Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[MMinNY]

You have to download the loops for them to work. As I understand it, the camera was not a remote cam but a hand-held Canon.

I haven't been able to make the loops posted there work on my computer but my eye is drawn to this comment: "The first loop is a rapid blink of shots 1 and 3, the birdless frames. In between these two shots, the camera position shifted slightly" Is this a common occurence with this style of camera?

 

[Imaginos]

You have to download the loops for them to work. As I understand it, the camera was not a remote cam but a hand-held Canon.

Even downloading them they don't work for me!

My mistake, I was under the impression that they were remote cameras, reading back on the original site I'm not sure how I came to that conclusion. Is it more correct to assume that the photographer was following a Pileated & happened to snap a putative Ivorybill by accident? (Oh the irony! )

I have to say, the more I look at #3 the less convinced that it could be an Ivorybill I become...

 

[Ilya Maclean]

New photos photos have been published by the "Ivory Bill Photo Project."

There are 3 very interesting "Mystery Birds" but bird #3 is especially so.

http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home

Mystery Bird 3 is clearly a Pileated Woodpecker. If it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, the white neck stripe would extend down the mantle to join the white secondaries. The apparent white "triangle" of the primaries and secondaries is almost certainly caused by blurred foliage in the foreground of the photo.

Mystery Bird 2 looks as much like a tree cavity as a woodpecker. I know where my money lies........

 

[MMinNY]

Re: "the neck stripe would extend down the mantle to join the white secondaries." The dorsal stripe is not necessarily visible on an IBWO:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12568CF00206298/GraphikTitelIntern/MI_Tanner_7.gif/$File/MI_Tanner_7.gif

Bill Pulliam discusses this with regard to other Campephilus woodpeckers, and I believe there's at least one other photograph of an undisputed Ivory-bill in which the dorsal stripes are not visible, though I haven't located it. The neck stripe itself is consistent with IBWO and not PIWO.

Re: "The apparent white triangle." Bill's loop makes it very clear that the triangle is not "almost certainly" due to blurred foliage. Quite the opposite.

Mystery Bird 3 is clearly a Pileated Woodpecker. If it was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, the white neck stripe would extend down the mantle to join the white secondaries. The apparent white "triangle" of the primaries and secondaries is almost certainly caused by blurred foliage in the foreground of the photo.

Mystery Bird 2 looks as much like a tree cavity as a woodpecker. I know where my money lies........

 

[Ilya Maclean]

The IBWO in your photo is at a completely different angle. The white wouldn't be obscured if the back was angled as in the "Mystery" photo

Bill refers to photos in which the back and rump of Pale-billed Woodpeckers are obscured by primaries and secondaries. This is completely different to the mantle being obscured by coverts, which would have to be the case for the dorsal stripe of an IBWO to be covered.

Re: "the neck stripe would extend down the mantle to join the white secondaries." The dorsal stripe is not necessarily visible on an IBWO:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12568CF00206298/GraphikTitelIntern/MI_Tanner_7.gif/$File/MI_Tanner_7.gif

Bill Pulliam discusses this with regard to other Campephilus woodpeckers, and I believe there's at least one other photograph of an undisputed Ivory-bill in which the dorsal stripes are not visible, though I haven't located it. The neck stripe itself is consistent with IBWO and not PIWO.

Re: "The apparent white triangle." Bill's loop makes it very clear that the triangle is not "almost certainly" due to blurred foliage. Quite the opposite.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

This one's a bit closer (John Dennis, 1948, Cuba):

http://www.birdviewing.com/images/cuba.jpg

 

[MMinNY]

Granted it's a different angle. I was about to post Dave's image, which is closer. As for the mantle being obscured, it all depends on wing position, as this image (look at the male) illustrates:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/10/11815871_3a6522241d_o.jpg

I know it too is a different angle, but I think it shows what's possible.

As for what Bill Pulliam says, you're not characterizing it accurately.

"The curve of the bird's wing is visible right about the spot where we would expect the dorsal stripe to be, so we can hypothesize that the dorsal stripe could be there but hidden by a wing that is cocked a bit dorsally; perhaps in preparation for flight. . .Unfortunately there are not many photos of living perched Ivorybills; all that do exist show dorsal stripes plainly visible where they ought to be."

I think he'd amend that final sentence now.

He makes no mention of the back and rump and implies that the photos are in fact analogous:

"A rather large proportion of the shots of perched Pale-billeds viewed from the side show little or no dorsal stripe; even more so when the bird is higher than the camera."

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html

This one for example. There are several others:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoniogonalves/3030665730/

The IBWO in your photo is at a completely different angle. The white wouldn't be obscured if the back was angled as in the "Mystery" photo

Bill refers to photos in which the back and rump of Pale-billed Woodpeckers are obscured by primaries and secondaries. This is completely different to the mantle being obscured by coverts, which would have to be the case for the dorsal stripe of an IBWO to be covered.

 

[salar53]

If you haven't already done so, check out Cyberthrush's website here:

http://ivorybills.blogspot.com/

It is ablaze with interesting speculation and comment recently. If you liken it to a film, he is producer and director, while Bill Pulliam is the undoubted star.
Cyberthrush is deliberately allowing sceptics to post anonymously because he thinks that it is important that their views are heard.
He is looking for more comments, especially from the acknowledged experts.

 

[Johnny Allan]

Are there any other photos from this source since 2007 ? If they have continued to take photos, they surely must have come up with other distant, blurred, partially obscured etc, images from which Ivory-billed Woodpecker (or other Woodpecker species), can't be entirely ruled out.

Whilst these images are debatable, they are clearly not unequivocally irrefutable Ivory-billed Woodpecker images. Does anyone know what results have come from physical searches undertaken in the area where these images were taken in 2007 ?

 

[Ilya Maclean]

When a bird is side on its, mantle often obscured by the carpel joint (as it is in the two IBWO photos shown). The mystery bird in the photo is rear on, so the stripe would only be obscured if the wing was cocked in the wrong direction (see here). Birds don't fly cross-winged.

Anyway, nuff said as I don’t want to fall into the same trap as Bill and Cyber. I think the thing that has bugged me most about the whole IBWO debacle is the way in which pseudo-scientific analyses of minute details is used on evidence that can never be conclusive irrespective of how it is looked at, usually at the expense of common sense. Anybody with a modicum of common sense realises that the photo is a rather grainy shot of a pair of PIWOs

Granted it's a different angle. I was about to post Dave's image, which is closer. As for the mantle being obscured, it all depends on wing position, as this image (look at the male) illustrates:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/10/11815871_3a6522241d_o.jpg

I know it too is a different angle, but I think it shows what's possible.

As for what Bill Pulliam says, you're not characterizing it accurately.

"The curve of the bird's wing is visible right about the spot where we would expect the dorsal stripe to be, so we can hypothesize that the dorsal stripe could be there but hidden by a wing that is cocked a bit dorsally; perhaps in preparation for flight. . .Unfortunately there are not many photos of living perched Ivorybills; all that do exist show dorsal stripes plainly visible where they ought to be."

I think he'd amend that final sentence now.

He makes no mention of the back and rump and implies that the photos are in fact analogous:

"A rather large proportion of the shots of perched Pale-billeds viewed from the side show little or no dorsal stripe; even more so when the bird is higher than the camera."

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html

This one for example. There are several others:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoniogonalves/3030665730/

 

[Apodemus]

The presence of another, undoubted PIWO in the same frame should be a pretty good clue as to what the not very mysterious mystery bird is.

 

[MMinNY]

Except the mystery bird in the photo is not rear on. It's much closer to being directly side on; the head is turned away from the camera, so the view of the crest alone is rear on. . . and if it were a PIWO, the head and neck ought to show a lot more white at that (or any) angle.

Common sense is all well and good, but sticking to the facts, which you have not done in your last two posts (for what reason I don't know), is even better.

When a bird is side on its, mantle often obscured by the carpel joint (as it is in the two IBWO photos shown). The mystery bird in the photo is rear on, so the stripe would only be obscured if the wing was cocked in the wrong direction (see here). Birds don't fly cross-winged.

Anyway, nuff said as I don’t want to fall into the same trap as Bill and Cyber. I think the thing that has bugged me most about the whole IBWO debacle is the way in which pseudo-scientific analyses of minute details is used on evidence that can never be conclusive irrespective of how it is looked at, usually at the expense of common sense. Anybody with a modicum of common sense realises that the photo is a rather grainy shot of a pair of PIWOs

 

[Imaginos]

Only we're not seing it from the side. The angle of view is much closer to this (with the head turned away) or the left hand bird here than a side view, surely?

Edit: The very fact there can be contention over exactly what part(s) of the bird we are seeing should preclude any definite identification to species.

 

[MMinNY]

I think it's somewhere between what you're suggesting and a side view. I'm not going to go through all the pale-billed images to come up with what seems like the closest match. The point is that the dorsal stripe on an IBWO can be obscured when the bird is viewed from a number of different angles, and it's plausible to think that's the case with the mystery bird. The Audubon painting is irrelevant to the issue of whether wing position can obscure the dorsal stripe.

If the bird were a PIWO, the neck stripe would go along the side and disappear under the wing, which it does not do in this picture. Also, as I said earlier, a normal PIWO would show a lot more white in the head and neck, regardless of angle.

I'm not saying the bird is an Ivory-bill, just that both the coloration of the neck and the saddle are more consistent with IBWO than with PIWO. And I haven't said anywhere that I think a definite identification is possible. . .unlike those who've said it's definitely a normal Pileated. I think it's highly suggestive but inconclusive.

Only we're not seing it from the side. The angle of view is much closer to http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/tropics/costaricaspring07/hoffmans_woodpecker_male.JPG, this (with the head turned away) or the left hand bird http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Ivory-Billed-Woodpecker-1829-Posters_i1592060_.htm, here than a side view, surely?

 

[Johnny Allan]

I think the thing that has bugged me most about the whole IBWO debacle is the way in which pseudo-scientific analyses of minute details is used on evidence that can never be conclusive irrespective of how it is looked at, usually at the expense of common sense.

I quite agree. The words "straws", "clutching" and "at" spring to mind. As stated on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service link in the first post of this thread, there has been no conclusive evidence of the continued existence of Ivory-billed Woodpecker since the 1940's.

I'm sure all birders and others would be overjoyed to find that this iconic bird still existed but let's have some evidence that is universally acceptable.

 

[Jane Turner]

and...... whatever else, do remember that its not impossible for a Pileated to show a "white shield", if that is indeed a feature on the bird.

 

[Apodemus]

I can't see the "white shield" as anything other than sunlight anyway

 

[Sidewinder]

Whilst these images are debatable, they are clearly not unequivocally irrefutable Ivory-billed Woodpecker images.

Do any equivocally irrefutable photos exist?

 

[birdboybowley]

Do any equivocally irrefutable photos exist?

Not any recent ones...!!

 

[Johnny Allan]

Do any equivocally irrefutable photos exist?

"Equivocally irrefutable" seems to be a contradiction in terms but you are perhaps being facetious. We've all seen a few irrefutably equivocal photos.