Purple Honeycreeper Cyanerpes caeruleus Scientific name definitions

The Purple Honeycreeper is the most common and widespread species of Cyanerpes. The South American counterpart of the Middle American Shining Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes lucidus), the Purple Honeycreeper’s main range is in Amazonia, but is also found along northern and western coasts of the continent. It is found in a wide variety of forest types, even extending to gardens, partially cleared areas, and plantations, but typically forages in the treetops, often in pairs and frequently joining other species either in roving flocks or at a flowering tree. Males are stunningly gorgeous, mainly deep violet-blue with a black throat patch and wings, and bright yellow legs, whilst females are principally green, becoming streaked below with a buffy throat and cheeks.

The combination of beauty and abundance makes the Purple Honeycreeper iconic among Neotropical birds. As such, they have many local common names. The subspecies endemic to Trinidad has been referred to as the Trinidad Honeycreeper (Street 1946). In Portuguese it is known as Saí-de-Perna-Amarela (Sick 1993, CBRO 2010), or Tem-tem do Espírito Santo (O'Neill and Pearson 1974). In Spanish speaking countries it is called Mielerito Cerúleo or Mielero Cerúleo (Colombia), which refers to its partially nectivorous diet, “miel” means honey or syrup, and Cerúleo refers to the blue feathers (Hilty 2011, de Juana et al. 2012, Collazos-González and Cortes-Herrera 2015). In Ecuador they are also called Mielero Púrpureo (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, Freire et al. 2012). Their name in Aguaruna is Jémpekit (Dauphine 2008). They were originally name by Linnaeus (1758), the etymology of the generic name Cyanerpes is based on the Greek words kuanos meaning dark blue and herpēs meaning a creeping thing (Jobling 2010). The specific epithet caeruleus derives from the Latin word caerulea, which translates as blue (Jobling 2010).

The Purple Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes caeruleus) is a striking glossy blue-cyan with a black mask, wings, and throat, a long and slender decurved black bill, and vibrant yellow legs. This species is highly sexually dichromatic, with females primarily dull olive green with a light blue malar separating a cinnamon-buff face and throat, and with greenish streaks down the breast extending to the lighter underparts.

The following description refers to the nominate subspecies Cyanerpes caeruleus caeruleus; for the other subspecies see Geographic Variation.

The adult male is predominantly lustrous violet-blue, with the forecrown and face slightly paler. The lores are black, encompassing the eyes, forming a small black mask that extends to short points behind the eyes. A narrow black throat patch is glossy and does not extend to the breast. The short tail is also glossy black, as are the upper wing coverts and flight feathers. The under wing coverts are dusky.

The adult female is predominantly green dorsally, ventrally with greenish-olive streaking extending from the upper breast to the flanks, with white undertail coverts. The lores, throat, and auriculars are dark-buff, interrupted by a bright blue thin malar. The female's flight feathers are dusky, with the outermost feathers edged green-yellow, whereas the inner feathers are more heavily edged green, and the tertials broadly edged dull green with narrow dusky borders on inner edges (Hilty 2011). The forecrown is typically pale grayish-green, the lores and ocular ring are buffy, while the throat is darker cinnamon buff (Hilty 2011). A distinctly bright blue malar stripe narrowly extends from bill to the nape, but may not be present in all females, with these individuals possibly juvenile (Isler and Isler 1987). The auriculars and supercilium are cinnamon buff. The underparts extending from the center of the belly throughout the under wing coverts are dull yellowish-buff, with prominent bluish green streaking. The center of the belly and undertail coverts are very light yellow, and the underwing coverts are dull yellow-white (Hilty 2011).

Juveniles are very similar to the adult female. The breast, belly, and flanks are more plain, and the blue malar may be absent (Friedmann 1948, Hilty 2011). Immature males in transition to adult plumage can contain numerous variations, with green backs but black lores and throat, or also with black wings and tail, or mottled wing and body plumage as they ultimately transfer from green to bluish-purple (Friedmann 1948, Olivares and Hernández 1962, Hilty 2011).

The Purple Honeycreeper is obviously sexually dichromatic within the human visual spectrum, but even more so when plumage is quantified using a model of avian vision (Burns and Shultz 2012). The Purple Honeycreeper male has the highest levels of UV reflectance measured from any tanager species (Burns and Shultz 2012). This type of signaling may assist communication in dense-forest canopies where regions of UV light are abundant, and the very high UV reflectance in male Cyanerpes likely plays a role in sexual selection (Burns and Shultz 2012).

The Purple Honeycreeper is most similar to its congeners, the Red-legged Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes cyaneus), the Short-billed Honeycreeper (C. nitidus), and the Shining Honeycreeper (C. lucidus). Like the Purple Honeycreeper, all are sexually dimorphic with males predominantly vibrant blue and females olive green with streaked breasts. Additionally, all have elongate decurved and narrow bills adapted for nectivory (Ridgely and Tudor 2009). The Short-billed Honeycreeper has a noticeably shorter bill and pale red legs compared to the longer bill and vibrant yellow legs of the Purple Honeycreeper (Ridgely and Tudor 2009). Further, males of the Short-billed Honeycreeper have the black throat patch extending lower onto the breast, whereas this truncates higher on the upper chest in the Purple Honeycreeper. Female Short-billed Honeycreepers have green auriculars, dusky lores, a whiter throat, and a less noticeable malar than the streaked auriculars, buffy lores extending to the ocular ring, buffy throat, and distinct blue malar of the female Purple Honeycreeper (Hilty 2011). The species most similar in appearance, habitat, and behavior to the Purple Honeycreeper is the Shining Honeycreeper, and these two species were previously believed to be conspecific (Hellmayr 1935); however, later studies revealed that these two species are not each other's closest relative (Burns et al. 2014). Subtle differences in the Shining Honeycreepers plumage is more easily distinguished in females than in males. The male Shining Honeycreeper is generally brighter blue, which creates a more distinct black throat patch. The female Purple Honeycreeper has a buff face and lores, the streaked breast extends onto the flanks, and a more distinct blue malar, whereas the Shining Honeycreeper female has a more dusky face and lores, more solidly green flanks, and a less distinct blue malar (Hilty 2011). The Shining Honeycreeper predominately occurs in Central America, with the Purple Honeycreeper primarily in South America, though they are sympatric in a small area of Colombia and Panama (Hilty 2011).

Most tanagers only molt once a year, and this prebasic molt likely occurs after the breeding season (Isler and Isler 1987, Ryder and Wolfe 2009). The extensive distribution of the Purple Honeycreeper spans the equator and encompasses areas with disparate seasonality. Two individuals in Venezuela had body bolt in early March (Willard et al. 1991). In the upper Orinoco basin, Venezuela in April of 1931 a male was molting into formative plumage with few scattered greenish feather on the back (Friedmann 1948). Similarly, in mid-August 1960 in Vaupés, Colombia a young male showed black spots on greenish-gray wings and scattered blue spots on the body (Olivares and Hernández 1962). In Panama they are known to molt from August through November (ffrench 1973). Cyanerpes exhibit a complete preformative molt, in which body plumage, lesser, median and a variable number of greater coverts are replaced, with retrices, flight feathers, and primary coverts retained (Dickey and van Rosem 1938, Howell and Webb 1995, Ryder and Wolfe 2009). Despite the complete nature of the preformative molt in Cyanerpes, accurate age categorization is still possible due to distinct preformative plumages (Dickey and van Rosem 1938). Many species of tanagers have been found to breed in subadult plumage (Isler and Isler 1987).

The slender decurved bill of both sexes is black (Novaes 1978).

In both sexes the iris is brown, to dark brown, to black (Sclater and Salvin 1879, Snethlage 1908, Novaes 1978).

The legs are dichromatic. Male tarsi and feet are usually described as strikingly yellow. For example, they have been described as lemon-yellow (Snethlage 1908), wax-yellow (Hellmayr 1911), clear lemon-yellow (Stone 1913), primuline yellow (Wetmore et al. 1984), and appearing to have been painted (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001). The male claws strongly contrast black (Wetmore et al. 1984). Others have described male tarsi as pale yellow (Novaes 1978). Female tarsi are described as light green, greenish-gray, and olive-yellow (Novaes 1978, Willard et al. 1991).

There are many measurements reported for the Purple Honeycreeper. Here we report a synopsis of these measurements, including the average, range, and standard deviations when available. We further report detailed measurements of specific subspecies in the Geographic Variation section.

The total length of both sexes is around 10 cm, ranging from 9.3-11.4 cm (Isler and Isler 1987, Sick 1993, Restall et al. 2007). The bill length ranges between 14-23 mm, and varies considerably both within and especially between subspecies (Hilty 2011). Bill depth, measured at the anterior end of the nares, averages 3.4 mm in Trinidad (Snow and Snow 1971). Wing length ranges from 50.5-60.0 mm (Wetmore et al. 1984, ffrench 1973). Tail length ranges from 24.3-32.4 mm (Wetmore et al. 1984). Tarsus length averages 15 mm (Snow and Snow 1971).

The average mass of both sexes (n=53) is 12 g, and typically ranges from 7.8-14.0 g (Isler and Isler 1987), though a female in Trinidad weighed as heavy as 15 g (ffrench 1973). Five males averaged 9.9 g (standard deviation 0.34, range 9.3-10.0 g) and 3 females 11.2 g (SD 2.0, 10.0-13.5 g) in Venezuela (Willard et al. 1991). Other reported weights include 13 g from French Guiana (Reynaud 1998) and 12.6 g from Trinidad (Snow and Snow 1971).

Editor's Note: This article requires further editing work to merge existing content into the appropriate Subspecies sections. Please bear with us while this update takes place.

Five subspecies are recognized for Cyanerpes caeruleus (Dickinson and Christidis 2014, Clements et al. 2014). References below to synonomies and to the original descriptions of species and subspecies come from Oberholser (1899) and Storer (1970).

Cyanerpes caeruleus caeruleus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Certhia caerulea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 1, p. 118; based on "The Blue Creeper" of Edwards, 1743, Nat. Hist. Birds, 1, p. 21.
Certhia ochrochlora Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat., I, i, 472.
Certhia surinamensis Latham, 1790, Ind. Orn., I, 295.
Coereba caerulea Vieillot, 1817, Nouv. Dict. d'Hist. Nat., XIV, 45.
Arbelorhina caerulea Cabanis, 1848, in Schomb, Reise in Brit. Guiana, III, 675.

This subspecies is described in the Detailed Description.

The type locality is Surinam, and is based on a lithographic image "The Blue Creeper" by Edwards (1743). The nominate species is distributed in tropical and subtropical zones. In Colombia they occur on the eastern slope of the East Andes in Boyacá, in Venezuela in the mountains of Falcón just south of Coro, then east along the Atlantic coastal ranges and the forests of southeastern Venezuela east through Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, into northeastern Brazil south to northwest Maranhão (Storer 1970, Hilty 2011, Dickinson and Christidis 2014).

Cyanerpes caeruleus chocoanus Hellmayr, 1920
Cyanerpes caerulea chocana Hellmayr, 1920 Archiv f. Naturg., ser. A, 85(10), p.14 (footnote)

This subspecies is a slightly smaller, with a shorter bill. The forecrown in the male is a less vibrant purple-blue, more pale blue, and females have less blue streaking below, making them appear more yellow (Restall et al. 2007). Length is 98-102 mm (Wetmore et al. 1994). Other measurements are reported in Table 1.

This subspecies was described from San Joaquín del Chocó, western Colombia, and is distributed from Darién, eastern Panama, west along the Pacific coast of Colombia, occasionally to El Oro in western Ecuador but it is more common north of the Río Palenque (Seutin 1998, Storer 1970, Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2011, Dickinson and Christidis 2014). In Panama they are only known from the wetlands and low foothills of the eastern Darién, along the upper Río Jaqué, Cerro Quía, Cana, and the mouth of the Río Imamadó (Wetmore et al. 1984, Ridgely and Gwynne 1989). It integrates with the nominate subspecies in the Santa Margarita region of northern Colombia (Storer 1970).

Cyanerpes caeruleus microrhynchus (von Berlepsch, 1884)
Arbelorhina brevirostris Cabanis, Mus. Hein., 1850, I, 96.
Coereba brevirostris Sclater, 1861, Cat. Coll. Amer. Birds, 53.
Coereba caeruleus microrhynchus von Berlepsch, 1884, Journ. f. Ornith., 32, p. 287 - Bucaramanga, Colombia.
Arbelorhina caerulea microrhyncha Bangs, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 1898, XII, 143.
Cyanerpes caeruleus cherriei von Berlepsch and Hartert, 1902, Novit. Zool., 9, p. 16 - Munduapo, upper Orinoco, Venezuela

This subspecies is very similar to the nominate, with overlap in measurements and plumage characters (Zimmer 1942). Generally, it is smaller with a shorter bill, less purplish overall, with the top of the head lighter and brighter blue than the nominate subspecies (Zimmer 1942, Restall et al. 2007, Hilty 2011). Measurements recorded for this subspecies include wing length of 52-58 mm, and bill lengths of 13.9-20 mm (Zimmer 1942, Friedmann 1948). Individuals from Tefé, State of Amazonas, Brazil were described as males having light yellow feet, with female and juvenile feet greenish-grey; females were paler blue in the forecrown and malar, and more buff, less ochraceous than specimens from the Upper Orinoco and Rio Negro, suggesting variation within the subspecies (Hellmayr 1907). Measurements for this Tefé collection (n=5, 2 male, 2 female, 1 juvenile) are wing lengths 52.5-55 mm, tail 26.5-29 mm, and bill 16-17 mm (Hellmayr 1907). Individuals from Bolivia are somewhat larger than northern individuals, though with substantial variation within populations (Zimmer 1942). Adult individuals collected along the Madeira River (1 male/ 1 female), had measurements of wing 54/54 mm, tail 25/27 mm, and the female with bill length 16 mm (Hellmayr 1910). Individuals from northern Colombia were described as the iris being dark brown in males, black in females; bill black in both sexes; and the feet wax-yellow in males, green in females (Hellmayr 1911). Measurements for these birds (4 males, 2 females, all adult) were wing 53.5-55 mm, tail 27-29 mm, and bill 17-18 mm (Hellmayr 1911).

This subspecies was described from Bucaramanga, Colombia, and is distributed in the tropical zone from eastern Colombia and southwestern Venezuela, south into eastern Ecuador, eastern Peru, northern Bolivia to Santa Cruz, and into western Amazonian Brazil to Mato Grosso (Storer 1970, Dickinson and Christidis 2014, Clements et al. 2014). Oberholser (1899) argues that this subspecies should bare the epithet brevirostris after Cabanis's earlier description, rather that microrhynchus.

Another putative subspecies, C. c. cherriei, was described from the upper Orninoco region of Venezuela. This subspecies was recognized by Hellmayr (1907, 1910), with individuals from the north (cherriei) having shorter wings and tail, and weaker and shorter bills than individuals from Peru and Bolivia (microrhynchus). The subspecies C. c. cherriei was first considered a synonym of C. c. microrhynchus by Zimmer (1943), which was subsequently followed (e.g., Friedmann 1948).

Cyanerpes caeruleus longirostris (Cabanis, 1851)
Arbelorhina longirostristris [sic] Cabanis, 1851, Mus. Heineanum, 1, p. 96.
Coereba longirostris Finsch, P. Z. S., 1870, 561.

This subspecies is very similar in appearance to the nominate race, and is characterized by a longer bill and is perhaps more purplish (ffrench 1973, Isler and Isler 1987, Restall et al. 2007). Measurements for this subspecies include: mass where males (n=27, 10-14 g) average 12.6 g, and females or female-plumage birds (n=17; 11-15 g) average 12.7 g; and wing where males (n=14, 56-60 mm) averaged 58.6 mm, and females (n=10, 55-58 mm) averaged 56.4 mm (ffrench 1973). Other reported measurements include mass: 12.6 g, wing: 58 mm, tail: 27 mm, tarsus: 15 mm, culmen: 19.9, and bill depth: 3.4 mm; the later two measurements taken from the anterior end of the nares (Snow and Snow 1971).

It is endemic to and the only subspecies occurring in Trinidad (Dickinson and Christidis 2014, Clements et al. 2014).

The original description contained important errors (Storer 1970). The specific epithet was corrected to longirostris (from longirostristris) later in the description. Also, the type locality was listed as Caracas, but this error was identified by Hellmayr (1935) who moved the type locality to Trinidad (Storer 1970).

Cyanerpes caeruleus hellmayri Gyldenstolpe, 1945
Cyanerpes caeruleus hellmayri Gyldenstolpe, 1945, Kungl. Svenska Vet.-Akad. Handl., ser. 3, 22(3), p. 291

This subspecies differs from the nominate subspecies by its larger size and significantly longer and heavier bill (Restall et al. 2007). The males are more violaceous-blue, while the female chin and throat is darker cinnamon buff, the fringes to the breast more greenish, less blue, ear-coverts more brownish than in the nominate race (Restall et al. 2007, Hilty 2016).

They are endemic to the Pacaraima Mountains of Guyana, with the described type locality of "Potaro Highlands" (Storer 1970, Dickinson and Christidis 2014, Clements et al. 2014).

Snyder (1966) wrote that this subspecies is not generally accepted (Restall et al. 2007).

The Purple Honeycreeper was once considered to be conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr 1935), or form a superspecies (e.g., Sibley and Monroe 1990), with the Shining Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes lucidus) due to its very similar appearance, behavior, habitat, and allopatric distribution, with only a small area of sympatry in northwest Colombia and eastern Panama, an area where other allopatric species are known to hybridize (Haffer 1967). However, subsequent phylogenetic analysis of molecular data found that these forms are not each other's closest relatives (Burns et al. 2014). The Purple Honeycreeper is sister to the Red-legged Honeycreeper (C. cyaneus) with strong support, and this clade is sister to a clade containing the Short-billed Honeycreeper (C. nitidus) and the Shining Tanager (C. lucidus), and these four species comprise the monophyletic and strongly supported Cyanerpes (Burns et al. 2014).

The sister genus to Cyanerpes is not resolved, with early molecular phylogenetics placing them sister to Dacnis (Burns et al. 2003) and more recent analyses placing them sister to the monotypic Swallow Tanager (Tersina viridus), but these sister-genera hypotheses are not statistically supported (Burns et al. 2014). Despite our ignorance on these inter-generic relationships, Cyanerpes, Tersina, and Dacnis form a well-supported clade ascribed to the subfamily Dacninae (Burns et al. 2003, Burns et al. 2014). In light of the relationships inferred from molecular phylogenetics, morphological features were subsequently identified that define the Dacninae, including extreme sexual dichromatism with vividly piercing blue males and green females, and with males strongly reflecting UV light (Burns and Shultz 2012, Burns et al. 2014). The Cyanerpes honeycreepers were formerly members of the "nectar-feeding family" Coerebidae (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970). This family was later recognized as superficial - a morphological convergence on nectivory (Beecher 1951, Tordoff 1954). Morphological convergent hypotheses was later corroborated by molecular phylogenetic analyses (Sibley et al. 1990, Burns et al. 2003).

Fossils have not been reported.

The Purple Honeycreeper is the most common and widespread species of Cyanerpes (Schulenberg et al. 2007). It is known from the following zoogeographic regions: Gulf-Caribbean Slope, Chocó Lowlands, Northern South America, Northern Amazonia, and Southern Amazonia (Parker et al. 1996). It has a structured distribution throughout much of Colombia and Venezuela, the disjunct distributions of disparate subspecies (Hilty 2003, 2011). In Colombia, they are fairly common in the Santa Marta Mountains (Strewe and Navarro 2004). They are common in Trinidad (Belcher and Smooker 1937, Street 1946, ffrench 1973); the few records from Tobago are possibly introduced and without recent sightings (ffrench 1973, Kenefick et al. 2007). They are fairly common in Guyana (Braunj et al. 2000, Robbins et al. 2007, O'Shea 2008); regularly reported from Suriname (Haverschmidt 1962, O'Shea and Ramcharan 2012, 2013), and French Guiana (Reynaud 1998, Thiollay 2002). They are widespread in the forested lowlands of Brazil (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). In the north they extend from French Guiana east along the northern coast to the lowlands around Belém to northern Maranhão, southeast through Pará to northern Mato Grosso (Novaes 1973, Sick 1983, Ridgely and Tudor 1989). They are known from the northern Bolivia lowlands and other areas around the mouth of the Madre de Dios River into the Rio Mamoré; along the Rio Mamoré it has been reported as rare (Terrill et al. 2014). They are more common and along the eastern slope of the Andes (Herzog et al. 2016), including Todos Santos and Santa Cruz (Bond and Meyer de Schauensee 1942). They similarly track the eastern slope of the Andes and eastern lowland rainforest in Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). The distribution extends along the Pacific Coast from Ecuador through Colombia into southeastern Panama (Seutin 1998, Hilty 2011). In Panama, they are only known from the wetlands and low foothills of the eastern Darién, along the upper Río Jaqué, Cerro Quía, Cana, and the mouth of the Río Imamadó (Wetmore et al. 1984, Ridgely and Gwynne 1989).

The center of elevational abundance is in the Lower Tropical Zone, most regularly encountered from lowlands and surrounding foothills to 1,100 m, but is irregular or locally found at higher elevations (Parker et al. 1996, Hilty 2011). These seemingly irregular shifts to higher elevations may be seasonal or in response to rainfall (Hilty 1997, Restall et al. 2007). The highest elevation reported is at 2,300 m along the east slope of the Andes in Colombia, where it was common in primary forest at 1,400 m (Salaman et al. 1999). It appears to be found at progressively lower elevations as their range extends south along the Andes and east across northern South America (Gillard 1941). It was reported as fairly common at 1,075 m in Ecuador (Robbins et al. 1987), but is rare in Peru above 1,000 m (Robbins et al. 2011). In Peru it has been reported from 1,400 m (Walker et al. 2006, Altamirano Guerrero 2010), from 1,600-1,970 m (Terborgh and Weske 1975), and as high as 1,970 m (Socolar et al. 2013). In Bolivia it has been reported from 1,000 m and 1,700 m (Hennessey 2003, Hennessey et al. 2013). The birds recorded above 1,000 m from the Andes of Venezuela south to northern Bolivia are likely the subspecies Cyanerpes caeruleus microrhyncha (Hellmayr 1907). In the northeastern part of their range, they have been recorded as high as 1,050 m in Guyana (Salvin 1885).

The Purple Honeycreeper is confined to South America and adjacent Panama.

Apparently stable. Areas with the greatest amount of habitat loss within the range of this species are north and west Colombia and west Ecuador (Hilty 2011).

The primary habitats for the Purple Honeycreeper include tropical lowland evergreen forests, flooded tropical evergreen forests, secondary forest, and montane evergreen forests (Parker et al. 1996). Many studies from across their range report an association with primary terra firme and seasonally flooded várzea forests (Robinson and Terborgh 1997, Stotz et al. 1997, Reynaud 1998, Borges and Carvalhaes 2000, Pacheco and Olmos 2005, Brace and Bodmer 2008, O'Shea 2008, Henriques and Dantas 2009, Whittaker 2009, Aleixo et al. 2011, Alonso et al. 2012, Borges and de Almeida 2013, Guilherme 2013). They also extend relatively high into the foothills subtending their widespread lowland distribution, where they can occur in dense submontane and montane forests (Karr et al. 1990, Braunj et al. 2000, Guilherme 2013). It is also commonly reported from the ecotone of primary forests with poor-nutrient habitats such as savannas, cerrados, campinas, canga (high iron crust), and white sands (Robbins et al. 2004, Pacheco et al. 2007, Aleixo et. al 2011, Guilherme and Borges 2011, Alonso et al. 2012, Guilherme 2013, Olmos et al. 2013), as well as other natural edges such as river margins and tree fall gaps (Cuervo et al. 1999, Wunderle et al. 2005). It is also recorded from a variety of habitats modified by humans, including secondary and managed forests (Stone 1928, Fonaroff 1974, Johns 1991, Robbins et al. 1991, Andrade and Rubio-Torgler 1994, Da Silva et al. 1996, Mason 1996, Cuervo et al. 1999, Thiollay 1999, Henriques 2005, Altamirano Guerrero 2010, Guilherme and Borges 2011, Lima et al. 2015), coffee plantations (Altamirano Guerrero 2010, Terborgh and Weske 1969), citrus cultivation (ffrench 1973), cacao plantations (Terborgh and Weske 1969), and gardens (Isler and Isler 1987, Restall et al. 2007).

The microhabitat is almost universally recognized as being from the middle (and usually within) to the upper strata of the forest canopy (Belcher and Smooker 1937, Snow and Snow 1971, Novaes 1973, Munn 1985, Karr et al. 1990, Thiollay 1994, Parker et al. 1996, Stiles and Bohórquez 2000, Thiollay 2002, Hayes and Sewlal 2004, Naka 2004, Brace and Bodmer 2008). More specific microhabitat quantification has found them to primarily occur in the upper canopy, occasionally to mid-story, with an average relative height of 0.68, typically observed in the outer reaches of trees in areas of living dense foliage (Walther 2002). They have been associated with epiphytes high in the canopy (Wetmore et al. 1984). They will occasionally go to the ground for fallen fruit (Snow and Snow 1971), and the highest elevation observation was a male foraging on a terrestrial bromeliad flower (Salaman et al. 2002). More details about specific microhabitats can be gleaned from the Diet and Foraging section.

The diet of the Purple Honeycreeper has been well characterized. They are omnivorous, feeding most often on insects, spiders, and other arthropods, but also regularly eating small fruits and nectar (ffrench 1973). Stomach contents have included orchid seeds, berries and other fruits, insects, and spiders (Sclater and Salvin 1879, Olivares and Herández 1962, Scubart et al. 1965, Isler and Isler 1987).

They are considered very important pollinators and seed dispersers. Fecal samples regularly carry seeds (Gomes 2008). They were the most frequent visitor to the flowers for nectar of Symphonia globulifera (Clusiaceae), and are likely an important pollinator of this species (Gill et al. 1998, Maués 2006). They are an occasional visitor and pollinator of the clusiac Platonia insignis (Maués and Venturieri 1997). They also consume the arils of Clusia rosea, using their long decurved bills to probe the capsules and remove the fleshy arils (Snow and Snow 1971, Hilty 2003). They have been documented foraging on the fruits or flowers of many species of plants. They readily eat the fruits of Goupia glabra (Goupiaceae), where they prefer very ripe fruits (Schaefer and Schaefer 2006). Thirty independent visits to a fruiting Henriettella fissanthera (Melastomataceae) were observed in Colombia (Stevenson et al. 2013). They were documented feeding on the following species Miconia cilata (Melastomataceae), Cladocolea micrantha (Loranthaceae), Virola surinamensis (Myristicaceae), Myrcia splendens (Myrtaceae), Spermacoce verticillata (Rubiaceae) in eastern Brazil (Gomes 2008, Gomes et al. 2013). They have been recorded consuming the Burseraceae species Dacryodes chimantensis (Parrado et al. 2005). The highest recorded elevation record for the Purple Honeycreeper was a male in the Colombian Andes feeding from a terrestrial bromeliad flower (Salaman et al. 2002). They were documented eating Pagamea plicata (Rubiaceae) in Venezuela (Willard et al. 1991). They are known to consume the fruits of Trema micrantha (Cannabaceae) in Trinidad (Snow and Snow 1971, ffrench 1973). A detailed and systematic record of the feeding behavior of tanagers in Trinidad recorded a number of species of fruits consumed by the Purple Honeycreeper, including Wulffia baccata (Asteraceae), Ficus clusiifolia (Moraceae), three species of Euphorbiaceae (Sapium aucuparium, Hieronyma caribaea, and Alchornea glandulosa), a Loranthaceae sp., Miconia sp., Myrcia sp., and Clusia sp. (Snow and Snow 1971). They have been observed eating orchid seeds (Beebe 1909).

The Purple Honeycreeper forages in the mid- to upper-canopy primarily, for insects, fruits, and nectar, and tends to forage higher in the canopy for insects than for fruit (Snow and Snow 1971, Figure 1). In 237 foraging observations made in Trinidad, 40% were insect searching, 31% were at fruiting trees, and 29% were at flowers; 73% of these observations were in forest habitats (Snow and Snow 1971). Of the insectivorous observations, 63% of them were made on and under small twigs (0.3-1.3 cm), where the bird would perch across the twig and lean over to examine the underside of the branch, a method facilitated by their long decurved bill; remaining insectivorous observations were 17% from foliage, 5% from flower and seed heads, and 15% hawking (Snow and Snow 1971). They can be seen foraging about epiphytes high in the canopy (Wetmore et al. 1984). They have been observed fluttering after spiders attempting to escape via descending on silk threads (Snow and Snow 1971). Purple Honeycreepers spent a similar amount of time consuming insects as the Red-legged Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes cyaneus) and Blue Dacnis (Dacnis cayana), but less time eating fruits and more time consuming nectar than these species (Snow and Snow 1971). They prefer small fruits, likely due to their slender and decurved bill (Isler and Isler 1987). They swallow small fruits whole, they will occasionally pierce fruits then suck the juice, and they will also probe fruit capsules to access seed arils (Snow and Snow 1971, Isler and Isler 1987). In thirty independent visits to a fruiting Henriettella fissanthera (Melastomataceae) they foraged for a total of 86 minutes, for an average visit length of 2.9 minutes (Stevenson et al. 2013).

The Purple Honeycreeper does not appear to have a true song (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001). The call consists of a series of sharp high-pitched zzree buzzes or lisping sounds (Isler and Isler 1987), which are often regularly repeated (Hilty 2011). A pair were recorded engaged in apparent mobbing to defend their nest, delivering a burst of rapid upslurred chip notes.

Additional audio recordings of vocalizations for the Purple Honeycreeper can be heard at Macaulay Library and at xeno-canto.

None have been reported.

Little has been recorded on the behavior of this species. They typically are associated with mixed-species flocks and typically forage in the canopy. They are very active, quickly moving through the foliage, often wing-flicking as they move about (Hilty 2011). They will typically rest, along with other small frugivores, on exposed branches at the tops of canopy emergent trees at dawn (Hilty 2011).

Three pairs were detected on a 100 ha plot of terra firme forest near Manaus, Brazil (Johnson et al. 2011).

Very little is known about the sexual behavior of the Purple Honeycreeper, and almost nothing has been reported from wild birds. It does not appear to have any real song (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001). A captive pair bred at the Philadelphia Zoo, where the female did all of the incubation (Wetmore et al. 1984). Observations of breeding individuals in Panama found that males help feed the young (ffrench 1973).

Purple Honeycreepers almost always associate with other birds, be it as a pair, in a family group, in conspecific flocks which can be large, but usually with mixed-species canopy flocks (Hilty 2003). Large conspecific flocks often aggregate at fruiting trees (e.g., Cohn-Haft et al. 1997). On the eastern edge of their range in Belém, Brazil they were uncommon, but when observed typically seen in pairs (Novaes 1973). They are often encountered in mixed-species flocks including other Dacninae (e.g., Hilty 2003, Brace and Bodmer 2008). For example, the were associated with the Short-billed Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes nitidus) at a fruiting tree (Ottema 2002), in French Guiana they typically were observed with the Red-legged Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes cyaneus), Black-faced Dacnis (Dacnis lineata), Blue Dacnis (Dacnis cayana), as well as with the Green Honeycreeper (Chlorophanes spiza), which is superficially similar to the Dacninae (Gill et al. 1998). A canopy mixed-species flock in Brazil included White-bellied Dacnis (Dacnis albiventris) and Rufous-tailed Xenops (Microxenops milleri) (Sick 1960). They are regularly reported from mixed-species canopy flocks (e.g., Munn 1985, Cohn-Haft et al. 1997), including a flock containing the Sira Tanager (Tangara phillipsi) within its short-range endemic distribution (Graves and Weske 1987). In Peru a canopy flock included the Short-billed Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes nitidus), Paradise Tanager (Tangara chilensis), as well as the Green Honeycreeper and Blue Dacnis (O'Shea et al. 2015). A mixed-species flock included the Five-colored Barbet (Capito quinticolor), Scarlet-and-white Tanager (Chrysothlypis salmoni), Golden-chested Tanager (Bangsia rothschildi), Scarlet-browed Tanager (Heterospingus xanthopygius), Emerald Tanager (Tangara florida), Golden-hooded Tanager (Tangara larvata), Rufous-winged Tanager (Tangara lavinia), Gray-and-gold Tanager (Tangara palmeri), Tawny-crested Tanager (Tachyphonus delatrii), from the Pacific region of Colombia (Strewe 2002). In Mato Grasso, Brazil they were recorded in a mixed-species flock consisting of White-naped Xenopsaris (Xenopsaris albinucha), White-lored Tyrannulet (Ornithion inerme), Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher (Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum), Gray-crowned Flycatcher (Tolmomyias poliocephalus), Tooth-billed Wren (Odontorchilus cinereus), Bananaquit (Coereba flaveola), and the Short-billed Honeycreeper (Zimmer et al. 1997). In southern Venezuela, a mixed-species flock observed from a canopy crane included the Gilded Barbet (Capito auratus), Spot-backed Antwren (Herpsilochmus dorsimaculatus), Spot-winged Antshrike (Pygiptila stelaris), Purple-breasted Cotinga (Cotinga cotinga), White-browed Purpletuft (Iodopleura isabellae), Rufous-bellied Euphonia (Euphonia rufiventris), Yellow-backed Tanager (Hemithraupis flavicollis), Palm Tanager (Thraupis palmarum), Flame-crested Tanager (Tachyphonus cristatus), Spotted Tanager (Tangara varia), Opal-rumped Tanager (Tangara velia), Green Honeycreeper, Blue Dacnis, and Short-billed Honeycreeper (Walther 2003).

In Surinam, an individual was reported taken by a Gray Hawk (Buteo plagiatus) from a tree where many Purple Honeycreepers were feeding (Haverschmidt 1962).

The timing of the breeding biology of the Purple Honeycreeper appears to be scattered across the calendar year. This is likely owing to its very large distribution, which spans the equator and both Pacific and Atlantic Coasts. Most breeding likely occurs near the onset of the rainy season of the respective localities. In Colombia breeding condition birds have been documented in March, June, and July (Hilty and Brown 1986). A pair of birds collected on 24 October 1964 had testis measure 4 mm x 3 mm, and ovaries measure 3 mm x 2 mm (Novaes 1978). In Venezuela they are reported as breeding from April-June (Schäfer and Phelps 1954), with enlarged gonads reported in February and March (Willard et al. 1991). A series collected in Brazil on 5 January 1907 included females with well-developed eggs in ovaries (Snethlage 1908). In southern Guyana they breed in February and March (Robbins et al. 2007).

Four nests were found in Panama from April through June; nests were small cups of moss, lined with dark rootlets, in the hollow of a stump about 1.5 m high (ffrench 1973). Two nests described from Brazil were 2 m and 3 m above the ground, with the 3 m high nest placed on the end of a branch (Pinto 1953). They have been reported as preferring to put their nests near water (Snethlage 1935).

The eggs have a white ground color, with dark brown to pink-brown spots forming blotches and ashy stains on the larger end, with average measurements of 17.5 mm x 13.0 mm (ffrench 1973, Isler and Isler 1987, Walters 2006). A description of the eggs from Guanoco, Venezuela, differs markedly from the above description. These eggs were described as smooth, elongate ovals without gloss, with a hidden ground color of deep purplish-buff, and uniform blotching clouding blackish-brown so dense that the egg is practically black (Belcher and Smooker 1937).

A family group with recent fledglings was observed in Manené, southeastern Panama on 10 July 1996 at 150 m elevation (Seutin 1998), fledglings being fed by adult birds were reported from Sacha Lodge, Ecuador on 19 September 2005 (Greeney and Gelis 2008), and begging juveniles were reported from El Huampal, Yanachaga-Chemillén National Park, Peru from 7-10 November 2006 (Janni et al. 2008).

The Purple Honeycreeper is the most common and widespread species of Cyanerpes (Schulenberg et al. 2007). In some situations, they are among the most abundant component of the avian fauna. For example in Brazil, they were the most frequently observed species at a flowering Symphonia globulifera (Maués 2006), and were inferred to be the most important seed disperser in a secondary forest (Gomes et al. 2013). They were among the most abundant species mist-netted in Serranía de los Churumelos, Colombia (Cuervo et al. 1999). They were relatively abundant compared to other birds observed in a second growth forest in Amazonian Brazil, with 0.55 individuals observed per hour (da Silva et al. 1996). Three pairs were detected on a 100 ha plot of terra firme near Manaus, Brazil (Johnson et al. 2011). Of 93 individuals banded over a ten year period, nine were recaptured, for an average survival estimate of 49.8 (Johnston et al. 1997). The population size for this species is unknown, but is considered stable (BirdLife International 2016). Parker et al. (1996) categorize the Purple Honeycreeper as common relative to other Neotropical birds with a center of abundance in the Lower Tropical Zone. An individual was preyed upon by a Gray Hawk (Buteo nitidus), which took they honeycreeper from a conspecific flock aggregated in a fruiting tree in Suriname (Haverschmidt 1962). They are known to live for 17-18 years in captivity (Flower 1938). No information is available on age of first breeding or parasitism.

The conservation status of the Purple Honeycreeper is listed as “Least Concern” by the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2017). The population size has not been quantified, but the range is exceedingly large, roughly 8,780,000 km², and thus does not reach the criterion for the minimum population size threshold (<20,000 km²) to become vulnerable (BirdLife International 2017). Parker et. al. (1996) considered this species of low conservation priority relative to other Neotropical birds.

This species is common to fairly common throughout much of its extensive range. Most habitat loss has occurred in northern and western Colombia, and in western Ecuador (Hilty 2011). Populations declines were detected in an 87-ha isolated lowland forest preserve in west Ecuador (Leck 1979). Surveys in disturbed and undisturbed forest patches of various sizes in the southern Amazonian arc of deforestation found that this species is able to tolerate secondary and degraded forests (Lees and Peres 2006). Parker et al. (1996) has labeled the Purple Honeycreeper as having a medium degree of sensitivity to human disturbance relative to other Neotropical birds, and this has largely been corroborated by other studies. They did not have a high sensitivity to road and oil well construction in Ecuador (Canaday and Rivadeneyra 2001), and other studies have suggested only moderate sensitivity to disturbance (e.g., Wunderle et al. 2006, Stouffer et al. 2009). Though not uncommon, they are an iconic member of the Neotropical avifauna and often considered when developing eco-tourism opportunities (e.g., Freire et al. 2012).

This species is known from many protected areas, including: Bolivia: Madidi National Park (Hennessey 2003, Hennessey 2004, Hosner et al. 2009), Noel Kempff Mercado National Park (Bates et al. 1998), Pilón Biosphere Reserve (Hennessey et al. 2003); Brazil: Juá National Park (Borges and Carvalhaes 2000, Borges 2006, Borges and de Almeida 2013), Viruá National Park (Laranjeiras et al. 2014), Tapajós National Park (Oren and Parker 1997), Área de Proteção Ambiental Tucuruí (Henriques and Dantas 2009), Gunma Ecological Park (Gomes 2008, Gomes et al. 2013, Portes et al. 2013), Alto Juruá Extractive Reserve (Whittaker et al. 2002), Río Unini Extractive Reserve, Amaná Sustainable Development Reserve, and Río Negro State Park (Borges and de Almeida 2013), Amaná National Forest (Guilherme 2014), Tapajos National Forest (Henriques et al. 2003); Colombia: Reserva Natural de Aves Reinita Cerulea (Donegan et al. 2010), Reserva Las Tángaras and Reserva Naturales de las Aves Lora Carirosada (Collazos-González and Cortes-Herrera 2015), Parque Tinigua (Stevenson et al. 2013); Ecuador: Yasuní National Park (Canaday and Rivadeneyra 2001, Cueva et al. 2004), Sangay National Park (Guevara et al. 2010), Manglares-Churute Ecological Reserve (Pople et al. 1997), Cotacachi-Cayaoas Ecological Reserve (Jahn and Valenzuela 2006), Cotococha Reserve (Nores 2009), El Bosque Protector La Perla (Freire et al. 2012), La Reserva de Bosque Integral Otonga (Guevara and Guevara 2005); French Guiana: Kaw-Roura Nature Reserve (Tilgar and Moks 2015); Peru: Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo-Mishana (Salazar et al. 2003, Alonso et al. 2012), Cordillera Azul National Park (Dasmahapatra et al. 2006), Yanachaga-Chemillén National Park (Janni et al. 2008), Manu Biosphere Reserve (Munn 1985, Fernández and Kirby 2002, Walker et al. 2006), Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo (Rosas 2003); Suriname: Brownsberg Nature Park (Ottema 2002); Trinidad and Tobago: Madamas (proposed) National Park (Devenish et al. 2007), Victoria Mayaro Forest Reserve (White 2002); Venezuela: Henri Pittier National Park (Schäfer and Phelps 1954), Serranía La Neblina National Park (Willard et al. 1991).

This species is considered to be of low research priority relative to other Neotropical birds (Parker et al. 1996). The most pressing research need is evaluation of the described subspecies, where morphological clines between subspecies and peripatric distributions of others may warrant the sinking of some subspecies and elevation of others. Since this species is among the most strongly-colored bird in the UV spectrum measured (Burns and Shultz 2012), it would be interesting to quantify variation in this color between subspecies, and indeed between all species in the genus.