Think I got the Downy WP this time
Think I got the Downy WP this time
So I actually so both of these yesterday in the same spot (Avon, CO). One was significantly larger than the other so I'm assuming that's another Hairy Woodpecker. The smaller one I'm assuming is Downy but since they were together I want to make sure yall don't think it's just a younger Hairy. Thanks!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- Hooded Robin
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2026 2:15 pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 76 times
Re: Think I got the Downy WP this time
If you saw them close together that makes the ID much easier, although size is often very difficult to judge.
Photos 1 and 4 look good for Downy (tail barring is often not visible and I believe can be absent on rare occasions?).
Photos 2 and 3 look good for Hairy.
Photos 1 and 4 look good for Downy (tail barring is often not visible and I believe can be absent on rare occasions?).
Photos 2 and 3 look good for Hairy.
Re: Think I got the Downy WP this time
It was amazing the size difference. I've read that the Downy is smaller but up until then had only seen Hairy's. Seeing them in the same vicinity it is very noticeable how much smaller the Downy is.
-
lonesome55dove
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2026 12:15 am
- Location: The Pacific Northwest, South Central Washington
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 100 times
- Contact:
Re: Think I got the Downy WP this time
I agree, 2 and 3 look fine for Hairy. They have large chisel-like bills that are about the length of their heads. Sloping foreheads. Shoulder spurs. No tail spots.
I'm still studying 1 and 4.
1 looks overall too big for Downy, but we know size can be deceiving. The bill looks too heavy, the forehead too sloped, and the tail spots should be visible for a Downy. The angle of the photo could be a contributing factor, though.
4 looks like it might have a shoulder spur, which would indicate Hairy. Again, the angle of the photo could be a contributing factor.
I think all 4 photos are of Hairy's, but that is my opinion.
I hope someone else will take a look and add their opinion. Great photos!
I'm still studying 1 and 4.
1 looks overall too big for Downy, but we know size can be deceiving. The bill looks too heavy, the forehead too sloped, and the tail spots should be visible for a Downy. The angle of the photo could be a contributing factor, though.
4 looks like it might have a shoulder spur, which would indicate Hairy. Again, the angle of the photo could be a contributing factor.
I think all 4 photos are of Hairy's, but that is my opinion.
I hope someone else will take a look and add their opinion. Great photos!
Klickitat County, Washington, USA
- Lonestranger
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2026 9:48 am
- Location: Waterloo region, Ontario, Canada
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
- Contact:
Re: Think I got the Downy WP this time
I would call #1 & #4 Downy Woodpeckers, and #2 & #3 Hairy Woodpeckers. The bill length in #1 & #4 is too short to be confused for a Hairy, in my amateur opinion, regardless of the head angle complicating the comparison between bill and head size.
- Aidan B
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2026 5:43 pm
- Location: Humboldt County, California
- Has thanked: 90 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: Think I got the Downy WP this time
I agree with everyone that #1 and 4 are Downy Woodpeckers. The subspecies of Downy found in that area, Dryobates pubescens leucurus, has very limited barring on the outer rectrices and darker wing coverts compared with the other subspecies of Downy Woodpeckers.