Overview

Distribution

occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: RESIDENT from western and central Arizona, northern New Mexico, southeastern Colorado, extreme northwestern Oklahoma, and western and central Texas south to northern Sinaloa (including Isla Tiburon, off Sonora), and in Mexican highlands to Oaxaca (west to Isthmus of Tehuatepec), west-central Veracruz, Puebla, and southwestern Tamaulipas. Casual in northern Arizona, southwestern Kansas, and southern Texas (AOU 1983, 1989).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Size

Length: 22 cm

Weight: 54 grams

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Comments: Dense brush, arid scrub, and riparian thickets, often in rocky areas (AOU 1989). Nests usually 1-3.5 m (sometimes up to 11 m) above ground in tree or bush (Terres 1980).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Migration

Non-Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species do not make significant seasonal migrations. Juvenile dispersal is not considered a migration.

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Trophic Strategy

Comments: Feeds on seeds, grain, and insects. Forages on the ground scratching away litter in search of food.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Life Expectancy

Lifespan, longevity, and ageing

Maximum longevity: 12.8 years (wild)
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Joao Pedro de Magalhaes

Source: AnAge

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Reproduction

Clutch size is 2-6 (usually 3-4). Incubation, by female, lasts 11 days (Terres 1980). Young are tended by both adults, leave nest 8 days after hatching. Pair-bond may be life-long.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Barcode data: Pipilo fuscus

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species. 

 
There are 2 barcode sequences available from BOLD and GenBank.  Below is a sequence of the barcode region Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (COI or COX1) from a member of the species.  See the BOLD taxonomy browser for more complete information about this specimen and other sequences.
 
BOTW402-05|FMNH 394338|Pipilo fuscus| ------------------------------------------CTATACCTGATTTTCGGCGCATGAGCCGGAATAGTAGGTACCGCCCTA---AGCCTCCTCATCCGAGCTGAACTAGGCCAACCCGGAGCCCTCCTAGGAGAC---GACCAAGTTTACAATGTAGTCGTTACAGCTCATGCTTTCGTAATAATCTTTTTCATAGTCATACCAATTATAATCGGAGGTTTCGGAAACTGACTAGTCCCCCTAATA---ATTGGAGCCCCAGACATAGCATTCCCACGAATAAATAACATAAGCTTCTGACTACTTCCCCCATCCTTCCTCCTCCTCCTAGCATCCTCTACCGTTGAAGCAGGTGTCGGCACAGGCTGAACAGTATACCCCCCACTAGCCGGCAACCTAGCTCACGCTGGAGCCTCGGTCGACCTA---GCAATCTTCTCCCTACACCTAGCCGGTATCTCTTCAATTCTAGGGGCAATCAACTTCATCACAACAGCAATCAACATGAAACCTCCTGCCCTATCACAATACCAAACCCCCCTATTCGTATGATCCGTCCTAATCACCGCAGTCCTCCTACTCCTATCCCTTCCAGTCCTTGCCGCA---GGAATCACAATACTCCTCACAGATCGCAACCTCAATACTACATTCTTCGACCCCGCTGGAGGAGGAGACCCCGTCCTATACCAACACCTC-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
-- end --

Download FASTA File
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Pipilo fuscus

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 2
Species: 2
Species With Barcodes: 1

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: P. CRISSALIS formerly was included in this species (AOU 1989, Zink 1988). Allozyme and mtDNA data clearly support the species distinction of CRISSALIS and Fuscus and show that CRISSALIS is more closely related to P. ABERTI (Zink and Dittman 1991). See Dodge et al. (1995) for a comparison of phylogenies derived from two molecular data sets for the brown towhee complex (Pipilo spp.). See Banks and Browning (1995) for a discussion of nomenclatural issues involving Pipilo. Mitochondrial DNA analysis by Zink et al. (2001) show a genetic division between populations of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!