Systematic Notes on Palearctic Birds. No. 39
Caprimulgidae: A New Species
of Caprimulgus
BY CHARLES VAURIE
During the study of the Palearctic Caprimulgidae, the results of
which will be published in part in a subsequent paper in this series,
I had the privilege of examining a number of specimens that were
kindly lent to me by the British Museum (Natural History). Included
in this material was the single specimen that Frank Ludlow collected
at Goma in Chinese Turkestan on September 7, 1929, which he reported
upon in the "Ibis" (1933, p. 687). Goma (formerly called Pishan)
and spelled "Guma" on the more recent maps, is in the arid plain of
western Sinkiang between the desert and the foothills of the western
Kun Lun. It is located at latitude 370 31' N., longitude 780 17' E., about
115 kilometers southeast of Yarkand. Several expeditions have collected
birds in this region, but, with the single exception of another bird
reported by Scully (1876, p. 133), no other specimen of Caprimulgus
has been collected in the region of Yarkand. This specimen is discussed
below.
Frank Ludlow (loc. cit.) identified the specimen from Goma as
Caprimulgus aegyptius aegyptius, but its similarity to aegyptius is
superficial, and, as I cannot identify it as any known species, I believe
it represents a new one, which I propose to name:
Caprimulgus centralasicus Vaurie, new species
TYPE: Adult female, Goma [or Guma], 4000 feet, western Sinkiang,
western China. In the collection of the British Museum (Natural History); registry number, No. 1931.7.8.256; original collector's No. 467.
Collected on September 7, 1929, by Frank Ludlow.
DIAGNOSIS: A very pale, "sandy," and small Caprimulgus; resembling
C. aegyptius more closely in the coloration of its body plumage than
any other known species of Caprimulgus, but differing from aegyptius
by having a different color pattern on the wing, by being much smaller,
and in other less conspicuous respects discussed below.
RANGE: Probably the sandy foothills and plains of the southern
Tarim Basin along the Kun Lun, but known so far only from the type
collected at Goma.
DESCRIPTION OF TYPE: Upper parts: Entire upper parts very pale
(fig. 1), sandy, buffy gray, each feather very finely freckled and marked
with irregular, very narrow, wavy bars of dark brown; the feathers
more rufous at the outer margins, especially on the crown and nape, and,
to a lesser extent, on the scapulars. The centers of most crown feathers,
and of some feathers of the mantle and scapulars, are blackish brown
and vermiculated along the shaft, resulting in a streaked, somewhat
flammulated appearance. The upper tail coverts and the upper surface
of the central tail feathers are paler than the back and very finely
barred with brown, not streaked.
Sides of the head: Lores creamy buff, the tips of the small feathers in
front of, above, and directly behind the eye are tipped with dull silvery
white, forming a rather ill-defined superciliary streak; the cheeks are
dull chestnut.
Under parts: The feathers of the throat are disarranged, and some
were lost in the skinning of the bird, but, as far as I can ascertain, only
an ill-defined small patch of buffy white seems to have been present at
the sides of the lower throat; upper breast very finely and densely
barred with dark brown, the bars becoming more distinct, broader, and
more widely spaced from the upper to the middle of the breast, upper
abdomen, and flanks; center of the lower abdomen, region of the vent,
and under tail coverts paler than the rest of the under parts, and not
barred, but a very small, arrow-shaped spot of brown is present at the
tips of the longer coverts; the ground color of the entire under parts
is creamy buff.
Wings and tail: The upper surface of the wing is very pale, the distal
end of the primaries being grayish sand, very finely freckled with grayish
brown; the lesser, middle, and greater upper wing coverts resemble
the coloration of the back, but their tips are almost uniformly sandy
buff, forming three vaguely defined "wing bars"; the primary coverts
are boldly and regularly spotted with dark brown and pale chestnut or rufous cinnamon; these rufous and brown spots alternate regularly
on the outer web of the primaries, but on the inner webs the brown
pigment forms irregular transverse bars, more or less interconnected by
spots or irregular vertical bands of brown. The color pattern on the
under side of the primaries (fig. 2) is similar to that of the upper surface
of these feathers, but the brown and rufous pigments are duller and
paler. The top of the central tail feathers is buffy gray (see above),
finely marked, and faintly barred with brown, but the outer tail
feathers are more heavily marked with diffused bars of dark brown on
a darker and more rufous background than on the central tail feathers;
the pattern on the under side of the outer tail feathers is more faint
and diffused than on the upper surface of these feathers.
WING FORMULA: 1 < 2, 3 (which are subequal, or 3 may be slightly
> 2) > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8> 9> 10. Length of the wing, 162 (see
below); tail, 96; tarsus, 14; bill from the corner of the mouth, 18.
Ratio of the length of the tail to that of the wing, 0.60. Wing/tip index
(ratio of the gap between the tips of the longest and shortest primaries
to the lengh of the longest primary), 0.42. The tail is slightly rounded;
the feet and claws are very weak and pale gray on the dry skin; the
rictal bristles are long and very strong, they measure 18, and the longest
ones project slightly beyond the tip of the bill.
DISCUSSION: Frank Ludlow wrote on the label that his bird was
"shot in sand hills covered with low scrub." Caprimulgus aegyptius
is adapted to a similar habitat and resembles centralasicus in general
coloration, but the two birds differ in a number of details and strikingly
so in the pattern of the wing. In centralasicus the under surface
of the primaries is rather irregularly marked with brown on a rufous
cinnamon background (fig. 2), but in aegyptius the brown markings are
much more uniform, tooth-like, and sharply defined on a white background.
The appearance of the wing is very different in the two birds,
and, judging by other species of Caprimulgus, such a clear-cut difference
seems to me to be of specific importance. In aegyptius the wing
pattern is identical in both sexes and at all stages of the plumage, as
shown by four young birds of both sexes with very loose feather structure
and traces of down, and also by a subadult bird.
The other differences in coloration between centralasicus and aegyptius
are numerous but less conspicuous. Centralasicus (fig. 1) is more
streaked above, as the dark markings in aegyptius are usually restricted
to the distal end of the feather and form spots rather than streaks.
The central tail feathers of centralasicus are much less sharply barred
above, and the dark pattern on the outer tail feathers is more diffused above and below. Aegyptius lacks the superciliary streak of centralasicus,
and its cheeks are not chestnut as in the latter, but grayish, resembling
the color of the back; the patches at the base of the throat are
pure white and sharply defined in aegyptius, buffy and poorly defined
in centralasicus. The upper wing coverts of aegyptius are also less
pale at the edges, and its primaries are also darker above and less
regularly marked with alternating bands of brown and cinnamon on
their outer webs.
The difference in size between aegyptius and centralasicus is very
marked and is obvious at a glance (fig. 1). The body plumage of the type of centralasicus is fresh and had been renewed recently. The inner
primaries are full grown, but the three outer pairs are still molting,
although their shape and relative length suggest that they are virtually
full grown with the exception of the outermost primary on each wing
which I estimate is probably about 15 mm. short of the length it would
have reached. The second and third pair are probably only 3 mm.
short, perhaps less. The length of all the primaries in centralasicus and
aegyptius are compared in table 1 together with other measurements.
The specimen of aegyptius selected is a female of about average size,
not molting, and of its eastern race.
The measurements of the specimens of C. aegyptius arenicolor that
I have examined from its breeding range (in addition to the specimen
in table 1) are as follows: Adults, male, wing length, 210; tail length,
130; tarsus length, 23; bill length, 28; females, respectively, 201, 206,
214+; 118, 120, 127; 22, 24, 26; 30, 30.5, 31; not sexed, 204, 214+; 120,
120; 23, 24; 33, 34. The range of measurements in the seven adults
(including the specimen in table 1) is: wing, 201-214+ (207+); tail,
118-130 (122); tarsus, 22-26 (24); bill, 28-34 (31). A subadult female
measures 196, 122, 23, 27; an immature male, 201, 115, 19, 28; and an immature female, 201, 116, 19, 25. In a winter visitor of arenicolor to
the Sudan, a female, the wing measures 227 (I), the tail, 126, the tarsus,
22, and the bill, 33. In the 20 specimens of arenicolor measured by
Spangenberg (1951, p. 482) from Russian Turkestan, the wing length
varied from 193 to 212, with an average of 209 in males and 208 in
females, the wing length being the only measurement given by Spangenberg.
The measurements listed above and in table 1 show that centralasicus
is a much smaller bird than aegyptius. It has also a more rounded wing,
the wing tip index in centralasicus being 42, as against 46 in the specimen
of aegyptius in table 1, and the gaps between the longer primaries
are narrower. For instance, in centralasicus the gap between the tips
of the longest and fourth primaries measures only 13 mm., a difference
which amounts to 8 per cent of the length of the wing (allowing for
the molt), as against 33 mm. in the specimen of aegyptius, or 16 per
cent of the length of the wing. The feet of centralasicus are very much
weaker than those of aegyptius but its rictal bristles are comparatively
stronger and longer.
NOTES ON THE SYSTEMATIC SEQUENCE IN CAPRIMULGUS
AND ON A SPECIMEN FROM YARKAND
The closest relatives of centralasicus in the genus are probably C.
nubicus and C. mahrattensis. These two are small and rather pale
species, not heavily streaked as in the group of large species consisting
of indicus, europaeus, and ruficollis; of these three, europaeus and
indicus are very closely related and replace each other geographically
except at one point where their ranges meet and overlap in the northwestern
Himalayas. Caprimulgus nubicus ranges from the Near East
and Arabia to northeastern Africa; mahrattensis, from southeastern
Iran to northwestern India. My conclusion concerning the position of
centralasicus may be premature, as the male is unknown so far, but,
nevertheless, I believe it is best placed next to these two species. I have
compared centralasicus throughout to aegyptius because their body coloration
is most similar (and also because centralasicus was first confused
with aegyptius), but the very clear-cut difference in the pattern of the
wing argues against a close relationship. The similarity in coloration,
other than the color and pattern of the wing, reflects their parallel
adaptation to a desert habitat. I believe that the unique wing pattern
of aegyptius, and perhaps also its lack of sexual dimorphism, place it
in a somewhat isolated position in the genus. Caprimulgus eximius
diverges also from the other species. This bird, restricted to the Sahara, has the normal wing pattern of Caprimulgus but has a curious speckled
rather than streaked plumage and very long upper tail coverts, much
longer than in any other species of Caprimulgus and with the edges
of the feathers much disintegrated.
I would arrange the species of Caprimulgus that are restricted to,
or are represented in, the Palearctic region in the following linear
sequence: inornatus, nubicus, centralasicus, mahrattensis, asiaticus
(this species is small but heavily streaked and connects the nubicuscentralasicus-
mahrattensis group to the indicus-europaeus-ruficollis
group), indicus, europaeus, ruficollis, eximius, and aegyptius.
The correct identity of the only other specimen of Caprimulgus collected
in the region of Yarkand is uncertain, but it is clear, I believe,
that this specimen was not centralasicus, and perhaps not aegyptius,
though it was identified as such. Scully (1876, p. 99) states that this
specimen was brought to him by native bird hunters on July 28, 1875,
who said that they had collected it "in the forest region of the Dolan
about thirty miles from the city of Yarkand." This record was mentioned
by Ludlow (1933, p. 687) who assumed that the bird had been
correctly identified by Hume (1876, p. 133) who states that he identified
all the birds brought back by Scully. This bird was a female and
its measurements were given in inches (converted by me into millimeters);
these were: [total] length, 10.1 [256.5]; wing, 7.4 [188]; tail,
5.15 [130.8]; tarsus, 0.63 [16]; bill from gape, 1.33 [33.8]. It is evident
that these measurements are much more similar to the measurements
of aegyptius given above, with the possible exception of the length
of the tarsus which, however, is very difficult to measure with accuracy
in many birds. The total length of the type of centralasicus is only 192
and even if we add another 10 to 15 mm. to compensate for the make-up
of the skin, centralasicus is still much smaller. Notice also that the bill
is twice as long in the specimen reported by Scully. The coloration of
this specimen is not mentioned other than that of its soft parts. This
specimen would have been of much interest to me, but its whereabouts
are unknown, and it may no longer be in existence. Mr. Macdonald
informs me that it was not included in the specimens Scully gave to
the British Museum.
Hume (1876, p. 133) identified this specimen as either aegyptius
Lichtenstein or arenicolor Severtzov, adding (footnote) that he was not
certain of its identity because, as he states elsewhere (p. 116) in Scully's
report, he lacked comparative material, had "very few books to consult,"
and could devote only "very little time" to identifying Scully's
specimens. The question as to whether this bird should be called nominate aegyptius or arenicolor is not very important, as the two
are conspecific (arenicolor differing from nominate aegyptius only by
being a little larger and somewhat more buffy, less gray, above), but
the field notes given by Scully suggest that this bird may have been
C. europaeus rather than C. aegyptius. Scully (1876, p. 133) states very
clearly that this bird is not to be found in the immediate vicinity of
Kashgar and Yarkand (very arid regions suited to aegyptius) but only in
the forest, adding that the native bird hunters told him: "It is only
found in the forest of the Dolan among the Toghrak (poplar) trees,
and it lives there permanently. It sits still on the branches during the
day time." However, a forest habitat seems most untypical for aegyptius
which is well known to breed only in very arid regions, in deserts,
sandy hills covered with sparse and low scrub, or in very coarse grasslands.
It roosts only on the ground, even when the ground temperature
is very high, according to Ticehurst (1922, p. 411), or, as Meinertzhagen
(1954, p. 286) expresses it picturesquely, it becomes so hot that "they
have to keep constantly on the move, like cats on hot bricks."
Chinese Turkestan lies to the east of the range of aegyptius which
extends to about longitude 740 E. in Semirechia and about longitude
700 E. in the valley of the Syr Darya, and is well to the east of the high
Tian Shan ranges which separate the region of Yarkand (about longitude
770 E.) from Russian Turkestan. The specimen brought to
Scully was collected around July 28 and may have been a migrant or
a stray, but the migration route of aegyptius is to the southwest,
through Transcaspia, Iran, Iraq, and Arabia to the Sudan. On the
other hand, C. europaeus (which does breed in forest and often roosts
on the horizontal branches of trees), the eastern race of which is of
the same general size as aegyptius, does breed in Chinese Turkestan in
the wooded regions west of Kashgar, therefore not far from Yarkand.
I have discussed the specimen collected by Scully's hunters at some
length, because it seems apparent that it was not a specimen of centralasicus
and may not have been a specimen of aegyptius. Thus, the occurence
of aegyptius in Chinese Turkestan requires confirmation, as we
see that the only alleged records of this species in this region are
either certainly (type of centralasicus) or probably (Scully's bird) erroneous.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express by gratitude to Mr. J. D. Macdonald of the
British Museum (Natural History) for his very kind cooperation and
for granting me the privilege of describing the new bird. He lent me some of the specimens under his care, among which I discovered it,
and in answer to my questions sent me further specimens and made a
search for the one reported by Scully. I have benefited also by discussing
the new species with Dr. Dean Amadon.
LITERATURE CITED
HUME, ALLAN
1876. In Scully, J., A contribution to the ornithology of eastern Turkestan.
Stray Feathers, vol. 4, pp. 41-205.
LUDLOW, FRANK
1933. In Ludlow, F., and N. B. Kinnear, A contribution to the ornithology
of Chinese Turkestan, pt. 3. Ibis, pp. 658-694.
MEINERTZHAGEN, RICHARD
1954. Birds of Arabia.. Edinburgh and London, Oliver and Boyd, pp.
285-286.
SCULLY, J.
1876. A contribution to the ornithology of eastern Turkestan. Stray Feathers,
vol. 4, pp. 41-205.
SPANGENBERG, E. P.
1951. In Dementiev, G. P., and N. A. Gladkov (eds.), Ptitsy Sovietskogo
Soiuza. Moscow, Sovietskaya Nauka, vol. 1, pp. 478-482.
TICEHURST, CLAUD B.
1922. In Ticehurst, Claud B., P. A. Buxton, and R. E. Cheesman, The
birds of Mesopotamia, pt. 2. Jour. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., vol. 28,
pp. 381-427.
Source:
digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/5370/1/N1985.pdf 
