John Mariani
Well-known member
gws said:
That's a terrible thing to say about the folks at Cornell. You were referring to Fitzpatrick and his group, right?
-
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) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
That's a terrible thing to say about the folks at Cornell. You were referring to Fitzpatrick and his group, right?
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
Just before getting on-topic again: to see the difference between Eastern Cottontails and European Rabbits: chase them — the tails are very different. Cottontails also (often?) have dark ear tips, which rabbits lack. With pics on the web I admit I get confused, but maybe so are the people who put them there.
But obviously I'm a birder and not a mammaler!
Tail shape, your dead on for the typicals, not for the non-typicals, Regarding the black ear tips, you can throw that one in the trash, I am not sure where that has come from, I have seen it in print often but it is totally false for the most part. Both species frequently have black "rimmed" ears. This is from extensive first hand handling of these species.
back on topic again
But obviously I'm a birder and not a mammaler!
Tail shape, your dead on for the typicals, not for the non-typicals, Regarding the black ear tips, you can throw that one in the trash, I am not sure where that has come from, I have seen it in print often but it is totally false for the most part. Both species frequently have black "rimmed" ears. This is from extensive first hand handling of these species.
back on topic again
John Mariani said:
Don't know Fitzpatrick, so I can't say.
I will say this. I don't need his or the CLO's interpretation of some video in order for me to believe that the ivorybill is still around. (see #11 of Cyberthrush's post)
And the CLO's types definitely dropped the ball in years past with their groupthink putdowns of very plausible IBWO sightings such as the Dennis Big Thicket sightings of the late '60s.
One can have faith in the IBWO's continued existence without having a lot of faith in the CLO types. I predict the absolute conclusive proof of the IBWO's continued existence will come from someone else.
Snowy1
Well-known member
The quality of posting has really gone down lately, especially in the last 15 posts or so. I think people need to keep in mind a few things: this is only a birdforum, and not the rule of law. What people say is simply an opinion, and I see people reacting so viciously to some comments that hold no ground. As we all know, some if not most of the people posting here don't know the half of what is really going on, so cool off. It's the same 4-5 people on each side that have this hallucinatory view that what they say means the world - it dosen't. People need to come down off their pedestals. Most level-headed people have been driven away from the ridiculous war of words that goes on in this thread. To that extent, it's now a poor quality thread. Come back to real debate. Reality check? Up to you. As Mike said, time to go back to lurking...
Piltdownwoman
Well-known member
timeshadowed said:
You are correct - clearly the analysis of the video can't be extrapolated to any other sighting or place - it is only relevant for that video. But the work that has been done to correct the ID of the bird in the video was not done to demonstrate that IBWO was extinct. None of the authors have ever claimed the bird is extinct. The work was done because the video is the only piece of independently verifiable data that CLO was able to present re:the bird's existance in ARK. What their analysis does show is that the bird in the video was misidentified, so the CLO case for the data to be a "slam dunk" proof that the bird is extant is false.
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
On Topic
Has anyone had any experience with single raps in either Pileated or Campephelus species? After some search experiences, I would really like to know more on this. I never heard southern Indiana Pileateds do single raps so I do not know if this is normal for Pileated rappings. Have South American Campephelus been documented doing single raps?????
Has anyone had any experience with single raps in either Pileated or Campephelus species? After some search experiences, I would really like to know more on this. I never heard southern Indiana Pileateds do single raps so I do not know if this is normal for Pileated rappings. Have South American Campephelus been documented doing single raps?????
Those of us who have either seen the bird or have sufficient common sense to evaluate evidence (including video, audio, and numerous reports of an easily identified species) have no interest in the existence debate. We prefer to discuss new information as it becomes available.Snowy1 said:
As far as I'm concerned, the debate never even began. It would be silly to waste my time debating the existence of something I have seen and heard several times.Xenospiza said:
If you're really interested in getting at the truth, try to find a pileated that fits the profile of the bird in my video...
profile comparison
Out of a tiny set of existing photos of a living ivorybill, at least one of them is a perfect fit. A photo of a mounted specimen is also a perfect fit. Out of thousands of existing pileated photos, nobody has come forward with one that even comes close to fitting.
By the way, the video isn't blurry. Even the bill is resolved in that image. The rest of the profile is resolved clearly. The bird is backlit, but that is of no consequence when comparing profiles.
Neil Grubb
Well-known member
cinclodes said:
Hi, I have read many of your postings with great interest and have enjoyed the discussions on this thread. The 'controversial' threads are often the ones I enjoy following most of all. I've not got into the heat of the discussion because I'm not a very experienced birder and have virtually no experience of North American woodpeckers (I've seen a few downys though!!)
You put forward an interesting argument re the video. And I agree it shows some detail. The point you make about profile is interesting and you have proposed that the profile is diagnostic. And I agree that it's worth putting up for discussion, and is of enormous interest. But surely you must understand why, to an outsider, the evidence is unconvincing. I've read about the reasons why clear video / photos are hard to get and can accept that the habitat and bird behaviour conspire to make it hard to get that 'killer' evidence. There isn't a huge amount of detail on the video and certainly to the uninitiated it just isn't clear enough to be diagnostic. Possible IBWO - yes, I'd buy that. Conclusive evidence ? In my opinion, still debateable. You state that you have seen and heard IBWOs several times; if so, your frustration is understandable. But those of us who haven't the time, skill and opportunity to see for themselves would wish for more than a statement that you had definitely seen and heard the bird before accepting that the IBWO is still alive and kick-kicking.
Naively yours,
Neil
I'm not going to debate the existence of the species, but I'm perfectly willing to discuss data. I think the profile differences between these species are conclusive, but you can prove me wrong by finding a counterexample. Here are thousands of candidates to consider...Neil Grubb said:
pileated photos
If you go through that vast set of photos (as I have) and fail to find anything that fits, think about the fact that the small set of existing ivorybill photos includes at least one that is a perfect fit.
From cyberthrush's recent blog entry:
"8. They consistently OVERestimate the physical similarity between Ivory-bills and Pileateds concluding (almost insultingly) that experienced birders could repeatedly mistake one for the other."
Many of us grew up with Peterson's guides, and I wonder if that is part of the problem. He presented IBWO and PIWO with the same posture and basic outline, the size, neck and head profiles are insufficiently distinct, and one is left with the impression that the two species differ only in bill color and the distribution of white feathers, things even a good observer could get wrong.
But PIWO presents itself more like a large-format version of a smaller woodpecker species (think about that next time you see one) and reexamination of the historical accounts, never mind the recent reports, makes it clear that the first word in the field guide description of IBWO should be "unmistakable".
And this is what is lurking at the heart of the matter. It is one thing to focus on the Luneau video or other imagery and find insufficiently conclusive features for a formally accepted record, but quite another to dismiss the live sightings and declare the whole thing wrong. A sight record only, by a well qualified observer, is very difficult to dismiss even if it does not meet certain standards of proof i.e. a repeatable experiment. The rather bizarre notion of an aberrant leucistic PIWO is a polite cover story, what is really being suggested by some of Cornell's critics is professional incompetence or plain fraud. Let's hear that out loud, if that's what is thought.
"8. They consistently OVERestimate the physical similarity between Ivory-bills and Pileateds concluding (almost insultingly) that experienced birders could repeatedly mistake one for the other."
Many of us grew up with Peterson's guides, and I wonder if that is part of the problem. He presented IBWO and PIWO with the same posture and basic outline, the size, neck and head profiles are insufficiently distinct, and one is left with the impression that the two species differ only in bill color and the distribution of white feathers, things even a good observer could get wrong.
But PIWO presents itself more like a large-format version of a smaller woodpecker species (think about that next time you see one) and reexamination of the historical accounts, never mind the recent reports, makes it clear that the first word in the field guide description of IBWO should be "unmistakable".
And this is what is lurking at the heart of the matter. It is one thing to focus on the Luneau video or other imagery and find insufficiently conclusive features for a formally accepted record, but quite another to dismiss the live sightings and declare the whole thing wrong. A sight record only, by a well qualified observer, is very difficult to dismiss even if it does not meet certain standards of proof i.e. a repeatable experiment. The rather bizarre notion of an aberrant leucistic PIWO is a polite cover story, what is really being suggested by some of Cornell's critics is professional incompetence or plain fraud. Let's hear that out loud, if that's what is thought.
Snowy1
Well-known member
Xenospiza said:
I'm really in a debating mood today.
"The dodgy sightings" - Can you explain? I think that Fitzpatrick and Harrison identified pretty clearly an Ivorybill flying right in front of their canoe. Their sketches are just added material (even without the sketches, I'd have no problem) And Sparling? Do you think he was imagining an Ivorybill as it climbed up a tree right in front of him? There is nothing dodgy about that.
There are many other examples, such as the six sightings that I had in February. It's doubtful that an experienced birder would mistake a pileated for an ivorybill even once, let alone six times. It's possible to have the briefest glimpse of a large woodpecker and not be sure, but I'm talking about six sightings in which I clearly saw key field marks.Snowy1 said:
Edward woodwood
Member
cinclodes said:
it begs the question why no one is in there working with you, say all those experts and people from Cornell who have seen your evidence?
what reasons do they give to you?
Tim
Last edited:
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
cinclodes said:
Well that is okay then! Should I decide to claim something quite so significant, I would hope there are some people out there to debate my sighting and to question my identification. But if you are above such trivialities, so be it.
Snowy1
Well-known member
cinclodes said:
Absolutely. And you also had calls in the same area. As I said earler, I think some other people that regularly participate here have become so invovled, so focused that they have lost sight of what really took place. As one member just said, they believed it all at first but now they don't. The point I'm trying to get across is that you can't let a lack of good sightings in the past year change your outlook. If we do let that happen, the IBWO may become extinct because we were unaware of something detrimental to its survival. We need more time and more effort to get a full understanding. With "the other" attitude, you get nothing.
I applaud Mike, Goat, and everyone else who is at least trying to get something done.
Neil Grubb
Well-known member
cinclodes said:
Cinclodes,
As I said earlier, the video is very interesting. However, the bird head is quite small, pixel-wise, on the video. I think it's hard to be convinced about any of the profiles fitting or not fitting when the resolution is limited. The challenge you set would be difficult to meet when the profile doesn't seem all that well defined to start with.
Cheers,
Neil
Similar threads
