G. R. Gray, 1861,
Bacan and Halmahera.
Until recently treated as conspecific with N. squamipila (which see), along with N. hantu and N. forbesi, but molecular evidence has been invoked to suggest species status#R, this being supported by field studies#R. Present species is distinct from N. hantu by virtue of its underparts being reddish-brown with dense, equally spaced barring (dark rufous and white) vs reddish-brown with vestigial (pale rufous and cinnamon) barring (3); upperparts much darker brown with no rufous tone and with crown to nape darker still vs uniformly rich rufous (2); tarsi densely feathered to toes vs sparsely feathered (3); considerably larger size (effect size for wing 4.11, score 2); probably also by bill colour (dark vs pale in specimens, but ns); and different voice#R(allow 2). It is distinct from N. forbesi (with which it shares feathered tarsi) by having underparts reddish-brown with dense, equally spaced barring vs plain reddish-brown breast with strong equal rufous and white barring on belly (one male) or pale rufous and white barring throughout (one female) (score 1); upperparts much darker brown with no rufous tone and with crown to nape darker still vs uniformly rich pale rufous (very vague capped effect) (3); mostly dark leading edge of wing with no or few white tips on coverts vs mostly white leading edge with white tips on coverts (2); larger size, notably in tail length (effect size 4.41, score 2); different voice, a “barking urgh urgh“ vs “monotonic, double-noted ku-kuk...; also a single frog-like gurr”#R (at least 2). It is separated from N. squamipila by characters given under that species. Monotypic.
Halmahera, Ternate and Bacan group, in N Moluccas.
Food and feeding
Status and conservation
Only subscribers are able to see the bibliography. Login or Subscribe to get access to a lot of extra features!