Downy Woodpecker
Dryobates pubescens (Linnaeus, 1766)
Photo © By Seney Natural History Association - 2012 Photo Contest - Wildlife Category, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29576687
STATUS
North America. Polytypic.
OVERVIEW
A review taken out in 2020 found that neither record was acceptable (R. Prŷs-Jones, H. van Grouw & P. Schofield, British Birds 113: 211-216).
NOT PROVEN
0). 1836 Dorset Bloxworth, shot, December.
(O. Pickard-Cambridge, Zoologist 1859: 6444-46; Mansel-Pleydell,1888).
[BOU, 1883; R. Prŷs-Jones, H. van Grouw & P. Schofield, British Birds 113: 211-216].
History O. Pickard-Cambridge of Southport (1859) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XVII. pp. 6444-46, dated 4th February 1859, says "The bird, which I describe, was shot by E. P. Cambridge, at Bloxworth Rectory, Dorset, December, 1830, from his bed-room window, as it crept amongst some low shrubs in one of the flower-beds on the lawn. We took it to be only a large and distinctly-marked specimen of Picus minor, noting especially at the time that it had more vivid red on the head and more white on the wings and back, and was larger than one or two other specimens of Picus minor which my brother had shot before; and I recollect well our hunting Bewick on the subject, and concluding that it might possibly be his "middle spotted woodpecker", but for the red on the head; however, the bird went to the stuffer's, and in due time came back labelled "least woodpecker, male adult". It was stuffed by Havell, at the Zoological Gallery, 77, Oxford Street, an establishment I know not how long since broken up and gone; from this time until April, 1855, the bird remained in my collection as "Picus minor", and was frequently seen, and by some experienced British ornithologists, but no one ever perceived that it was not Picus minor, until, in April, 1855, my friend, Mr. F. Bond, saw it was something strange almost as soon as be entered the room where it was, and taking it down, at once, with his usual acumen, pointed me out the distinctions from Picus minor. At my suggestion, he kindly took it and submitted it to the late Mr. Yarrell, who acknowledged its distinctness from Picus minor, but confessed himself ignorant of the species, and regretted that his last edition was either just out or had got too far on in the printer's hands to allow of its notice there; the examination of this bird was, I believe, almost one of the latest acts of Mr. Yarrell's life, and is very interesting.
Shortly after this I made some notes of an American species in the Durham University Museum, labelled "Picus pubescens", and found them to agree in the main with my specimen; and since then it has been, until lately, in Mr. Bond's hands, waiting the examination and dictum of Mr. Gould. Mr. Gould examined it, and I cannot precisely understand what conclusion he came to, for all I heard of it was, that "he would like to see other specimens of the same species, from the same locality, before describing it. This would, doubtless, be highly satisfactory, but meanwhile (as getting these other specimens may take possibly some little time, seeing that it is now twenty-two years since this one was killed), I venture to request an insertion of this account and description, and hope any of the readers of the Zoologist who possess British small spotted woodpeckers will compare their specimens, critically, with my description, as I consider it is not at all improbable that other British specimens exist and pass for Picus minor. As far as I can gather, from a desultory correspondence, neither Mr. Bond nor Mr. Gould were satisfied of its identity with Picus pubescens, though Mr. Bond considered it was nearer to that than to any other species. I have lately compared it with several American specimens of Picus pubescens, and also with a Scandinavian specimen of Picus minor, through the kind permission of the curator of the Derby Museum at Liverpool. The result of this comparison I subjoin to the description of my specimen, and, on the whole, after having also read carefully Audubon's descriptions of Picus pubescens and the allied species, and Cassin's observations on Picus pubescens, and the distinctive marks of American woodpeckers in general, I believe it to be identical with Picus pubescens (the Downy Woodpecker); still there is one main difference in it from all the specimens of Picus pubescens I have seen myself, and that is that mine has distinct black bars across the white on the back, while those had in no case the white on the back barred at all. Some other minor differences will be mentioned in the "distinctions from Picus pubescens".'
The description of my specimen is as follows: - length from tip of beak to tip of tail six and two thirds in. Length of upper mandible, six tenths inches. Span of toes and claws one and three tenths inch. Capistrum dirty white; bristly feathers projecting over the nostrils dirty white, mixed with blackish. Forehead broadly black. Top of the head crimson-red; the: red extending quite to the nape of the neck, and meeting that and the upper part of the back, which are jet black. From the eye a broad black streak runs back, and, at the upper corner of its extremity, which is truncate, and wider than near the eye, it meets the crimson of the head and black part of the back, forming a continuation of the black forehead. From the corner of the mouth a blackish streak runs downwards, and dilates itself into a black patch beneath the point of the metacarpus of the closed wing. The space between these two black streaks is white, with a yellowish cast, and forms an L-shaped isolated marking. Between the crimson on the head and the black streak from the eye is also formed an isolated longish oval marking of white with a yellowish cast. The whole of the under side to the vent, inclusive, is dirty white, with a brownish yellow cast. Wings jet black; the lesser coverts tipped with pure white; the greater coverts, tertials and scapulars tipped and spotted with white; the primaries, and secondaries tipped and spotted with white along the webs; all these white markings, when the wing is closed, form eight regular white bars (beside the white tips on the primaries); the first and second bars are formed by the tips on the lesser coverts and spots on greater coverts; the third by the tips on the greater coverts and spots on the tertials and scapulars, these three bars are curved; the fourth bar consists of spots on the outer webs of the primaries and secondaries; this bar (as well as all those of the next) is sharply angulated, and but little of it is seen in the closed wing, being hidden under the greater coverts and scapulars; the fifth, sixth and seventh bars consist of spots on the outer webs of the primaries and outer and inner webs and tips of the secondaries and on the scapulars; the eighth bar consists of three or four spots on the outer webs of the primaries and tip of the first secondary; the black intervals between these bars are all well marked, though of different widths; those between the three bars on the coverts being prettily and regularly vandyked. Back white, with a yellow cast, and barred with black. The two outer feathers of the tail on each side white, with one or two black markings; the next two black, with irregular white margins, and the middle feathers black; under side of the tail irregularly barred with black.
The main distinctions that I could trace between this bird and Picus minor are as follows: - First, the greater size, Picus minor being 5½ to 5¾ in. long, only. Second, Picus minor has only five bars across the wings; three are across the primaries and secondaries and scapulars and two on the coverts; wanting entirely that on the lesser coverts nearest the shoulder, and the two nearest the tips of the primaries; also the black intervals in Picus minor are not vandyked, and all are more regular on the edge and in width more equal: Yarrell's description only gives four white bars, but he evidently overlooked that one which is almost hidden under the coverts and scapulars. Third, Picus minor has no black streak from the eye: this alone is sufficient to distinguish it at a glance; the red on the head in Picus minor is also much less vivid and does not reach so far down the nape of the neck. The main distinctions between my specimen and those of P. pubescens, examined in the Liverpool Museum, appeared to me as follows: - Picus pubescens had only a narrow red occipital band, agreeing exactly with Audubon's figure and description. The value, however, of this distinction does not seem to be much, as we know that the immature males of Picus major have the head much suffused with crimson, while in adult birds it becomes merely a small patch at the occiput; and John Cassin (Illustrations of Birds of North America, published at Philadelphia, 1856), says: "the young male of Picus pubescens has the head above entirely crimson; the adult, a narrow occipital band". Second, the back in Picus pubescens was pure white, without any trace of black bars, while mine is distinctly barred; Audubon makes no mention of black bars on the back. Third, the black stripe from the eye in Picus pubescens differs in commencing wider than the eye, swelling out in the centre and contracting gradually to the crimson band; while in my specimen it is narrowest by the eye, equal to the width of the eye only, and widens gradually, ending abruptly truncated. Fourth, the white bar nearest the shoulder in one specimen of Picus pubescens, examined, was hardly apparent, consisting only of a few confused spots, and not forming a distinct bar from the second bar; in another specimen, the development of this bar was more complete, but nothing like, in distinctness and regularity, my specimen, where the black interval is very clear. Fifth, Length of the two Picus pubescens examined, was 6¼ in., that of mine 6⅔ in.; Audubon's measurement 6¾ in.; widest span of toes and claws in Picus pubescens 1½ in.; in mine, one and three sixteenths, inch.; the bill of Picus pubescens was less robust than mine. Sixth, under parts of Picus pubescens much whiter than in mine, which are more like the under parts of Picus minor.
A description in Audubon of a species he calls "Picus gairdnerii" (which appears, however, to be only a variety of Picus pubescens) agreed with mine in the quantity of crimson on the head. I have given these distinctions, minutely, more for the purpose of showing that I am of opinion myself that my bird is "Picus pubescens", than to try and show it to be distinct. Its distinctness from Picus minor is clear enough, and, but for the barred back, which may, however, be only the immature state, there appears but little in the above distinctions to justify its claim to a "species" of itself. My chief reason for wishing the above descriptions to be made known, is to get collectors to compare with them all their specimens of British small spotted woodpeckers, and also to get further descriptions of the true Picus pubescens. I have been minute in describing the shooting, &c. of my specimen, because it is necessary to be particular when a native of a foreign land is brought forth as an inhabitant of Britain, after having been killed so long.'
Not admitted nationally in their first List of British Birds (BOU 1883: 77) but accepted locally (Mansel-Pleydell (1888: 64, 2nd ed.).
0). 1908 Gloucestershire Frampton Cotterel, 14th January.
(W. A. Smallcombe, British Birds 2: 382; W. B. Alexander & R. S. R. Fitter, British Birds 48: 9).
[BOU, 1971; R. Prŷs-Jones, H. van Grouw & P. Schofield, British Birds 113: 211-216].
History William A. Smallcombe (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 382, says: 'On January 14th, 1908, a friend who occasionally shoots birds for me brought me in a little Woodpecker that he had shot that day at Frampton Cotterel, near Bristol. It was climbing up the trunk of an old apple tree some five feet from the ground when shot. I supposed it to be simply a Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, and so labelled it, and it was only after sending the skin to Mr. Marsden, of Tunbridge Wells, last month, that the bird was discovered to be a specimen of the North American Downy Woodpecker (D. pubescens).'
[In connection with this record we have received the following letter from Mr. H. W. Marsden: - "Amongst some Woodpeckers I received from Mr. Smallcombe there were a male and female, supposed to be Dendrocopus minor. The day I got them I was very busy, and sent on the two skins to the Hon. N. C. Rothschild. He handed them, without examination, to Messrs. Rowland Ward, to be remade, and it was by them the bird was identified as Dendrocopus pubescens. Mr. Smallcombe is quite a young ornithologist, and had probably never seen a foreign skin of D. pubescens".
Both Mr. Marsden and Messrs. Rowland Ward have satisfied us that this skin was undoubtedly not of American origin (we had suggested that the label might have been inadvertently changed), and that the bird was in fact shot in Gloucestershire. The record is an interesting one, but we cannot believe that this North American Woodpecker crossed the Atlantic unaided, and we think that the bird must have escaped from captivity. - Eds.]
