Why didn't Cornell mention these aberrant Pileateds in their Paper? I think the answer is obvious.
Given the fact that white secondaries were the only field mark reported in the Cornell sightings, doesn't this suppressed information about aberrant Pileateds seem like a striking and troubling coincidence? Isn't it troubling that whenever there were photographs taken of large "black and white woodpeckers" with unusual (non-Pileated) markings, they always turned out to be aberrant Pileateds? Isn't it troubling that whenever remote cameras photographed woodpeckers at suspected Ivory-Bill feeding sites, they always turned out to be Pileated Woodpeckers? Isn't it troubling that all GOOD video of large black and white woodpeckers show Pileated Woodpeckers? Isn't it troubling that the top Ivory-Bill expert in the world thinks "The Video" shows a Pileated Woodpecker?
Monday, November 07, 2005
Abnormal Pileated information suppressed
My brother raises some good questions in this BirdForum post: