Luneau video analysis

=================================
2/21/06 update: The information below is now out-of-date. Please see my updated Luneau video analysis here.
=================================


Regarding the Luneau video, John Fitzpatrick of Cornell states, “The bird captured on this video can be nothing other than an ivory-billed woodpecker.” Cornell's paper lists five "diagnostic features" allowing them to identify the subject as an Ivory-bill.

I disagree with Cornell in all five cases, and I believe the bird in the video is likely to be a completely normal Pileated Woodpecker. Below are "pro-Ivory-bill" arguments in black, along with my alternate analysis in red. (I've made most of these arguments before, but I thought it would be useful to group them all together in one posting).
-----
1. The bird's size, measured by wrist-to-tailtip on a perched bird, is supposed to be too large to fit a Pileated.

Please take a look at the first two pictures here. I think the inset sketch in the first picture is an incorrect interpretation of the position of the bird. In my opinion, the extensive white shown is not a view of the upperside of the wing on a perched bird; rather, it's a view of the wing lining of a bird that's already beginning to fly.

---1/23/06 update:
Jerome Jackson's January 2006 Auk article says that in his opinion, the "white shown extending from behind the tree is the large white patch present on the underside of the wing of a Pileated Woodpecker, held vertically, with the bird already in [full] flight."
----

If I'm right, than any wrist-to-tailtip measurement is meaningless, since the wing is already in motion. If I'm right, we also have no reason to believe that the bird's upperwing contains more white than a typical Pileated's.

I think the next few frames of the video support my interpretation, because the bird essentially disappears behind the tree after a couple of frames of wing-flash to the left of the tree. If Cornell is right, and the bird is perched, I don't see how it could then simply disappear, at maybe 30 frames/second, without showing a few more frames of movement to the left of the tree.

I also think the blob shows far too much white to be correctly interpreted as perched Ivory-bill. The second picture at the link above shows Sibley's drawing of a perched Ivory-bill. Note that Sibley's picture shows white on basically the lower half of the wing, while the supposedly perched Ivory-bill from the video shows much more extensive white.

9/21/05 update:
----
There's yet another potential problem with Cornell's wrist-to-tailtip measurement. I think the exact location of the tailtip is questionable.

In the first picture at the link above, there is a black smudge on the left side of the tree, lower than the "wing"; Cornell interprets this smudge as the bird's tail. However, if you look at the third picture at the link above, you can also see a black smudge at that same position on the tree. This black smudge still shows up even AFTER the bird is seen flying away from the tree! Of course, by that point, the black smudge can no longer be interpreted as the bird's tail.
----

2. The wing pattern at rest (above) is supposed to show extensive white on the topside of the wing.

I think we're looking at the wing lining, not the topside. Please see analysis for #1 above.

3. The wing pattern in flight is supposed to fit only an Ivory-bill.

Nothing about the flying bird's wing pattern seems inconsistent with an ordinary Pileated woodpecker. More here.

4. There's supposed to be white plumage on the flying bird's back.

In Cornell's presentations, they show some carefully-selected frames that appear to show white on the bird's back, but I'm completely unconvinced that this white was present on the actual bird. I say that for two reasons:

1. I've studied the Luneau DVD frame-by-frame, and I see plenty of frames where the back looks entirely black.

2. If you watch the trees in the Luneau DVD, you can also see apparent white smudges on them that appear and then disappear.

5. About 20 seconds before we see the flying bird, we supposedly see a black-white-black pattern on the perched bird.

I think that object is likely just some out-of-focus vegetation, quite possible a branch stub. According to Jerome Jackson's January 2006 Auk article, John Fitzpatrick of Cornell has conceded this point.

------
In addition to the five points above, the fleeing bird's flap rate and direct flight are supposed to support an Ivory-bill ID. I think the flap rate and direct flight are completely consistent with a fleeing Pileated (more detail here).