Unknown Woodpecker, Montrose Colorado, Dec 04 25

[Ron W]

Hello all, as my field report states :  

Roughly 9" with a short tail. In full sunlight, the bird shows no markings on its all dark back. Similarly the head is also all dark, with a possible dark red semicircle below the eye. I observed this bird from roughly 15' for around 2 minutes (equipped with only a cell phone). In that time woodpecker made no vocalizations."

4 photos are included with the report.

https://ebird.org/checklist/S287390731 

[zroadrunner14]

Ron, I tried to blow up the pictures w/o much luck. My swag on your bird is a juv Williamson's Sapsucker.

Ira Sanders 

https://ebird.org/checklist/S287390731 ;

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/bae8d06a-3224-42ca-a530-0ac7f8d16dd3n%40googlegroups.com.

[linda hodges]

Hi Ron,

Though I don’t have any brilliant thoughts to add, I’m hoping you’ll post the ID consensus on this woodpecker.

Thanks!

Linda Hodges

--

[Connie Kogler]

Sure looks like a Northern Flicker to me.. Sometimes they get black-ish from chimney roosting

Connie Kogler 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CABW16T%3DCgFktNcDeH-Eo434qwq%3DoLBY-UsLraTnOTmvPeJO7ug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Caoimhín Perkins]

Wouldn’t an immature Williamson’s still have prominent white eyebrows, a white striped cheek, and white on the coverts? This doesn’t seem to have those. This has a totally black head except for the chin and totally black wings. I could almost see a black backed but the head is similarly missing a white-striped moustache

[Chris H]

Barring on the flanks, size, low resolution and lack of 'features' seems good for Williamson's. 

Chris Hobbs

chob...@gmail.com 

---

From: cob...@googlegroups.com <cob...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ron W <ourwil...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 11:33:51 AM
To: Colorado Birds <cob...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [cobirds] Unknown Woodpecker, Montrose Colorado, Dec 04 25

 

--

[Ron W]

After reviewing hundreds of images, it appears to be a Black-backed female, far outside its range, possibly never reported in this part of Colorado.

Here's a female Black-backed from roughly the same angle:  https://media.ebird.org/catalog?birdOnly=true&taxonCode=bkbwoo&mediaType=photo&sort=rating_rank_desc&sex=female

[Don Marsh]

I agree with Connie. It looks like a dark Northern Flicker. The bill is too long and curved for a sapsucker or Black-backed Woodpecker, plus the overall body shape and rounded head,  matches Northern Flicker.

Don Marsh

Ridgway

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/20124a19-af73-4381-93de-2e32c5d162f6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Owen Robertson]

It's a pretty standard Northern Flicker, as Connie said (although it doesn't even seem that black to me!). Plain brown back, reddish malar visible in the final image (and noted in Ron's comments), and black spotting (not barring) on the flanks/underparts. Additionally, the classic dark crescent chest mark is visible in the last photo. Williamson's would show barring on the back and tail, and Black-backed would show a bold white malar and barring on the flanks. The back is distinctly brown, unlike any plumage of Black-backed. Furthermore, the bird in question shows a grayish head with a rufous forecrown, perfectly in line with a Red-shafted Northern Flicker.

Best,

--Owen Robertson

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/DM6PR01MB535688A5A9CB80ACBFFC9DA6FCA7A%40DM6PR01MB5356.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Ron W]

I see that link simply opened up the entire gallery.   Here's the photo link directly from the field report.
https://cdn.download.ams.birds.cornell.edu/api/v2/asset/632706676/900 

And again to my report with my phone taken images.

https://ebird.org/checklist/S287390731

[Caoimhín Perkins]

If that is a flicker then it is the strangest flicker I’ve seen, complete with chest banding that they don’t have. Definitely a female black-backed compared with this one.

[Archer Silverman]

It’s definitely a Northern Flicker. The bill and body size, and red face marking in the last photo confirm this. 

On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 1:23 PM Caoimhín Perkins <ksper...@gmail.com> wrote:

If that is a flicker then it is the strangest flicker I’ve seen, complete with chest banding that they don’t have. Definitely a female black-backed compared with this one.

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CAC%2BDWUAK3jo2hdYeE-X0bD5Nu6jqSswNBe87ZGViOhRnmZOAvA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron W]

It's not a Northern Flicker.  I know them well and wouldn't even think to take my phone out to get a photo of one, as I have them at my feeders daily.

[Ron W]

Having been there myself, having the images in Lightroom where I can expand the them to 200%, the bill size and shape, and possible malar on the bird are questionable at best.

What isn't in question is the following:

It's a smaller woodpecker (than a Flicker).

It has a uniform dark back and matching head.
It can only be a female Black-backed.  No other woodpecker in NA has an entire head that matches its back, an the size is spot on for the species.  

[Caoimhín Perkins]

It’s little hard to tell but these do look more like spots than in the other photos. I do not see any red personally but taking another look at this photo is interesting.

[David Suddjian]

I'd lean to the flicker camp, based on the apparent spotting on the sides or flanks and general shape, and while it appears dark it is not black(ish) looking. But I also feel the image quality makes it challenging to say anything with certainty.  For what it is worth, perspective-wise, there are no Colorado Bird Records Committee accepted records of Black-backed in Colorado. 

David Suddjian

Littleton, CO

On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 1:45 PM Caoimhín Perkins <ksper...@gmail.com> wrote:

It’s little hard to tell but these do look more like spots than in the other photos. I do not see any red personally but taking another look at this photo is interesting.

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CAC%2BDWUD56GewQ-h4FONX%3D9XZejbcVYtb1Pza6uL9TgS9gts-RQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron W]

I'm actually going to delete this image from my incidental report.  I took the first series of photos of the woodpecker I could not identify, then made some adjustments on my phone, checked on the dog I was walking, and resumed taking photos of the same area of the tree.  The ones to focus on are in full light, earlier in the series.  This doesn't even look like the same bird, and might not be.  

[Ron W]

For all those thinking this woodpecker could be a flicker, I'll ask for a link showing a Flicker looking similar to the full sunlight back of this bird.  I've never seen such a Northern Flicker, so do share.

Thanks. 

[Mars Atchison]

I don't necessarily think it is one, but is there a reason no one is considering an odd looking juvenile Lewis's? 

On Fri, Dec 5, 2025, 1:45 PM Caoimhín Perkins <ksper...@gmail.com> wrote:

It’s little hard to tell but these do look more like spots than in the other photos. I do not see any red personally but taking another look at this photo is interesting.

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CAC%2BDWUD56GewQ-h4FONX%3D9XZejbcVYtb1Pza6uL9TgS9gts-RQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paula Hansley]

I think that immature Lewis ‘s Woodpecker is a very good possibility.  The size and proportions don’t look right for a Williamson’s Sapsucker.

Paula Hansley

Louisville 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CALfaY2QmN-dM3OQ32tYmCALbhOgzKHb-oXue0PpxOywvhwjMRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron W]

Reasons Lewis's isn't a good fit for this bird:

Observed behavior.  They are usually observed high in trees rather than foraging near the base. 
In full light, I think I would have seen green on its back.  This bird appeared black to the eye.  In my experience, Lewis's can look black, but not in full sun.
The bird in question had a shorter tail.  

340 younger Lewis's photos:

https://media.ebird.org/catalog?birdOnly=true&taxonCode=lewwoo&mediaType=photo&sort=rating_rank_desc&age=juvenile,immature

[Josh Bruening]

Ron,

Your bird is a Northern Flicker.  The spots on the side rather than barring and red malar are slam dunks.  To me, all pictures look like the same bird.  You asked for photos so here are two of my (not so great) photos from my back yard in Fort Collins.  This is a melanistic Northern Flicker.  I included a pic from that same morning with a "regular" Northern Flicker along with the melanistic one.  The difference between the two was striking and I wish I would have gotten better pics. Though you can't see it in these pics because I was unable to capture it, the bird's back was very dark and not what you would normally expect from a Flicker.Photo quality/chimney soot/melanism, and other myriad circumstances can all be reasons why a common bird would suddenly look exotic.  I hope these help.

Josh Bruening

Fort Collins

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2025, at 1:48 PM, Ron W <ourwil...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reasons Lewis's isn't a good fit for this bird:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/98158ed2-c8bf-41b0-a729-f2030a2e3a61n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Obmascik]

The dress is blue. 

Mark Obmascik

Denver, CO

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/1F1E1D54-3B85-4D21-A378-9A1F52FE62B2%40gmail.com

.

[Ron W]

Thanks Josh.  

I've seen hundreds of Flickers and you're telling me I saw one and didn't recognize it?  Out of the question really.  Your photos are clearly of a poorly lit Flicker, and had I saw that bird, I would have instantly known what it was.

However, when I saw this all black backed woodpecker I thought "what!?" and immediately got the phone out.  Your bird looks nothing like my observed woodpecker, so it cannot be a Northern Flicker.

Flicker:  
Larger. Larger bill, larger overall.
Not uniformly dark from the top of the head to the tail.
Tail is noticeably longer than my observed bird.

Reads as brown rather than black.

Less contrast between the back and front of the bird in question.  

Even if you look at the last image at the *possible* red malar, it's not placed the same or in the same shape as a Flicker, as it is right up under the eye.  As I said, this photo was in the shadow and is less reliable.

[Ron W]

Thanks for the help in working through this.
No other species matches this bird, and thus I've recorded it on e-bird as a Black-backed, adult female.  I also added one photo of the many others I took, from a slightly farther distance.  

 https://ebird.org/checklist/S287390731

Thanks again,  Ron

[Evan]

Unfortunately, Black-backed woodpecker doesn't match the bird either, as they do not have a uniformly dark head. I also don't notice a ruler or anything of known size in the image, so I'm curious what determined that it was 9" in length.

Evan Carlson

Pueblo

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/279bccad-c200-4bc8-9f55-9c70b73172c2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Chris H]

This middle pic appears to show some barring on the flanks.  Ron, were you able to note plumage characteristics via direct visual contact? If so, did you note barring? 

I'm asking verification on that detail because the other 2 pics slightly differ. 

Thanks, this has been a fun little exercise!

Chris Hobbs

chob...@gmail.com 

---

From: cob...@googlegroups.com <cob...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ron W <ourwil...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 3:48:46 PM
To: Colorado Birds <cob...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [cobirds] Unknown Woodpecker, Montrose Colorado, Dec 04 25

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/98158ed2-c8bf-41b0-a729-f2030a2e3a61n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ron W]

It matches adult female Black-backed WP taken from that angle to a T.  ...and I shared a link to a bird appearing just like this one further up in the thread.  

[Owen Robertson]

Ron, this is unequivocally a Northern Flicker. Putting aside the question of likelihood and the high burden of proof needed to demonstrate the presence of a BBWO in SW Colorado, your photos (and field observations/comments!) show a NOFL to a T. A key feature that I'm surprised has been mostly skipped over in this conversation is the back color. Black-backed Woodpecker, of course, shows an entirely black back (and crown, nape, and face). Not just dark - black. The bird in the photos, at all angles, shows a rather plain back, one that might be called dark, but distinctly grayish-brown. You note that your bird cannot be a Northern Flicker because a flicker "reads as brown, rather than black." I see a brown-backed bird, with a grayish head, in your images! Furthermore, the best picture you have, which shows a side view (and which I'm surprised to note isn't on eBird anymore) clearly shows a dark malar (whether it's red or not is a moot point - BBWO should not show an isolated dark malar stripe, aside from the submoustachial which appears quite different from your bird), a rufous forecrown, a gray nape, disorganized spotting on the flanks, and a black chest crescent, all of which are 100% diagnostic for Northern Flicker. The flank spotting has been brought up a few times in support of BBWO, so I want to pay extra attention to it here. BBWO shows a rather fine, grayish-black set of bars on the flanks, which at a distance easily blend into one another, creating a gray wash on the flanks (see this photo of a BBWO - you can easily imagine how at a greater distance/lower photo quality, the bars would be even less visible, completely unlike the patterning on your bird. Additionally, BBWO flanks show dark and light pigment with equal prominence, due to the even width and consistent spacing of the barring. Instead, your bird shows prominent dark patches on a less visible light background, a pattern consistent with the spotting of a Northern Flicker. These features aren't artifacts of photo quality, as you yourself noted a "possible dark red semicircle below the eye" in your initial description, a phrase that I'm surprised to see has been removed from your eBird list. And if more evidence was needed, BBWO should display several other absolutely diagnostic features, such as a bold white moustachial stripe, which would be readily visible in your photos. I've attached a quick diagram I made on your best photo (which I would recommend re-uploading to eBird) highlighting the primary field marks I mentioned. While this unfortunately isn't a BBWO, it's a good reminder to Colorado birders to keep it in mind, as I wouldn't be completely shocked if one overshot down into, say, Jackson County during a particularly cold winter/after an extensive fire.

Best,

--Owen

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/d1f05a57-8a4a-4ecb-8fb4-3f593eb8146cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ron W]

Owen, that bird is clearly not the same as one from the rest of the series, and no other species mentioned in this thread can appear as this bird did.  Nearly every WP species can be easily identified from similar photos, and only with difficulty between very similar species.  

[Ron W]

Chris, the only thing I noted in addition to what's seen in the images, is that to the eye, the bird appeared true black.  Snow on the ground will push the shadows/darks with many phone cameras.  I've done this walk hundreds of times, never seeing any birds beyond the norm, to include Flickers nearly every day.  I guess I have reason to carry an actual camera now.

[Owen Robertson]

Ron, even if we're assuming that the bird depicted in the shot showing the face is a separate individual from the pics now on eBird (which would be very surprising to me, given that it's in the same location on the same tree, and your previous description indicates that only a few seconds passed in between the different photo series. You say that the photo series show obviously different birds - I see pretty much the same bird between photos!), the focal pictures still show a brown-backed and gray-naped woodpecker. See the attached close-up of one of your photos which demonstrates this color pattern. Whether or not you believe this can match a NOFL is honestly a little irrelevant - it objectively cannot match a Black-backed. Furthermore, you note that snow on the ground will affect the exposure of your phone camera - wouldn't snow lead to the underexposing of dark objects, such as a flicker, making it appear darker? I also don't quite understand what you mean by "Nearly every WP species can be easily identified from similar photos, and only with difficulty between very similar species." I agree that woodpeckers (aside from a few confusing species complexes) can be easily identified, but I'm not quite sure what that has to do with your bird (to me, it's easily identifiable as a flicker!).

Best,

--Owen

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/9ee1b48b-f24e-4c0b-b9e4-665863ad974en%40googlegroups.com.

[Ron W]

This Northern Flicker discussion has run its course.  Many have emailed me directly stating that they are in agreement with this appearing to be an adult female Black-backed, and that they see no similarity with a NOFL.  
Some posted to this thread.   I saw the bird and you can continue to tell me what it is and isn't, but I'm done responding to you.

[Aiden Moser]

Let’s remember that conflicting thoughts on bird identification are not personal affronts, and that this post was initially framed as a question rather than a definitive identification. Defensiveness indicatives insecurity as opposed to expertise, and accepting input from individuals with all levels of experience is the sign of a well-seasoned birder.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/86da3c64-ba51-4038-8cda-bda2160a10bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Susan Rosine]

My expert opinion is ...

Mark Obmascik's remark summed up the whole discussion perfectly.

Susan Rosine 

Brighton

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/0F7824C4-CB64-4D9F-BC29-7A7616CE9FC1%40gmail.com.

[Ron W]

Anyone on this list knows Northern Flicker well, and it's *among* the most distinctive woodpeckers in North America.  We can all likely ID this species in an instant, and there's no way I am going to mistake a Northern Flicker for something else.  On top of that, this bird was staying put in direct sunlight. 

Fine to tell me that you think it's a Flicker.  Not as fine to tell me that I'm wrong, and that I documented a Northern Flicker, repeatedly. 

Thanks to everyone for your help.  I had a great deal of direct email response and thanks again for everyone's insight.  I strongly considered each species against my over 2 minutes of observation, and referenced all the usual tools, to include looking at thousands of images.  Fun stuff.

Happy holidays all.   Ron 

[Chris H]

Ron, one of the great things about birding is your personal life list can have any bird you believe you identified.  I know of several people who believe they've seen Ivory-billed Woodpecker and it's surely on their life lists.  No harm to anyone else. Enjoy!

Chris Hobbs

chob...@gmail.com 

---

From: cob...@googlegroups.com <cob...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ron W <ourwil...@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 11:07:25 AM

To: Colorado Birds <cob...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [cobirds] Unknown Woodpecker, Montrose Colorado, Dec 04 25

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/ec3dd5b6-2891-489f-bf6a-c5ffd3d8c13cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ron W]

Chris.  Yeah,  life lists are great and personal.  I don't keep one myself, and this isn't the first time I've seen BBWO, but I still love the idea of birding life lists.  I guess mine actually lives in my Lightroom catalog of over 150,000 images. Mostly taken with pro gear, rather than my phone.   I'm happy for those that have IBWO on their lists.  Maybe if enough claim it, the species will reappear.  

[Tony Leukering]

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.

As can be seen on the bird here, 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) that in relatively poor views (such as on your bird), the birds look dark-sided (see here).

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

On Friday, December 5, 2025 at 10:53:03 AM UTC-7 Ron W wrote:

Hello all, as my field report states :  

Roughly 9" with a short tail. In full sunlight, the bird shows no markings on its all dark back. Similarly the head is also all dark, with a possible dark red semicircle below the eye. I observed this bird from roughly 15' for around 2 minutes (equipped with only a cell phone). In that time woodpecker made no vocalizations."

4 photos are included with the report.

https://ebird.org/checklist/S287390731 

[Ron W]

No one in Flicker Camp has shown me an example image of the species with a uniform dark back from tail to head.  You lightened the photo and it still doesn't look like one.  The bird was smaller than a Northern Flicker, and black.  the head still looks black even with you lightening it.  Furthermore, the underside of the bird is dusty white.   The image you linked to is a male Black-backed, which has distinctive barring yes, but the female's can be nearly absent from this angle and there are images showing this.

If this is so easily a Northern Flicker then we would have seen a link to one, similarly in full sun, from behind, looking just like this bird.  Show me that bird and I'll consider changing my mind.

Ron

[Woodcreeper29]

Submit it to the records committee. Colorado will still have no accepted record of BBWO!

Steve Larson

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 6, 2025, at 4:15 PM, Ron W <ourwil...@gmail.com> wrote:

No one in Flicker Camp has shown me an example image of the species with a uniform dark back from tail to head.  You lightened the photo and it still doesn't look like one.  The bird was smaller than a Northern Flicker, and black.  the head still looks black even with you lightening it.  Furthermore, the underside of the bird is dusty white.   The image you linked to is a male Black-backed, which has distinctive barring yes, but the female's can be nearly absent from this angle and there are images showing this.

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/80b5b7da-7951-422c-9525-2f43e52eab34n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Suddjian]

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/90B7BF5A-0D55-42D4-AB24-AE606BF9E6A3%40comcast.net.

[Ron W]

If it's a Flicker, then it will likely remain in the area, and I'll no doubt see it again.  If it's not, then I likely won't.  I walk this route 365 days of the year.  Of course, I'll also still welcome an image of a similar Northern Flicker, as mentioned before.  

Thanks all.  

[Eric DeFonso]

Because I find this really interesting regardless of the ID (FWIW, I too am in the "flicker camp"), I briefly searched for aberrant plumaged Northern Flickers in the Macaulay Library, and quickly found four interesting shots, which I'm linking to here. (There may be many more in the library, these are just ones I came across with a more targeted search.)

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/299920271

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/189692901

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/36307531

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/189693021

Three of these pics are from Bountiful, UT, spread over 6 years.

In the case of that 4th link, what I find interesting is that even a melanistic flicker can show a fairly light underside, which jibes with what I see in the phone-pics. Before this, I wasn't even aware of melanism in flickers, so the sharing of this sighting is still enlightening to me.

Eric

-------

Eric DeFonso
Boulder County, CO

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/a70ee6c0-a0a5-4788-ae34-fdc5b46bac8an%40googlegroups.com.

[Ron W]

Great finds Eric.  Many have found interest in this bird.  Whatever it is, it's rare at least in some way for this location.  As mentioned, I've walked this area for over two years and not seen this bird, so this adds to my doubt that it's a resident Northern Flicker.

You can see from these images of melanistics, that if shot in direct sunlight from the back, they will not mirror the bird in my report.

Note the detail my zoomed in phone captured in the tree bark, it would have easily registered the variation on the back of any Northern Flicker. 

There are often more than a couple of woodpeckers in these trees together, as a friend at a nearby residence feeds heavily, to say that they often have up to a hundred ground birds along their fence.  Flicker come to their feeders as they do mine, and if this is a very rare Flicker occurrence, I feel I'll very likely see it again.

[Eric DeFonso]

Your doubt is understandable, to be sure. Just remember that even melanistic Northern Flickers are only known about because at some point someone saw them without having seen one before at that location. :)

My intent in sharing these melanistic flicker shots was not to imply that your bird was one of these 4 individuals. Rather it was to show that, given the range of appearances of melanism in flickers even among a small sample, this explanation is still within the realm of possibility given the admittedly poor resolution in the provided images of the bird in your yard. In my view, I just can't see how melanistic NOFL can be categorically ruled out based on the photos. As unusual as that is, it's still far more likely than a Black-backed Woodpecker at this location. Especially when definitive BBWO traits are not really visible here.

For the sake of citizen science, one suggestion I have is to change the eBird record from Black-backed Woodpecker to woodpecker sp. That way, it would pass eBird review and the images could then be in the publicly viewable database going forward, as a useful scientific record. Then, if a dark woodpecker does reappear in the area someday and is well-observed, your existing record could be used as reference for it too, and maybe greater understanding of this phenomenon could arise. You could still state in the comments/description that for now you believe this is a BBWO for the stated reasons, and from a reviewer's perspective that would be fine, even if they didn't personally agree. All parties can agree here that there's a woodpecker in the pictures! And by being publicly viewable, it keeps birders in your area and statewide more on the lookout for either BBWO or melanistic NOFL.

Eric 

-------

Eric DeFonso
Boulder County, CO

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/c14a0e90-4f38-4521-9b70-b14f7f068d6fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ron W]

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.

https://cdn.download.ams.birds.cornell.edu/api/v2/asset/619319147/900

https://cdn.download.ams.birds.cornell.edu/api/v2/asset/646420381/900

[Susan Rosine]

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 <ourwil...@gmail.com> 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:

[Ron W]

I observed the bird for over 2 minutes and noted on the spot that it had a short tail.  A Flicker doesn't move around on a tree with that massive tail hidden for over 2 minutes.  

[Ron W]

Williamson's? No eye stripe, and that would have been easily seen here. No wing patches.

Three-toed? No white spots or coloration of any kind on the back. No coloration seen on the head.

Lewis's? Not green. No collar.

Northern Flicker? Coloring/markings are off, not a large tail species, as images show.

[Ron W]

OK.  It's been a busy week for us but I've dusted off Photoshop, which these days I only use to apply very high quality watermarks, and I pulled in some of the best images of this bird.
The point of getting these into Photoshop was to export saves at 250% to hopefully gain additional clues about this bird.

I had to take a few minutes to remember what the heck I was doing but accomplished what I went in there for.  Once I had this done I was back in Lightroom to boost values such as shadows and exposure.

What I found is that this bird's head is much like a Lewis's.  Red face up to the eyes and green back of the head.  That said the back isn't green and the sides aren't red.  I of course don't have any shots of the front of the bird.  Also no visible collar.

The size of the bird fits Lewis's.  The tail size fits Lewis's.  Yet the bird is still an outlier.

[Ron W]

Congratulations to Paula Hansley, as she somehow saw beyond the black/brown to find LEWO hidden in there.  Once I have more time (tonight) I'll upload some very grainy 250% crops to the eBird report.  

[David Suddjian]

Dear CoBirders,

This woodpecker thread is now CLOSED. Please move any further discussion off the list and correspond directly. Don't bother complaining to me, unless you'd like to have the moderator job. :-) 

Thanks everyone.

David Suddjian

CoBirds list moderator

Littleton, CO

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/df6cc3c4-5628-44f4-8402-8b849bb198bfn%40googlegroups.com.