Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (8 Viewers)

[naples]

The Wilson Bulletin article says: "Campephilus principalis. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. In Florida this splendid Woodpecker is now confined to the wildest and remotest swamps. Far down in the Big Cypress I had the good fortune to see and hear it, the reward of hours of laborious wading. It is readily distinguishable from the Pileated Woodpecker in flight by the large amount of white on the wings."

So, he didn't get a photo or video, and all he saw was the white on the wings. Hmm. Seems we've heard that one before. How do we know it wasn't just a "bog standard" Pileated? I'd say this observation is inadmissible.

My thoughts as well.
Cheers B

 

[Piltdownwoman]

The Wilson Bulletin article says: "Campephilus principalis. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. In Florida this splendid Woodpecker is now confined to the wildest and remotest swamps. Far down in the Big Cypress I had the good fortune to see and hear it, the reward of hours of laborious wading. It is readily distinguishable from the Pileated Woodpecker in flight by the large amount of white on the wings."

So, he didn't get a photo or video, and all he saw was the white on the wings. Hmm. Seems we've heard that one before. How do we know it wasn't just a "bog standard" Pileated? I'd say this observation is inadmissible.

Date on the article in Wilson???? Let me guess....before 1940? Before video? Back when the bird still had a repeatable pattern of occurence? Inadmissible to whom? Are we going to review historic records here?

Have you been stewing on this overnight! Jeepers fella, don't you understand that the rules are there to keep the scientific record clean, and so that things can be verified 100 years after the observer is dead-and-gone. Back in the old days the skins did the talking. Now we have more humane ways of documenting records - but we still seek documentation.

The rules apply to all rare birds, and all birders, not just to the IBWO, and not just to CLO and Fishcrow. This is not persecution, it is just a way to keep the records up to some standards.

If you don't like the standards you don't have to live by them (and it is fairly clear you don't and aren't) - but don't expect everyone else to ignore them just to indulge you.

Your rules would be...what. What would allow you to accept a record on Eskimo Curlew? Is a single observer OK? Is it OK if the photo ID is disputed by the top bird ID experts in the country? Do we even need a photo? What would your rules be - you challenged me to state mine (which are those of a majority of the records committees in the country - to add a new bird to a list you need a photo) what are your standards and do tell how has CLO or Fishcrow met them.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I assume the article was published well before 1940. Of course it was before video, and it was before most people had good cameras. All we know is that the guy/gal saw a big woodpecker with a lot of white on the wings, and that he/she claims it was "different" from a Pileated. Other than this vague description, we have no evidence to confirm what he/she saw. Do you accept this report or do you not?

you challenged me to state mine

Where? Cite the post.

 

[Edward woodwood]

I assume the article was published well before 1940. Of course it was before video, and it was before most people had good cameras. All we know is that the guy/gal saw a big woodpecker with a lot of white on the wings, and that he/she claims it was "different" from a Pileated. Other than this vague description, we have no evidence to confirm what he/she saw. Do you accept this report or do you not?

in this day and age no... it's a pile of crap as far as a decent report of a probably extinct bird goes and should not be accepted by any self respecting county committee, nevermind state or national. The fact that you don't understand or appreciate the protocols for submission and acceptance of rare birds records is remarkable... are you actually a birder?

no news from Jesse on the definite sightings in Illinois still
no explanation of Doc Martins comaprison clips
no one of any repute has bothered to even comment on the Fishcrow video that is not posted in unedited form (but is for sale). How come this bird wasn't wary but was repeatedly observed, pottering around the trunk, when you all reckon the bloody things have a stealth cloak on them...

As for difficult terrain... i know people who've found some of the rarest, most difficult to observe birds in the densest jungles of the world... a Campephilus wouldn't be a problem... they'd find that in a day if it were there.

 

[naples]

As for difficult terrain... i know people who've found some of the rarest, most difficult to observe birds in the densest jungles of the world... a Campephilus wouldn't be a problem... they'd find that in a day if it were there.

In a day?


Now that's funny.

 

[Edward woodwood]

In a day?


Now that's funny.

and with leaves on the trees too!

B

Tim X

 

[Curtis Croulet]

In a day?


Now that's funny.

One can get lucky at times.

Edited to add as an indirect response to another post: "Birding" isn't the same for everyone. When I returned to birding four years ago after a decades-long hiatus, I decided that I wanted to see common or expected birds that I'd never seen before. I want to see those birds and get really good, long looks at them. That's still my goal. Submitting rarities to committees is of no importance to me. "Twitching" and compiling a huge life list are of no importance to me. If I did see a real rarity, I'm not sure I'd bother making a formal report, though I can't see myself not saying something on one of the e-mail lists. I'd tell people where I saw it and let someone else report it. I like to do "digiscoping" at times, but there's only a small chance I'd have the equipment ready to go when the rarity flits by. I know the regional committees have procedures and probably something like an IRS Form 1040 to fill out to report a rarity. I'm not interested. If someone else finds it and gets the credit, that's OK with me. My name is splattered all over the web relating to this and other interests, and I've had my name and picture in the newspaper several times as part of my astronomy activities, and I've had a spider specimen I collected long ago suddenly show up as part of a description of a new species, and I even once had a herpetology note published in a peer-reviewed journal. My vanity for this sort of thing has been adequately stroked already.

 

[colonelboris]

I'd have more chance of getting lucky with Jennifer Aniston and Audrey Tautou at the same time...
Not saying that I'm amazingly attractive, just probably wouldn't notice a IBWO if it came and offered me some coffee.

 

[Collster]

and with leaves on the trees too!

B

Tim X

Are they for hire?

 

[colonelboris]

In 1972, a crack birding unit was sent to Arkansas by a university for a bird they didn't see. These men promptly proclaimed a IBWO to the birding community. Today, still doubted by the government, they survive as birders of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...Tim's Birding-Team.

 

[Piltdownwoman]

I assume the article was published well before 1940. Of course it was before video, and it was before most people had good cameras. All we know is that the guy/gal saw a big woodpecker with a lot of white on the wings, and that he/she claims it was "different" from a Pileated. Other than this vague description, we have no evidence to confirm what he/she saw. Do you accept this report or do you not?

Who wrote it Curtis? When did they write it? That actually matters.



Where? Cite the post.

Let me ask this: if Jackson, Sibley or Kaufman had been among those who saw the bird(s) in 2004/2005, but yet did not come back with a good photo, would you be more accepting of IBWO?

Here ya go Curtis - you threw down the gauntlet.

Now, what are your standards for accepting an Eskimo Curlew - lone sighting, video/photo needed etc. Let me know.

Meanwhile, y'all may want to check out

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606b&L=birdwg01&D=1&T=0&O=D&P=1230

to see Louis Bevier's post about the Luneau video and the recent contributions from the PIWO vids.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Here ya go Curtis - you threw down the gauntlet.

Now, what are your standards for accepting an Eskimo Curlew - lone sighting, video/photo needed etc. Let me know.

Meanwhile, y'all may want to check out

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606b&L=birdwg01&D=1&T=0&O=D&P=1230

to see Louis Bevier's post about the Luneau video and the recent contributions from the PIWO vids.

I asked about a specific hypothetical situation: Jackson et al seeing an IBWO. Your answer was that, no, you still wouldn't accept it without photo or video. The public fame of the ornithologists didn't matter. I respect that. At least it's consistent. To answer your question about the Eskimo Curlew, if there are multiple observers, and if they are of good reputation as ornithologists, I'd probably accept a good written description and drawing. Good thing for you that I'm not on one of those committees, huh. If such a situation arose in California (and this applies to IBWO, too), as I understand the workings of the CBRC, the bird would probably go on the "review" list, pending better evidence. It's sort of a limbo between full acceptance and outright rejection. I think that's a fair way to treat it.

Edited to add: Eskimo Curlew isn't on the list of birds I'd expect to see, so I haven't spent much time acquainting myself with them. Apparently the Eskimo Curlew can be easily confused with the Whimbrel. This increases the degree of expertise expected of the observers claiming to see it -- i.e., they'd have to be known shorebird experts. Would a photo even be sufficient for convincing ID?

 

[colonelboris]

As a side point, what happens if they're found to be alive and well in Arkansas and other places?
Surely releasing the news is going to cause a lot of people to come looking and really disturb the birds. Or will they close off a large chunk to everyone except ornithologists?
It does make me wonder if some people know where some are, but they're not telling because of the potential damage it could cause.

 

[Grousemore]

I must admit that I was a little surprised that there was so little comment on my comparisons from USA-based birders...

Well I'm a 'USA-based birder', but having expectantly clicked on your masterpieces, all I saw was a blurred postage stamp at the top left of my monitor; it's probably the fault of my equipment.

 

[Snowy1]

Finally. Someone took the time to settle down and think a bit.

Doc, I will give my opinion on your comparison. Firstly, don't be surprised if most don't respond to Tim's "rattling" as you call it. His posts have been blocked by some. As for the Dukes, great job. Amazing show.

As you mention, comparing still frames is really of no use which is why I did not comment. I'm not a scientist so I will not be able to analyze the wingbeat aspect in an "appropriate" manner but I can at least give my opinion and go from there. To me, the IBWO in the Luneau video flies in a way I have never seen a Pileated demonstrate. I spent a lot of time watching PIWO in those areas but never once, not one time, did a PIWO behave in that manner. By this I mean fly like a Pintail in a bee-line. After you see dozens of PIWO, you can instantly recognize from afar what is coming at you or flying away - usually in the first second of your sighting. The Luneau video shows something that I certainly never saw.
Secondly, I found some strange differences between the Nolin videos and the Luneau videos. I found that when I paused the Nolin videos, I always ended up with a blurred image despite the original video being clear. I'm not sure why. I tried running in Quicktime, WindowsMedia and VLC media. Each time the PIWO shows up in a still frame very blurred. Perhaps I'm still not using the right equipment. In the Luneau video, the IBWO is blurred when enlarged but not really as much as when I pause the Nolin video when the bird is far away. Anyhow that problem could be my system.
In the end, the Luneau video is done with analysis. It's over. Pointe Finale. There can be no more/less data extracted from his video so we'll all just have to deal with it. It has been analyzed, analyzed and analyzed again. The conclusions were made by a scientists at a reputable organization and that is what it took to confirm the IBWO after experienced birders saw an Ivorybill several times.

As the wise Fangsheath mentioned, this will likely all be for nothing when, in a year or 3, someone finally takes a clear picture.

I must admit that I was a little surprised that there was so little comment on my comparisons from USA-based birders, in spite of Tim gently rattling the cage. I would agree that comparing blurry images by itself don't mean diddly squit (sorry, I've been watching Dukes Of Hazzard!). EXCEPT I think it's clear from your video that the critical 'killer' frames in the Luneau video that were used to confirm the identity of the putative IBWO are perhaps equally consistent with PIWO. That doesn't mean it's not an IBWO, but that the video images don't conclusively prove it.

So I wondered about the wingbeat frequency. The Luneau video is about 8.4-8.6 beats per second, maintained for 10 wingbeats. Maybe your video and Luneau aren't directly comparable, because your birds are going into the trees at the bottom of the garden, whereas the Luneau birds looks like its next stop is somewhere in Louisiana. So in your video there are 4 take-offs, and by decompiling and taking them frame by frame, it is possible to work out the wingbeats. Overall, these birds *are* flapping more slowly than Luneau vid bird (3.9, 5, 6, 6.7 beats per second). BUT if you just take the first four flaps (the initial escape response before they slow down on approach to the trees), they are going at 6.7, 7.1, 8.0 or (wait for it) 8.6 wingbeats per second! Note Cornell stated that no PIWO has been recorded going faster than 7-8 beats per second - they can't have looked very hard? So is the difference between tame garden peckers flapping like that for 4-5 wingbeats, and the Luneau bird (in the sticks, never even seen a boat or person before(?)) keeping it up for 10 wingbeats *really* conclusive proof of IBWO? I'm not saying the Luneau bird is not an IBWO, and I have no reason to doubt the sight records, but if the evidence is not about what the Luneau bird looks like, and it's not about what it flies like, what is it about?

Can we co-author a correspondence to Science?

 

[humminbird]

In this article toward the bottem #38 you will see that IBWO even in the good old days with a seminole guide, wasn't easy to find.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v026n02/p0086-p0101.html

As was stated quite clearly by Tanner, Jackson and many others. If anyone is trying to change the records of the behavior of this bird it is those that are insisting the bird has always been easy to find!

 

[fangsheath]

I have done my best to get estimates of wingbeat rates from Dave's videos. It would be better to have de-interlaced frames; however I appreciate Dave providing this video. My method is to chart wing positions using a system of numbers from 1 (wings up) to 11 (wings down). I start with the wings horizontal (position 6) on the first downstroke (if no such frame exists I start with the frame showing the position nearest 6). I then chart the wing positions at each frame and use these charts to estimate cumulative wingbeat rates at frames 5, 10, 15, and so on. In an actual scientific paper, I would not treat all of these 4 as independent observations, since some are almost certainly of the same bird. Nevertheless I think the results are interesting.

estimated cumulative wingbeat rates:

bird frame number

5 10 15 20 25 30

Nolin 1 7.8 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.2
Nolin 2 8.4 8.1 8.4 7.5 7.0 7.1
Nolin 3 9.0 9.0 8.4 7.3 6.8 6.7
Nolin 4 9.0 8.4 8.4 7.8 7.4 7.1

Thus the cumulative wingbeat rates at frame 30 (1.001 secs elapsed) range from 6.7 to 7.2. A similar analysis of the Luneau video follows. Since I am using de-interlaced frames here, the frame numbers are doubled. Since we do not know that the first downstroke seen here is the actual first downstroke post-launch, I simply use the middle of the first visible downstroke as the starting point.

bird frame number

10 20 30 40 50 60

Luneau 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.7

Although it has been suggested that the Luneau bird maintains continuous wingbeats after this, I am unable to chart wing positions much after frame 60. The Nolin birds could be charted after frame 30 but I have not done so, I have no doubt that the rates continue to drop off. To more clearly understand the above data I strongly suggest graphing it. We need data, lots and lots of data, like this. The Nolin video is quite interesting and suggestive to me but it is only the barest beginning. I have accumulated data on flushed black-bellied whistling ducks that is quite similar to what we see in the Nolin video. Flushed birds often have elevated wingbeat rates, with very high rates for the first half second or so, but the rate quickly drops off. In order to build a clear picture we will need dozens of videos like Dave's, not so much for understanding the Luneau video more clearly, but for other videos to come. Of course the "killer" video is all John Q. Public is interested in. That is fine.

 

[fangsheath]

The formatting does not come out as it does in preview, I hope the data are clear to everyone.

 

[bigdad]

Docmartin, thanks for the hearty laugh. I really do appreciate your thoughtfulness and sense of humor, it is refreshing to read. Yeah, let's publish. After the first draft comes back from Science covered in red ink do you have a suggestion for a fallback publication?

Very interesting calculations on wingbeats. The most relevant comparisons may be when both birds are done with the launch flapping and settling into their normal pattern. It sounds like the pileated was definitely slower there.

While I think the Luneau video is an IBWO it is certain that it will never be accepted as such by many experts and experienced birders. It then boils down to whether or not you believe the credible eyewitnesses and sound recordings. Maybe some of the angst in these posts comes from a sense of sadness and frustration that ironclad proof was not obtained this year. Maybe thats why I posted the pileated videos. In any case searching for them is an adventure, and come fall I'm going back.

I must admit that I was a little surprised that there was so little comment on my comparisons from USA-based birders, in spite of Tim gently rattling the cage. I would agree that comparing blurry images by itself don't mean diddly squit (sorry, I've been watching Dukes Of Hazzard!). EXCEPT I think it's clear from your video that the critical 'killer' frames in the Luneau video that were used to confirm the identity of the putative IBWO are perhaps equally consistent with PIWO. That doesn't mean it's not an IBWO, but that the video images don't conclusively prove it.

So I wondered about the wingbeat frequency. The Luneau video is about 8.4-8.6 beats per second, maintained for 10 wingbeats. Maybe your video and Luneau aren't directly comparable, because your birds are going into the trees at the bottom of the garden, whereas the Luneau birds looks like its next stop is somewhere in Louisiana. So in your video there are 4 take-offs, and by decompiling and taking them frame by frame, it is possible to work out the wingbeats. Overall, these birds *are* flapping more slowly than Luneau vid bird (3.9, 5, 6, 6.7 beats per second). BUT if you just take the first four flaps (the initial escape response before they slow down on approach to the trees), they are going at 6.7, 7.1, 8.0 or (wait for it) 8.6 wingbeats per second! Note Cornell stated that no PIWO has been recorded going faster than 7-8 beats per second - they can't have looked very hard? So is the difference between tame garden peckers flapping like that for 4-5 wingbeats, and the Luneau bird (in the sticks, never even seen a boat or person before(?)) keeping it up for 10 wingbeats *really* conclusive proof of IBWO? I'm not saying the Luneau bird is not an IBWO, and I have no reason to doubt the sight records, but if the evidence is not about what the Luneau bird looks like, and it's not about what it flies like, what is it about?

Can we co-author a correspondence to Science?

 

[curunir]

Finally. Someone took the time to settle down and think a bit.

Doc, I will give my opinion on your comparison. Firstly, don't be surprised if most don't respond to Tim's "rattling" as you call it. His posts have been blocked by some. As for the Dukes, great job. Amazing show.

As you mention, comparing still frames is really of no use which is why I did not comment. I'm not a scientist so I will not be able to analyze the wingbeat aspect in an "appropriate" manner but I can at least give my opinion and go from there. To me, the IBWO in the Luneau video flies in a way I have never seen a Pileated demonstrate. I spent a lot of time watching PIWO in those areas but never once, not one time, did a PIWO behave in that manner. By this I mean fly like a Pintail in a bee-line. After you see dozens of PIWO, you can instantly recognize from afar what is coming at you or flying away - usually in the first second of your sighting. The Luneau video shows something that I certainly never saw.
Secondly, I found some strange differences between the Nolin videos and the Luneau videos. I found that when I paused the Nolin videos, I always ended up with a blurred image despite the original video being clear. I'm not sure why. I tried running in Quicktime, WindowsMedia and VLC media. Each time the PIWO shows up in a still frame very blurred. Perhaps I'm still not using the right equipment. In the Luneau video, the IBWO is blurred when enlarged but not really as much as when I pause the Nolin video when the bird is far away. Anyhow that problem could be my system.
In the end, the Luneau video is done with analysis. It's over. Pointe Finale. There can be no more/less data extracted from his video so we'll all just have to deal with it. It has been analyzed, analyzed and analyzed again. The conclusions were made by a scientists at a reputable organization and that is what it took to confirm the IBWO after experienced birders saw an Ivorybill several times.

As the wise Fangsheath mentioned, this will likely all be for nothing when, in a year or 3, someone finally takes a clear picture.

You're doing it right. The brain takes the images and resolves them automatically. Something seems clear because the images in sequence are taken as a whole. That's why 30 frame per second movies seem clear. That's also why the observers perspective is more accurate than the cameras given reasonable distance from the bird.