Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (15 Viewers)

[humminbird]

I am not stating for one moment that an IBWO was seen in Maine.
However, this is a cat-among-the-pigeons post all the same! How many miles is it from Maryland where the bird used to be seen, to Maine?

And how many miles is it from the habitat of the White-crowned Sparrow, right across the Atlantic, to eastern England in Norfolk where thousands of people have thronged to see this amazing little flyer?

Migrant birds can turn up nearly anywhere, including Maine.

The problem is we have NO evidence the IBWO was ever migratory.

 

[humminbird]

Dave-in-Michigan,

The location alone is certainly enough to reject any Ivory-bill reports from Maine,

Respectfully disagree madam. We have birds that are known as "short distance migrants" and "highly sedentary" from central Mexico that showed up in, and were banded in Wisconsin last year and are now sitting in a zoo in Chicago. Maryland is much closer to Maine that Monterey is to Beloit. Or did the bander, photographers, bird records committee and curators misidentify the Mango?

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Where did you get the information that he was only reviewing reports from certain states?

The title of his talk: Evaluating Evidence of Persistence for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in the Southeastern United States from 1900 to the Present.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what patterns he talked about, and it's not really clear from the abstract. I was going to speculate about his conclusions and then attack that, but I'll refrain. http://www.birdforum.net/images/smilies/angel2.gif
o

And OK, maybe "equally" was a bit of a globalization. There are well-described sightings like the Maine report scattered across the continent, I know of Connecticut and Illinois,and have heard other rumors, but that data is always archived in the "circular file" where it is not available for public review.
http://www.birdforum.net/images/smilies/awink.gif

I think another way to look at this particular point and to see if certain sightings stand out from the "noise", is to imagine that recent sightings from Arkansas or Florida were instead reported from outside of the Ivory-bill's historical range - say, Pennsylvania. What would we think of Gallagher and Harrison's sighting then? It's a brief glimpse of a single field mark and not even as credible as Louis's Maine example, is it? So are we simply accepting the Arkansas sightings because we find the story plausible, and rejecting the Maine sighting because we think it is not? A true "high-quality" sighting should stand up on its own, regardless of whether the accompanying storyline is plausible.

 

[Runaround]

The White-crowned Sparrow and Green-breasted Mango examples are red herrings. These are birds that are known to be extant in their home territories and there is plenty of irrefutable evidence of their existence there. Now were supposed to rationally consider an out-of-range report of a bird that can't be conclusively documented within its historic range?

 

[humminbird]

The title of his talk: Evaluating Evidence of Persistence for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in the Southeastern United States from 1900 to the Present.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what patterns he talked about, and it's not really clear from the abstract. I was going to speculate about his conclusions and then attack that, but I'll refrain. http://www.birdforum.net/images/smilies/angel2.gif
o

As one who WAS there, and DID attend the entire session (not just this talk), and entered the talk leaning to the skeptic side, I will say that YES, his talk did focus on the south east, just as he promised in his title and abstract. However, I am sure that, since history repeats itself, if we were to look carefully we could probably find written or verbal description from extralimital occurences of this bird BEFORE the "sixty years of silence." A big part of the talk focussed on the fact that there WAS NO SILENCE - throughout the sixty years (not just in the past five years) there have been good, quality, descriptive reports of this bird.

Yes, unfortunately most of the reports have ended up in the circular file, however some must have been conserved since they were able to be documented for this paper (the reports, not the bird).

 

[dave_in_michigan]

The title of his talk: Evaluating Evidence of Persistence for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in the Southeastern United States from 1900 to the Present.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what patterns he talked about, and it's not really clear from the abstract. I was going to speculate about his conclusions and then attack that, but I'll refrain. http://www.birdforum.net/images/smilies/angel2.gif
o

And OK, maybe "equally" was a bit of a globalization. There are well-described sightings like the Maine report scattered across the continent, I know of Connecticut and Illinois,and have heard other rumors, but that data is always archived in the "circular file" where it is not available for public review.
http://www.birdforum.net/images/smilies/awink.gif

The Cornell "Report a Sighting" page had potential to evaluate this kind of noise floor, but this chance is lost since they ask people to "Step 1: Check the distribution maps to make make sure your sighting was within the range of the ivory-bill. Step 2: Evaluate the habitat to ..." etc, so that data is going to be biased from the get-go. I think this was a mistake. They decrease the number of reports they read, but they lose the oportunity to try to identify the noise floor. When pulling reports from lay-people, I'd think this kind of noise evaluation would be important.

I think another way to look at this particular point and to see if certain sightings stand out from the "noise", is to imagine that recent sightings from Arkansas or Florida were instead reported from outside of the Ivory-bill's historical range - say, Pennsylvania. What would we think of Gallagher and Harrison's sighting then? It's a brief glimpse of a single field mark and not even as credible as Louis's Maine example, is it? So are we simply accepting the Arkansas sightings because we find the story plausible, and rejecting the Maine sighting because we think it is not? A true "high-quality" sighting should stand up on its own, regardless of whether the accompanying storyline is plausible.

As Louis pointed out already, there is no way to know what anyone heard or saw. The only real point of these kind of reports is to decide whether or not to follow up on them. Certainly two people seeing the same bird is more notable than a single observer. Credibility, plausibility etc all play a factor on whether someone wants to follow up, but nothing short of solid documentation is going to lead to acceptance.

 

[humminbird]

. What would we think of Gallagher and Harrison's sighting then? It's a brief glimpse of a single field mark and not even as credible as Louis's Maine example, is it?

That madam is the grossest MISREPRESENTATION of Gallagher and Harrison's observation I have seen. Take a look at the field notes. They saw FAR more than one field mark.

 

[humminbird]

The White-crowned Sparrow and Green-breasted Mango examples are red herrings. These are birds that are known to be extant in their home territories and there is plenty of irrefutable evidence of their existence there. Now were supposed to rationally consider an out-of-range report of a bird that can't be conclusively documented within its historic range?

That is not what I said. What I said was that the claim that because the bird was grossly out of range we could discount the description. That is simply not true given the two situations above and MANY more.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

As one who WAS there, and DID attend the entire session (not just this talk), and entered the talk leaning to the skeptic side, I will say that YES, his talk did focus on the south east, just as he promised in his title and abstract. However, I am sure that, since history repeats itself, if we were to look carefully we could probably find written or verbal description from extralimital occurences of this bird BEFORE the "sixty years of silence." A big part of the talk focussed on the fact that there WAS NO SILENCE - throughout the sixty years (not just in the past five years) there have been good, quality, descriptive reports of this bird.

Yes, unfortunately most of the reports have ended up in the circular file, however some must have been conserved since they were able to be documented for this paper (the reports, not the bird).

And this is important in supporting plausibility of IBWO presence (not proof of course). Consider the contrary; if there was no continuity of reports prior to 2005 and only after, then I'd consider that a big strike against plausibility.

 

[Piltdownwoman]

Since the Arkansas reports never generated any confirmation, and there is no way of knowing what anyone saw, what's the difference between them and reports from Maine, etc? I know, I know, two observers together, highly-trained experts, multiple sightings and sounds in the same area....and of course an IBWO in Arkansas is more plausible than one in Maine. But really, aside from the book and the national marketing campaign, these stories are about equal. They are certainly equally confirmed.

And if having an unbroken string of unconfirmed reports over sixty years makes you feel better than having a few gaps, well... whatever.

 

[humminbird]

They are certainly equally confirmed.

And if having an unbroken string of unconfirmed reports over sixty years makes you feel better than having a few gaps, well... whatever.

Agreed.

We do have the matter of repeated sightings in a VERY small area based on another paper at that same conference. No, it was not in Arkansas (although a map of the Arkansas search did show the same general phenomena) but a map of the observations certainly answered the replication issue in my mind.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

And if having an unbroken string of unconfirmed reports over sixty years....

You chose your words wisely

 

[humminbird]

You chose your words wisely

A matter of opinion sir.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

A matter of opinion sir.

You do too. Opinion: "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty".

 

[humminbird]

You do too. Opinion: "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty".

Agreed entirely. As long as I recognize mine and you recognize yours is there really any harm in expressing them?

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Agreed entirely. As long as I recognize mine and you recognize yours is there really any harm in expressing them?

Absolutely none provided they're not masqueraded as fact in IBWO recovery plans and scientific publications etc.

 

[Louis Bevier]

...A big part of [Chuck Hunter's] talk focussed on the fact that there WAS NO SILENCE - throughout the sixty years (not just in the past five years) there have been good, quality, descriptive reports of this bird.

There has never been a silence because there have always been Pileateds and hopeful observers in the historic range of the Ivory-billed. The implication that a lack of silence (noise) is a string of possible Ivory-billed sightings is misleading and meaningless without verified cases, a situation having spanned decades and true to this day.

That madam is the grossest MISREPRESENTATION of Gallagher and Harrison's observation I have seen. Take a look at the field notes. They saw FAR more than one field mark.

I'm not picking on you personally, humminbird. I'm responding because I suspect many share your same misunderstanding. Tim Gallagher's and Bobby Harrison's sighting boils down to just ONE field mark--what they thought was white in the secondaries, and this naked-eye at 65 feet in a single fleeting pass. I don't find anything more apart from a fuzzy suggestion that the black was some different quality, but that sounds dubious if they missed other aspects.

Now, look at some of the contradictory aspects, which have been grossly unrepresented. The white they depict was curving posteriorly (toward the tail), and both drawings show the white more or less restricted to the secondaries. They both illustrate the bird with a black back, lacking white lines (this is a Pileated feature, and their lack of focus on the back means little because, had white actually been there, I think it would have been noticed). No head and no tail? How good a look was it? The curving white pattern is especially bad. This is even reinforced by Bobby Harrison's statement that "white...appeared to be in some of the primaries." Compare that with Don Eckelberry's drawing and how the white extends straight out across the primaries. His illustration closely matches the only comparative photo, that of the birds exchanging at the nest with the female directly overhead (see my webite).

All in all, a careful appraisal of their sighting shows it insufficient to support the identification and even contradicts it. They should not take offense at folks questiong this. Such mistakes are common, even among experienced birders. They may remain convinced, if that's what they insist. I don't think that sets a good example for birders, though.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

black outermost primaries

Now, look at some of the contradictory aspects, which have been grossly unrepresented. The white they depict was curving posteriorly (toward the tail), and both drawings show the white more or less restricted to the secondaries....[snip]... The curving white pattern is especially bad. This is even reinforced by Bobby Harrison's statement that "white...appeared to be in some of the primaries." Compare that with Don Eckelberry's drawing and how the white extends straight out across the primaries. His illustration closely matches the only comparative photo, that of the birds exchanging at the nest with the female directly overhead (see my webite).

Here is a description of actual specimens from Cornell's website:

"...the trailing edge of the entire wing is broadly white, leaving only a narrow, wedge-shaped black stripe down the central part of the wing. This wedge is highly variable among individual specimens. In some specimens, for example, the inner web of many outer primaries is largely white, while in others the outermost six primaries are virtually all black."​

As the wings bend to a mostly closed position during wingbeats (see this photo and this photo), I would think that black outermost primaries would give an impression consistent with their sketches in all but the most forward of wing positions. Indeed the forward edge of the outer primaries are angled backwards in both sketches.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Shades of black!

The point has been made on this thread many times, but well done for reiterating it. The most high profile and most widely believed report of IBWO in the recent "rediscovery" is based on 1 feature and field-sketches that dont include the head or the tail and are inconsistent with either IBWO or PIWO.

I'm not picking on you personally, humminbird. I'm responding because I suspect many share your same misunderstanding. Tim Gallagher's and Bobby Harrison's sighting boils down to just ONE field mark--what they thought was white in the secondaries, and this naked-eye at 65 feet in a single fleeting pass. I don't find anything more apart from a fuzzy suggestion that the black was some different quality, but that sounds dubious if they missed other aspects.

 

[Louis Bevier]

As the wings bend to a mostly closed position during wingbeats (see this photo and this photo), I would think that black outermost primaries would give an impression consistent with their sketches in all but the most forward of wing positions. Indeed the forward edge of the outer primaries are angled backwards in both sketches.

Apologies Bonsaibirder if this has all been said before. As for the idea above, that is why one can compare what Eckelberry depicted of a bird he watched in flight. Also, the overhead shot that I showed is most comparable, and the white extends right out the wings. This is true also in the specimens that offer a spread or semi-spread posture (see slightly bent wing on ANSP specimen on my website). Nope, I think their sketch and description is wrong for the appearance of a IBW in flight.