Hawkins • THE FIRST BASIC PROBLEM' REVISITED 
417 
acquires the definitive basic plumage (Howell et 
al. 2004. Jeruii and Winkler 2004). Thus, the first 
molt cycle does not "as a rule" have a duration 
similar to subsequent molt cycles as maintained 
by Howell et al. (2003: 639) (Jenni and Winker 
2004). All birds have the same numbered prebasic 
molts and basic plumages, but not all birds have 
the same numbered molt cycles. 
1 propose that for purposes of the H-P system 
the 'first molt cycle’ be defined as "the period 
starting with commencement of the initial acqui¬ 
sition of contour feathers and ending with 
commencement of (1) a uniformly-complete first 
prebasic molt that has equivalent timing as 
subsequent prebasic molts, if applicable, or (2) 
the second prebasic molt". A first prebasic molt 
generally will be equivalent in timing with 
subsequent prebasic molts if it occurs within I 
or 2. and rarely 3 months of the timing of these 
molls due to time of hatching and presence of the 
prejuvenal molt. Under this definition species that 
have a nearly-complete conventional first prebasic 
molt and a complete second prebasic molt, such as 
certain grouse (Crunden 1963, Pyle 2008), do not 
commence the second moll cycle with the 
conventional first prebasic molt. The same also 
is true for species, such as certain terns, that have 
a complete conventional first prebasic molt that 
occurs over a much longer period than subsequent 
prebasic molts (Pyle 2008). 
My proposed definition of ‘first molt cycle’ 
does not conform to the definition of 'cycle’ in 
Humphrey and Parkes (1959) because the initial 
acquisition of contour feathers is not by means of 
a prebasic molt under the H-P system. However, 
the H-P system surely is sufficiently flexible to 
permit a common-sense modification to start the 
first molt cycle with commencement of the initial 
acquisition of contour feathers. 
Presumed Homologies Among Molts Under the 
H-P System 
Presumed homologies among molts can be 
properly identified once the H-P system is 
properly interpreted. I suggest that under the 
naming system developed by Humphrey and 
Parkes (1959) numbered prebasic molts presum¬ 
ably are homologous with prior and subsequent 
prebasic molts within species and with their 
respective counterparts, and prior and subsequent 
prebasic molts across species even though these 
molts may vary in timing and extent. Thus, for 
example, conventional first prebasic molts pre¬ 
sumably are homologous with each other and with 
subsequent prebasic molts across species even 
though some species have a uniformly-complete 
conventional first prebasic molt and others have a 
limited or no conventional first prebasic molt. 
There are simply different levels of development 
of the conventional first prebasic molt across and 
within species. Similarly, second prebasic molts 
presumably are homologous with each other and 
with first and subsequent prebasic molts across 
species even though they also vary in timing and 
extent (Humphrey and Parkes 1959; Jenni and 
Winkler 2004; Pyle 1997, 2008). 
The Four Molt Strategies of Howell et al. (2003) 
Howell et al. (2003) identified four molt 
strategies of increasing complexity (i.e., simple 
basic, complex basic, simple alternate, complex 
alternate) and maintained they incorporate all 
known patterns of plumage succession in North 
American and Australasian birds. Howell et al. 
(2003) used the concept of inserted molts and 
plumages to describe these strategies, which are 
molts and plumages that have evolved between 
the prebasic molts that delineate a molt cycle. 
The four molt strategies of Howell et al. (2003) 
may represent the four most common types of 
plumage succession, but they do not encompass 
all known patterns of plumage succession or molt 
strategies. For example, according to Howell et al. 
(2003:646), birds that use the simple alternate 
strategy have "at most" only one inserted molt in 
the first molt cycle that “usually" appears 
homologous with definitive prealternate molts 
and is not a unique preformative molt. However, 
according to Pyle (2008), species that use the 
simple alternate strategy may have a preformative 
(conventional first prebasic) molt and no pre¬ 
alternate molt in the first molt cycle (Pyle 
2008:16; figure 10 C-E). This is a different molt 
strategy than the simple alternate strategy as 
defined and the other molt strategies identified by 
Howell et al. (2003). Moreover, according to Pyle 
(2008), the two first-cycle molts that characterize 
species that use the complex alternate strategy 
may be reduced to a single 'merged' molt, which 
also is included in the simple alternate strategy 
even though by definition it is both formative and 
alternate in nature. The simple alternate strategy 
thus includes several molt strategies. 
Howell et al. (2003) incorrectly maintained it is 
necessary to adopt their tw'o-pari solution to the 
•first basic problem’ to identify and sort species 
