It is not a regular sight to see two Pileated Woodpeckers jointly foraging on the same tree. On the two previous occasions the foragers were a male and female. As the Pileated Woodpecker is both monogamous and territorial, a foraging couple makes sense.
So yesterday, when I came upon two woodpeckers foraging on a utility pole, I just assumed that these two were also a male and female. Yet, the pictures revealed them to both be male.
The territoriality of Pileated Woodpeckers suggests that these two males are either rivals or family. The two of them seemed to work together and passed signals back and forth, so they probably are not rivals. But, is it a case of a father training a son?
Cornell Lab of Ornithology notes: “Once fledgling Pileated Woodpeckers can fly well, they follow adults everywhere, depending on their parents for several months to provide and help find food. Come fall, young will separate from their parents and wander until spring, when they will attempt to acquire a mate and nest.” So, this pair is likely to be a parent and child and the pictures, below, are interpreted in the light of this assumed relationship.
Adults have yellowish eyes, while the chicks have brownish eyes. While the difference is not striking with these two, the father seems to be on the left and the chick on the right.

Signals are sent back and forth. Here, daddy tips his head back and emits a strange sort of cooing call, to which junior responds with spread wings.

It is unclear what message is being communicated here.

However, the training seems to be successful as the chick does find some grubs.










































Flaws in supporting pictures
This blog bases its postings on recently taken pictures from local nature. Now and then an identification is mistaken and this results in a flawed text. Nevertheless, the picture is correct.
News sites have the opposite problem. A textual story comes over the line and some benighted picture editor has the job of providing (presumably) relevant illustrations. Sometimes these illustrations are just silly.
Why such text stories are deemed inadequate without an accompanying image strikes me as bizarre, and many of the better news websites do not insist upon it. Yet, many news sites seem to require a gratuitous picture for each story — often one that is merely generic clip art, and now and then one that is misleading.
Below are two discussions of recent ineptitude on the part of picture editors.
During the recent catharsis in the Manitoba wilderness, the BBC ran a story about the dangers of the locale and illustrated it with a shot of a grizzly bear. Alas, grizzly bears have not been seen in that region for hundreds of years. Someone must have pointed this out to them, for a couple of days later the picture was changed to show a black bear. Here, I show a local grizzly bear, something long gone from Gillam, Manitoba.

A recent story in the New York Times discussed a study of the behaviour of migrating European warblers. However, they illustrated it with a North American Yellow Warbler. Alas, despite the similarity of names, these two warblers are only distantly related, making the illustration irrelevant. Here is a shot of the local Yellow Warbler.
