Date: 12/6/25 10:46 pm From: Susan Rosine <u5b2mtdna...> Subject: Re: [cobirds] Re: Unknown Woodpecker, Montrose Colorado, Dec 04 25
I can't hide it, but a Flicker can. The tail is in the usual location.
Sorry, but I have no horrid photos of Flickers to show you, because I don't
keep my bad photos of common birds.
Just go on believing your belief, and we'll go on believing ours, and the
sun will still rise in the morning and set in the evening. There is no
battle to be won or lost here.
Susan Rosine
Brighton
On Sat, Dec 6, 2025, 9:41 PM Ron W <ourwildplaces...> wrote:
> For those in the Northern Flicker camp...where's the tail? You can't hide
> a Flicker's tail, and it's not there on this bird.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 6, 2025 at 4:35:18 PM UTC-7 David Suddjian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CoBirders,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless there is something of substance to add or a point that has not
>>>>>> already been made, I recommend we please now end this CoBirds thread. The
>>>>>> eBird reviewer can evaluate the report for the eBird public record, and the
>>>>>> observer can do what he likes with it as far as his personal records are
>>>>>> concerned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Suddjian
>>>>>> CoBirds list moderator
>>>>>> Littleton, CO
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 6, 2025 at 3:49:40 PM UTC-7 Tony Leukering
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bird in question is certainly a Northern Flicker and, perhaps,
>>>>>>>> identifiable as a Red-shafted Flicker. I lightened a screen grab of one of
>>>>>>>> the photos and, with no other alterations, present it below. The upperparts
>>>>>>>> are brownish, the nape and crown are noticeably grayer, the sides are white
>>>>>>>> with dark spotting, and the whitish rump contrasts strongly with the dark
>>>>>>>> tail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [image: NOFL-not-BBWO.jpg]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As can be seen on the bird here
>>>>>>>> <https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/326303601>, Black-backed
>>>>>>>> Woodpeckers entirely lack white on the upper side of the body (excluding
>>>>>>>> tail), so that white rump rules that species out. Additionally, the
>>>>>>>> extensively white side to the bird is not a feature of Black-backed, which
>>>>>>>> has the sides so heavily barred (see here
>>>>>>>> <https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/615176281>) that in relatively
>>>>>>>> poor views (such as on your bird), the birds look dark-sided (see
>>>>>>>> here <https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/646203877>).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my extensive birding experience in Michigan, New York,
>>>>>>>> California, and Montana, I've seen many, many Black-backed Woodpeckers, so
>>>>>>>> I immediately recognized the subject of the checklist's photos as not a
>>>>>>>> Black-backed. I've also seen 10s of 1000s of Northern Flickers, and your
>>>>>>>> bird struck me immediately as one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're welcome to reject my advice (as you have that of others), as
>>>>>>>> it's no skin off my back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony Leukering
>>>>>>>> Denver
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to <cobirds...>
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds * All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate.
* Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/membership/ ---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cobirds+<unsubscribe...>
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/<CACPnx8Xy8zagOOn1BguntOiBP6-dkRhHVYmm9rXrnfV_S6KWkQ...>
