Table 1. The observed spread-winged displays of Bubo bengalensis in the wild

 

Sno

 

Display

 

Morphological description

 

Employed by

 

Observed stimulus

 

Observed function

 

Remarks

 

1

 

Intimidatory

Display

(Images 1 & 2)

 

 

A display with the face of the wings held perpendicular to the perched substrate and bent at the elbow and wrist.  On being confronted by intruders, the owl stared fixedly at them, leant forward, swayed from foot to foot, swelled feathers to their full extend and opened the wings outwards.  Loud hissing and bill clapping enhanced the appearance of ferocity

 

Young over 15 dayÕs old

 

Human approach

 

The action was a bluff, the intent being to keep intruders at bay.  A diversionary tactic which allowed the young to make good their escape either by running or flying away

 

An inter-specific display used to deter intruders

 

2

 

Threat Display

(Image 3)

 

A display with the face of the wings held parallel to the perched substrate

 

Adults

 

Used against conspecifics – viz., territorial male against intruders and females to repel males outside the breeding season

 

To deter conspecifics. This was no bluff, the intent being to scare off the other owl, and if stimulus persisted, the displaying bird would attack unhesitatingly

 

An intra-specific display used against other owls in the wild

 

3

 

Intermediate agonistic displays (Images 7 & 8)

 

These are displays with the wings held intermediate between the intimidatory and threat displays. Many intensity phases exist, often with one wing behaving differently from the other.  These are not transition phases between the intimidatory and threat displays, and have never been observed to progress from one to the other. In fact they have their own set of progression (as is evident from Images 4-11)

 

Brooding female in defence of nest / young

 

Human approach of nest

 

To deter intruders

 

These are inter-specific displays which were earlier confused with the intimidat-ory display (Ramanu-

jam 2004, 2007). Now with detailed photogra-phic ethogra-ms their morphol-ogical differen-ces have come to light