Dr. Grinnell (1914) noted it, as a winter visitant, among the willows and mesquites in the lower Colorado Valley. And M. French Gilman (1915), referring to the Arizona lowlands, says: “The red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius nuchalis) is a winter visitant along the Gila River, and while not to be called abundant, is frequently noticed. I have seen individuals from October 6 to as late as April 17, and in all the months between these two dates. Once I saw three in one mesquite tree. Signs of their work are frequently present on cottonwood and willow trees and occasionally on an Arizona ash. If there are any almond trees in the country they are sure to be attacked, as they are favorites with these birds. Only once or twice have I seen mesquite trees attacked.”
SPHYRAPICUS VARIUS DAGGETTI Grinnell
SOUTHERN RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER
HABITS
The above name was applied to this sapsucker by Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1901) and was characterized by him as smaller and paler than the northern race and with a maximum extent of white markings. It is evidently a well-marked race. But whether the red-breasted sapsucker should be considered a subspecies of the yellow-bellied sapsucker seems to me to be a decidedly open question, on which authorities seem to have differed, or to have changed their minds. In support of his views, Dr. Grinnell (1901) says: “I have examined a number of skins of the nuchalis type, and others approaching ruber in almost every degree, and I am certain that there is a continuous intergradation geographically between the eastern S. varius and ruber of the Pacific Coast. The intermediates do not appear to be the result of ‘hybridization’ and the case does not seem to be at all parallel to that of Colaptes auratus and C. cafer. Therefore I see no reason why the Red-breasted Sapsucker is of more than subspecific rank.”
It is interesting to note that Ridgway used the name Sphyrapicus varius ruber in 1872 and again in 1874 (Ridgway, 1914, in synonymy), but 40 years later (1914) he gave the red-breasted sapsucker full specific rank, apparently having changed his mind. And, in the same work, in a footnote under the red-naped sapsucker, referring to the intergrades mentioned by Dr. Grinnell, he says: “But they may be (and I believe are) hybrids; certainly there is no more reason for not considering them as such than in the case of Colaptes.”
Certainly the red-breasted sapsucker and the yellow-bellied sapsucker are as much unlike in appearance as the two flickers; and the hybrid flickers certainly show “every degree” of intergradation. In the large series of sapsuckers that I have examined, containing 87 typical ruber and 86 typical nuchalis, I was able to find only 8 specimens that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as intermediates; I believe that these intergrading sapsuckers will prove to be relatively less common than are the hybrids between the two flickers.
It is interesting, too, to note that the first three editions of the A. O. U. Check-List, 1886, 1895, and 1910, all gave the red-breasted sapsucker full specific rank, in spite of the fact that Ridgway had called it a subspecies of the yellow-bellied in 1872, and Grinnell had done the same in 1901. But the fourth edition, 1931, adopts the subspecies theory, in spite of Ridgway’s latest decision.
The southern race of the red-breasted sapsucker breeds in the Canadian and Transition Zones in the mountains of California, from the Trinity and Warner Mountains southward to the San Jacinto Mountains. Grinnell and Storer (1924) say that it “is found in the main forest belt during the spring, summer, and fall, but regularly performs an altitudinal migration which carries it down into the tree growths of the western foothills and valleys for the winter months.”
Nesting.—Very little seems to have been published on the nesting habits of this sapsucker, which probably do not differ materially from those of its northern relative, about which more seems to be known. Wright M. Pierce (1916) located one of its nests in the San Bernardino Mountains, on June 26, of which he says: “The cavity was in the dead top of a large live silver fir about forty-five feet up. The cavity had a small opening and was only 5 or 6 inches deep; diameter, inside, 1½ or 2 inches. The nest held two large young and one smaller dead one. It was hard to see how more than one bird could survive in such a small space, so it was not surprising that the probably weaker bird had apparently been suffocated.”