• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (4 Viewers)

Curtis Croulet said:
as I understand the workings of the CBRC, the bird would probably go on the "review" list, pending better evidence.

Hi Curtis,

I'm not sure that you have the correct definition of 'review species'. A 'review species' in CT at least is a species whose sighting should be documented and sent to the avian records committee (for review) because of it's rarity. The only halfway house in this state is for a handful of birds and they are accepted as of uncertain origin - this basically refers to a few waterfowl records which although there seems a good possibility that the birds are wild there is no way of being certain (in my opinion a bit of a weird category) - see below for the Avian Records Committee of Connecticut decision on Barnacle Goose that turned up here some years back . Apart from that people either get a yay or nay on their sightings. Nays tend to be either questioning of the identification or origin of the bird. It is certainly possible for rejected birds to later be accepted due to further evidence being supplied but birds aren't accepted pending further evidence.

Luke

ACCEPT - ORIGIN UNCERTAIN

BARNACLE GOOSE (Branta leucopsis). An apparent adult was located on the Stearn's Farm property in Mansfield, Tolland County, 4 December 2001 and stayed through the first part of January 2002 (Mark Szantyr*‡, Curtis Marantz, Chris Elphick, Don Crockett‡ 02-02). The Avian Records Committee of Connecticut has had the dubious pleasure of evaluating several reports of this species and until now has always judged that the origin of this fairly popular avicultural species is difficult to ascertain. This bird is common in captivity and the "old school" common logic was to be better safe than sorry and reject this easily identified bird, nearly out of hand, simply because the committee could not be sure that any individual was truly wild. Why then are we accepting this individual to the official state list?
The evidence: The bird appeared wild, was un-banded and had all its toes intact.
The bird occurred at the proper time for its species to be migrating and at a location that has, in the past, held other migrant waterfowl from essentially the same source location as B. leucopsis. A Pink-footed Goose, Anser brachyrhynchus, was located in this same field with an apparent Greater White-fronted Goose, Anser albifrons, of the Greenland race flavirostris on 21 March 1998 and several additional flavirostris White-fronted Geese have been there noted in each season since.
The goose was in the company of several thousand Canada Geese, Branta canadensis, including birds that had been neck-banded as migrants or as nesting birds, and the bands indicate that at least part of this migrant flock had origins in or near Greenland. This was in fact similar to evidence that allowed the committee to accept the Pink-footed Goose to the state list, the first for the Lower 48 states (see Ninth Report).
According to experts in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as well as their counterparts in Canada and Greenland, Barnacle Goose numbers are exploding on their Arctic breeding grounds, as are most other Arctic nesting geese.
According to experts in the field of aviculture, the numbers of Barnacle Geese in captivity has probably been declining through the past decade, a consequence of economic and legislative factors.
The 2002 Connecticut Barnacle Goose was part of a seemingly small invasion of the species in New England and in the Mid-Atlantic states, with several birds located in New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and even a bit farther south.
Even in the face of this voluminous circumstantial evidence, the committee acted carefully and worked diligently to not act in haste. The ARCC has at its disposal a voting category that allows us to accept a species even though we cannot definitely prove that the individual in question is wild. When the bird has been properly identified and the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate a wild origin and there is little or no evidence to the contrary, we believe it is responsible to accept the record under our voting category, Accept - Origin Uncertain. Species accepted under this category are fully accepted onto the state list and enjoy the same status as any other bona fide vagrant. We believe that the disclaimer simply reflects the truth in a situation that is essentially unknowable.
 
Curtis Croulet said:
I asked about a specific hypothetical situation: Jackson et al seeing an IBWO. Your answer was that, no, you still wouldn't accept it without photo or video. The public fame of the ornithologists didn't matter. I respect that. At least it's consistent. To answer your question about the Eskimo Curlew, if there are multiple observers, and if they are of good reputation as ornithologists, I'd probably accept a good written description and drawing. Good thing for you that I'm not on one of those committees, huh. If such a situation arose in California (and this applies to IBWO, too), as I understand the workings of the CBRC, the bird would probably go on the "review" list, pending better evidence. It's sort of a limbo between full acceptance and outright rejection. I think that's a fair way to treat it.

Edited to add: Eskimo Curlew isn't on the list of birds I'd expect to see, so I haven't spent much time acquainting myself with them. Apparently the Eskimo Curlew can be easily confused with the Whimbrel. This increases the degree of expertise expected of the observers claiming to see it -- i.e., they'd have to be known shorebird experts. Would a photo even be sufficient for convincing ID?

Ah, so I think we have agreement here, or at least we have the beginning of an agreement. We only have one sighting with more than one observer. There are no other encounters with multiple observers - despite two years of trying.

The IBWO needs to sit in the pile pending better evidence. You know, that is all that the skeptics are saying.
 
I wanted to set the public record straight about something. A few months ago, an anonymous person provided false information about me to someone who himself posts on this forum using a pseudonym. I decided to stop participating on this forum because I thought it was wrong for the admins to allow anonymous individuals to post slander. If the original source had posted the information under his real name, that would have been different. If he had done that, however, he would have been exposed as nothing more than a slimeball. Besides, his cowardly way of operating is to smear other birders behind the scenes or to recruit others to do it for him.

Years ago, this individual—let’s call him gasbag--didn’t like the fact that I found a hotspot in Virginia. I found lots of rare birds at this site and shared it with many birders, who also saw most of the rare birds that I reported. One morning, I arrived early at the hotspot after a front came through. Within minutes, I found an adult male Connecticut Warbler (one of only two that I have seen in migration--most fall migrants that are seen are hatch-year birds). A short distance up the trail, I saw a hatch-year Connecticut. Gasbag showed up a short while later, but he didn’t see either of the Connecticuts. Late in the morning, I visited an area just north of this park (but along the same creek) and found another hatch-year Connecticut. Gasbag went into overdrive after I reported seeing three Connecticuts that day, which was the most incredible day I have ever experienced during migration. At the time, gasbag was doing a lot of birding with another individual and recruited him to help smear my name. The other birder (who I had never even met) repeatedly harassed me about my sightings and got very nasty.

There has been an interesting turn of events. In recent years, the other birder (who now serves as an editor for an ornithology journal) has been very friendly and has contacted me several times about birds that I continue to find at the hotspot (such as the first territorial Mourning Warbler at lower elevations in Virginia). In February, he asked me to take two of his friends into the Pearl to see the ivorybills. I recently asked him about the unfortunate events of the past. He apologized and told me that he no longer has anything to do with gasbag. If he encounters him in the field, he doesn't say a word to him.

It's nice that the truth came out in this case, but it doesn't change my opinion of birders. Many birders are nice people, but too many of them try to get ahead by constantly putting others down. This is why I stopped having anything to do with birders many years ago. I have done almost all of my birding on my own since then. I even took a solo trip deep into the Amazon. I decided to share my ivorybill search because information on this important conservation issue needs to see the light of day. Unfortunately, there are others who are not publicizing their sightings (including big name birders and others with strong credentials).
 
Piltdownwoman said:
Ah, so I think we have agreement here, or at least we have the beginning of an agreement. We only have one sighting with more than one observer. There are no other encounters with multiple observers - despite two years of trying.
What is this fascination with multiple observers? If two observers had totally different angles in a sighting or focused on different parts of the bird, it would be of some use. For example, suppose one of them locked onto the wings and saw the trailing edges and the other focused on the head and neck and saw that the head was all black and also saw part of one of the dorsal stripes. The sum of these observations would obviously be better than either of them on its own.

In my opinion, the emphasis on multiple observers is overblown. It seems to be based on the assumption that everyone is a liar. It's relatively easy to root out liars. There is usually something obvious that sticks out about their story. To assume that professionals from a prestigious university are liars is ridiculous. It's conceivable that one liar could work his way into such a position. But several?

In my opinion, multiple sightings by one individual are at least as significant as a single sighting by two individuals. How many of you have taken a trip to a new area, saw a new species, weren't sure what it was, but then saw it again and then had no doubt? Maybe I'm different, but I've had the experience many times. I would find a bird and wonder, "What in the heck is that?" Later on, I would see it again and realize what it was. I have had this happen more than once with a bird that I had researched and was hoping to see, but the bird just didn't look like I imagined it from the artwork in the field guide.

As Tim Gallagher discusses in his book, some of the observers in the Big Woods expressed doubts about their sightings. This is only natural when seeing an ultra-rare bird for the first time. I had the same feeling after my first sightings on February 2 and 3 and openly admitted it in my log. But no doubts remained after having four more sightings and hearing kents and double raps several times in the same area. If I only had the first sighting, I wouldn't feel any surer of it if John James Audubon and James Tanner had seen it with me. The ivorybill is an easy species to identify. An experienced birder wouldn't mistake a pileated for an ivorybill six times. So there are either ivorybills in the Pearl or I'm lying. Ah, but my sightings are supported by hard evidence. Take a close look at the head-neck of the bird in my video and see how different it is from a pileated. For those who have trouble viewing the Powerpoint presentation, I have posted images of this comparison here...

http://www.fishcrow.com/winter06.html

If you are able to view the Powerpoint presentation, it is easier to see the differences by toggling between the pages. Then take a careful look at the other evidence and consider the fact that there have been several other reports from the Pearl.
 
Last edited:
why o why are you so suprised that multiple observer records are treated more seriouly than single observer ones...?

especially when there have been 'stringer' rumours of the single observer doing the rounds, (bear in mind i know very little about this and that you've brought it up and i'm not implying anything...) Simple as that really... two observations versus one... two readings versus one... not infallible but obviously more reliable on the whole. Years and years of assessment of rarity claims in numerous countries have shown it to be the case time and time again, personal grudges notwithstanding.

multiples will ALWAYS be preferential, it's just human nature. And it's based on the fact that two people are less likely to make an error than one. Which is just true when it comes to bird records. And remember the IBWO records dried up when Cornell put people into pairs...

I had a two observer Black-eared Wheatear rejected, complete with field sketches that showed all salient points, sketched by an artisit friend in the field, was observed closely over an hour, but no one else saw it... i can't complain too much but can empathise a little, if i'd seen stuff repeatedly though, i'd expect less sympathy
 
Tim Allwood said:
why o why are you so suprised that multiple observer records are treated more seriouly than single observer ones...?

especially when there have been 'stringer' rumours of the single observer doing the rounds, (bear in mind i know very little about this and that you've brought it up and i'm not implying anything...) Simple as that really... two observations versus one... two readings versus one... not infallible but obviously more reliable on the whole. Years and years of assessment of rarity claims in numerous countries have shown it to be the case time and time again, personal grudges notwithstanding.

multiples will ALWAYS be preferential, it's just human nature. And it's based on the fact that two people are less likely to make an error than one. Which is just true when it comes to bird records. And remember the IBWO records dried up when Cornell put people into pairs...

I had a two observer Black-eared Wheatear rejected, complete with field sketches that showed all salient points, sketched by an artisit friend in the field, was observed closely over an hour, but no one else saw it... i can't complain too much but can empathise a little, if i'd seen stuff repeatedly though, i'd expect less sympathy
As I mentioned in my post, I'm not comparing multiple observer vs single observer reports of a single sighting. I'm comparing with multiple observations by a single observer. As I discussed in my post, there are definite advantages to having multiple observations. There are other reasons besides the ones that I stated. When there are two observers, there is little added benefit if they are standing beside each other, in which case they see the same event from approximately the same angle. When a single observer has multiple sightings from different angles and under different condition (e.g., the bird behaves in a different way), he gets new data each time rather than just multiple copies of essentially the same data.

It's good that you're not implying anything because this "stringer" talk is bullshit. I'm a very experienced birder. I don't hang out with birders, and I don't see eye to eye with them on some issues, but that doesn't have any bearing on my field skills. Do you seriously think that a birder who has made trips to Canada to study warblers on their breeding grounds, an extensive trip through Australia, a 12,500 mile trip around North America, and several trips to South America (including extensive solo trips) is incapable of identifying a pileated woodpecker? Give me a break.

The ivorybill is an easy bird to identify. As Tim Gallagher and others have said, it is clearly a different animal from a pileated when you see one. So it all boils down to the question of whether I'm making all this up. The answer to that question lies is in the comparison of necks and heads. These are very different for the two species. You claim that no birder with any "standing" wants to discuss this video. If birders really had no interest in discussing data, then birding would really be in a sorry state. It's actually not true, though. Many birders (including some big names) have looked at the data and are 100% convinced by it. Unfortunately, most of them are afraid to get involved.

If you are interested in having a serious discussion based on evidence, let's hear what you have to say about the neck-head analysis. There is much more evidence in that video, but let's start with just one thing. Please be serious about this. This is a very serious conservation issue. It's not a joke.
 
cinclodes said:
As I mentioned in my post, I'm not comparing multiple observer vs single observer reports of a single sighting. I'm comparing with multiple observations by a single observer. As I discussed in my post, there are definite advantages to having multiple observations. There are other reasons besides the ones that I stated. When there are two observers, there is little added benefit if they are standing beside each other, in which case they see the same event from approximately the same angle. When a single observer has multiple sightings from different angles and under different condition (e.g., the bird behaves in a different way), he gets new data each time rather than just multiple copies of essentially the same data.

It's good that you're not implying anything because this "stringer" talk is bullshit. I'm a very experienced birder. I don't hang out with birders, and I don't see eye to eye with them on some issues, but that doesn't have any bearing on my field skills. Do you seriously think that a birder who has made trips to Canada to study warblers on their breeding grounds, an extensive trip through Australia, a 12,500 mile trip around North America, and several trips to South America (including extensive solo trips) is incapable of identifying a pileated woodpecker? Give me a break.

The ivorybill is an easy bird to identify. As Tim Gallagher and others have said, it is clearly a different animal from a pileated when you see one. So it all boils down to the question of whether I'm making all this up. The answer to that question lies is in the comparison of necks and heads. These are very different for the two species. You claim that no birder with any "standing" wants to discuss this video. If birders really had no interest in discussing data, then birding would really be in a sorry state. It's actually not true, though. Many birders (including some big names) have looked at the data and are 100% convinced by it. Unfortunately, most of them are afraid to get involved.

If you are interested in having a serious discussion based on evidence, let's hear what you have to say about the neck-head analysis. There is much more evidence in that video, but let's start with just one thing. Please be serious about this. This is a very serious conservation issue. It's not a joke.

So, do you have any plans to post the unedited video?
 
Piltdownwoman said:
So, do you have any plans to post the unedited video?
I made the full video available on DVD months ago. In contrast to ridiculous claims to the contrary, I didn't make a penny off of it. By the way, it is currently impossible to "post" eleven and a half minutes of full quality video.
 
cinclodes said:
I made the full video available on DVD months ago. In contrast to ridiculous claims to the contrary, I didn't make a penny off of it. By the way, it is currently impossible to "post" eleven and a half minutes of full quality video.

Sooo. how do we get it - there isn't a link I could find on your website?.... and is it possible for you to "post"(I'm not sure why you use the "") clips that are even twice as long?

BTW, do you really think that one observer is a reliable as two or more?
 
Piltdownwoman said:
Sooo. how do we get it - there isn't a link I could find on your website?.... and is it possible for you to "post"(I'm not sure why you use the "") clips that are even twice as long?

BTW, do you really think that one observer is a reliable as two or more?

I don't know how many times I have been sent photos that 2, 3, 4 and more "birders" identified as a Costa's Hummingbird female that were clearly Black-chinned Hummingbirds like one "birder" who was there claimed it was. Yes. One observer can be MUCH more reliable than three or four.

Oh and by the way, how many have seen the excellent photographic "evidence" of a 24 foot alligator from north east Texas? Do photos lie?
 
cinclodes said:
As I mentioned in my post, I'm not comparing multiple observer vs single observer reports of a single sighting. I'm comparing with multiple observations by a single observer. As I discussed in my post, there are definite advantages to having multiple observations. There are other reasons besides the ones that I stated. When there are two observers, there is little added benefit if they are standing beside each other, in which case they see the same event from approximately the same angle. When a single observer has multiple sightings from different angles and under different condition (e.g., the bird behaves in a different way), he gets new data each time rather than just multiple copies of essentially the same data.

It's good that you're not implying anything because this "stringer" talk is bullshit. I'm a very experienced birder. I don't hang out with birders, and I don't see eye to eye with them on some issues, but that doesn't have any bearing on my field skills. Do you seriously think that a birder who has made trips to Canada to study warblers on their breeding grounds, an extensive trip through Australia, a 12,500 mile trip around North America, and several trips to South America (including extensive solo trips) is incapable of identifying a pileated woodpecker? Give me a break.

The ivorybill is an easy bird to identify. As Tim Gallagher and others have said, it is clearly a different animal from a pileated when you see one. So it all boils down to the question of whether I'm making all this up. The answer to that question lies is in the comparison of necks and heads. These are very different for the two species. You claim that no birder with any "standing" wants to discuss this video. If birders really had no interest in discussing data, then birding would really be in a sorry state. It's actually not true, though. Many birders (including some big names) have looked at the data and are 100% convinced by it. Unfortunately, most of them are afraid to get involved.

If you are interested in having a serious discussion based on evidence, let's hear what you have to say about the neck-head analysis. There is much more evidence in that video, but let's start with just one thing. Please be serious about this. This is a very serious conservation issue. It's not a joke.

Mike,

It is incredible that after spending all the time and effort you have in the field, recording and logging all relevent observations on a blog, making your background known to others so that they may decide for themselves whether you are credible or not, taking people out to the spot you claim to have seen them, providing unedited versions of your video to whomever wants one at cost for critique, losing and damaging expensive equipment in the field, providing comparisons that I think most any reasonably knowledgable birder would find compelling, answering just about every question asked, putting your very reputation on the line and so on that you still have the patience to deal with it. You are a perfect example of why people don't bother reporting their sightings of this species, it seems that you are always on the defense with your replies.

For what its worth Mike, I consider you one of the the most active and motivated people involved in the species recovery. You have initiated more debate and hope than anyone else and nobody can discredit your reports because the bird in question simply doesn't look like a pileated, or at the very least can't be ruled out as an IBWO. Maybe thats why you don't get deterred, after all you know what we all wish we did :)

Thanks for the effort,

Russ
 
Piltdownwoman said:
Sooo. how do we get it - there isn't a link I could find on your website?.... and is it possible for you to "post"(I'm not sure why you use the "") clips that are even twice as long?

BTW, do you really think that one observer is a reliable as two or more?
If you pm your address, I'll drop a copy in the mail. I posted clips about as large as possible. The upload limit is 5 megs. I don't understand the logic of having such a limit since there's a lot more space than that available.

As I stated in two posts above, I do indeed believe that multiple observations by one observer are better than one observation by multiple observers (unless perhaps the two observers have totally different observation angles).

There are other fallacies that birders cling to. Another is the concept of field notes. I believe field notes are useful if you see a bird that you have no a priori knowledge of. But I believe it's artificial to make a sketch of a known bird. In this case, everyone who is seriously searching for the ivorybill knows every detail of every field mark. If you see the bird flying from the side, for example, what information does a sketch provide beyond a verbal description, such as the following...

"When flushed, the bird flew away perpendicular to my line of sight. From this angle, I clearly saw that the white on the wing was on the trailing edge. I also noticed that the head appeared to be all dark and saw a white patch on the neck which must have been part of the right dorsal stripe."

As a scientist, I use a logical approach and don't cling to conventions or rules, unless they make sense.
 
Russ Jones said:
Mike,

It is incredible that after spending all the time and effort you have in the field, recording and logging all relevent observations on a blog, making your background known to others so that they may decide for themselves whether you are credible or not, taking people out to the spot you claim to have seen them, providing unedited versions of your video to whomever wants one at cost for critique, losing and damaging expensive equipment in the field, providing comparisons that I think most any reasonably knowledgable birder would find compelling, answering just about every question asked, putting your very reputation on the line and so on that you still have the patience to deal with it. You are a perfect example of why people don't bother reporting their sightings of this species, it seems that you are always on the defense with your replies.

For what its worth Mike, I consider you one of the the most active and motivated people involved in the species recovery. You have initiated more debate and hope than anyone else and nobody can discredit your reports because the bird in question simply doesn't look like a pileated, or at the very least can't be ruled out as an IBWO. Maybe thats why you don't get deterred, after all you know what we all wish we did :)

Thanks for the effort,

Russ
Thanks, Russ. There are indeed many others who have not come forward with reports. This is unfortunate, and it really baffles me. After the news came from Arkansas last year, I thought this entire decades-long episode of ivorybill insanity would come to an end. I expected other birders to get out into the field and find other populations.

I think we would probably all agree that, if ivorybills have hung on for more than 60 years since the Singer Tract was logged, then there must be several populations scattered about. In fact, this hypothesis is consistent with all of the observations over the years. Since I have seen them for myself, I am convinced that there are other populations. This is why I just made a 2000+ mile trip to Mississippi. I know for a fact that ivorybills exist in the Pearl. Based on the number of reports and the appearance of the habitat (which I visited last November), I believe there are also ivorybills in the Pascagoula.

The area that I visited last week is about halfway between the Pearl and the Pascagoula. Now do you see why I made that long trip? It would be huge to confirm that ivorybills are really there. It would be an indication that we are not just dealing with isolated populations. It would mean that these birds are able to survive in habitat of lower quality that lies between the best areas. The report from this area was as good as it gets. It was of a perched bird that was seen from close range by a hunter, who has lots of experience in the field. I believe this guy because (a) he decribed things about the bird that I don't know how he could know if he didn't really see it and (b) I have known his father for many years.
 
cinclodes said:
"When flushed, the bird flew away perpendicular to my line of sight. From this angle, I clearly saw that the white on the wing was on the trailing edge. I also noticed that the head appeared to be all dark and saw a white patch on the neck which must have been part of the right dorsal stripe."

Unfortunately cinclodes this sort of description may be one of the reasons that some people are not convinced by your observations. It is vague and you are clearly making assumptions instead of observations in some instances. ie
cinclodes said:
"which must have been"

A field sketch would show exactly where the white was on the birds neck, if you saw exactly where the white was on the birds neck. I can only assume that you didn't see where the white was on the birds neck which is why you dont describe or draw it. Therefore this fieldmark is consistent with either PIWO or IBWO.

Did the head appear to be all dark because it was or because you had a poor view?

We have seen that PIWOs can appear to show lots of white in the wing, and from certain angles white on the underside appears to be on the upper side. If you draw or describe exactly where the white was on the wing then you are being more precise than the description you have quoted to us. Was it on the primaries, was it on the secondaries, was it on the secondaries plus a bit of the primaries? If you can't be specific then your views may have been very poor, in fact you may have been seeing the underwing for all anyone else knows.

Field notes reveal the quality of a sighting as well as the details of it.

If you don't write field notes, when do you write down what you have seen - later that day?, the next day?, the next week? Retrospective notes are notoriously unreliable. Perhaps you could dictate your descriptions into a tape recorder at the time?

Having said all that, I have read most of your reports and I would be very surprised if any competent birder could repeatedly mistake the white on the under-side of a PIWO wing for white on the upper side of a IBWOs wing, but vague descriptions and your lack of field notes do not inspire confidence.

There are many single observers who are outstanding birders and very reliable, however there are others who are not. In some cases the former degenerate into the latter. Those of us who don't know you and cant be with you in the field can only form an opinion based on your field notes (and field sketches).
 
Another idea (and probably done, too). What about asking locals to send in pictures of any woodpeckers they see? If you offer, say a couple of dollars per photo (I know, that money thing again...) then you may strike lucky as well as having a lot more people on the lookout.
It may well be that many people don't know what one looks like, so they may be seeing them and not really noticing what they are.
 
During this past season, public access to the Big Woods was restricted. I agree that Ivory-bill searchers could probably benefit from some creativity, but IIRC Tanner tried to recruit locals to find birds for him, without success.
 
colonelboris said:
...It may well be that many people don't know what one looks like, so they may be seeing them and not really noticing what they are.

People have been seeing it nonstop for the last sixty years and are always called stupid, liars, or worse. Some clearly were mistaken pileateds. Some would be mistaken red headed woodpeckers. Some were ivory bills and were reported historically in the hot spots of today. People have taken photos in the past but were afraid to go public because of the abuse that is associated therewith.

Look at cinclodes for an example. Ask Steve Sheridan.
 
Bonsaibirder made some good points about including more details. I always wrote down my notes the same day, which was usually a few hours later since I mostly searched in the morning and worked later in the day. If I tried to produce field notes, it would definitely not reveal anything about the quality of the sighting since I'm one of the least talented artists in the world.

I definitely saw where the white patch was located. It was nearly dorsal and was far behind the head near where the neck meets the back. A pileated doesn't have white in that location. The head was definitely all dark. I had the bird in binoculars for a few seconds. Although I was focusing my attention on the wings (as I had trained myself to do), I saw the head well enough that I would have seen the large amount of white on a pileated's head.

I clearly saw white on the trailing edge of the top of the right wing. Since the view was from the side, it was clear that the white was on the trailing edge and that I was seeing the top of the wing on downstrokes. It was a long strip along the trailing edge, and it had the right width, but I wasn't able to discern the exact shape since the flaps were rapid. I did see these details quite clearly in two other sightings. When I flushed one at close range on Feb. 16, it flew directly away from me and I clearly saw the trailing edges that nearly met in the middle. When I saw one fly low across the water on Feb. 17, the view was from the side, but the bird was low enough that I clearly saw the trailing edges of the tops of both wings. One of the things that struck me about that sighting is the sharp demarcation between the white trailing edge and the dark leading edge.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top