Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (20 Viewers)

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Data: Just what data are we looking for. Oh sure, we can get pictures, but see Fielding Lewis, sure we can get the excellent sitings, see Mason Spencer (he was only an attorney and State Legislator) but that is not proof until he shoots a bird and brings it in. We have sitings from Vice Presidents at General Mills. No dice. We have feathers examined by the Smithsonian, no dice.

Collections as proof are not a viable option in 2006 unless you wish to spend time in prison.

Evidence or data has to be defined.

1. Observations are evidence. The better the observation the better the evidence. Each must be weighed and given its relative ranking.

2. Photos are evidence. They must also be evaluated.

3. Aural collecting, be it by human or machine, are evidence. Again, they must be given the weight that they merit on an individual basis.

Simply put there is much data out there, but it has been ignored. Other than to publish findings to whom is the data presented? Cornell? I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[Billbill]

Test your hypotheses!

Not to clog the wavelength here, I've written up my assessment of the data and testability of these hypotheses (and my own evaluation of the Luneau video) here:

http://bbill.blogspot.com/

Scroll down a bit to get to my summary of the evidence and what more can be extracted from it. Just reread this, and I note than Jackson's paper, though well-written, does not change any of what I wrote there.

 

[MMinNY]

Data: Just what data are we looking for. Oh sure, we can get pictures, but see Fielding Lewis, sure we can get the excellent sitings, see Mason Spencer (he was only an attorney and State Legislator) but that is not proof until he shoots a bird and brings it in. We have sitings from Vice Presidents at General Mills. No dice. We have feathers examined by the Smithsonian, no dice.

Collections as proof are not a viable option in 2006 unless you wish to spend time in prison.

Evidence or date has to be defined.

1. Observations are evidence. The better the observation the better the evidence. Each must be weighed and given its relative ranking.

2. Photos are evidence. They must also be evaluated.

3. Aural collecting, be it by human or machine, are evidence. Again, they must be given the weight that they merit on an individual basis.

Simply put there is much data out there, but it has been ignored. Other than to publish findings to whom is the data presented? Cornell? I wouldn't waste my time.

I think the distinction between data and evidence is important. Observations, photos and aural collecting are evidence, and in my view all the evidence you cite is compelling, if not conclusive. Well-collected, quantifiable data, such as gouge dimensions, can render compelling evidence conclusive.

 

[fangsheath]

Data can be submitted to this forum, as I and others have done in the past and will continue to do, to various blogs dealing with the ivory-bill, or to an on-line database that could be created by myself or someone else. Of course none of these have the advantage of peer review, but then neither do any number of other databases containing survey info on wild vertebrates. If we insisted on the cumbersome process of peer review and scientific publication by a few people in ivory towers controlling groups of students and technicians, we certainly would not have all the info we do on bird numbers and distribution in North America. This bird is no different except that we can't rely on the usual survey methods. We need to connect people to each other so they can help each other follow-up.

 

[Snowy1]

Thanks Jesse.

I see exactly what you mean. It appears there is some variability in the amount of white on the back of the Ivorybill, especially depending on the position of the perched bird. Looking again at 1971 photos I would have to retract what I said earlier and form a more "undecided" opinion.

Can anyone post the second Fielding Lewis picture from 1971? I have not been able to find it on the Cornell sight under Tim Gallagher. Thanks in advance!

 

[MMinNY]

Why Fake It?

Thanks Jesse.

I see exactly what you mean. It appears there is some variability in the amount of white on the back of the Ivorybill, especially depending on the position of the perched bird. Looking again at 1971 photos I would have to retract what I said earlier and form a more "undecided" opinion.

Can anyone post the second Fielding Lewis picture from 1971? I have not been able to find it on the Cornell sight under Tim Gallagher. Thanks in advance!

I don't have the expertise to evaluate the Fielding Lewis photos; from a pure layman's perspective, they look quite convincing. The presence of scaling makes them even more compelling. Given what I know about the circumstances in which these images were made public, I'm inclined to think they're genuine. I can think of no possible motive for the hoax, since the alleged hoaxer kept his identity secret for 30 years and appears to have had nothing to gain from the "fakery". It seems to me that the out-of-hand dismissal of the photographs is of a piece with much of the recent skepticism about the Arkansas sightings; it's based on a presumption that ivory bills are extinct, and the presumption is so strong that evidence to the contrary is presumed to be the product of mistake or chicanery.

 

[Wompoo Dove]

On the other hand, is it enough to say "I'm convinced that the bird in the video is an Ivory-bill, because the 'jizz' doesn't seem right for Pileated"?

If you hypothesize that the bird in the Luneau video is a pileated, great. Get your butt out there and test it. Take some video of pileateds. Study it. Get data on color pattern and wingbeat rate. Show us how the Luneau video falls within the known range of variation. Get out of the peanut gallery and do some real science. Quote from Fangsheath....

Mr Tweedy I am looking forward to the results of your personal studies on pileated jizz vs Ivory-bill.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

"I have discovered something regarding crest color deviation in the museum
>> images you sent to me.
>>
>> Most field guides or photos show the male IBWO as having a black "streak"
>> extending up the frontal part of the crest, with the rear portion of the
>> crest always showing as red.
>>
>> I had a discussion months ago with Jerome Jackson regarding my first
>> sighting. He regarded the rounded pattern (as opposed to a "point" of
>> black)
>> of the crest black to be very atypical. I acknowledge that I have have
>> been
>> mistaken on the details of that feature, but thought I remembered it as
>> rounded.
>>
>> Now to your photos
>>
>> One male IBWO looks textbook typical, black streak extending "partially"
>> onto red crest, tip of crest shows as typical red.
>>
>> Now for the other male IBWO, this bird shows very atypical black. The
>> black
>> extends ALL THE WAY UP THE CREST AND TOTALLY BEYOUND THE LAST AREAS OF
>> RED.
>> This is quite noticeable in several photos.
>>
>> Refer to photos 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 to see what I am talking
>> about. Then compare to photos 24, 25, 31 and 32
>>
>> There is extreme pattern variation between these two male birds.
>>
>> I would be very interested to know if this may be a geographic variation
>> that may tie museum specimens to specific known populations or if it is
>> just
>> individual variation."

The above was sent to me as a query. Not having an intelligent answer other than the one male bird appeared younger to me than the other primarily based on significant size difference I post it here for any other thoughts.

 

[fangsheath]

John Fitzpatrick shows the two Lewis photos side by side in his plenary address. This is the only place I have yet seen the second photo on the internet.

I'm afraid I can think of a reason for Lewis to fake the photos and give them to Lowery, but the fact is, professional ornithology didn't follow up. Lowery tried, but he was one person with a full plate of many other concerns. Jackson didn't even know who took the photos until recently, neither did I. One ornithologist spending brief periods of time in the area is not good follow-up. It is clear to me that Jackson believes that it is. He and a few others have done this kind of thing time and again in various places in the South. Obtain a good lead, spend some time in the area. Even if you hear something intriguing, as he did in the Yazoo Basin, move on. Chalk it up as "unconfirmed." And Jackson has done more follow-up than almost anyone else in the past.

To me the Fielding Lewis case is the classic example of excessive dependence on photographic evidence combined with a theology of ivory-bill extinction. If the photos are fakes, the birds are not out there. Wrong. It is perfectly possible that the photos are fakes, yet Lewis did see ivory-bills. He just couldn't get photos of them. Yes, what he shot is pretty hard to fake. But getting a genuine photo of an ivory-bill may be much harder still.

 

[Wompoo Dove]

"I have discovered something regarding crest color deviation in the museum

I had a discussion months ago with Jerome Jackson regarding my first
>> sighting. He regarded the rounded pattern (as opposed to a "point" of
>> black)
>> of the crest black to be very atypical. I acknowledge that I have have
>> been
>> mistaken on the details of that feature, but thought I remembered it as
>> rounded.

Jesse I want to say how much I appreciate your postings and the dignified way you handle the critics to your sightings. I think I would personally be somewhat frustrated to have seen ivorybills well enough to have noted crest color etc. and to have many of the "experts" not acknowledging that this bird truly exists. Having said that I believe the future will be very very revealing about this amazing species. (I dont have any inside knowledge about any observations etc) But I believe time will reveal a lot.

Cheers!

Don

 

[fangsheath]

On crest variation - There is undoubtedly a good deal of variation in crest color and form. Dennis noted that a female ivory-bill he observed in Cuba had a very ragged crest. And the crest will behave in very different ways in different contexts.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Let's be clear. I have one siting at what I term 60% probabilty and warily believe was an IBW. Others have much better sitings that I believe are rock solid as those were:

One siting of a bird by two unrelated people flying away from them (bird was well identified as an IBW) One of these two saw the bird two other times, one well, one not very well.

One siting by two married people of a pair digging a roost hole.


All of the above within 20 miles of each other, mine included.

As for critics, I assume that they are critics in the classical sense, looking for truth. As such they are good things, not bad. I openly state at all times I may be wrong.


JG.

 

[MMinNY]

Hadn't thought of that. . .

John Fitzpatrick shows the two Lewis photos side by side in his plenary address. This is the only place I have yet seen the second photo on the internet.

I'm afraid I can think of a reason for Lewis to fake the photos and give them to Lowery, but the fact is, professional ornithology didn't follow up. Lowery tried, but he was one person with a full plate of many other concerns. Jackson didn't even know who took the photos until recently, neither did I. One ornithologist spending brief periods of time in the area is not good follow-up. It is clear to me that Jackson believes that it is. He and a few others have done this kind of thing time and again in various places in the South. Obtain a good lead, spend some time in the area. Even if you hear something intriguing, as he did in the Yazoo Basin, move on. Chalk it up as "unconfirmed." And Jackson has done more follow-up than almost anyone else in the past.

To me the Fielding Lewis case is the classic example of excessive dependence on photographic evidence combined with a theology of ivory-bill extinction. If the photos are fakes, the birds are not out there. Wrong. It is perfectly possible that the photos are fakes, yet Lewis did see ivory-bills. He just couldn't get photos of them. Yes, what he shot is pretty hard to fake. But getting a genuine photo of an ivory-bill may be much harder still.

And it's not an implausible reason for faking the photos. Still, I think there's some value in applying Occam's Razor to a discussion of the photos, and indeed to the whole question of ivory bills' survival. The simplest explanation is often the right one, and certainly when the argument against the simplest explanation becomes very convoluted -- as, for example, Jackson's argument does -- it makes sense to stick with simplicity.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

One of the people that is kind enough to report information to me has just called. He has found two trees that he describes as follows:

3 x 5 high x 6 inches deep (can stick big fist in it). Many chips at base of tree. TIGHTLY HELD BARK. Cannot peel off tree with hands (large man - strong hands). Two trees, both the same condition. Large amounts of chips, some 4" long. Within 30 yards of each other. Within same area as IBW siting. They describe these trees as being worked over in a major way. There are gouges, but the reporter could not tell for sure what I meant needed measuring. I will measure tomorrow.

While these could easily be pileated "tracks" they are interesting to note. I will check them out in the morning. There is no reason to think that they will be disturbed tonight. I would note that there are many species of woodpecker in this area all of whom could be the culprit. But then again, I enjoy watching any woodpecker at work.

Jesse

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Affe:

I am heading out. You up?

 

[fangsheath]

Thank you so much for all your efforts, Jesse, I think it is prime time for large woodpeckers to be feeding on wood borers. Maybe you will get lucky.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

i'm at my morning jumping off point. Fang, or anyone:

Woodborer holes -- any examples anywhere to view on the net? I may be confusing woodpecker holes with woodborer holes. I am looking for signs.

 

[fangsheath]

I would suggest www.barkbeetles.org for beetle sign. Large cerambycids tend to make rather disorganized but wide squiggles under the bark. By this time next week I should have lots of photos of large woodpecker work. Meanwhile, look for gouges, whether on the walls of foraging pits or on bark-scaled tree surfaces. Without gouges we may not be able to reliably distinguish ivory-bill and pileated work.

 

[Billbill]

Effort needed for visual detection and photographic documentation

I posted a quick estimate (by me) of the amount of observer effort likely to be required to find, identify, and document an Ivorybill in a place like the Big Woods, assuming a very low population density of one bird per 50 square miles:

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2006/01/woodpecker-math.html

I made several assumptions (abundance 1/2000 of pileated, detectability same as pileated, random movement of birds within the area, etc.), then tried to make allowances for the extra high standard of documentation needed for an ivorybill (heard only or brief glimpse not good enough, good view probably not even good enough, low-quality photo not good enough). It's a very simple analysis. Still, though, the numbers that fall out of the end are not encouraging for the success of such efforts. Some things could raise these chances considerably, like clumping of birds within identifiable areas, but even so... yikes. Basically if the birds exist at such low density they are very very hard to document by just heading in to the woods with a camera and searching, searcing, searching. This is a very high-effort, extremely low-payback endeavor.

This highlights again the need for definitive sign in cavities or foraging or anything to focus search efforts!

 

[fangsheath]

Fitzpatrick, in answering questions on the NOVA ScienceNOW website, confirms that additional recordings of blue jays "mimicking" ivory-bills have been obtained "this year." These recordings were thought by the observers at the time to be "very kent-like." But with closer analysis they were apparently easily distinguished from both the old ivory-bill recordings and the suspicious vocalizations recorded last field season. So the blue jay mimic hypothesis seems to be rapidly losing ground.

Fitz also justified the secrecy by saying that they felt that publicly describing each report as it occurs "could lead to pandemonium and a lot of misinformation." I'm not sure the misinformation associated with rumors and inevitable leaks is any better. But in any case, he says "We'll summarize the results of the current field season publicly in May. For now, suffice it to say that there indeed are some good reasons for our interest and hopes to remain high." There is now little question in my mind that they already have some good stuff.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3302/03-ask.html