Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[timeshadowed]

The light conditions could also cause a white bill to appear black, as well as a black bill to appear white.

There have been times that I've been looking at a bald eagle soaring and the whole body and head appeared to be black. But when it turned, I then could see the white head and white tail. So you see, it can go both ways. A very large bill is the better field mark.

 

[Imaginos]

Nothing is unclear Jane. What you seem not to understand is that we have NO reason to assume that Cornell posted everything that was seen in those summaries.

This is another thing that's bothering me here. Why would they NOT reveal all their evidence? I'm sure Cornell are aware of the debate & surely the best way to cover themselves from accusations of fraud/incompetence would be to reveal all?
On the flip side I can't see any reason for such secrecy in this case.

 

[cajanuma]

Nothing is unclear Jane. What you seem not to understand is that we have NO reason to assume that Cornell posted everything that was seen in those summaries.

We're talking about the field notes from the observers that were published in the supplementary online material for the paper in Science, right? Why on earth would they leave anything out? It seems to me that we have every reason to assume that these notes included everything that was seen, no more, no less.

I don't want to sound like an uber-skeptic, because I'm not, but I just can't understand certain arguments

 

[pcoin]

More details on Cornell sightings in North American Birds?

Nothing is unclear Jane. What you seem not to understand is that we have NO reason to assume that Cornell posted everything that was seen in those summaries.

There were supposed to be more details of Cornell's sightings in an ABA publication called North American Birds. I have not read that publication--perhaps someone else on this forum has. There is a link to some material on that issue here.--aha, I see the IBWO graces the cover. The table of contents is available on-line, but not those articles. This seems to be the reference:

An overview of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) sightings in eastern Arkansas in 2004–2005. Kenneth V. Rosenberg, Ronald W. Rohrbaugh, and Martjan Lammertink. North American Birds, volume 59(2): 198-209.

I've read the Science paper over very carefully--it is really quite a long paper for that journal, and the on-line supplement is extensive. There is very lengthy discussion of analyis of the video. It was also published one year after the "flurry of sightings" in spring, 2004. It seems like if they had observed critical field marks, such as a white bill, they had plenty time and space to write those in. I think they were completely honest in that paper, just describing the marks that they saw. They also described their analysis of the video in great detail, including their assumptions and methods. This allowed others to challenge those assumptions and methods, as is proper in a scientific publication.

I used to be a biological researcher, and did publish a number of papers--I, and my colleagues, always used to publish our strongest data sets--we never held anything back when it was an important paper. I just can't imagine Cornell researchers would hold back important data, especially where the findings had so much importance for conservation. Perhaps others will comment on the North American Birds article cited above.

 

[Jane Turner]

Nothing is unclear Jane. What you seem not to understand is that we have NO reason to assume that Cornell posted everything that was seen in those summaries.

This isn't like a serial killer - where you might want to withold evidence to protect your case is it? Am I missing something?

Knowing that you are making an "astounding" announcement that is bound to attract (rightfully) criticism from the scientific community, would you go off half-cocked?

 

[Jane Turner]

The light conditions could also cause a white bill to appear black, as well as a black bill to appear white.

There have been times that I've been looking at a bald eagle soaring and the whole body and head appeared to be black. But when it turned, I then could see the white head and white tail. So you see, it can go both ways. A very large bill is the better field mark.

I give up. This is not about either/or, its about Proving yur claim of something rare.... AAAAGGGGHHHHHH I guess most birders have got it about 10 pages ago.

 

[Imaginos]

The light conditions could also cause a white bill to appear black, as well as a black bill to appear white.

There have been times that I've been looking at a bald eagle soaring and the whole body and head appeared to be black. But when it turned, I then could see the white head and white tail. So you see, it can go both ways. A very large bill is the better field mark.

So, if you only saw the all black version, would you claim bald eagle? Would you claim it if you'd never seen bald eagle before?

 

[Ilya Maclean]

I give up. This is not about either/or, its about Proving yur claim of something rare.... AAAAGGGGHHHHHH I guess most birders have got it about 10 pages ago.

Kind of relates to the whole onus of proof / proving a negative thing, which I'm sure was explained about 50 times in the last 200 pages. Are you sure you don't want to explain it just one more time

 

[Ilya Maclean]

The light conditions could also cause a white bill to appear black, as well as a black bill to appear white.

There have been times that I've been looking at a bald eagle soaring and the whole body and head appeared to be black. But when it turned, I then could see the white head and white tail. So you see, it can go both ways. A very large bill is the better field mark.

And just what makes you so sure that the IBWO is extinct?

At the risk of unecessary repetition - most of the sceptics are not arguing about whether or not it is extinct, but about the need for and quality of proof to prove it's extant. As most of us sceptics grasped a long time ago, there is no way of proving that something is extinct, so there would be no point in arguing about this.

 

[humminbird]

So, if you only saw the all black version, would you claim bald eagle? Would you claim it if you'd never seen bald eagle before?

YES, if the other field marks indicated Bald Eagle. I often see Bald Eagles without a white head or tail. They are called juveniles.

 

[pcoin]

Ruling out non-woodpeckers in IBWO sightings

Good grief folks.
2) EVERY description begins with the contention that they saw a large WOODPECKER. I conclude from that that they HAVE ruled out the other alternatives. Maybe I am naiive, but I don't know of many BEGINNING birders that would confuse a crow with a woodpecker or a duck.

I'm 47 and have been birding since I was 5. I'm a pretty good birder, and I can speak to my experience. I usually recongize woodpeckers by their distinctive behavior and posture as they perch on trees, hitching upward, supported by their tail. (Occasionally I see other birds do this, and that makes me do a double-take.) Occasionally I see woodpeckers perch in other manners, and I don't recognize them as such instantly--I have to get a better look. I've seen Yellow-shafted Flickers perch on telephone wires and mistaken them for Meadowlarks, for a moment. I've seen Lewis' Woodpeckers sallying out like flycatchers to catch insects, and that has really thrown me for a loop. I just saw a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker in my yard hanging upside down on an oak twig, apparently pecking at a gall. That gave me a little mental start, and I did not recognize it as a woodpecker right away.

In flight, I find recognition of a woodpecker a bit more problematic. I've seen plenty of Pileateds in flight, and I have mistaken them for crows at a distance. I'm sure I've done the reverse, but don't normally give crows a second look. (To be a better birder, I really should.) I usually recognize woodpeckers in flight by their bouncy flight, but the IBWO is said to have flown more directly, like a duck. (Tanner, The Ivory-billed Woodpecker, p. 58, said that the flight of the IBWO was usually "strong and direct", but that he did once observe one make an undulating flight in the manner of a Pileated.)

In no case with the Arkansas sightings was a putative IBWO seen perched--all sightings were in flight, most brief, some at great distance, and most without binoculars. It is possible to recognize a bird reliably under such circumstances, IMHO, if you have extensive field experience with the species. Nobody has this for the IBWO, so I feel it imperative that observers show they have ruled out non-woodpecker possibilities. James Fitzpatrick says he saw a bird at 100 meters without binoculars (here). He at first thought was a crow, then realized it had a direct duck-like flight, and a large white patch on the wing "like the speculum of a diving duck". How do we know it was not a diving duck? The Science paper is silent, and so is Fitzpatrick's description linked above. Perhaps there are other details in th issue of North American Birds--see here.

Gallagher and Harrison had a close fly-by of a putative Ivory-bill. They both made very similar field sketches (figure S3 available here) that show a large white mark on the wing. Despite their assertions, the sketches do not show the white feathers extending into the primaries--it is confined to the secondaries. They did not see the broad white dorsal stripes characteristic of an IBWO, but they claimed to have gotten a good view of the back, as shown in their sketches. There are no details of the head and beak to indicate this was a woodpecker. To me, the wing pattern shown in the sketches looks quite like the speculum of a duck. How did they even know it was a woodpecker? Again, no details, just the assertion that it was a woodpecker.

Bobby Harrison claims to have gotten a close naked-eye view of an IBWO. He described the back as black--no white stripes. To me, this rules out IBWO, but this is one of the sightings reported in the Science paper. Interestingly, he described the same sighting rather differently in two different publications (see here). What are we to think of that? I did not read in his descriptions how he knew the bird was a woodpecker--again, a bird in flight.

And this may have happened recently--a non-woodpecker mistaken for a very rare woodpecker. Apparently, one theory of the recent claimed Imperial Woodpecker sighting in Mexico was that it was a Steller's Jay--see this post. I read the original post on the Yahoo Group "Mexico Birding", and that was my main question--the description merely asserted the bird was a woodpecker--it gave no supporting details of behavior for that assertion. The main detail recorded was a bushy crest. (The description was quoted in a post on that group for Nov 7, 2005 by John Spencer.)

So yes, I think it is possible, even for an experienced birder, to mistake a non-woodpecker for a woodpecker. Especially in flight. Especially if seen briefly. Especially if seen without bincoculars. Especially if this possible woodpecker has an un-woodpecker-like flight. Especially if one has no experience with this species. Especially if one is emotionally primed to see a rare woodpecker.

I'm not questioning anybody's birding skills. I am moderately experienced as a birder, and I make mistakes all the time. Even the best birders I know make mistakes, especially if the sighting is brief and naked-eye.

 

[choupique1]

I was asking if IBWOs flew over the canopy, regularly, as a trait so to speak (not sure what the sample size is / observations are for that behavioural trait though by the way). My books are all upstairs, everything i write is from memory. Sorry.

Could someone post the relevant sentence or two...?

btw Mr Timeshadowed, I never claimed or stated to have 'photographed woodpeckers'. One more error. Chalk em up.

Tim

nearly all of the observations I am aware of have them below the canopy.

 

[MMinNY]

Before I go, from p. 58. . ."They often fly above the tree tops, dodging trees with very little deviation from their course. In the thick woods, it is often difficult to tell how far Ivory-bills fly, but I am quite sure that their flight is often extended for half a mile or more."

I wonder what people think of the latest audio from the Choctawhatchee. I haven't had a chance to compare it with the Tanner recordings. From memory it sounds very similar, and I'm struck by the different pitches.

Somehow, I think the final proof will come in while I'm away.

I was asking if IBWOs flew over the canopy, regularly, as a trait so to speak (not sure what the sample size is / observations are for that behavioural trait though by the way). My books are all upstairs, everything i write is from memory. Sorry.

Could someone post the relevant sentence or two...?

btw Mr Timeshadowed, I never claimed or stated to have 'photographed woodpeckers'. One more error. Chalk em up.

Tim

 

[gud]

Just dropped in to see how you folks are "acting". Since I didn't want to miss out on the fun and "scientific debate"; I am adding this to the rubbish pile:

What a hoot! The believers are still wasting all of our time defending themselves against personal insults and responding to the inevitable integrity attacks against most anyone that submits "evidence", info, or possible sightings. Don't you get it: NO, even in a photo will not satisfy many of these same individuals (surely a fake). So stop being so defensive and wasting your time and the time of others if you are telling the truth - just keep posting the info, as your insights can help the cause. Meanwhile, many of the same non-believers and agnostics keep offering the same drivel (in the name of science, so how can we possibly debate it). Your good points are well taken (as surely most of the sightings are Pileated Woodpeckers and they are due to "mistakes" not fraud). But I bet many of you are worn out with cutting and pasting - repeating your old slams on specific individuals.

So in order to move this discussion along, I want to get ahead of the usual rigorous scientific analysis. Isn't it about time for someone to again tally up the number of posts on this forum Vs. the "Ivory-billed Researchers Forum"; and declare this forum the winner (on quality too even though most of the last 100 posts here are repeats - on both sides)?

Meanwhile habitat conservation and trying to help the cause with personal fieldwork and education of others should be the goals. The repeated innuendo and personal slams toward those who post positive info is counterproductive to that end. (But alas, on this point I am also repeating myself and wasting your time by also missing the point by failing to remember this is not about science but rather about egos)

 

[timeshadowed]

So, if you only saw the all black version, would you claim bald eagle? Would you claim it if you'd never seen bald eagle before?

Yes, if the sighting was in my home state of MN. The only other possibility is the golden eagle, which is RARE in MN. No hawk is that big! The bald eagle is not rare anymore here in MN. However, I would not claim to have seen an adult bald eagle without viewing either the white head or white tail or both.

PS - I've been veiwing bald eagles soaring for about 50 yrs now - even when they were very, very rare in the lower states due to DDT. So that kinda makes the issue of claiming it if I had never seen one moot.

 

[humminbird]

In no case with the Arkansas sightings was a putative IBWO seen perched--all sightings were in flight, most brief, some at great distance, and most without binoculars. It is possible to recognize a bird reliably under such circumstances, IMHO, if you have extensive field experience with the species. Nobody has this for the IBWO, so I feel it imperative that observers show they have ruled out non-woodpecker possibilities. James Fitzpatrick says he saw a bird at 100 meters without binoculars (here). He at first thought was a crow, then realized it had a direct duck-like flight, and a large white patch on the wing "like the speculum of a diving duck". How do we know it was not a diving duck? The Science paper is silent, and so is Fitzpatrick's description linked above. Perhaps there are other details in th issue of North American Birds--see here.

Gallagher and Harrison had a close fly-by of a putative Ivory-bill. They both made very similar field sketches (figure S3 available here) that show a large white mark on the wing. Despite their assertions, the sketches do not show the white feathers extending into the primaries--it is confined to the secondaries. They did not see the broad white dorsal stripes characteristic of an IBWO, but they claimed to have gotten a good view of the back, as shown in their sketches. There are no details of the head and beak to indicate this was a woodpecker. To me, the wing pattern shown in the sketches looks quite like the speculum of a duck. How did they even know it was a woodpecker? Again, no details, just the assertion that it was a woodpecker.

Something about these did not ring true, so I went to your references and had another look. This, by the way, was the first time I had seen this reference. Thank you.

Better go have a second look. February 11, 2004 Sparling reported seeing "extensive white on the lower portion of the FOLDED WING. One does not see a folded wing on a flying bird ergo perched bird. If you had taken the time to read Sparlings account, he states plainly that he did see the bird on the tree. He talks extensively of the "herky jerky" motion (mentioned in several publications about this bird besides this account) of the bird on the tree. No perched bird claims? More creative history.

I don't claim to be an artist, and would have a hard time drawing a quick sketch of a bird in flight that would show EXACTLY what I saw. What I do note in the two field notes written independently according to the authors, is that both made it a point to explain their drawings stressing that the white was in the secondaries according to the only eye witnesses of the bird present at the time. Pretty convincing to me regardless of your interpretation of the drawings.

 

[pcoin]

I stand corrected! Plus, primaries vs. secondaries

Something about these did not ring true, so I went to your references and had another look. This, by the way, was the first time I had seen this reference. Thank you.

Better go have a second look. February 11, 2004 Sparling reported seeing "extensive white on the lower portion of the FOLDED WING. One does not see a folded wing on a flying bird ergo perched bird. If you had taken the time to read Sparlings account, he states plainly that he did see the bird on the tree. He talks extensively of the "herky jerky" motion (mentioned in several publications about this bird besides this account) of the bird on the tree. No perched bird claims? More creative history.

I don't claim to be an artist, and would have a hard time drawing a quick sketch of a bird in flight that would show EXACTLY what I saw. What I do note in the two field notes written independently according to the authors, is that both made it a point to explain their drawings stressing that the white was in the secondaries according to the only eye witnesses of the bird present at the time. Pretty convincing to me regardless of your interpretation of the drawings.

You are quite correct about Sparling's sighting--he saw the bird perched, and I have read Sparlings account, at least that in the Science paper. I stand corrected. (Unfortunately, like most people, I make errors occasionally--I have no desire to rewrite history.) All the other sightings were of flying birds. I have been following all of this from the initial announcement in spring, 2005, and I was on Cloud Nine for about 6 months. Then I began to have my doubts.

The Ivory-bill should have white extending into the primaries. I posted previously on this--you can see this in the frame from one of Tanner's movies used on Cornell's web site, and also on the various illustrations I linked to previously. This is what is conspicuously absent in the field sketches, as well as the white stripes on the back.

Again, thanks for the correction--always appreciated.

 

[humminbird]

You are quite correct about Sparling's sighting--he saw the bird perched, and I have read Sparlings account, at least that in the Science paper. I stand corrected. (Unfortunately, like most people, I make errors occasionally--I have no desire to rewrite history.) All the other sightings were of flying birds. I have been following all of this from the initial announcement in spring, 2005, and I was on Cloud Nine for about 6 months. Then I began to have my doubts.

The Ivory-bill should have white extending into the primaries. I posted previously on this--you can see this in the frame from one of Tanner's movies used on Cornell's web site, and also on the various illustrations I linked to previously. This is what is conspicuously absent in the field sketches, as well as the white stripes on the back.

Again, thanks for the correction--always appreciated.

Better have a look at the notes again. If what they wrote is what they saw then the white WAS in the primaries!

 

[timeshadowed]

I spent some time viewing the 1935 IBWO film today at the library. (my home computer is OLD)

I tried to make several 'field sketches' of what I was seeing, but alas since I'm not an artist, the sketches did not even come close to what I was viewing on the screen. I can only imagine what a non-artist would come up with in a 'real' situation.

If someone had to judge what I had seen by viewing these 'field sketches' I'm positive that they would not agree that I had seen an IBWO.

The point I'm trying to make is that 'field sketches' made by someone incapable of sketching are useless.

 

[Russ Jones]

Before I go, from p. 58. . ."They often fly above the tree tops, dodging trees with very little deviation from their course. In the thick woods, it is often difficult to tell how far Ivory-bills fly, but I am quite sure that their flight is often extended for half a mile or more."

I wonder what people think of the latest audio from the Choctawhatchee. I haven't had a chance to compare it with the Tanner recordings. From memory it sounds very similar, and I'm struck by the different pitches.

Somehow, I think the final proof will come in while I'm away.

latest audio? where can I listen to it?

Russ

Edit: nevermind, i found it.