Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (21 Viewers)

[Russ Jones]

He might also go with "Ivory-billed" rather than "Ivory Bill", "Ivory Billed", or "IvoryBilled" (from the URL). Or he could at least pick one wrong way to spell to it, and stick to it.

/i have been known to drop the caps myself in urls, but random caps is bird of another feather
// hmm . . . bird of another feather . . .

Are you for real? Is this what this thread has become? Awsome!

 

[humminbird]

Are you for real? Is this what this thread has become? Awsome!

If the person can not talk intelligently about what bird he is seeing (use its proper name), then why should I believe he knows what he is talking about? Especially when he can not draw it.

When a person refers to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as an "Ivory Bill" or an "Ivory Billed" they are demonstrating as much competence as the person who refers to a Turkey Vulture as a "Buzzard" (and yes, we have "birders" in the US that make this mistake). If you are going to write on a webpage that is supposedly reporting science, the least you can do is spell the bird name correctly!

 

[dave_in_michigan]

Visitors to the Auburn site should follow the link to http://www.angelfire.com/id/wildscenes/IvoryBilledWoodpecker.html

where there is a sketch *drawn from memory 2 days after the sighting* (does anyone EVER learn?) which shows an underwing pattern entirely wrong for IBWO - in a 3-4 second view I cannot see how anyone would not notice any white in the primaries, and/or, as a wildlife artist, not notice there is something wrong here.

As I mentioned earlier (here and here), I agree that white extending into the primaries should be easy to see on a glide, but it would seem quite difficult (to me at least) during full powered flight, especially at faster wingflap rates.

Can top birders really see such details on flapping wings in such a short span? Especially since the wings are partially folded through parts of the stroke, where distinction of the inner primaries from the secondaries would be more difficult. With such short glimpses, I'd be suspicious that the observer was filling those details from their mental image of what the bird should look like, not from actual observation.

Can you really see those details on a fly-by?

 

[Imaginos]

As I mentioned earlier (here and here), I agree that white extending into the primaries should be easy to see on a glide, but it would seem quite difficult (to me at least) during full powered flight, especially at faster wingflap rates.

Can top birders really see such details on flapping wings in such a short span? Especially since the wings are partially folded through parts of the stroke, where distinction of the inner primaries from the secondaries would be more difficult. With such short glimpses, I'd be suspicious that the observer was filling those details from their mental image of what the bird should look like, not from actual observation.

Can you really see those details on a fly-by?

There's two answers to this question. The first is yes, definitely-you'll find many birders able to identify flying birds (often much smaller than the IBW) based on wing pattern.

The second answer is, if the observer is not sure of this kind of detail (and from the sketch it looks like s/he may not be) then how can they claim to be sure that the bird has been correctly identified?

As I've mentioned several times before in this thread it is easy to misidentify something & for your expectations to cause you to see things that aren't there (& vice versa) This is true with dead specimens that are sitting motionless under a microscope just as much as a fleeting glimpse of a bird. Expectation bias is a particularly common source of error if the recorder is inexperienced or poorly-trained.

 

[salar53]

True Madness?

If the sketch had been any better the observer would have been accused of making "shopping-list" observations. He would practically have been accused of copying from a field guide. The cry would have risen, shrilly, "How could so much have been seen in a mere four fleeting seconds?"
Now that the sketch is not exactly excellent (but see Cyberthrush's important analysis of it), the clamour is, "How can the sketch be so poor when he had fully four seconds to see the bird?"

I mean, do some people seriously want us to believe that Hill et al do not know what an Ivory-billed Woodpecker looks like?

In any case, and for what it's worth, TMGuy not only knows what IBWOs look like, but he has seen them and claims he has photographed them and that the images will be in his forthcoming book. See here!

http://billismad.tripod.com/id22.html

 

[birdboybowley]

In any case, and for what it's worth, TMGuy not only knows what IBWOs look like, but he has seen them and claims he has photographed them and that the images will be in his forthcoming book.

Hmmmm....so where are these photos?? Why would you wait to publish them in a book?? Surely he obviously wants to make money from the book but if these pics exist wouldn't nearly every paper in the world run them?? Or better still put them on here and end this thread..!!

 

[dave_in_michigan]

There's two answers to this question. The first is yes, definitely-you'll find many birders able to identify flying birds (often much smaller than the IBW) based on wing pattern.

The second answer is, if the observer is not sure of this kind of detail (and from the sketch it looks like s/he may not be) then how can they claim to be sure that the bird has been correctly identified?

Thanks, Imaginos. I was afraid no one would take my question seriously.

It certainly makes sense to me that if the extension of white into the primaries was a distinguishing factor between IBWO and another species that he shouldn't claim he saw an IBWO. However, an observer doesn't have to correctly observe and identify every feature to make a reasonably positive ID, does he? I mean just for argument, if IBWO had already been documented and known to be in the area, would people doubt this guy's ID because he didn't sketch the white extending into the primaries?

I suppose a rare-bird committee would take issue, but... uh... which... is... exactly... the... problem. Ah. Right.

As I've mentioned several times before in this thread it is easy to misidentify something & for your expectations to cause you to see things that aren't there (& vice versa) This is true with dead specimens that are sitting motionless under a microscope just as much as a fleeting glimpse of a bird. Expectation bias is a particularly common source of error if the recorder is inexperienced or poorly-trained.

This is really interesting to me, because I would think that very experienced people would also be susceptible but in a different way -- because they may be in the habit of quickly matching wing patterns against available possibilities (in this case either a standard PIWO or standard IBWO underwing) and fill in alot of the details without directly observing them all. I'd think it would take a pretty good birder to be able to even spot any out-of-norm underwing patterns like this detail in a brief fly-by view, much less accurately observe these details, especially if it was not a key distinguishing mark.

Of course there is a chance here that this person is a 'vice versa' case - failed to see something that was there. Either he failed to notice some white extending into the primaries (and on the lining), or else he saw a whole bunch of much more obvious things which weren't there at all.

Well, as Louis pointed out, we'll never know for certain what he really saw.

 

[gud]

A post just above states: "The circumstances surrounding the reporting of that sighting are so ridiculously stupid that it absolutely beggars belief.

Three years into the search effort and despite the controversy, Hill has the balls to claim one of his searchers had a sighting, and then links to sketch that is completely inconsistent with an IBWO?? WTF? Does the guy not care about his career or doesn’t he know what one looks like? And WTF is he doing employing searchers that don’t know what IBWOs look like?

In 20-years of birding and 10-years of science I’ve never encountered such complete incompetence.

Hill et al. - pack up and go home. You're a joke!"

My comment: I wonder what makes an individual so mean towards others who are trying to do something positive. In addition, there is disagreement on how the edge looks under different conditions - and since there are NO really knowledgeable people on the ivory-billed, then how can the poster be so sure.

Amazing - rude, crude, ignorant, and arrogant behavior (sorry, I am also stooping to a low level; but I just couldn't help myself)

 

[Jane Turner]

As I mentioned earlier (here and here), I agree that white extending into the primaries should be easy to see on a glide, but it would seem quite difficult (to me at least) during full powered flight, especially at faster wingflap rates.

Can top birders really see such details on flapping wings in such a short span? Especially since the wings are partially folded through parts of the stroke, where distinction of the inner primaries from the secondaries would be more difficult. With such short glimpses, I'd be suspicious that the observer was filling those details from their mental image of what the bird should look like, not from actual observation.

Can you really see those details on a fly-by?

Hi Dave - it really should be possible to work out which flight feathers are black and white - the trick is to be prepared and look at the most important part of the bird in an analytical fashion. The transition between primaries and secondaries is actually quite easy to pick out on a flapping bird...

Here is some advice I gave sometime back to MMinNY

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=849076&postcount=10247

 

[Xenospiza]

I think Ilya hit the nail right on the head.

When an “amateur” (even if he is a scientist in another field) would report something like that as evidence, you should tell him politely the field marks do not add up. We all know mistakes can be made. Too bad not everyone takes too kindly to criticism.

However, as a professor, Hill is responsible for the scientific quality of the work that his group is presenting. There is no need to correct him politely – he is really making a fool of himself.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

Hi Dave - it really should be possible to work out which flight feathers are black and white - the trick is to be prepared and look at the most important part of the bird in an analytical fashion. The transition between primaries and secondaries is actually quite easy to pick out on a flapping bird...

Here is some advice I gave sometime back to MMinNY

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=849076&postcount=10247

ooo
oJaneo
ooo

Wonderful! I see a great deal I can learn from that one single post!

Thank you!!!
- Dave

 

[Ilya Maclean]

A post just above states: "The circumstances surrounding the reporting of that sighting are so ridiculously stupid that it absolutely beggars belief.

Three years into the search effort and despite the controversy, Hill has the balls to claim one of his searchers had a sighting, and then links to sketch that is completely inconsistent with an IBWO?? WTF? Does the guy not care about his career or doesn’t he know what one looks like? And WTF is he doing employing searchers that don’t know what IBWOs look like?

In 20-years of birding and 10-years of science I’ve never encountered such complete incompetence.

Hill et al. - pack up and go home. You're a joke!"

My comment: I wonder what makes an individual so mean towards others who are trying to do something positive. In addition, there is disagreement on how the edge looks under different conditions - and since there are NO really knowledgeable people on the ivory-billed, then how can the poster be so sure.

Amazing - rude, crude, ignorant, and arrogant behavior (sorry, I am also stooping to a low level; but I just couldn't help myself)

It was me that said it - so I'll respond. Firstly, I have nothing against Hill et al trying to something good. What I do take strong issue with, is the continual presentation of the highly implausible as fact. This completely undermines anything good about his IBWO search efforts. The good thing about the effort is that one would hope it would eventually lead to sightings, which in turn would lead to the conservation of this species. Instead, the real search effort is being undermined by fiction and valuable conservation resources are being diverted from other sources.

You don’t need to be an expert on real live IBWOs to see that the sketch does not resemble an IBWO. There are plenty of photos available from the early last century when it was extant. Apart from the incorrect underwing pattern, the shape is completely wrong. Since Hill links to the sketch and made no comment about this, yet was adamant that the sighting was of an IBWO, I can only deduce that he really does not know what one looks like, or that he didn’t look at the sketch critically, which IMO is incompetence, particularly in a scientific context.

You are entirely correct in saying that my post was rude and crude. The trouble is that politeness and the willingness to give searchers the benefit of the doubt is exactly what has perpetuated the IBWO farce. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated, however rude and crude. I let you make your own mind about my ignorance when it comes to birds and conservation. I suspect that those that know me or know about me would say otherwise.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

I think Ilya hit the nail right on the head.

When an “amateur” (even if he is a scientist in another field) would report something like that as evidence, you should tell him politely the field marks do not add up. We all know mistakes can be made. Too bad not everyone takes too kindly to criticism.

However, as a professor, Hill is responsible for the scientific quality of the work that his group is presenting. There is no need to correct him politely – he is really making a fool of himself.

From what I see, John Agnew didn't report it "as evidence", he just reported what he saw. And according to his bio page, he's an artist, not a 'scientist in another field'. And who knows how he takes criticism? He certainly doesn't deserve ridicule. He can call it like he sees it and good for him. If he wants to learn and improve, all the better. If he tries to weigh in as an expert though, then the rules change.

As for Hill, I don't view him quite so harshly either. Mr. Agnew and the group he was with were volunteers, not part of Hill's group. You're looking at raw informal information updates on an informal website, not a presentation, or submitted paper or publication. I for one certainly draw a distinction between the two.

For his official reporting, I'd expect him to accurately report the information that he has gathered (being clear on sources, etc), analyze it objectively, and not overstate the evidence or conclusions. For that, we'll have to wait and see.

Personally, I prefer to see the raw information so I can better judge his official analysis and claims when they do come out. Do you really think that professional acedemics should have no informal public voice? Plenty of informal commentary going on here and on other blogs from scientists... What's so different about Hill's comments?

 

[salar53]

Florida Photographs

Hmmmm....so where are these photos?? Why would you wait to publish them in a book?? Surely he obviously wants to make money from the book but if these pics exist wouldn't nearly every paper in the world run them?? Or better still put them on here and end this thread..!!

Who knows? Perhaps they're in the book! Is it wrong for me to hope they are indeed in the forthcoming publication?
And if the pictures DO exist, I'm sure he'll have copyright on them and he will still make filthy lucre!
I'll make my mind up when I've seen and read.

 

[Russ Jones]

I just now realized it is John Agnew who saw this bird. Not that it matters I suppose but in my opinion he is one of the top wildlife artists out there, one I have been a fan of for years. It adds more credabilty to this sighting for me personally and I congratulate him on his sighting, supposing it was an IBWO. I am once again slightly encouraged

Russ

 

[humminbird]

I just now realized it is John Agnew who saw this bird. Not that it matters I suppose but in my opinion he is one of the top wildlife artists out there, one I have been a fan of for years. It adds more credabilty to this sighting for me personally and I congratulate him on his sighting, supposing it was an IBWO. I am once again slightly encouraged

Russ

Based on that description of him, and the rediculously poor drawing (not even close to representative of an IBWO, I must conclude he did NOT see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

 

[salar53]

Variable plumage?

Does anybody here know for definite how many of the IBWO's primaries would be expected to be black? And how many would be expected to be white?
I'm asking because this seems to be variable. Indeed I think that Jerome Jackson has stated that plumage can be variable.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

Does anybody here know for definite how many of the IBWO's primaries would be expected to be black? And how many would be expected to be white?
I'm asking because this seems to be variable. Indeed I think that Jerome Jackson has stated that plumage can be variable.

I mentioned earlier that the Cornell site (link) says:

"In some specimens, for example, the inner web of many outer primaries is largely white, while in others the outermost six primaries are virtually all black."​

 

[salar53]

Good Sketch?

I mentioned earlier that the Cornell site (link) says:

"In some specimens, for example, the inner web of many outer primaries is largely white, while in others the outermost six primaries are virtually all black."​

Thank you, Dave. I'm thinking out loud here and will probably get into trouble for it. I think that you (and Cyberthrush) have beaten me to my conclusion in any case.

You also drew attention to the famous Allen/Tanner photograph which shows an overhead view of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. (I mean of course that the bird is overhead and the photographer is below).
This photograph shows PRACTICALLY NO WHITE on the leading edge.

Plenty of white secondaries. But, the "white lining appears dark" (Julie Zickefoose, as reported by Cyberthrush). See Cyberthrush's blog entry of Tuesday 11th March, 2008.

Now, if John Agnew saw a bird where the "outermost six primaries are (were) virtually all black" and where the secondaries were very white, his sketch is REMARKABLY SIMILAR to the famous Allen/Tanner photograph.

Remarkably similar.

In other words, despite the vilification here, John Agnew's sketch might well be an accurate depiction of what you might expect to see when an Ivory-billed Woodpecker appears very briefly overhead.

So, hat-tip to Dave_in_Michigan, Cyberthrush, Julie Zickefoose, John Agnew and of course, Allen and Tanner!

 

[Ilya Maclean]

The following features in the sketch eliminate IBWO:

(1) there is no white on the leading edge of the underwing and on the trailing primaries. Even though I suspect this can be variable, its extremely unlikely that the white would be so clearly bordered by dark feathering.

(2) the length of the neck. In IBWO should have a longer neck than a pileated. The sketch depicts a neck similar to that to that of a pileated woodpecker.

(3) The tail shape. IBWOs have a longer and more attenuated tail than a pileated. The sketch depicts a bird with a relatively short, blunt and square ended tail.

(4) The iris colour. The bird in the sketch has a dark iris. IBWOs have a prominent pale orbital ring which gives the eye a pale appearance.

(5) The bill. IBWOs have a very prominent pale bill – hence the name. Anybody who failed to notice this cannot have looked at the bird sufficiently well to identify it.

In fact, the sketch does not resemble a known bird species, suggesting the observer did not look at it carefully. Even if IBWO was a common species, I wouldn’t claim that as an IBWO

However there’s a much more important issue here. We are dealing with (if extant) one of the rarest and certainly the most contraversial species in the world. Any evidence of a very and controversial bird sighting should start of with the assumption that it wasn’t one and then, evidence worked through so that all alternative possibilities can be eliminated beyond any reasonable doubt. The weighting of alternative possibilities should be proportional to the rarity and controversy. In fact, what we see here is the exact opposite occurring. People are making excuses as to why it was an IBWO instead of why it wasn’t and frankly, it's laughable.