JPMeyes 1934 Cahitris fuscicollis Ariyo Chico, Estancia Mardland, 35 km S of Juancho by road, Ptdo de Madinajzgo, Pcia. de Buenos Aires, Argentina 13 March contd certainly arranging less than 1 cm deep. Watching a WR engaged in this foraging behavior, I am impressed by the infrequency with which it actually swallows something. Occasionally, they come across a worm (of the type, it appears, that the fall landing throws off) — but usually any swallowing motions pass without much clear ado what the bird ate. This feeding style seems to be being directed by both vision and touch. Vision orient ed to some degree the horizontally plane. Tactile stimuli take over after that point, yielding or not yielding some bicho to devour. The second feeding style appears to be filter-feeding: the white rump remains stationary, still in the water + just into the mud beneath the surface. The bill is opened slightly, and not moved. I believe that there is some vertical motion, slight, + that perhaps the tongue is also moving in and out. Slowly, a WR feeding thus advances forward, never withdrawing its bill from the mud. I looked at one site from where I’d just scared a “filter-feeder.” 2 things: footprints are visible, as is some disturbance in the mud where the bill had been (but no probing holes remain). Second, after taking a small breakoff shovel full of the surface of the mud, I found that it was starting with a small crustacean (??? any invertebrate knowledge being so appalling as mine) with an acicular outer shell formed such that at first I thought that it was a tiny bivalve (until seeing the multiple swimming appendages that came out of the shell). The shell can be closed. A filter feeder might stay in the same position for 5-10 seconds without shifting its feet. 14 March [illegible] [illegible] [illegible] sampled linear grid beginning at 0815 this morning. This time, in addition to other variables taken, I noted whether the WR being (count) was “filter- feeding” or “search/pocket picking.” Results = 31 total WR, 18 search/picking, 2 filter-feeding, and 11 peering or coting. Remarkable the results are so one-sided. Yesterday afternoon I believe the % of filter feeders to have been higher. 0845: At subunit 10d noted that there were 3 territorial birds present (of 5 on subunit). They control the S end of the unit. 2 territorial birds on the E side share a boundary near #10 stake. 0930 came to subunit 6 when prevented from completing run down array due to inclement weather. After 1.5 hrs watch I am convinced that only the right Northern area of E + W side, [illegible] units 0-5 at most, are controlled by a territorial WR — effectively the territory of this bird is 1/2 of the subunit.