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

Mike Johnston said:

One comment to this news on Tom Nelson's site states that 'there is to be a presentation at AOU by the grad student who claims the multiple pairs in Florida. He missed the paper deadline, and wouldn't put in a poster, but two people told me that they are giving him space somewhere else.'
Ah, rumours about rumours...

Click to expand...

sort of like the rumors 70 years ago, I guess, that there were Ivory-bills in Madison Parish, La., and just to prove it, let's go shoot one. The same mindset at work... (and to some degree I mean this literally, for all this controversy over the species has undoubtedly put a huge bounty on this bird for collectors and poachers around the globe).

Mike Johnston said:

One comment to this news on Tom Nelson's site states that 'there is to be a presentation at AOU by the grad student who claims the multiple pairs in Florida. He missed the paper deadline, and wouldn't put in a poster, but two people told me that they are giving him space somewhere else.'
Ah, rumours about rumours...

Click to expand...

In their increasingly desperate attempts to discredit anyone who finds this species, the skeptics will look for the most minute details to try to sully reputations. It's no wonder they have become so desperate--scientists working completely independently at three sites separated by hundreds of miles are now claiming multiple sightings at each location.

By the way, Geoff Hill is not a graduate student. In 1991, he received a Ph.D. in biology from Michigan University. He is a chaired professor in the biology department at Auburn University.

Tim Allwood said:

I see Daniel Mennill is viewing the thread

Hi Daniel, Have you (or any of the paper presenters) seen an IBWO well enough to identify it?

atb
Tim

Click to expand...

IF the info on Mary Scott's web site is accurate and there are as many as 9 pairs at this unnamed site...then logically they MUST have good identification of the bird(s). I mean, realistically, how could anyone claim to have located a colony of up to 9 pairs and gotten that count without coming in contact with pairs repeatedly?

Three possible answers -

1. The "9 pairs" have been documented with enough evidence to come up with a reasonable estimate of the population, in which case the existence of the population has been proven.

2. The "9 pairs" is a flimsy guesstimate based upon the available habitat and locations of knocky knocks, kent calls, bark scrapings, and possible sightings (like the best-guess estimate of 6 pairs in SE Texas back in the 60s).

3. Or we are following a ball of string.

I don't see much difference between answers 2 and 3.

cinclodes said:

By the way, Geoff Hill is not a graduate student. In 1991, he received a Ph.D. in biology from Michigan University. He is a chaired professor in the biology department at Auburn University.

Click to expand...

I don't think they're referring to Geoff Hill.

Nine pairs would be pretty awesome, just hope that if they say it's definite, that it really is.
And not just for their sakes...

colonelboris said:

Nine pairs would be pretty awesome, just hope that if they say it's definite, that it really is.
And not just for their sakes...

Click to expand...

If this story pans out, I just hope it gets handled in as judicious a manner as possible. No wild stampedes to the area and hopefully there will be some sensitivity shown to the ones who may be leery of some sort of future restrictions.

Maybe this will get handled right.

Sidewinder said:

... Dr. Hill has a stellar publication record (see his website: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/res_area/hill_lab/index.html).

Click to expand...

A few thoughts in anticipation of new evidence being presented.

Having a stellar publication record and having a stellar field identification record are 2 different things. I'm not saying that the publication record doesn't hold any weight, but I would look at what the publications are. Just because you are a brilliant research ornithologist does not by necessity imply that that brilliance carries over into field identification. I'd be more impressed if a field guide author or a tour leader with a stellar reputation was making claims in matters of field identification. Field experience matters and talent bubbles up to the top.

Reputations in this matter could pull one in two directions, maintaining one's name or making one's name.

There is a difference between a skeptic and a cynic in this matter. True believers and true disbelievers do not need to look at evidence since their minds are made up. In my opinion everyone should be looking at the evidence as objectively and dispassionately as possible.

People have to be confident enough to present their case knowing that people are going to ask the tough questions.

I hope people stay away from the villification and other personal attacks of those presenting evidence, those asking tough questions & those offering analysis.

Here's a list of skeptical IBWO evidence questions I had posted earlier that I've updated based on previous comments. I think that the types of questions that are generally being discussed about a set of evidence can be used to rate the quality of the evidence. In increasing order of quality:

1. Is this a bird?
2. Is this a woodpecker?
3. Is this a Red-headed Woodpecker (RHWO), PIWO or IBWO?
4. Is this a PIWO or an IBWO?
5. Is this an aberrant PIWO or an IBWO?
6. Is this a simple hoax?
7. Is this an elaborate hoax?

I really hope that this evidence isn't going to require a Ph.D. to analyze.

I was willing to believe a year and a half ago. I've learned to be more skeptical since then. I could still be convinced, but I need to see convincing evidence that is not considered subject to interpretation.

Time will tell.

theveeb said:

Here's a list of skeptical IBWO evidence questions I had posted earlier that I've updated based on previous comments. I think that the types of questions that are generally being discussed about a set of evidence can be used to rate the quality of the evidence. In increasing order of quality:

1. Is this a bird?
2. Is this a woodpecker?
3. Is this a Red-headed Woodpecker (RHWO), PIWO or IBWO?
4. Is this a PIWO or an IBWO?
5. Is this an aberrant PIWO or an IBWO?
6. Is this a simple hoax?
7. Is this an elaborate hoax?

Click to expand...

I think you've left off a key question, or maybe you consider it inherent to the above questions: "Are the people making the claim credible and experienced?"

People who think IBWOs are extinct are essentially saying there is something NON-credible about the 7 Cornell sighters (not to mention, Kulivan, John Dennis, John Terres, and dozens of others) -- these people didn't say 'I think I might have seen an Ivory-bill,' they said 'I saw an Ivory-bill' -- you either believe them or consider them uncredible -- as I said in a previous blog post, really most of science comes down to this trust in those reporting -- I have no solid evidence whatsoever that Tanner ever studied IBWOs, only a trust in those who have reported Tanner's work, as credible, capable people who are not pulling an elaborate hoax.
The assumption should not be, as it has become, that NOBODY is credible without videotape to back them up; it should be that the claims of honest, intelligent, credible people are accurate, or at least probable, until shown otherwise. The Cornell evidence still stands, yet somehow because alternative explanations have been offered, Cornell's stance is to be rejected??? Somehow, we have it bass ackwards, and before it's all over a lot of professional people are going to have a lot of answering to do for themselves. It's no wonder that anti-evolutionists make such inroads when alternative explanations are automatically to be given such favoritism.

cyberthrush said:

The Cornell evidence still stands, yet somehow because alternative explanations have been offered, Cornell's stance is to be rejected???

Click to expand...

Their proof was noithing more then a hypothesis, as was shown in the published reaction to their Science paper. Their rebuttal was just too weak to take away the doubts of the skeptics.
Even the best observers can make dreadful errors in ID, so good video/photo back up is definitely required...
This is a scientific approach (although I wouldn't say it's science). It's been repeated over and over again... It's absolutely ridiculous to state that it's because "we need an alternative explanation"... good evidence (not all those blurs) would destroy an alternative explanation (and I'm still hoping for that to happen of course).

This is a presumed extinct bird. This is not an vagrant Sage Thrasher or an early/late Connecticut Warbler record. For a presumed extinct bird, I don't think a photo (without controversy) or video is too much to ask. But I'm willing to use good sightings to direct future work and even to delay large projects. But good sightings should result in good video/photos, and so far they haven't. This 'repeatability' is what is lacking. (and by repeatability I don't mean by the same observer, because frankly, if I don't know the person myself or if his/her reputation is untarnished, you just don't know who you are dealing with).

IBWO_Agnostic said:

This is a presumed extinct bird. This is not an vagrant Sage Thrasher or an early/late Connecticut Warbler record. For a presumed extinct bird, I don't think a photo (without controversy) or video is too much to ask. But I'm willing to use good sightings to direct future work and even to delay large projects. But good sightings should result in good video/photos, and so far they haven't. This 'repeatability' is what is lacking. (and by repeatability I don't mean by the same observer, because frankly, if I don't know the person myself or if his/her reputation is untarnished, you just don't know who you are dealing with).

Click to expand...

I just spent the weekend trying to photo a bird that is both common and easily seen on the Texas coast in September - the Buff-bellied Hummingbird. Despite many GOOD observations and several attempts to photograph the bird, I was unable to get easily identifiable photos, and so were a LOT of good photographers close by. Photographing a bird, especially in areas where vegetation is thick, is NOT easy. Add to that trying to do it from a canoe, in swamps, with a moving target, etc., etc., etc. and I can certainly understand why we are seeing what we are seeing.

Some people "presumed" IBWO to be extinct, but not everybody, not even Jerome Jackson.

I find it interesting (and revealing) that some people are prejudging the new evidence even though they haven't even seen it. You don't know that the new guys don't have photos or video. But let's assume they don't. If Sibley and Kaufman were in the lineup who saw the birds, but they didn't get photos, would the sightings be more credible?

Note this in my earlier message: "if I don't know the person myself or if his/her reputation is untarnished, you just don't know who you are dealing with"

Sibley and Kaufman have untarnished reputations. They admit to getting an ID wrong sometimes (Gallagher doesn't by the way). So if they came forward I would treat the sighting as pretty damn good. However, I'm going to guess that even they would say it should be officially unconfirmed. In fact I think I read somewhere that Sibley said if he came in from the field with an IBWO sighting that wasn't backed up by photos/video he would not expect everyone to believe it.

Xenospiza said:

Their proof was noithing more then a hypothesis, as was shown in the published reaction to their Science paper. Their rebuttal was just too weak to take away the doubts of the skeptics.
Even the best observers can make dreadful errors in ID, so good video/photo back up is definitely required...
This is a scientific approach (although I wouldn't say it's science). It's been repeated over and over again... It's absolutely ridiculous to state that it's because "we need an alternative explanation"... good evidence (not all those blurs) would destroy an alternative explanation (and I'm still hoping for that to happen of course).

Click to expand...

I think that is how science is supposed to work - hypothesis with evidence, alternative hypothesis, etc. (ad infinitem, like this thread ?). An alternative hypothesis does not disprove the original. In addition, I believe that the authors of rebuttal in Science focused on the video evidence (without new evidence, but with an alternative hypothesis); I don't recall that they offered an alternative hypothesis for the sight records.

humminbird said:

I just spent the weekend trying to photo a bird that is both common and easily seen on the Texas coast in September - the Buff-bellied Hummingbird. Despite many GOOD observations and several attempts to photograph the bird, I was unable to get easily identifiable photos, and so were a LOT of good photographers close by. Photographing a bird, especially in areas where vegetation is thick, is NOT easy. Add to that trying to do it from a canoe, in swamps, with a moving target, etc., etc., etc. and I can certainly understand why we are seeing what we are seeing.

Click to expand...

Then you probably didn't see it. In accordance with the standards of the BF Birding Police, there's no proof you saw it, and therefore we can dismiss your claimed observation out-of-hand. Even the presence of David Sibley might not have been sufficient, although he did write a couple of books (have you written a birding book, Mark?), which vaults him into the rarified status of Überexpert, and therefore his observation would have more credence than yours. The rule is simple: no photo, no sighting.

Curtis Croulet said:

Then you probably didn't see it. In accordance with the standards of the BF Birding Police, there's no proof you saw it, and therefore we can dismiss your claimed observation out-of-hand. Even the presence of David Sibley might not have been sufficient, although he did write a couple of books (have you written a birding book, Mark?), which vaults him into the rarified status of Überexpert, and therefore his observation would have more credence than yours. The rule is simple: no photo, no sighting.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact Curtis, as I think you know, I am coauthor of a book on hummingbirds.

I've been informed someone has seen and heard IBWOs in the small area in Florida

The person has asked me no to divulge their name. NO amount of asking or PMs will get a word out of me in that respect, or even a veiled hint, nothing. Hopefully they'll give everyone details soon.

I have no reason to disbelieve them...

Looking forward to the official announcement... then we can (hopefully) put it to bed once and for all, and the birds will hopefully be protected... i might even see one sometime...

Tim

Curtis Croulet said:

Then you probably didn't see it. In accordance with the standards of the BF Birding Police, there's no proof you saw it, and therefore we can dismiss your claimed observation out-of-hand. Even the presence of David Sibley might not have been sufficient, although he did write a couple of books (have you written a birding book, Mark?), which vaults him into the rarified status of Überexpert, and therefore his observation would have more credence than yours. The rule is simple: no photo, no sighting.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Curtis but that's just a load of crap. It's not about dismissing people's claims of birds that are seen daily if not weekly and photographed every freaking year. It's about proving claims that are a lot more outrageous.

Have you ever been birding? Are you not aware of how many birds are misidentified? Reputation does play into it. With experience comes credibility. Books/scientific papers/presentations/ have nothing to do with it. Some birders are just more careful than others. Some have to put a name on every bird they see...no matter how crappy the view.

David Sibley's book production has nothing to do with it. Before he wrote it, he had a reputation in the birding world as a great field man. He really knew (knows) his birds and isn't afraid to admit he sometimes makes mistakes. That is why many people would believe his sighting over someone without such a reputation. Say you bought a Monet, but weren't sure it was authentic. Would you take it to an expert or a friend of yours that likes looking at pretty pictures?

cyberthrush said:

I think you've left off a key question, or maybe you consider it inherent to the above questions: "Are the people making the claim credible and experienced?"

Click to expand...

The questions as posed refer only to objective evidence such as photos or video that can be independently assessed. The rating (and I'm not taking this all that seriously) is based on where the prevailing arguments after a prolonged discussion end up.

The Luneau video of the bird launching and flying from the tree rates a 4 (Is it an IBWO or PIWO?)

The handful of pixels that appeared earlier in the Luneau video rates a 1 (Is it a bird or not?)

Tmguy's photo was a 6 (Is it a simple hoax or not?)

I'd like to see evidence that at least gets us easily past is it a PIWO or IBWO?

I definitely would have more confidence in sight reports by credible and experienced observers, the more experienced and credible the better, they are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to acknowledge uncertainties. Number of fieldmarks observed, length and quality of observation, number of observers, etc. all need to be considered for sight records. All observations by experienced observers in AR were of birds in flight. And although the concentration of sightings is interesting, the fact that all well seen birds have been PIWO and all IBWO sightings were fleeting starts to erode confidence. With Kullivan my thinking is that he either saw what he said or he's lying. At least Kullivan's descriptions are based on an extended quality observation.

IBWO_Agnostic said:

David Sibley's book production has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. He may be a great birder, but he's not the only one. The only thing that makes his opinion more valuable -- to some people -- about a very simple ID problem than the birders on the Cornell team is that he's written a very famous and influential book.