This species seems to be inordinately proud of its singing abilities, which are not only reflected in its common name but also in the scientific one, Melospiza melodia. There is some justification to this – eBird talks of its “melodic song with chips and trills”.

On subspecies, the HBW offers the slightly puzzling statement “24 diagnosable subspecies (52 named)”, which does rather make me question the usefulness of the whole subspecies concept.

Like most researchers, the authors of the HBW profile think that their particular study subject, the Song Sparrow, is exceptionally interesting, and say so explicitly: “Song Sparrows are an exceptional study species”. And further emphasize the importance of their studied species by seemingly first admitting the opposite, before turning to some rather grandiose phrases: “The large amount of published information on Song Sparrows may dissuade some researchers, but we believe the keenest observers will see this as a convenient foundation for asking fundamental questions about mechanisms of life-history evolution, population and genetic ecology, and speciation”.

There certainly is an astonishing amount of published information just on the song of the Song Sparrow.

For example, one study found that Song Sparrows breeding in noisy environments shifted the lower notes of their songs to higher frequencies, reducing overlap with anthropogenic noise.

Female Song Sparrows could be accused of being somewhat xenophobic – at least they prefer their local song dialect to those sung elsewhere. Fortunately, this appears to be learned rather than genetic.

This may help explain why neighboring males share so many song types. Why be different if nobody is impressed?

So, while the Song Sparrow’s opinion of its own singing may be somewhat inflated, it is at least shared by many ornithologists.















Leave a Comment