London Birder
Well-known member
bernerjc said:
I was being ironic ... maybe he was to?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
I was being ironic ... maybe he was to?
Piltdownwoman
Well-known member
I did not mean to disparage the PIWO videographer, only the assumption that it is a fact that PIWO flap more slowly than IBWO. The videos of PIWO are needed and I applaude that people are taking it into their own hands to investigate.curunir said:
My main point is that the "science" behind the IBWO flap rate is very bad (N=1), there is no evidence of what the bird was doing during that audio-only recording, or what the human who made the recording was doing (but it seems that he may have been eliciting defence from the adults by being too close to a nest hole), there is no actual evidence that the recording is even an IBWO in flight. That recording is a red herring, and it should be withdrawn by Science.
fangsheath
Well-known member
My interest in wingbeat rates goes far beyond the Luneau video. We have every reason to expect that many if not most ivory-bill videos are going to be like this - fuzzy, unclear, and subject to interpretation on field marks, yet leaving little doubt that the bird is a large woodpecker. The Collins video is another such example in my opinion. Long after the "killer" video is published and some who shall remain nameless go scurrying away, we will be getting such videos. The question is, what are we going to do with them? Ignore them? Many of us on this forum realize how incredibly irresponsible that is. In many cases they will be the only physical evidence we have of the species in a given area, at least initially. I submit that wingbeat rate is an objectively measurable feature, with little room for fudging, that has the potential to lead the rejection of the pileated hypothesis on at least some of these videos. I have little interest in records committees or the judgments of "experts." The whole point of having an objective measure and a statistical analysis with an established p-value is to eliminate judgments and fudge factors. As for "bad science," even a non-scientist can perhaps understand straightforward logic such as:
If a video was taken in the wilds of the continental U.S. AND
the bird in the video is indisputably a large woodpecker AND
the hypothesis that the bird is a pileated must be rejected due to an excessively high wingbeat rate
THEN
Do I really need to finish this?
If a video was taken in the wilds of the continental U.S. AND
the bird in the video is indisputably a large woodpecker AND
the hypothesis that the bird is a pileated must be rejected due to an excessively high wingbeat rate
THEN
Do I really need to finish this?
OwlTalon
Always Watching
No, not really. I was starting to worry that maybe the bird wasn't out there, but then I (1) read the detailed analysis of the Luneau video (2) watched the video for myself (3) listened to the "supposed" kent calls and double raps. There is now way the bird in the video is a pileated, the white leading edge on the underside couldn't show on the upstroke and downstroke. Even though they are distant, the kents and double knocks are distinctive, and look (spectrograph) and sound (to me at least) completely different from anything else.fangsheath said:
Blackstart
Saxophonus pinus
Still waiting for Jesse to tell how he has shown that the textbooks are wrong.
In the meantime, some more questions:
Choupique, you say there are eight populations. Where are they? How many breeding pairs are involved in each?
Cinclodes, you are now leaning towards hoping that no one gets a good photo soon. Do you think this will help the cause of conservation?
And a general question for anyone:
With all of these populations floating around out there, how is it that no one has managed a half-way decent photo?
Adam
In the meantime, some more questions:
Choupique, you say there are eight populations. Where are they? How many breeding pairs are involved in each?
Cinclodes, you are now leaning towards hoping that no one gets a good photo soon. Do you think this will help the cause of conservation?
And a general question for anyone:
With all of these populations floating around out there, how is it that no one has managed a half-way decent photo?
Adam
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
Fang,
How do you deal with Piltdownwoman's very reasonable point about the IBWO wing beat frequency?
What other evidence is there that IBWOs actually flap any faster than PIWOs?
Perhaps IBWO wing beats make a noise on the upbeat AND the downbeat, in which case the frequency of the audio recording wing beat would be 4.5/s.
What is the error in the speed of playback of a very old recording - how much error in the wingbeat frequency measured would that lead to?
There's no point using logic from a shaky starting point ...
How do you deal with Piltdownwoman's very reasonable point about the IBWO wing beat frequency?
What other evidence is there that IBWOs actually flap any faster than PIWOs?
Perhaps IBWO wing beats make a noise on the upbeat AND the downbeat, in which case the frequency of the audio recording wing beat would be 4.5/s.
What is the error in the speed of playback of a very old recording - how much error in the wingbeat frequency measured would that lead to?
There's no point using logic from a shaky starting point ...
fangsheath said:
Last edited:
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
TCondorOwl92 said:
Well that's it then - we can stop discussing this now because TCondorOwl92 says the Luneau video is definitely an IBWO. That's a relief :smoke:
humminbird
Well-known member
Bonsaibirder said:
Well, at least there is someone who is willing to take a look a the clip for themselves rather than rely on second and third hand interpretation.
chris murphy
Used Register
Do you seriously think that 'sceptics' on this forum are getting involved in this debate without first having watched said video? Speaking for myself, that is why I have the point of view that I do, after watching the video many many times, I still remain stunned that a species would be declared extant on this basis. It would be hilarious if it were'nt all so sad.
Still, with all these multiple populations around we should'nt have to wait too long for a decent video. Soon they'll be so common that people will be shooting them as pests....
Still, with all these multiple populations around we should'nt have to wait too long for a decent video. Soon they'll be so common that people will be shooting them as pests....
humminbird said:
fangsheath
Well-known member
Bonsaibirder - Maybe I'm the dullard here, but I'm afraid I don't follow your remark that "There's no point using logic from a shaky starting point." My logic neither depends on nor makes reference to the "starting point" of assuming that ivory-bills beat their wings fast. My point was that we don't need this at all. If the pileated hypothesis is excluded then we have no reasonable alternative. If we wish to bring the old recording into the analysis, I would say that it only provides support for the notion that such a large woodpecker might have a very fast wingbeat rate. Both Fitzpatrick and Sibley have noted that a large woodpecker might be expected to have a much lower wingbeat rate. But the notion that we need to depend on this data point as a starting point is not a feature of my logic nor the CLO's.
OwlTalon
Always Watching
Like everyone here, I wasn;t saying the debate needs to be stopped and that we have enough evicence, I was just giving my personal view. You are all entitled to your point of view, and although I do believe more evidence needs to be acquired, I believe the bird is out there. Some might say otherwise, that's not my problem. It's their choice. Myt opinion can't change the world, i'm just one birder.bonsaibirder said:
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
chris murphy said:
And I remain stunned that the IBWO was ever declared 'extinct' in the first place, while ignoring all of the 'unofficial' sightings throughout the years. Why were these reports just dismissed, without any follow-up searches? This was the biggest mistake in this whole sad saga of the IBWO.
TimeShadowed
Last edited:
IBWO_Agnostic
Well-known member
TCondorOwl92 said:
No one answered this question before. Since you believe in the Luneau video I'll ask you. See link below
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=608456&postcount=4448
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
IBWO_Agnostic said:
"yellow arrows" maybe equal "boat oars/paddles"?
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
TCondorOwl92 said:
ok, I'll take a guess. They point to something other than a 'bird' on the tree trunk. As I recall, CLO released the wrong 'still-shot' from the video, then latter corrected this mistake.
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
fangsheath said:
OK - I understand your point now - its me being a dullard - however I am sure you have referred to the wingbeat frequency of the audio recording in this thread a number of times, so I was assuming you were still using it a control. If we don't use it we have no pisitive control.
So, what is more logical, an IBWO that looks like a Pileated from behind or a PIWO flapping faster than previously documented? If there is no good data to show that IBWOs flap faster than PIWOs then how can we accept your (untyped) alternative hypothesis?
Perhaps there is another explanation ... like this bird was using escape flight (as measured by you for short periods in some of the PIWO videos seen on this thread more recently) for much longer than average for PIWOs. Or perhaps there has not been proper documentation of escape-flight flapping rates in PIWOs - your analysis of those videos being the exception ... ? I have still not seen a video of a PIWO in escape flight from a similar height perch as in the Luneau video.
IBWO_Agnostic
Well-known member
timeshadowed said:
This is a still that I grabbed (while the video was playing on my computer).
P.S. in case it wasn't obvious, you can click on the thumbnail for a larger view where you can plainly see it is a flying black & white bird.
fangsheath
Well-known member
Bonsaibirder - I'm not sure how to answer your first question or what it refers to. If I see a video that I think looks like a pileated, from behind or anywhere else, why would I be tempted to conclude that it is an ivory-bill? I look at Dave Nolin's videos and I do not reach for such a hypothesis. As for your second question, I am flabbergasted that you still don't seem to have gotten my previous point. If there is no dispute that the bird is a large woodpecker native to the continental U.S., and we reject the hypothesis that it is a pileated, we have no alternative. If we are incapable of rejecting the pileated hypothesis under any circumstances we are not doing science. If we have video of a bird with a wingbeat rate of 60 Hz, are we going to conclude that it is a pileated outlier? At some point I am forced by my own scientific principles to reject a hypothesis. Others are quite free to decide as they wish. I suspect that the differences between us are more a matter of degree than kind.
Edward woodwood
Member
fangsheath said:
What are you on about here?
I thought IBWO data (N=1, hahaha) was of up to 8.5 beats per second (or 8.5Hz)
explain to me the 60 Hz bit...?
I'd conclude it was an Ivory-billed Hummer?
talk about using science!
Tim
Last edited:
Similar threads
