Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (35 Viewers)

[Bonsaibirder]

Note how even though we all know how wide the black trailing edge is on PIWO it looks much thinner from this angle, while the bird is moving, than it actually is. Also note how some times the black trailing edge is visible on the underwing and sometimes it is not.

The PIWOs start flapping fast and then slow down to an undulating flight with slower wingbeats. I wonder if they would continue flapping at that speed with that style if they were amongst dense trees as the Luneau bird was, as opposed to crossing a fairly wide open area as in this video?

Interesting videos Bigdad.

This is a good point that I was curious about. Last winter I set up a suet feeder for pileateds in the backyard. The height and projected retreat path were set up to mimic the Luneau bird as much as possible. The bird was spooked into fleeing away in a similar manner. The camera was probably of similar quality.

The differences are clear to me. The pileated always brings its wings into the body after the downstroke, giving it the undulating pattern. While one can find a still frame showing a lot of white in the wings from behind, the overall pattern of the bird in flight is dark with flashing white. The Luneau bird had a constant rowing motion, did not undulate, and showed white constantly in the trailing edge.

The pileated videos can be downloaded at http://birdviewing.com/upload/NolinPileatedVideos.wmv

thanks to Chris Geraghty for putting this up on his site!

 

[Edward woodwood]

I am amazed at the attempts to 'analyse' this in terms of flight pattern and then use that to imply the Luneau bird is an IBWO

in the words of Bill Hicks... well how scientific! ya got me.

there is no undualtion in the first part of flight, as would be expected. And of course, as Bonsai mentions, a bird in the Luneau habitat and situation will fly with less undualtion, if any at all, compared to the open habitat in the video above where the bird flies like, er, a woodpecker in open habitat...

if you pause the video a few times, doesn't it ring any alarm bells at all about the luneau video? lots of white, trailing edge not visible in comparable shots... and this is in better focus!

Tim

 

[Snowy1]

I don't see what the habitat has to do with flight pattern - in both videos the habitat is open enough to allow the bird to fly normally. There is no "special" flight due to "special" habitat in either the Nolin video or the Luneau video.

Flight pattern is certainly a thing to look at when trying to id any bird, actually.
It is important to look at everything while not letting a one's initial thoughts and ideas cloud judgement.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I disagree Snowy1, the Luneau bird is flying between fairly close trees and turns quite sharply during its escape flight. It also does not land during the video. The other video shows PIWOs flying across open land with no trees then approaching a large tree upon which they land. It is quite possible that they have chosen their landing site within a fraction of a second of taking off. The Nolin video is very interesting but the situations are somewhat different.

I don't see what the habitat has to do with flight pattern - in both videos the habitat is open enough to allow the bird to fly normally. There is no "special" flight due to "special" habitat in either the Nolin video or the Luneau video.

Agreed !

It is important to look at everything while not letting a one's initial thoughts and ideas cloud judgement.

 

[MMinNY]

I think the most salient point is the observation that "The pileated always brings its wings into the body after the downstroke. . ." This trait strikes me as a more valuable identifying feature than flight pattern per se.

I recently saw a PIWO flying rapidly across a highway, in a straight line, but the 'wing-tucking' was still apparent. I don't know if PIWOS "always" bring the wings to the body (perhaps someone can elaborate on this), but it is a readily observable characteristic that occurs (at least) frequently during PIWO flight. It is not present in either the Luneau video or Mike Collins's footage.

This is a good point that I was curious about. Last winter I set up a suet feeder for pileateds in the backyard. The height and projected retreat path were set up to mimic the Luneau bird as much as possible. The bird was spooked into fleeing away in a similar manner. The camera was probably of similar quality.

The differences are clear to me. The pileated always brings its wings into the body after the downstroke, giving it the undulating pattern. While one can find a still frame showing a lot of white in the wings from behind, the overall pattern of the bird in flight is dark with flashing white. The Luneau bird had a constant rowing motion, did not undulate, and showed white constantly in the trailing edge.

The pileated videos can be downloaded at http://birdviewing.com/upload/NolinPileatedVideos.wmv

thanks to Chris Geraghty for putting this up on his site!

 

[Edward woodwood]

wing tucking will be dependant on situation too

of course the luneau vid doesn't show it - the bird is clearing off at high speed

notice the PIWOs don't tuck in wings in 'early' flight?

Tim

 

[MMinNY]

In all the footage posted by bigdad, the wing tucking begins very soon after take off. I don't have the technical skills to run a frame by frame comparison or count the wing beats in bigdad's film, but I still think the lack of tucking is significant in both the Luneau footage and Mike's.

wing tucking will be dependant on situation too

of course the luneau vid doesn't show it - the bird is clearing off at high speed

notice the PIWOs don't tuck in wings in 'early' flight?

Tim

 

[Edward woodwood]

but I still think the lack of tucking is significant in both the Luneau footage and Mike's.

you may do

but it isn't

I haven't seen the full Collins footage, just the still, but no one of any standing thinks it's of an IBWO

 

[gws]

you may do

but it isn't

I haven't seen the full Collins footage, just the still, but no one of any standing thinks it's of an IBWO

and of course you decide who is of standing.

 

[Edward woodwood]

okay

howabout names of anyone who you think is a respected figure in the birding world who thinks it is please?

Tim

 

[London Birder]

Still discussing that video ... it's a blind alley

 

[MMinNY]

To the extent that debating the video is not going to change anyone's mind, you're right. Still, I think there's some value in discussing the issues when new information is presented.

As to who thinks Mike's video shows an IBWO, Julie Zickefoose has stated that she does, and Tim Barksdale implied as much upthread.

This obviously won't be settled until high quality photographs or video are obtained, by Mike Collins or somebody else. I remain confident that it's only a matter of time (I'd bet it will be within a year) before that happens.

Still discussing that video ... it's a blind alley

 

[Snowy1]

Much to the dismay of the skeptics, the Luneau video has been confirmed by Cornell to be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. In 5 years and in 50 years, it will still be an Ivorybill. There is no more analysis that can be made on the video and there can be nothing to add to the video that would prove it otherwise. Since these steps have already taken place, even if the IBWO is never seen again, it will be recorded in history as having been seen in 2004 and 2005 in Arkansas.

Whether the individual believes it or not is entirely up to that person.

 

[colonelboris]

On a 'outside the box' thought, many birds have striking patterns in the UV spectrum (so I've heard). I wonder if there's any difference between the two types and if it can be picked up on a passive UV camera. After all, if there are IBWOs (thanks for the explaination) we wouldn't want to give them large doses of radiation...

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Much to the dismay of the skeptics, the Luneau video has been confirmed by Cornell to be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Just saying that Cornell have confirmed it doesn't make it so. It depends what you mean by confirmation. They have confirmed that THEY are confident that it is an IBWO which is not the same as confirming that it IS one.

By definition confirmation requires providing irrefutable evidence. Whether you believe it or not, you can hardly call it irrefutable since it has been repeatedly refuted, including within the pages of the same journal which published the original findings.

Whether the individual believes it or not is entirely up to that person.

If it was confirmed, I suggest that most sane people would believe it..

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Colonel Boris

If we can get one PROPERLY in front of a UV camera then we can get one PROPERLY in fornt of a normal camera - end of story if that happens.

On a 'outside the box' thought, many birds have striking patterns in the UV spectrum (so I've heard). I wonder if there's any difference between the two types and if it can be picked up on a passive UV camera. After all, if there are IBWOs (thanks for the explaination) we wouldn't want to give them large doses of radiation...

 

[gws]

Just saying that Cornell have confirmed it doesn't make it so. It depends what you mean by confirmation. They have confirmed that THEY are confident that it is an IBWO which is not the same as confirming that it IS one.

By definition confirmation requires providing irrefutable evidence. Whether you believe it or not, you can hardly call it irrefutable since it has been repeatedly refuted, including within the pages of the same journal which published the original findings.




If it was confirmed, I suggest that most sane people would believe it..

Most sane people do.

 

[Snowy1]

Not true Bonsai... Cornell has not said they "are confident" but rather have stated outright that it is an IBWO. By this alone I stand by my statement about the IBWO recorded in history as having been seen in 2004-05.

Just saying that Cornell have confirmed it doesn't make it so. It depends what you mean by confirmation. They have confirmed that THEY are confident that it is an IBWO which is not the same as confirming that it IS one.

By definition confirmation requires providing irrefutable evidence. Whether you believe it or not, you can hardly call it irrefutable since it has been repeatedly refuted, including within the pages of the same journal which published the original findings.




If it was confirmed, I suggest that most sane people would believe it..

 

[colonelboris]

Colonel Boris

If we can get one PROPERLY in front of a UV camera then we can get one PROPERLY in fornt of a normal camera - end of story if that happens.

Ah, but if there was a very definite difference in pattern, there's be no argument about how much white on the wings, etc.
If the pattern was that different, you wouldn't necessarily need to get a great shot of it, much the same as differentiating a jay and a magpie - similar shapes, different patterns (and colours).

Edit this is only a theory - there may be no difference at all...

 

[curunir]

Just saying that Cornell have confirmed it doesn't make it so. It depends what you mean by confirmation. They have confirmed that THEY are confident that it is an IBWO which is not the same as confirming that it IS one.

By definition confirmation requires providing irrefutable evidence. Whether you believe it or not, you can hardly call it irrefutable since it has been repeatedly refuted, including within the pages of the same journal which published the original findings.

If it was confirmed, I suggest that most sane people would believe it..

Couldn't find irrefutable anywhere in the definition of confirm. All I could find was "CONFIRM implies the removing of doubts by an authoritative statement or indisputable fact <confirmed the reports>." online. (Then again I didn't look too hard.)