Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

[Steve G]

IBWO ....despite all the hot air on this & other forums it seems we are still waiting for the definitive footage/proof.
Surely this bird must qualify as a lawyer's tick (& the jury is still most definitely out!).
In Scots law this would clearly be a verdict of not proven.

 

[Strandman]

I really hope bigdad doesn't mind me doing this, cos I've done it. I took a few frames from the Nolin pileated videos and compared them to the Luneau. Not sure how this is going to work out - attached to this are some frames of Nolin birds with direct comparisons with Luneau.

Great job DM.

 

[Xenospiza]

Just saw Martin's comparisons... especially the frame which appears to show the Pileated's wing with a white leading & trailing edge and a narrow black centre is striking.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

So apparently you don't have to make wooden models, and have people 'fly' them and then videotape them. You can just set up a strategically placed suet feeder, place the video camera in the right place, and prove that PIWOs show enough white to give the appearance of something else. not bad..

oh yeah, did anyone notice this quote from this ARTICLE ?
"Cornell Lab director Fitzpatrick said he has no beef with Sibley; “He has my full and unaltered respect.” But, he added, “He’s wrong.” After examining some 80 films of flying pileated woodpeckers, Fitzpatrick says he’s sure the video is not of a “typical pileated.”

is he backpedaling from 'definite IBWO'?

 

[London Birder]

ok, I take back my 'blind alley' comment with regard to the video ... interesting stuff DM

 

[colonelboris]

Being a very late-comer to this thread, as well as knowing very little and not having seen the footage, the most obvious difference between them (from a google images search) is the beak.
From what's out there, IBWOs seem to have longer, yellow beaks, whereas pileated have shorter, dark beaks.
Is the beak visible in the footage?
Or I am wrong? I don't mind if I'm wrong...

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

No one sees the beak in almost all of these sightings. In fact almost no one sees anything but a 'white trailing edge'. Hence all the discussion. If someone came forward with head, beak, wings, etc...in their sighting it might be a different discussion.

Basically it comes down to this (being very general):

Group 1:
Needs to see more than one field mark to confirm presence of IBWO, also believes bird in video is either PIWO, or 'not proven' to be IBWO

Group 2:
Comfortable with sightings that only see the white trailing edge, believes Cornell has proven that the video is an IBWO.

Group 3:
The rest of the world....doesn't give a rat's ass.

 

[AZBRDR]

Generally speaking:

As much as I think the AR records committee was not thorough enough, in North America state records committees are the ones that rule on bird observations. Therefore if the AR bird records committee says it's an IBWO (and they do), then I guess until they rescind their decision, in the birder's world there WAS an IBWO in AR.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

(and for the record, I believe the bird in the video is a Pileated).

This implies that records committees are either infallible or have 100% credibility among birders. What amusing concepts.

There are two other layers of evaluation in North America: ABA Checklist Committee and AOU Checklist Committee. One of them may weigh in on the AR IBWO reports.

For listers who report their list totals based on ABA Rules, the IBWO is still an ABA Code 6 (no countable individuals exist) bird until the checklist committee changes that status code. Under ABA rules, IBWO doesn't exist at present. Now, are they infallible and do they have 100% credibility among all birders. Maybe not.

 

[colonelboris]

Ah! Thanks - sounds like the footage is pretty ropey...

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

This implies that records committees are either infallible or have 100% credibility among birders. What amusing concepts.

There are two other layers of evaluation in North America: ABA Checklist Committee and AOU Checklist Committee. One of them may weigh in on the AR IBWO reports.

For listers who report their list totals based on ABA Rules, the IBWO is still an ABA Code 6 (no countable individuals exist) bird until the checklist committee changes that status code. Under ABA rules, IBWO doesn't exist at present. Now, are they infallible and do they have 100% credibility among all birders. Maybe not.

I wondered about the relationship between ABA and the states. Thanks for clarifying.

(also thanks to Piltdownwoman for her comments).

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Has anyone seen any newspaper articles summarizing the South Carolina search? I believe they ended their first season a few weeks ago.

 

[fangsheath]

As far as I can tell, the beak is not visible in the Luneau video. Tanner did not consider the beak to be a good field mark: "Many times Pileated woodpeckers have been mistaken for Ivory-bills because of their light-colored bills, which vary from black to a light horn color. Also, the white cheek of a Pileated might be mistaken for white on the bill. The bill of a bird, even a large one, is hard to see at the top of a tree." He emphasized white on the trailing edges of the wings as the best field character.

With regard to what field marks were reported (excluding white on the trailing edges of the wings and large size, both of which were noted in all of these sightings):

Gallagher: shiny plumage, almost purple-black, not brownish black like a pileated; duck-like flight
Fitzpatrick: hint of red at end of tucked crest; strong, loon-like flight
LaBranche: crest black on top with red crescent behind; non-undulating, powerful flight
Driscoll: distinct trace of white along body (above), merging with white on wings, extending much further than white on the neck of a pileated; small flash of red on black crest; powerful wingbeats
Taylor: long, straight bill; long neck; upperwings entirely black on leading edges; bird more deeply black than a pileated
last but certainly not least, Sparling: crest black on top, red color beginning at eye; long neck; long, white bill; large white patch on lower back of perched bird; bird in restless motion ("herky jerky")

How all of this gets translated into "almost no one sees anything but a 'white trailing edge'" is beyond me. IBWO_Agnostic, I find that unlike some who profess to be skeptics, you have a somewhat open mind and are genuinely interested in evidence. I said months ago that if we can't even agree on what was reported there seems little point in trying to proceed further. I hope we can agree that regardless of how we interpret these reports, the above field marks were in fact reported by the individuals cited.

 

[MMinNY]

I concur with Fangsheath, and I would add that for many of us, the Luneau video is only one piece of evidence. Even if I could be dissuaded from my view that the bird is an IBWO, that would not have any bearing on the validity of the other evidence that has been obtained.

Doc Martin's comparison is interesting. I suspect there are some grounds to question his methodology and the inference (I surmise) he wants us to draw, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to do so. I do know that we should not conclude anything about what observers in the field might see based on stills taken from a video of a bird in rapid flight. The comparison also does not address the flap rate analysis (which I've always felt was the most compelling part of Cornell's rebuttal) nor does it address the other aspects of the manner of flight, which are, in my view inconsistent with a PIWO.

As far as I can tell, the beak is not visible in the Luneau video. Tanner did not consider the beak to be a good field mark: "Many times Pileated woodpeckers have been mistaken for Ivory-bills because of their light-colored bills, which vary from black to a light horn color. Also, the white cheek of a Pileated might be mistaken for white on the bill. The bill of a bird, even a large one, is hard to see at the top of a tree." He emphasized white on the trailing edges of the wings as the best field character.

With regard to what field marks were reported (excluding white on the trailing edges of the wings and large size, both of which were noted in all of these sightings):

Gallagher: shiny plumage, almost purple-black, not brownish black like a pileated; duck-like flight
Fitzpatrick: hint of red at end of tucked crest; strong, loon-like flight
LaBranche: crest black on top with red crescent behind; non-undulating, powerful flight
Driscoll: distinct trace of white along body (above), merging with white on wings, extending much further than white on the neck of a pileated; small flash of red on black crest; powerful wingbeats
Taylor: long, straight bill; long neck; upperwings entirely black on leading edges; bird more deeply black than a pileated
last but certainly not least, Sparling: crest black on top, red color beginning at eye; long neck; long, white bill; large white patch on lower back of perched bird; bird in restless motion ("herky jerky")

How all of this gets translated into "almost no one sees anything but a 'white trailing edge'" is beyond me. IBWO_Agnostic, I find that unlike some who profess to be skeptics, you have a somewhat open mind and are genuinely interested in evidence. I said months ago that if we can't even agree on what was reported there seems little point in trying to proceed further. I hope we can agree that regardless of how we interpret these reports, the above field marks were in fact reported by the individuals cited.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

I have 'heard' that the original reports from Sparling did NOT mention the bill. I have no way to prove this.

I know a lot of people here view Tom Nelson as the anti-christ, but check out
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoking-gun.html

If he had seen the bill that first time. Why does he say

“I also (and I hesitate to say this) saw a Pileated woodpecker that was way too big, the white and black colors seemed to be reversed on the wings, and the white was yellowish off white. You birders know what is inferred, but I don’t have the conviction to say.”

instead of 'I saw a large woodpecker with a white-bill'?

As for the others, of course, I'll not argue that they reported other field marks besides the wings....however...I think there can be other explanations for the field marks they saw. I think lighting has a huge effect on the quality of black plumage'.

Remember I'm not saying that ALL the observations were one field mark.


Yes fang, there are some sightings that saw more...that is why I said 'almost'. The majority of 'encounters'...are just wings though.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

Did anyone see this:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/06.01/11-ivorybill.html

"New research mentioned in the exhibit highlights the importance of Harvard's collections for ongoing research. Using tissue samples from the University's ivory-billed woodpecker collection - housed at the Museum of Comparative Zoology - researchers analyzed the birds' DNA. The results provide a reference that can be used on feathers, feces, or other items from the field to confirm the existence of the ivory-billed woodpecker even in the absence of conclusive photographic or video evidence.

"It is easier to distinguish an ivory-billed and a pileated from their DNA," Edwards said. "If we find a feather in a nest cavity, we'd immediately know."

 

[MMinNY]

The problem is that you have grossly mischaracterized the views of many of those who disagree with you. Granted you said your description was general, but as a member of group two, I take issue with this:

"Group 2:
Comfortable with sightings that only see the white trailing edge, believes Cornell has proven that the video is an IBWO"

It in no way reflects my point of view.

I have 'heard' that the original reports from Sparling did NOT mention the bill. I have no way to prove this.

I know a lot of people here view Tom Nelson as the anti-christ, but check out
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoking-gun.html

If he had seen the bill that first time. Why does he say

“I also (and I hesitate to say this) saw a Pileated woodpecker that was way too big, the white and black colors seemed to be reversed on the wings, and the white was yellowish off white. You birders know what is inferred, but I don’t have the conviction to say.”

instead of 'I saw a large woodpecker with a white-bill'?

As for the others, of course, I'll not argue that they reported other field marks besides the wings....however...I think there can be other explanations for the field marks they saw. I think lighting has a huge effect on the quality of black plumage'.

Remember I'm not saying that ALL the observations were one field mark.


Yes fang, there are some sightings that saw more...that is why I said 'almost'. The majority of 'encounters'...are just wings though.

 

[fangsheath]

We can argue about interpretations on all of the field marks, including the white on the trailing edges of the wings, that's fine. My point is that it is either true or false to say, "only one observer saw more than one field mark," if by "saw" we mean "reported," which is all we ever have in such a case. That is not what you said, but it IS what some have said. I must judge people's intellectual integrity partly by their willingness to acknowledge misstatements and correct them, not to keep repeating falsehoods. I'm afraid I will not waste my time with those who have no intellectual integrity. As for your statement, I think you must admit that saying "almost all" observers saw only one field mark gives a very different impression from my summary above, which you did not contest as regards its face value. I simply want people to understand what the starting point is.

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

I know you can't divide the world into only two groups, (although right now I'm listening to "Good Guys & Bad Guys" by Camper Van Beethoven) so how about this:

Group 2:
Cornell has proven to their satisfaction that the video is an IBWO. Feel that the characters reported by observers are enough to confirm an IBWO. (these field marks include plumage characteristics and flight style).

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Hi Fang,

I agree with you that there are some features other than white which have been observed but I’m not sure where you are getting your descriptions from. They don’t match the descriptions published in the Science paper Supporting Online Material. Here are the exact quotes from the science paper for anyone who has not got it. If descriptions change from one source to another it strikes me that they have been embellished or shortened at a later date. As IBWO_agnostic has implied for Sparling who, I have said before, probably has supplied the best description of all.

Gallagher: shiny plumage, almost purple-black, not brownish black like a pileated; duck-like flight

Direct quote from Science-paper-SOM

"27 February 2004 sighting. T. Gallagher and B. Harrison both noted (with naked eye at a distance of 20 m, measured later) that the basal two-thirds of the flight feathers, including all secondaries and several inner primaries, were snow-white in sharp contrast to jet-black elsewhere on the wings and along a narrow stripe between the two outstretched wings (Fig. S1). Having fixed their attention on the striking and diagnostic pattern of white in the wings, neither observer noted any features of the head or upper back."

No mention of shiny plumage, purple or duck-like flight. Also, the field sketch with notes is published and does not mention either feature.

Fitzpatrick: hint of red at end of tucked crest; strong, loon-like flight

Direct quote from Science paper SOM
"5 April 2004 (James M. Fitzpatrick saw overflight along a lake edge; with naked eye at 100 m he noted large size, broad white trailing edges of wings, and steady "loon-like" flight of otherwise black woodpecker)"

No mention of red on crest.

LaBranche: crest black on top with red crescent behind; non-undulating, powerful flight

"10 April 2004 (Melinda LaBranche saw overflight at site of 5 April sighting; through 10-power binoculars at 100 m she observed broad white trailing edges of wings and narrow red crescent on rear of folded crest)"

no mention of flight style

Driscoll: distinct trace of white along body (above), merging with white on wings, extending much further than white on the neck of a pileated; small flash of red on black crest; powerful wingbeats

"11 April 2004 (Melanie Driscoll watched a large woodpecker fly across a 50-m gap in the forest where she was stationed, and through 10-power binoculars at 120 m she saw broad white trailing edge of wings, white line extending from wings up the long neck, and small flash of red on crest, with head otherwise black)"

No mention of whether white is above or below wings or whether it merges with the white on wings (as discussed previously on this thread). No comparison with PIWO.

Taylor: long, straight bill; long neck; upperwings entirely black on leading edges; bird more deeply black than a pileated

14 February 2005 (Casey Taylor heard double-rap display drums for 30 min near power-line cut and then saw a large black-and-white woodpecker crossing the cut while being mobbed by American crows, Corvus brachyrhynchos. Through 8-power binoculars at 80 to 120 m, she noted broad white trailing edges to wings, long neck with white stripe running its full length, and black head with long bill.)"

Nomention of bill "straight"ness, no mention of “deep”ness of black.


Why all the differences – SOM is for giving extra information for which there is no room in the published paper. Has Cornell or Science edited out vital information or are the descriptions changing?

Cheers,

 

[fangsheath]

My information comes from 5 sources:

Gallagher's book
Science paper SOM
CLO website
North American Birds paper
Fitzpatrick's AOU presentation

These accounts certainly vary in how much detail is reported. In fact some of the details of Sparling's sighting are I think only mentioned in Fitzpatrick's presentation. In retrospect one might argue that the CLO web site should have all of the details. I tend to agree, but I do not see significant inconsistencies between accounts. As I recall the Science paper does make reference to the NAB paper which contains most of these details. I myself have paraphrased a few things in my summary above - Does this mean my description is a "change"? I like to think not, but I am open to critiques.