Birds of the Upper Cumberland Region: Species Accounts
House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)
– —
Abundance: Common during all seasons; recorded in all Regional counties (Map of UCR Distribution); the Regional population trend is probably stable (see also Regional Bird-Monitoring Plan).
Status: Permanent Resident; see Remarks [below] for a discussion of the provenance of this finch in the Region; photograph [ventral view of male] (Stephen J. Stedman; City Lake, Putnam County, Tennessee; 26 February 2012).
Regional High Count and CBC/CBB High Count: 555 (2 January 1990; Putnam County, Tennessee [Cookeville CBC]; m. ob.); SBC/SBB High Count: 117 (10 May 2008; Putnam County, Tennessee [SBC]; m. ob.); FBC/FBB High Count: 104 (21 September 2002; Putnam County, Tennessee [FBC]; m. ob.).
Breeding: Confirmed (Recent).
Habitat: x
YardWatch Results 2003 and 2004: Registered on 77 (of 125) monthly check-lists during 2003 and on 146 (of 206) check-lists during 2004, leading to a YardWatch frequency classification of Common during each year; this YardWatch frequency classification is consistent with the overall Regional abundance classification.
Foray Results: A summary of data from UCR Forays follows (to view a map displaying foray data for a county or a sub-Region for this species, click on the name of an underlined county or state below):
County | Dates when Foray Conducted | Total
Blocks in County * |
Total
Blocks in which House Finch Recorded |
Total
Individuals Recorded |
Adair | 8–16 June 2014 | 46 | 6 | 9 |
Barren | 1–6 June 2013 | 54 | 30 | 57 |
Clinton | 12–14 June 2009 | 24 | 15 | 19 |
Cumberland | 16–20 June 2014 | 35 | 5 | 6 |
McCreary | 30 May–5 Jun 2011 | 51 | 17 | 65 |
Metcalfe | 8–12 June 2013 | 32 | 9 | 10 |
Monroe | 1–12 June 2015 | 35 | 2 | 2 |
Pulaski | 5–11 June 2010 | 72 | 39 | 162 |
Russell | 13–16, 26–29 June 2012 | 31 | 8 | 22 |
Wayne | 28 May–3 June 2012 | 54 | 18 | 41 |
Kentucky | 434 (408) | 149 (34.3%) | 393 | |
Bledsoe | 18–24 June 2012 | 48 | 13 | 26 |
Clay | 12–15 June 2010 | 30 | 16 | 64 |
Cumberland | 29 May–4 June 2010 | 75 | 38 | 124 |
DeKalb | 23–26 May 2008 | 40 | 15 | 30 |
Fentress | 11–17 June 2012 | 55 | 16 | 39 |
Jackson | 29 May–1 Jun 2009 | 40 | 19 | 40 |
Macon | 17–22 June 2013 | 32 | 8 | 17 |
Morgan | 1–8 June 2014 | 58 | 13 | 47 |
Overton | 23–29 May 2011 | 47 | 29 | 108 |
Pickett | 22–25 May 2009 | 24 | 2 | 4 |
Putnam | 6–12 June 2011 | 46 | 29 | 249 |
Scott | 9–24 June 2016 | 62 | 8 | 12 |
Smith | 15–25 June 2015 | 37 | 6 | 11 |
Van Buren | 13–15 June 2011 | 33 | 19 | 74 |
Warren | 1–10 June 2016 | 47 | 32 | 92 |
White | 1–6 June 2015 | 50 | 21 | 37 |
Tennessee | 724 (651) | 253 (34.9%) | 974 | |
Region | 1158 (c. 1059) | 402 (34.7%) | 1367 |
* Because some foray blocks fall into two or three counties, the total of blocks in the Kentucky or Tennessee portions of the Region is less than the sum of the blocks in the counties of each portion of the Region; similarly, because some blocks fall into both states, the total of blocks for the Region is less than the sum of the blocks in the two states.
Remarks: Originally native to western North American, this finch was introduced in the East in 1940 by dealers in pet birds who brought them to New York City for sale as pets but then released them in that area when their activities were deemed to be illegal. The House Finch population in New York expanded greatly, self-introducing itself in the southeastern United States and reaching Tennessee by 1972 (Stedman 1992b). During the next two decades this finch slowly increased as a breeder in the state, but during those same decades the species was also present in large numbers during winter as a result of influxes of migratory birds from the north that moved south each fall. This migratory phenomenon slowly decreased and appears to have ceased altogether by c. 2000 when most of the southeastern US had been colonized.
A project to determine if House Finches are able to remove standard aluminum butt-end bands was conducted at City Lake, Putnam County, Tennessee during the late 1980s; at least one of 2420 House Finches banded during this project did remove its band, while 31% of finches recaptured after initial banding had been able to pry the ends of their band apart to some degree (Stedman 1990).
Check-lists of Birds for the Counties of the UCR
Check-lists of the birds of each county of the Upper Cumberland Region may be viewed by clicking on the links below. For each county, there are two check-lists: one list that shows the species that have been observed and where possible documented in the county within the larger list for the entire Region; and one list that includes only the species observed in the county with annotations for the date and observers for at least one sighting (the ultimate goal of the latter list will be to include annotations for the very first known Regional observation of each species in that county; this goal is probably one that will take many years to complete, if completion is even a possibility). To see if the species discussed in this species account has been observed in a county, click below or click on the link for the Map of UCR Distribution near the top of the page.
Barren | Metcalfe | Adair | Russell | Pulaski |
Monroe | Cumberland | Clinton | Wayne | McCreary |
Macon | Clay | Pickett | Fentress | Scott |
Smith | Jackson | Overton | Putnam | Morgan |
DeKalb | White | Cumberland | ||
Warren | Van Buren | Bledsoe |
Check-lists of Birds for Some Public Access Birding Sites of the UCR
Check-lists of the birds of some public access birding sites within the Upper Cumberland Region may be viewed via the links below. To see if the species dealt with in this species account has been observed within any of these sites, click on the appropriate link below. See the pages for each county within the Gazetteer for links to additional smaller public access birding sites with check-lists in progress.
Literature Cited