70ivorybill78 said:
-------------------------
All these criteria have been met in detail, except the photo/video
refer to
www.sheridanzoo.com/ivorybill.htm
make sure to download and read the 6 pdf files at the bottom of page, they contain more information, details and illustrations including multiple field marks and one very rarely mentioned field mark.
OK, let's look at these records in detail with my record-assessment hat on. I'll do it formally as if it were a first for Britain. I don't speak like this really. :-O and I have no particular reason for wanting IBWO to be extinct.
The first sighting (1970) was in the family garden when the observer was still living at home (presumable child/teenager). He had never seen Pileated, and in fact it sounds like it was the first time he had ever looked at a bird. While I'm not doubting that weird shit happens, does that not strike you as a bit unlikely?
Second, I know when I started birding I was not able to recall or describe bird plumages accurately. For example, I had my first Little Owl pointed out to me, and I remember every detail of where I was and who I was with, and my notes describe a Little owl, but every detail of my memory paints it as a Barn Owl, clear as day. It *was* a Little Owl but at the time my poor brain had only ever seen pictures of Barn Owl, so that's what I remembered seeing. There's loads of other 'I wonder if it was [rare bird]?' episodes from my early birding days, and I'm absolutely convinced that it is possible, in good faith, to 'remember' seeing an unidentified rarity when you were little and to convince yourself it really was a rarity, when in fact, as we all know, it was much more likely statistically, to have been a common bird. So I would want to see pretty good notes taken at the time before this record was acceptable.
Third, in light of that, there are no field notes presented (although they are referred to). The painting presented was drawn from memory *34* years later and includes very minor plumage and structural details that would not have been recorded or noted by a beginning birdwatcher. The details presented are not consistent with the competence of the observer or the circumstances of the observation.
Fourth, the description contains plumage and bare part details that are absolutely wrong for IBWO.
Formally, the record would be rejected, and privately I would think that (in good faith) the observer has inadvertently embellished his memory in the 34 years before doing his paintings.
The second record (1978) is a better one, if one ignores the fact that the observer's reputation was a bit shot by the previous flight of fantasy. The observer has now been birding for 8 years (good!) and has seen a 'fair few' Pileateds (not good - suggests limited experience - there are surely 1000s Pileateds to every putative IBWO). The sighting was less than 2 minutes (can't be helped) also close to the observer's house (wow! - odd), in flight and perched. Field notes were taken within 30 minutes of the sighting (just about acceptable) but are not presented. We are presented with two finished paintings that show more plumage details than could be observed under the circumstances, but are strongly indicative of IBWO. Unfortunately, they also contain details (bare part color) that are wrong for IBWO. If the original field notes were presented, the record might get the benefit of the doubt for an 'average' rarity, but would be
probably be rejected if we were assessing it at a level equivalent to a British first.
