Pileated Woodpecker Work from Around the Net

I’m looking forward to returning to Louisiana at the end of the month and have high hopes that our trail cams will reveal just what’s removing bark from the trees in our search area.

In the meantime, I thought I’d compile a new group of links to images showing bark scaling (without accompanying excavation) done or suspected to have been done by Pileated Woodpeckers. Obviously long dead snags are excluded. Compare these images with the work we suspect to have been done by ivorybills, all on live or freshly dead wood. As discussed in this and other posts, it’s our hypothesis that the differences are anatomically determined.

One example.


And another (scroll down).

Apparently a long dead snag, suspected PIWO, note small chips on the ground and the way they appear to have been flaked rather than pried off.

I suspect the work from Congaree shown on this Cornell Mobile Search Team page is Pileated. As the commentary indicates, it’s somewhat consistent with what would be expected for IBWO, but it’s patchy and not extensive:

A couple of additional examples.

This appears to be a softwood. (Our diagnostic criteria include only hardwoods). Even so, note the layered appearance:

Another softwood, also showing the tendency to flake bark off in layers rather than knock off large chunks:

Another pine.

Small hardwood.

Hard to tell the age of this snag, but note the layered appearance on the right. The apparently stripped limb in the foreground appears to be long dead:


Trail Cam Photos Revisited

Frank recently found a series of images from our trail cam deployment discussed here. These photographs, taken with a second camera, are of very poor quality, but they show what is clearly a Pileated Woodpecker on the target snag. Frank’s discovery led us to re-examine some of the images discussed in Frank’s post and elsewhere on the site because they gave us a reference object to assess the size of the birds in two other low quality trail cam photos.

IMG_2735-1 IMG_2736 IMG_2737 IMG_2738 IMG_2739

Based on this reference object and informed by outside evaluations, we’re confident that the “mystery bird” discussed in this post is in fact a Red-headed Woodpecker. (We still concur with the author’s analysis of the other image discussed in the post.) The bird is clearly behind the tree but not very far from it, and it is simply too small to be anything else. Despite my initial interest in this photo, I had been leaning toward Red-headed based on feedback from a number of people and on the length of the tail.


I have always thought that this was the most intriguing image in the series, although some reviewers have disagreed.


I’ve also always believed that the bird was behind the snag and in front of the somewhat more distant small branches, which would mean it’s large. Frank, who has by now reviewed perhaps 1 million trail cam images, has always agreed with this interpretation.

Frank’s discovery of the Pileated sequence led me to re-examine this photograph and dig a little deeper. One reviewer suggested that motion blur made it impossible to make any judgments about size or distance from the camera. In response, I did a bit of research and found Focus Magic, a forensic program designed to reduce or eliminate motion blur.

The results of running the image (bird only) through Focus Magic are interesting. (No other processing was done.)

Image processed with Focus Magic. Setting for a 35 degree angle and a blur distance setting of 13 out of 20

Image processed with Focus Magic. Setting for a 35 degree angle and a blur distance setting of 13 out of 20. The object was selected using the lasso tool in Photoshop, making it possible to de-blur the moving bird without affecting the rest of the image.

I shared this processed image with Louis Shackleton, a professional photographer friend who has a background in ornithology. I also sent Louis one of the Pileated images and these two other trail cam photos that were taken within an hour and ten minutes of the first, on December 7, 2014.



The first of these shows what we believe to be either a Red-headed or an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight and behind the snag. The other shows an intriguingly shaped but badly blurred bird in flight, passing between the camera and the snag. (The motion blur in this image is so severe that I was unable to make any meaningful improvements using Focus Magic.) Louis had this to say about the photographs he reviewed:

“ . . .I concur that the first image is the most interesting. Comparing that and the image of the PIWO on the tree, it seems to be larger, [and] as you say, I think it’s beyond the snag. The second image, it’s also beyond the snag, but there’s no way to gauge how far. The third image, it’s definitely in front of the snag, but also no way to tell how far in front.”

Frank and I interpret the photograph as follows. It shows a long-necked, long-tailed, slender-bodied bird that is somewhat larger than a Pileated Woodpecker flying upwards at about a 35 degree angle. There is white on the trailing edge of the wing, although it’s unclear whether this white is on the underside of the left wing, the upper side of the right wing, or both. We do not believe this white to be an artifact, since it appears faintly in the unaltered image; it becomes more fully resolved when the blur is eliminated; it is still present even at a blur distance of 20, the highest Focus Magic setting, when image clarity breaks down significantly.

Focus Magic processed image with blur distance set at 5

Focus Magic processed image with blur distance set at 5

Focus Magic processed image with blur distance set to 20

Focus Magic processed image with blur distance set to 20

A couple of considerably more ambiguous features are also intriguing. The bird appears to have a fairly distinct and sizeable bill, and in the Focus Magic iteration in which the white is most clearly defined (blur distance 13), there’s a hint of red on the head, although this could easily be an artifact. While the William Rhein film of an Imperial Woodpecker in flight was shot at a different angle, we think the profile and structure of the IMWO in that footage strongly resemble our mystery bird.

Screen capture of Imperial Woodpecker in flight

Screen capture of Imperial Woodpecker in flight from the film by William Rhein

Screen cap of Imperial Woodpecker in flight, shortly after take-off, at a different angle, but with similar wing position.

Screen capture of Imperial Woodpecker in flight, shortly after take-off, at a different angle, but with similar wing position.

Edited to add: To facilitate comparing our mystery bird with the Imperial Woodpecker in the frame shown above, I’ve created a composite image using the 13-35 de-blurred image, which I’ve also brightened. In addition to flying downward, the Imperial is angled slightly away from the camera, foreshortening the neck and obscuring the bill.Composite

It has been observed that there’s nothing to prove our mystery bird is a woodpecker, and that’s a fair point; however, the size, shape, and apparent white on the back of the wing are all consistent with Ivory-billed Woodpecker. We realize that this is far from conclusive but can think of few alternative interpretations, all of which are problematic.

Guest Post: A Respected Birder’s Perspective on a Couple of Images

About our Guest blogger:

Greg Links


Biggest Week Field Trip Leader 

Greg has lived in and birded Northwest Ohio since the age of 7. He has served as President, Vice President, Field Trips Chairman and Rare Bird Alert Compiler for the Toledo Naturalists’ Association, one of the largest, longest-standing and most respected Ohio nature clubs. A former member of the Ohio Bird Records Committee and author of “The Status of the Birds of Northwest Ohio”, there are few people who know the local birds and birding spots better than Greg. Known for his enthusiasm and high energy, Greg has led successful expeditions to Central and South America, Africa, Mexico and all over the US and Canada, and recently co-founded a small birding tour company. As much as he enjoys traveling for birds, there is nowhere he’d rather be in May than right here in the western Lake Erie region. 

Greg contacted me about two weeks ago and expressed enthusiasm about the material on our website. It was very gratifying to get such a positive response from a birder of his stature. After a couple of additional emails back and forth, we invited Greg to join us the field and to do a guest post on what he finds most intriguing. We’re pleased that he agreed to do both and are looking forward to his visit. Here’s what he has to say, with a couple of parentheticals and links from me:

Like so many birders, I have long been captivated by the mere mention of “Ivory-billed Woodpecker.” As a child, I stared with wonder at the illustrations of the Ivorybill in my Golden guide and Peterson guide. Published in 1966, the Golden Guide said it was “on the verge of extinction…last reported from the deep forests of TX, LA, SC and FL.” This was more than 2 decades after Tanner’s seminal work in Louisiana’s Singer Tract. Since then, “unverified” reports have filtered in from Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and elsewhere. If you are reading this, then you surely have seen photos taken of an East Texas bird, video taken in Arkansas, video taken in Florida and sound recordings of various call notes and knocks from different locations. The people behind many of these aren’t your average backyard feeder watcher. They are scientists, teachers, ornithologists, experienced outdoorspeople whose reputations and even lives would be shaped by their observations. That they would be incapable of using reason and logic over emotion and “want-to” in every single instance seems preposterous to me. The burden of proof for establishing this species’ continued survival has become unimaginably high.

I’m not sure why or when looking for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers became akin to looking for the Loch Ness Monster or Sasquatch.  With 20/20 hindsight, I recall the Gene Sparling sighting of 2004 in Arkansas that turned into the David Luneau video that turned into the Cornell University conservation event of the century and wonder if that had been managed differently, would there be so little attention to the efforts since. In 2006, Geoff Hill and his Auburn group in Florida managed to compile some fascinating and in my opinion, diagnostic evidence of the IBWO’s existence. That evidence received virtually no attention from the so-called experts. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, other than perhaps for fear of misplaced ridicule from colleagues.

As written on the pages of this blog, and according to multiple sources, there have been “controversial” sightings in 1946, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1958, 1959, 1962, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1999, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Since 2006, there have been sightings in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Despite my own search efforts here in the US, my only experience with Campephilus woodpeckers is in the New World tropics. I have seen and heard Red-necked, Crimson-crested and Pale-billed Woodpeckers and each and every time I have encountered one, I’ve been taken back to my early days of looking at that Golden Guide, imagining what it would be like to see an Ivorybill.

Undeterred (and/or encouraged!) by events of the past or potential backlash from the present, Project Coyote is undertaking perhaps the most prominent known search today in the United States. There are two pieces I’d like to discuss.

Trail Camera Photo A



First, let’s orient ourselves. The positioning of the wings tells us this bird’s head is at the top of the bird and the tail is below (short orange arrow pointing to tail). While I can’t be sure, I believe we are looking at the upperparts of the bird, not the underparts. If true, then we can eliminate Pileated based on the extent and location of the white. Even if we are looking at the underparts, the white on the wing is not consistent with Pileated and is similar to the pattern shown in this photograph of an ivorybill in flight. This leaves us with Red-headed Woodpecker to consider next. The upperparts of Red-headed Woodpecker show white along the trailing edge as this bird does. However, Red-headed Woodpecker also has a white rump that extends to above the tip of the tail. We don’t see that in this image. In addition, the white on a Red-headed Woodpecker’s trailing edge does not extend out to the primary feathers like this bird’s do. What about the structure of this bird? Size is difficult to ascertain from this photo but it certainly appears the bird is flying well behind the tree in the foreground, leaving an impression that its overall size is considerably larger than a Red-headed Woodpecker. The actual shape and length of the wings seem off for a Red-headed Woodpecker; though again, this could be deceiving based on any number of factors. In short, I would expect a Red-headed Woodpecker to show less white in the wings, more white in the rump, shorter, “stumpier” wings (from body to tip of primaries) that are very rounded and blunt at the tips. The tail also looks long for a Red-headed Woodpecker, however it isn’t as pointed as I’d typically expect to see on an Ivory-billed. My conclusion? Interesting, but inconclusive. (This and several other interesting images are discussed here, in Frank Wiley’s post, “The Pros and Cons of Trail Cams”. You can click on individual pictures to enlarge.)

Trail Camera Photo B


image001 Once again, let’s orient ourselves to the image before us. This is a large woodpecker that is obviously clinging to the left side of the largest tree in the photo (also taken with a trail camera that was aimed in an area where people had heard single note “kent” calls and double-knocks, consistent with the Campephilus genus). I feel the bird is looking directly away from the camera (others have said they believed the bird was looking directly at the camera). My opinion is that the light color we see in the middle of the bird’s head is not its bill, but rather a leaf from the small branch in the foreground. However, if you look closely, there is a white line that is visible on the bird’s neck (as what an Ivory-billed would show). Could this also be an artifact or twig? Perhaps, but I personally don’t think so. (A processed version of the image, discussed in this post, shows the white line more distinctly and suggests that the apparent red in the crest is an artifact; the raw image and the preceding frame are available there as well. This and another suggestive image were obtained in 2009-2010. More details are here.)

Let’s completely forget about color for a minute and look at shape and structure. First, the overall appearance of this bird looks very long and slender. I have seen hundreds (thousands?) of Pileated Woodpeckers in life and viewed countless photographs online of Pileateds clinging to a tree. Virtually all have had a bulkier look to them.

Even more striking to me is the neck. Specifically, its length and shape strongly suggest Campephilus. Almost every available image of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (as well as many other Campephilus species) shows a long, slender neck much like the bird depicted in this photo. There is a 1937 photo by Tanner of a female Ivory-bill at her nest that even shows a similar neck position. Pileateds simply don’t look like this. In my opinion, the bird shown in this photo is likely an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

I have no doubt that there are a few Ivory-billed Woodpeckers hanging on. The evidence is substantive and recent. I look forward to joining the Project Coyote team in the field soon to help them in their efforts. I applaud them for making their search results public on this blog. When the day does come that the clear images or videos are taken, what then? We’ll cross that bridge when we arrive.




A Few More Thoughts on the Fielding Lewis Photos

I thought I’d address a couple of comments from written in response to the recent post on sightings and evidence from 1944-2003. Duck Stamp reminded me that Lewis’s story and identity were revealed in Tim Gallagher’s The Grail Bird, and Houston pointed out John Fitzpatrick’s discussion of the images in a presentation on the rediscovery.

As far as I’m aware Gallagher was the first to name Lewis as the photographer, although Lewis had partially disclosed the story in his book Tales of a Louisiana Duck Hunter (1988). The book was self-published, did not mention the pictures, and seems to have otherwise escaped public notice for 15 years. Lewis wrote:

“I hurriedly put the dog I was working in the trailer with the others and walked toward the point where the birds had entered the trees. I found the male right before me on the trunk of an eighteen-inch cypress.

I kept my eyes glued to the bird and cautiously moved forward . . . I was surprised to be within thirty feet of the bird before it flew to another tree. It suddenly started flying from tree to tree and then disappeared into the depths of the swamp. I didn’t spot the female after I entered the swamp but I had for an extended period obtained a clear unobstructed view of the male bird at very close range.”

He told Gallagher and Bobby Harrison the same story, adding the photographs back into the tale and including this strange and somewhat implausible detail:

“‘…so I put it on top of my head like this and I walked straight toward the bird to see how close I could get.” Fielding stood up and mimed holding a camera on top of his head.’”

While this could be true, it seems far-fetched, at least to me.  My guess is that Lewis was teasing or testing Gallagher and Harrison somehow. In some ways it brings to mind Lowery’s initial question about the quality of the images; if this were a hoax, why would Lewis tell such an odd story, one that would be sure to raise doubts?

Edited to add: Frank Wiley and another person I respect don’t see the story as being implausible, and given the wide angle of the camera’s lens, holding the camera over one’s head and keeping an eye on the bird makes sense. In addition, I was reminded that the fact that the photographs show the bird on two different trees makes the idea of a hoax seem even more far-fetched, since it would have involved scaling two different trees, a lot of effort for little reward.

Fitzpatrick’s comments on the Lewis photos come at 24:00 into the Cornell video. Fitzpatrick suggests that there’s too much white on the wings, and that the white includes the secondary coverts. He goes on to say that the posture is the same (I don’t agree), and that the suspicion in the 1970s was that it was either a specimen or a composite of specimens.

There’s an inherent contradiction in that argument, since a specimen or a composite would have actual ivorybill coverts unless Fitzpatrick meant a composite made from other species. Either way, the latter suggestion was unfamiliar. It strikes me as being thoroughly implausible, since it requires an additional layer of elaborateness. I don’t think the images are sufficiently defined to be certain about the coverts. In addition, ivorybill specimens show considerable variation in terms of the extent of white on the wings. Frank Wiley has looked at a significant percentage of the study skins available, and I have looked at a number of others. The average male presents a bit more white than the average female, but these slight differences in the amount, and presentation of white are not enough to conclude that this is a sexually dimorphic character of the species.

Despite the strange story about how he took the pictures, I still find the Lewis photos persuasive because of the bark scaling and cavity, the likelihood that the feet are in fact visible, especially in the second photo, and the fact that George Lowery accepted them; in addition, Tanner did not take as aggressively negative a stance as he did with many other reports, though he could have gone easy out of respect for Lowery.

Apples to Apples and Sweet Gums to Sweet Gums

I’ve been corresponding with Mississippi-based searcher Christopher Carlisle both privately and on Facebook, and our conversations have inspired some additional thoughts on bark scaling and led me to revisit Cornell’s 2006-2007 final report, which includes two interesting photos of Pileated Woodpecker work on sweet gums taken by Martjan Lammertink in Congaree National Park. I was familiar with the document, which is available here but had forgotten about the images. Scroll to page 30 (some additional images of interest from Texas appear on the following page.)

While it’s a tiny sample, there may be some value in comparing the Congaree photos with the work on two heavily scaled sweet gums in the Project Coyote search area.

Correction: the tree in the second image is a hickory.

Photo by Steve Pagans

Photo by Steve Pagans


While it was not possible to examine this scaling up close, the bark appears to be tightly adhering on both trees, and the decay state is likely comparable to the Congaree sweet gum. The work in both cases is on the boles, and the size of the trees involved seems to be roughly comparable. Beyond that, the scaling is dramatically different in a number of ways. Most obviously, the suspected IBWO work from our search area is far more extensive than the PIWO work from Congaree (I suspect the small patches of scaling in the lower photo are the work of a Hairy Woodpecker). As I’ve discussed, PIWOs are not well-suited to scaling bark, anatomically, and it’s not a preferred or efficient feeding strategy – accounting for 23% of observed foraging behavior in Tanner and 7% in Patricia Newell’s more recent and PIWO-focused study.

The most significant difference though is in the appearance of the edges. When Pileated Woodpeckers scale tight-barked hardwoods, they typically remove the bark in layers, as in these images. This layered scaling is also very apparent in the photos from Congaree, and it’s absent from our sweet gums as well as from the extensively scaled oaks and hickories that we found in 2013-2014. Our trees show very extensive scaling with no indication that bark has been removed in stages; the edges are clean and incised and very large areas have been stripped, down to the sapwood. If Pileated Woodpeckers were the cause, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be some sign of layering, especially given the surface area involved, which far exceeds that shown in the Congaree photos or any others I know of (on hardwoods) from the Cornell searches.

The high branch work from Texas is intriguing, but the resolution of the images is insufficient to determine whether this clean scaling or whether there’s some excavation, especially on the lower portions. In addition the work is not nearly as extensive as some of the high branch work we’ve found.


Edited to add: I’m more intrigued by extensive work below the crown, as in these images. One tree (in the third photo is), definitely a sweet gum is from the old search area. The other tree, which I believe is an oak, is within a hundred yards of where I recorded kent-like calls in 2013, although the photos were taken a year before.



There are several other images of sweet gum scaling from Congaree in this report from the mobile search team, but this work does not involve the removal of bark from large contiguous sections of trunk, and the resolution is not sufficient to tell whether the bark has been removed in stages, although it appears to be in at least one of the four photographs. If I were to find it, I would assess this work as being mildly interesting but would not get excited about it in the absence of other indicators.

To return to my exchange with Chris, it gave me the opportunity to revisit this material, to give some more thought to my hypothesis about feeding sign, and to make some adjustments:

  • I think scaling on pines, even live ones, is physically possible for a pileated, although the bark will often show signs of having been removed in layers, meaning the edges will not appear as clean. Nonetheless, I do not think there’s a way of reliably determining what species has scaled a pine in the absence of a direct observation and suspect that even HAWOs and RBWOs can scale extensively even on recently dead pines.
  • For the work that I think is diagnostic, the species that I think are most reliable are oaks, sweet gums, and hickories. I think that the distinction is an easy one to make once you’ve seen the work firsthand.
  • In the old Project Coyote search area, we had persimmons, hackberrries, and honey locusts that had very suggestive scaling and lots of it. But the bark on honey locusts tends to loosen early in the decay process. Hackberry bark fractures, and while persimmon bark is thick and tight, it tends to loosen when the wood is still very hard. These qualities complicate the analysis, though I’m confident some of that work was done by IBWOs. There was a vast difference between the size of bark chips from known PIWO foraging on honey locusts and suspected IBWO foraging on the same species.
  • Extensiveness and quantity (concentrations) are important to look for too, especially when there are a lot of pines or an abundance of more easily scaled hardwoods. For this analysis, I include looking at high branch work but otherwise don’t ascribe a great deal of importance to “Tanneresque” sign, unless there’s a lot of it, and it’s associated with what I think is diagnostic.

I am not suggesting that this is the only way that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers forage. There may be seasonal and regional variations, but I suspect that some of this type of work will be present in any area where IBWOs are resident. It’s not necessarily easy to find. I agree with Fangsheath, from, that the failure to do so should not be treated as evidence of absence, but I’m convinced that finding this very specific type of work is compelling evidence that IBWOs are present.