowing us to calculate PIC values. We did not 
conduct statistical analyses of the PIC values 
calculated from Lein (2008); but, on visual 
inspection, PIC values calculated appear consistent 
with those we calculated for Eastern Wood-Pewee 
songs. The variable with the highest PIC value in 
Lein’s (2008) and our study was a frequency 
measure. PIC values have the potential to allow 
comparison of variability not only within species, 
but also between species. Additional data from 
more suboscines are needed to better understand 
variability and distinctiveness in suboscine song. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The Louis Calder Center-Biological Field Station of 
Fordham University. Teatown Lake Reservation, Audubon 
Greenwich, and Westmoreland Sanctuary provided access 
to field sites for this study. The Calder Summer 
Undergraduate Research Program at Fordham University 
provided funding to Justina Leung. 
LITERATURE CITED 
Bard, S. C.. M. Hau. M. Wikelski, and J. C. Wingfield. 
2002. Vocal distinctiveness and response to conspe- 
cific playback in the Spotted Antbird. a neotropical 
suboscine. Condor 104:387-394. 
Charrier, I., L. L. Bloomfield, and C. B. Sturdy. 2004. 
Syllable types and coding in parid vocalizations. I. The 
chick-a-dee call of the Black-capped Chickadee 
(Poecile atricapillus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 
82:769-779. 
Craig, W. 1943. The song of the Wood Pewee (Myio- 
chanes virens). NewYork Stale Museum Bulletin 
344:6-186. 
FALLS, J. B. 1982. Individual recognition by sound in birds. 
Pages 237-278 in Acoustic communication in birds. 
Volume 2. Song learning and its consequences (D. E. 
Kroodsma and E. H. Miller, Editors). Academic Press, 
New York, USA. 
FERNANDEZ-JURICIC. E„ A. J. DEL NEVO, AND R. POSTON. 
2009. Identification of individual and population-level 
variation in voculizations of the endangered South¬ 
western Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii ex- 
timus). Auk 126:89-99. 
Fitzsimmons. L. P., N. K. Barker, and D. J. Mennill. 
2008. Individual variation and lek-based vocal dis¬ 
tinctiveness in songs of ihe Screaming Piha (Lipaugus 
vociferous ). a suboscine songbird. Auk 125:908-914. 
Kroodsma. D. E. 1984. Songs of the Alder Flycatcher 
(Empidonax alnoruM ) and Willow Flycatcher ( Empi¬ 
donax traillii) are innate. Auk 101:13-24. 
Lein, M. R. 2008. Song variation in Buff-breasted 
Flycatchers (Empidonax fidvifnms). Wilson Journal 
of Ornithology 120:256-267. 
LOVELL. S. F. AND M. R. Lein. 2004. Song variation in a 
population of Alder Flycatchers. Journal of Field 
Ornithology 75:146-151. 
Lovell, S. F. AND M. R. Lein. 2005. Individual recognition 
of neighbors by song in a suboscine bird, the Alder 
Flycatcher Empidonax ainortun. Behavioral Ecology 
and Sociobiology 57:623—630. 
