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

[dave_in_michigan]

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.

Very well stated. I agree with you from the standpoint of whether or not the report should be accepted as IBWO. I think everyone is pretty clear that because of the rarity and controversy, only a clear photo or video will suffice for acceptance. Even long looks by multiple experts won't stand up at this point if they are not accompanied by good images. The very best field notes and sketches concievable won't stand up on their own.

This touches again on the topic of whether such sightings should even be reported at all. Here (again), a non-professional is posting his sighting on his own web page... I don't find fault with him reporting it. The crux is in how people receive it (Hill in particular).

Nevertheless, people are going to have their opinions about the possibility of this being an IBWO, regardless of whether it should be accepted or not. Of course it's possible. But it absolutely should not be accepted as confirmation of IBWO presence.

 

[salar53]

Perhaps

Dave, of course I realise that only a good series of photographs or an excellent video will do as conclusive proof. (Though maybe DNA evidence might also be compelling).
And Ilya, you'll have noticed that my conclusions, as usual, are full of "mights". I was being very careful because of course I know this is controversial.

My point about the white on the leading edge is that it COULD have been there but that it was not noticeable in the rapid fly-by.
And I think even Tanner did not find the bill a good distinguishing mark.

We are all agreed that plumage IS variable.

So, in conclusion, there could well be more to that sketch than initially meets the eye. Perhaps!

Hmmmmmmmmmm. "Could", "think", "might", "maybe", "perhaps". I take it you're not going to pay up, Ilya!!!!!

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Dave, of course I realise that only a good series of photographs or an excellent video will do as conclusive proof. (Though maybe DNA evidence might also be compelling).
And Ilya, you'll have noticed that my conclusions, as usual, are full of "mights". I was being very careful because of course I know this is controversial.

My point about the white on the leading edge is that it COULD have been there but that it was not noticeable in the rapid fly-by.
And I think even Tanner did not find the bill a good distinguishing mark.

We are all agreed that plumage IS variable.

So, in conclusion, there could well be more to that sketch than initially meets the eye. Perhaps!

Hmmmmmmmmmm. "Could", "think", "might", "maybe", "perhaps". I take it you're not going to pay up, Ilya!!!!!

The words "pigs might fly" spring to mind.

 

[salar53]

Pigs Fly

The words "pigs might fly" spring to mind.

Why, Ilya, I do believe you must be referring to "Pigs Might Fly. The Further Adventures of the Three Little Pigs." Emmet and Cox.

And they do indeed fly.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Why, Ilya, I do believe you must be referring to "Pigs Might Fly. The Further Adventures of the Three Little Pigs." Emmet and Cox.

And they do indeed fly.

There does indeed appear to be a rather fairytale like taint to the IBWO saga – Hans Christian Andersen’s tale about the Emporer’s clothes also springs to mind.

 

[lockbreeze926]

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

In the unlikely event that anybody remembers, I did repeatedly offer to accompany the magic guy to his Green Swamp site/s (I have a house right there) for as long as it took to learn the habitat and find the birds, at any time and under any circumstances. It was a genuine offer, open-minded (and made over and over again).

In response, he was evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous. And I don't mean just cautious, nor protective. What conclusions would any reasonable person draw from that?

 

[salar53]

Emperor's Clothes

In the unlikely event that anybody remembers, I did repeatedly offer to accompany the magic guy to his Green Swamp site/s (I have a house right there) for as long as it took to learn the habitat and find the birds, at any time and under any circumstances. It was a genuine offer, open-minded (and made over and over again).

In response, he was evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous. And I don't mean just cautious, nor protective. What conclusions would any reasonable person draw from that?

There are two conclusions that come immediately to mind. If, and I know it's a big if, but if he has found the birds maybe he wants to keep them to himself in the meantime. That way, nobody else will photograph them, and he gets ALL of the profits.


The second conclusion is that he is evasive because the birds aren't there. So he simply cannot show them to you.

But if this second conclusion is true, isn't he digging a big hole for himself? And how can he publish a book if he is not dressed in the emperor's finery of conclusive proof? If he is wearing no clothes?

Either way, it should be .............interesting.

 

[tmguy]

I've been quite candid about the location to those who have communicated with me in sincerity. Regarding the lockbreeze claim of me being " evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous" this only seals why I have not taken him up on his "offer". He has previously attacked my credibility in the open, he is a baiter and my ignoring him has not put me in any category of , evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous. I have been open with anyone who has communicated with me respectfully, indeed there are people on this forum who have recieved detailed directions to where I have found the birds and photographed them.

I have also shared my photos with people who can carry on a conversation without being jerks, juvenile, or turds in general.

Regarding emporers clothes or whatever childish nonsense you can bring up, my goods will be available and we will see who is stringing who. . Have fun.

Oh and really, why must everyone be so quick to rip Mr Agnew a new one? The guy drew what he saw. And because he didn't draw the textbook version of the bird he's a liar or worse. And if he did draw it perfect he'd be a liar as well. These analysis are so easy to make when you are sitting across the ocean and ironically it is amazing how much of an expert you become when you haven't seen the bird.

Laugh and laugh and hate all you want. It won't matter very shortly.

Bill

 

[Sidewinder]

The following features in the sketch eliminate IBWO:

...

(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.

Could the Lord God Birder please show us proper sketches he has submitted to rare bird committees with correct iris colour? I'd like to see that.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Could the Lord God Birder please show us proper sketches he has submitted to rare bird committees with correct iris colour? I'd like to see that.

Lord God birder my a@rse. Any competent birder with even a modicum of observational skills would note something like iris colour when taking field notes of even a relatively scarce species if this was a diagnostic feature (no need to draw it, just write it). Have a look at the back of any bird report. I’m not going to especially scan some of my field notes of rarer species I’ve found, but if you go to my website, there’s a couple of scans of notebook pages of some groups of species I spent a while looking at with a view to getting better at their ID:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e039/birding/notebook.htm

The main point I want to make about these is that they're more detailed than of any sketches of IBWOs I've seen, yet I wouldn't consider them up to scratch to submit to a rarities committee without more detailed accompanying notes if they depicted species that were county rarities let alone national rarities or the most controversial species in the world.

I’m not that good a birder – there’s plenty better out there, but basic standards are basic standards and the IBWO sketches don’t come close!

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Hi Ilya,

Just a quick comment - contrary to what you say I think your sketches are actually very good, particularly the geese and the perched Calandra Lark. Much better than anything I have ever produced, and I do try! The Bean Goose and Black Brant would in my view have a pretty good chance of passing a committee with just a few accompanying notes, but of course if the Calandra was in the UK it would require some extra documentation!

It is worth mentioning that you probably had these birds in view for a reasonably amount of time to in order to identify these birds and produce detailed field sketchtches, something that IBWO (almost unique in the ornithological world?) apparently does not allow in the field!

I'm not sure you should give the impression that your notebook pages are typical of what the average, mediocre british birder produces in the field. I am happy to be corrected but in my experience a lot of birders just don't bother. On the other hand, there are a core of birders who do make an effort like this.

None of that changes the point you were making however!

The main point I want to make about these is that they're more detailed than of any sketches of IBWOs I've seen, yet I wouldn't consider them up to scratch to submit to a rarities committee without more detailed accompanying notes if they depicted species that were county rarities let alone national rarities or the most controversial species in the world.

I’m not that good a birder – there’s plenty better out there, but basic standards are basic standards and the IBWO sketches don’t come close!

I think your final comment illustrates something I have often pointed out to people and something which is lacking in at just about every stage in the IBWO "rediscovery" story. The best birders know their limitations and they know when a sighting is not good enough to clinch a conclusive identification.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

I can't really call myself a birder... but I'm even less of an artist.

When I look at your sketches, Ilya, I just can't see myself ever being able to draw anything so accurately, regardless of how much time I had.

What I particularly liked about Jane's recommendation to MMinNY was the idea to have a prepared checklist of things to observe. First, because this list could be used with some effectiveness even by rank amateurs (after explanations of terms). Many people can't draw worth beans, but everyone can take notes.

Second, it would serve as a reminder checklist to not forget various aspects to observe in the heat of the moment. I think amateurs (myself included) habitually only identify what they think is enough to rule out alternatives, and not more. In the case of IBWO, seeing those striking white secondaries may seem like enough for you to recognize the bird, but the comments here are all excellent reminders to not stop there -- be prepared and try to observe *all* the identifying features, and note them.

And just to reiterate the obvious, one needs a bit of time to be able to observe more detail. I don't think anyone (Hill included) has stated that Mr. Agnew's report was sufficient to submit to any rare bird committee. He obviously didn't see it for very long, and he's just posting what he thought he saw on his own webpage. I imagine Mr. Agnew would have provided considerably more detail and accuracy had he had more time to view the bird.

Still, for this bird, after all this, field notes and sketches are academic. Nothing but good photo documentation or DNA are going to cut the mustard now.

 

[Jane Turner]

Still, for this bird, after all this, field notes and sketches are academic. Nothing but good photo documentation or DNA are going to cut the mustard now.

I've already said a few times on this thread whilst photos - (for it will have to be a sequence which clearly shows a living bird).... multiple independent observers or fresh DNA may be required for unequivocal proof, since single observer field notes may be open to an accusation of fraud, there is no need to get into that sort of "messy" discussion, since there quite patently isn't a single example of a description that "cuts the mustard" - or even gets close!

 

[salar53]

Pretty pictures

I've been quite candid about the location to those who have communicated with me in sincerity. Regarding the lockbreeze claim of me being " evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous" this only seals why I have not taken him up on his "offer". He has previously attacked my credibility in the open, he is a baiter and my ignoring him has not put me in any category of , evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous. I have been open with anyone who has communicated with me respectfully, indeed there are people on this forum who have recieved detailed directions to where I have found the birds and photographed them.

I have also shared my photos with people who can carry on a conversation without being jerks, juvenile, or turds in general.

Regarding emporers clothes or whatever childish nonsense you can bring up, my goods will be available and we will see who is stringing who. . Have fun.

Oh and really, why must everyone be so quick to rip Mr Agnew a new one? The guy drew what he saw. And because he didn't draw the textbook version of the bird he's a liar or worse. And if he did draw it perfect he'd be a liar as well. These analysis are so easy to make when you are sitting across the ocean and ironically it is amazing how much of an expert you become when you haven't seen the bird.

Laugh and laugh and hate all you want. It won't matter very shortly.

Bill

As someone (Cinclodes) has said today, science doesn't progress by "pretty pictures" alone.
But if (and you won't mind me saying that's a small word with a big meaning) if you have indeed got those photographs, science will advance. And you will have rocked the worlds of ornithology and birding.

 

[lockbreeze926]

Regarding the lockbreeze claim of me being " evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous" this only seals why I have not taken him up on his "offer". He has previously attacked my credibility in the open, he is a baiter and my ignoring him has not put me in any category of , evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous.

Well, quite.

You haven't taken me up on my offer because you are evasive, ambiguous, vague and disingenuous - as you now say in your own words. And in that sentence of yours, you have accidentally become transparent for a moment.

I don't recall attacking or baiting anybody - there are plenty of people on here of whom that could fairly be said, but not this correspondent.

Now, though.....

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Thanks for generally favourable comments re: my fieldnotes. The situation is different from IBWOs in that I observed multiple birds over several days.

I don’t think fieldnotes would ever satisfy sceptics completely, but a half-way decent description by someone who is evidently a competent birder, yet demonstrates a cautious and critical approach to their ID would go a long way to convincing a lot of people.

ps TMGuy - what's it going to be this time? Balsa or papier-mache?

 

[salar53]

Michelangelo

Thanks for generally favourable comments re: my fieldnotes. The situation is different from IBWOs in that I observed multiple birds over several days.

I don’t think fieldnotes would ever satisfy sceptics completely, but a half-way decent description by someone who is evidently a competent birder, yet demonstrates a cautious and critical approach to their ID would go a long way to convincing a lot of people.

ps TMGuy - what's it going to be this time? Balsa or papier-mache?

How do you know for sure that he used balsa wood specifically? KNOW? FOR SURE?

And I'm still wondering why John Agnew was crucified for his sketch. He drew a woodpecker with a red crest (male), white stripe, black face, and noticeably white secondaries on the trailing edge. According to Tanner, this latter mark is the most important distinguishing mark for IBWO when the observer is looking up at the bird flying overhead.
Furthermore, John Agnew's sketch shows NO FORKED tail. A forked tail, again according to Tanner, is to be expected on a pileated woodpecker seen overhead.
Hmmmmmmmmm. He saw the bird for about three or four seconds. He saw plenty. It was flying towards him. And yet he is attacked savagely for not describing the iris in detail.
Are you winding us all up?

Now John Agnew is qualified in science as well as in art. He has won prizes for his art. His art is to be on display in one US Embassy until 2010. He is a member of The Society of Animal Artists. Membership of that society "is granted by a jury who look for the highest standards of artistic achievement."

John Agnew is good. But not as talented, seemingly, as Ilya "Michelangelo" Maclean.

 

[Sidewinder]

ps TMGuy - what's it going to be this time? Balsa or papier-mache?

More of the usual taunting and baiting. Leaves us little to wonder why folks with a PhD behind their name are so often viewed as arrogant snots sitting in an ivory tower.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

How do you know for sure that he used balsa wood specifically? KNOW? FOR SURE?

And I'm still wondering why John Agnew was crucified for his sketch. He drew a woodpecker with a red crest (male), white stripe, black face, and noticeably white secondaries on the trailing edge. According to Tanner, this latter mark is the most important distinguishing mark for IBWO when the observer is looking up at the bird flying overhead.
Furthermore, John Agnew's sketch shows NO FORKED tail. A forked tail, again according to Tanner, is to be expected on a pileated woodpecker seen overhead.
Hmmmmmmmmm. He saw the bird for about three or four seconds. He saw plenty. It was flying towards him. And yet he is attacked savagely for not describing the iris in detail.
Are you winding us all up?

Now John Agnew is qualified in science as well as in art. He has won prizes for his art. His art is to be on display in one US Embassy until 2010. He is a member of The Society of Animal Artists. Membership of that society "is granted by a jury who look for the highest standards of artistic achievement."

John Agnew is good. But not as talented, seemingly, as Ilya "Michelangelo" Maclean.

John's field sketch does not match an IBWO end of story. Iris colour was minor part of my post. Google image "Pileated woodpecker in flight". TMGuy previously posted a photo of a model of an IBWO and fraudulently claimed it to be the real thing. He deserves all the crap he gets for it.

Anyway chaps and chapesses. Those are my last word on IBWOs until somebody comes up with a decent bit of evidence. I hope somebody does, even though it will cost me a lot of money.

So long guys, it’s been fun. Especially the mud-slinging. Wish you all the best for the future and don't forget to look at real birds from time-to-time

 

[pcoin]

Florida Ornithological Society rejected Choc records

Apologies if this was posted previously--it is rather old news, but perhaps still of interest. (I searched and searched upstream and could not find this report on the forum.) John Trapp reported here that the Florida Ornithological Society Records Committee (FORC) voted (unanimously) not to accept the 2005-06 reports of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker on the Choctawhatchee River (Florida Ornithological Society report). Since the date of that report was April 2007, it seems that the 12 January 2008 report (here) would not have been included.

More details on the pages linked above. Again, apologies if this was mentioned upstream on this thread.