RSS Feed (xml)
Some people have claimed that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are so much larger than Pileated Woodpeckers that the difference is immediately obvious and that birds in the field can be identified almost by size alone, even when flying away quickly or through the trees. So, here's a photo of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and a Pileated Woodpecker side by side, taken at the Harvard Museum of Natural History. You tell me, does size matter?If you think that IBWOs are still so much larger than Pileateds, then you have to answer this--even if this Pileated is "overstuffed" and the IBWO is "understuffed" here, are the size differences so great that they would be immediately obvious in the field, especially under difficult viewing conditions, at a distance, without the ability to make an actual side by side comparison?
Here's some perhaps useless "facts" that show how problematic it is to depend on size to differentiate between these species. From the Birds of North America series, overall length of the two species is almost identical:
PIWO 40-49 cm
IBWO 48-53 cm
Northern Pileateds are the bigger ones, but still, this may not be a huge difference accurately observed on distant birds in flight.
As for weight, some have argued that IBWO is a lot heavier. Here's the "difference":
PIWO 250-350 g (248-297 g, mean 273 g for southern birds)
IBWO 454-567 g
While this might look like a big difference, here's the kicker. We only have three weight measurements for IBWO: "20 oz.", "1 lb.", and "weighed upwards of 1 lb." It is almost impossible at this point to know how accurate these measurements were, how they were made, or how precise. Even if these measurements were completely accurate and precise, with only three measurements we wouldn't have much to go on to determine what the true variation in size was with the species. So, without more information, it is best to take these measures with more than a grain of salt.
If this were a normal bird identification problem, we'd have many observers with experiece with both species in the field pouring over lots of photos of side by side comparisons to really show how different the two species are, and how reliable this feature is in the field. Right now we have none of that because we have no recent photos and no side by side comparisons of living birds. As with most everything else about IBWOs, their apparent size in the field is almost completely speculative at this point. If they really are bigger in Pileated in the field, then it still remains to be worked out how that really translate into a workable field character and under what conditions. We're a long way from having that, so any reliance on impressions of size (which are notoriously unreliable on lone birds anyway) as a field mark is completely premature in discussions of possible IBWO sightings.
7 comments:
I think this photo of IBWO museum specimens (from National Geographic) gives a much better indication of the tremendous size differences that can be found in preserved carcasses:
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0612/feature6/gallery4.html
The real point though is (as I've reiterated many times before) NOT that every IBWO sighting will include a size differential from PIWOs, but that WHEN size DOES jump out as a noticeable characteristic it is potentially indicative of IBWOs (indeed many of the early writers who saw both birds point out the size difference repeatedly). It is no different than making the distinction between Cooper's and Sharp-shinned, or Hairy and Downy on size alone --- it can't always be done, but it can be done in instances when the size and bulk is well beyond the overlap range.
Thanks cyberthrush. And we should all remember, that birds shouldn't be identified by only one fieldmark--be it size, shape, a plumage mark, or behavior. Of course, that goes for IBWO, or Hairy Woodpecker, or whatever.
sorry, the Nat. Geog. URL above didn't fully transfer. Here it is again (on 2 lines):
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/
ngm/0612/feature6/gallery4.html
or, if you end up at the main article site again go to the "photo gallery" and to photo #4.
Check photo #5 in the gallery, too!
Just give up.
True Believers know they are correct. Data be damned! Full speed ahead Mr. Chekov!
They are 40-60 percent larger than a lowly Pileated. I've seen them, and swear it's true.
Pat Robertson said so today...
Later...
I saw one on the gulf coastal are of Louisiana in 1975 and I know the one I saw was bigger than most of the pilated I have seen but that was only one.
I have a cabin in central Alabama on Peckerwood Creek. There are many Pileated Woodpeckers there, & they are huge easily being in the size range listed for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, so size isn't a good way to differentiate between them in my opinion.
They would break windows in the cabin with their beaks, until I found out, that I needed to keep the blinds closed, so the woodpeckers couldn't see inside. I remember one morning being awakened by the sound of a loud hammer blow. I looked, & it wasn't a hammer. It was a 21 or 22 inch long Pileated Woodpecker hammering a window pane, one blow at a time. I measured it against the pane to fairly accurately judge it's size. It noticed me & flew away, before it broke the window. Ironically, on the wall next to that window, hung a picture of a Pileated Woodpecker, like a "Wanted" poster, so I was also able to make a positive ID.
I'd had to replace a half dozen or so broken window panes that year already (late 1990's). I suspected, that it must be a bird breaking them, because bird droppings were left on the inside of the cabin, but I didn't know what kind of bird, until I caught one in the act! I did some research & found that if birds can't see inside, they won't try to break the window. I don't remember, if it was specific to Pileated Woodpeckers or birds in general, but leaving the blinds closed worked.
There may have been Woodpeckers around Peckerwood Creek for centuries, because the Creek Indians named the creek "Ochucola", which it was called on the map before 1900, when it began being listed in English instead. Like many Native American languages, Creek Indian names of places, are verbal, so "Ochucola", which means something like "Woodpecker's Hanging Out Creek" or "Woodpecker's Roosting Creek", translates to English as "Peckerwood Creek", an old time way of saying Woodpecker Creek. Since "Peckerwood" is a pejorative term, it probably would have been better to leave it as Ochucola, as most of the creeks around here, are still on the map in their original, untranslated name!
Post a Comment