Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

MMinNY · Mar 30, 2007

I wasn't there, and your question is something of a non-sequitur. The black crest is a definitive field mark and one that is very hard to mistake. He's also noted the typical upper and underwing patterns of the IBWO and a manner of flight that is utterly unlike that of a Pileated.

A number of simple possibilities to explain missing the bill spring to mind: angle, lighting, discoloration, the observer focusing on other features, or any combination of these factors.

I haven't seen an Ivory-bill (maybe I'll get lucky soon), but I think it's far, far more reasonable to think an observer would miss the bill altogether (especially on a bird in flight) than it is to suggest that he would erroneously describe vivid red as black.

Jane Turner said:
Then why couldn't he see the bill!

emupilot · Mar 30, 2007

Jane Turner said:
TME's description says that he did not hear any sounds from the bird doesn't it - last line!

During TRE's first observation, the bird did make "kent" calls (referring to a recording from the Choctawhatchee):

Oh my god guys that double toot at the end sounded to my ear and memory just like the calls I heard .It sent chills down my spine .Is their a link to contact Menill's team from this page?

(and referring to a Tanner recording):

Thanks alot Dacol, I had not heard of that audio before.After listening to it 2 segments (3:15-3:26 and 9:56-10:10) sound closer than anything else I have heard.To the naked ear and memory, not quite exact though.I think maybe the calls I heard were slightly slower.

Jane Turner · Mar 30, 2007

MMinNY said:
I wasn't there, and your question is something of a non-sequitur. The black crest is a definitive field mark and one that is very hard to mistake. He's also noted the typical upper and underwing patterns of the IBWO and a manner of flight that is utterly unlike that of a Pileated.

A number of simple possibilities to explain missing the bill spring to mind: angle, lighting, discoloration, the observer focusing on other features, or any combination of these factors.

I haven't seen an Ivory-bill (maybe I'll get lucky soon), but I think it's far, far more reasonable to think an observer would miss the bill altogether (especially on a bird in flight) than it is to suggest that he would erroneously describe vivid red as black.

So I say yet again... since you have a thing for non sequitirs

...the view was not good enough to see a luminous and large white bill.
...the view was good enough to be sure that the crest was all black

Just look at that fabulous video of an IBWO to see how conspicous the bill is. Its more obvious than the stripes!

Surely you have experience of the difficulty of confirming the absence of a feature compared to cofiyming the presence of it? All that we can be sure of is that it was crested. This in itself is a vast improvement on many of the claims.

The biggest confusion species (after Crow) for European Black Woodpecker is Green Woodpecker. You might think it was easy to tell the difference between luminous green and black.

MMinNY · Mar 30, 2007

No need to get snarky.

Tanner had this to say about bills:

"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. (I would add to that "or in flight"). The bill is not a good character for differentiating the two species in the field." (p.1)

Tanner's not infallible, but his words make it clear that the bill is not a definitive mark. Now, I suppose, you have a way to dismiss any sighting that mentions the bill as well, but so be it. The black crest is more significant as far as I'm concerned, and while I've not seen either of the European woodpeckers you mentioned (from looking a couple of photos, it doesn't look all that difficult to mistake that green for black), I'm quite familiar with Pileateds. In fact, I saw one about a hundred feed away, out my office window, minutes after my last post. Daylight conditions, partly cloudy. The red was bright and umistakable; indeed, after size, it's the bird's most arresting feature. I can recall no instance when I've seen a Pileated, perched or in flight, and not noted the red crest. That includes glimpses of birds flying across highways and birds seen with the naked eye at a much greater distance than that described by TRE.

TRE did not look at a field guide. He saw a crest. He described it as pronounced and black. You're turning an unambiguous description of a field mark into something uncertain based on nothing but conjecture.

Jane Turner said:
So I say yet again... since you have a thing for non sequitirs

...the view was not good enough to see a luminous and large white bill.
...the view was good enough to be sure that the crest was all black

Just look at that fabulous video of an IBWO to see how conspicous the bill is. Its more obvious than the stripes!

Surely you have experience of the difficulty of confirming the absence of a feature compared to cofiyming the presence of it? All that we can be sure of is that it was crested. This in itself is a vast improvement on many of the claims.

The biggest confusion species (after Crow) for European Black Woodpecker is Green Woodpecker. You might think it was easy to tell the difference between luminous green and black.

Jane Turner · Mar 30, 2007

So what if Pileated Woodies can appear to have white-bills, its 100% irrelevant to this discussion since a pale bill was not noted. I guess most people got the point eons ago, clearly you can't or wont appreciate it.

Face it, the view was not good enough to be 100% certain that the crest was black and only black OR the bill wasn't white. The crest may have appeared black. This does not mean that it was black.

MMinNY · Mar 30, 2007

The point is quite simply that the bill is not a definitive field mark. I think it's more difficult to observe in flight than you do, but in any case, the absence of any notes about it has no bearing on the rest of TRE's observations. And again, I'm being polite to you. If "something of a non-sequitur" offended you, I apologize. Nevertheless, there's no need to be snarky and presume to speak for "most people."

Your statement about the quality of the view is your opinion, based on conjecture and inference about the absence of any notes about the bill. Based on my experience with Pileateds, I am convinced your inference is unfounded.

Jane Turner said:
So what if Pileated Woodies can appear to have white-bills, its 100% irrelevant to this discussion since a pale bill was not noted. I guess most people got the point eons ago, clearly you can't or wont appreciate it.

Face it, the view was not good enough to be 100% certain that the crest was black and only black OR the bill wasn't white. The crest may have appeared black. This does not mean that it was black.

lewis20126 · Mar 30, 2007

MMinNY said:
The point is quite simply that the bill is not a definitive field mark.

Eh? Are we still talking about the IVORY-BILLED Woodpecker? It looks like a pretty definitive field mark in the photos I've seen. Its not exactly a primary emargination is it? Compare Common and Yellow-billed Loons - even at long range it is the bill of the latter that draws the eye. Why should the IVORY-BILL of the IVORY-BILLED Woodpecker be so infrequently observed in recent claimed sightings?

MMinNY · Mar 30, 2007

If you'd bothered to read the quote from Tanner, the leading expert on the subject, you'd see the context of that comment.

I'll repost it:

"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. (I would add to that "or in flight" MM). The bill is not a good character for differentiating the two species in the field." (p.1)

And, just to reiterate, my central point is that a black crest is, in my opinion, a far more definitive, and more easily observable, mark than the bill.

lewis20126 said:
Eh? Are we still talking about the IVORY-BILLED Woodpecker? It looks like a pretty definitive field mark in the photos I've seen. Its not exactly a primary emargination is it? Compare Common and Yellow-billed Loons - even at long range it is the bill of the latter that draws the eye. Why should the IVORY-BILL of the IVORY-BILLED Woodpecker be so infrequently observed in recent claimed sightings?

lewis20126 · Mar 30, 2007

MMinNY said:
If you'd bothered to read the quote from Tanner, the leading expert on the subject, you'd see the context of that comment.

I'll repost it:

"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. (I would add to that "or in flight" MM). The bill is not a good character for differentiating the two species in the field." (p.1)

And, just to reiterate, my central point is that a black crest is, in my opinion, a far more definitive, and more easily observable, mark than the bill.

I've read that quote plenty of times, but let's break it down:
"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." So people have mistaken horn-coloured bills on PIWO for an "ivory bill" for year; Subtext: string has gone on for years (NOT that a genuine ivory bill on an IBWO is not distinctive!)
"Also the white cheek of a Pileated might be mistaken for white on the bill." Stringers often mistake the white cheek for an ivory bill
"The bill of a bird, even a large one, is hard to see at the top of a tree." Tanner didn't have accesss to great modern optics and it is often pretty easy to see the bill on a small bird at the top of a tall tree let alone the bill on a large bird.
"The bill is not a good character for differentiating the two species in the field"
But is Tanner refering to the average observers / hunters / foresters skills or his own experience here? Given the previous context of the para, I think he is suggesting that for the average guy in the woods with no bins, things might be a bit difficult. That is my inference but taken out of context I would agree the sentence is quite striking.

Anyway what leads you to conclude that "my central point is that a black crest is, in my opinion, a far more definitive, and more easily observable, mark than the bill" How can you know that it you haven't seen one?

Jane Turner · Mar 30, 2007

Precisely... there are many circumstances that a PIWO can appear light-billed. The circumstances in which and IBWO can appear dark-billed rely on poor views, brief views, or very difficult lighting conditions. Worrying about whether an observer may be mistaken about a white bill observation isn't really an issue until one is reported by an observer.

I think MMinNY is missing the cucial difference between guessing at an ID between two or more options and proving an ID.

emupilot · Mar 30, 2007

Jane Turner said:
Precisely... there are many circumstances that a PIWO can appear light-billed. The circumstances in which and IBWO can appear dark-billed rely on poor views, brief views, or very difficult lighting conditions. Worrying about whether an observer may be mistaken about a white bill observation isn't really an issue until one is reported by an observer.

I think MMinNY is missing the cucial difference between guessing at an ID between two or more options and proving an ID.

TRE's report is not one where ID is a "guess". That it is a large woodpecker with the described very distinctive underwing and upperwing pattern alone makes Ivory-billed Woodpecker very likely, since it would take a Pileated with spectacular and heretofore undocumented plumage anomalies to have secondary and some primary feathers white with black at the base. That he reported a black head and crest strains the alternate option further. In other words, there is very, very good reason to think that TRE's bird was indeed an Ivory-bill - far beyond what "guess" implies.

IMO there are two reasons this sighting isn't proof: 1) He was the only observer and 2) Although TRE is an experienced outdoorsman, who is familiar with Pileateds, he isn't an experienced birder familiar with morphology and how lighting conditions would affect his sighting. It's very hard to ascertain how one could not see red in a Pileated's crest while seeing a spectacularly aberrant wing pattern, but TRE doesn't have the same experience as someone like Tyler Hicks to draw from when describing his sighting.

Jane Turner · Mar 30, 2007

emupilot said:
snip.....he isn't an experienced birder familiar with morphology and how lighting conditions would affect his sighting.

Isn't that what I have been saying?

emupilot · Mar 30, 2007

Jane Turner said:
Isn't that what I have been saying?

Sort of, but you're proposing an alternate scenario of seeing contrast in the wings but no red in the crest combined with highly improbable and undocumented plumage abnormalities. I don't think "guess" (as if you were throwing darts at a wall to choose) is an appropriate word to describe calling TRE's sighting an Ivory-billed Woodpecker when your alternate is a quite unlikely scenario.

salar53 · Mar 31, 2007

Pathetic Pileateds

Jane Turner said:
Isn't that what I have been saying?

So, are you saying TRE329 saw three different pileateds?
If so, these pathetic pileateds have, as a group, an alarming amount of differences from the norm. Tre has observed the following fieldmarks:

Larger than any woodpecker he has ever seen
White trailing edge on the upper wing
A strange underwing pattern similar to an ivory-billed woodpecker
Black head
Black crest
A tinny kent sound as two fly off

Are these poor pileateds not handicapped enough without having a large bill to cope with as well?

Is there something wrong in the Arkansas environment which is causing this disturbing array of symptoms in the pileateds?

Or, just possibly, has TRE329 seen ivory-billed woodpeckers and has documented them in the fieldnotes which you have praised?

lewis20126 · Mar 31, 2007

salar53 said:
Is there something wrong in the Arkansas environment which is causing this disturbing array of symtoms....?

I've been wondering that for three years.

Goatnose · Mar 31, 2007

salar53 said:
:

Larger than any woodpecker he has ever seen
White trailing edge on the upper wing
A strange underwing pattern similar to an ivory-billed woodpecker
/QUOTE]
Not as easy as one would suspect... see attachment.

timeshadowed · Mar 31, 2007

Jane Turner said:
Isn't that what I have been saying?

I think what Jane is trying sooo hard to tell us is:

1. No person that is not an experienced birder can claim that they have seen an IBWO..

2. Even though TRE very clearly shows the correct wing patterns in his field notes of both the upper wing pattern and the under wing pattern of an IBWO, it can not possibly be an IBWO and therefore his report must not be taken seriously because he does not know how to take proper field notes - the bird's bill was omitted - because he is not an experienced birder.

Therefore: (drum roll)

The bird that Tre saw absolutely must be declared to be a 'leucistic Pileated' that just happens to have the correct wing patterns in both the upper and the under wing of an IBWO because TRE failed to take notice of the bird's bill and thus left the discription out of said field notes.

And: (another drum roll please)

It is impossible for the bird to have been an IBWO because IBWO's are extinct!!!

Jane,

Please explain how a 'leucistic Pileated' can have the correct wing patterns on both the upper wing and the under wing of an IBWO.

MMinNY · Mar 31, 2007

Ding, Ding, Ding! The position is only defensible if one proceeds from a virtually irrebuttable presumption that the IBWO is extinct, in which case, all manner of freakish Pileateds become possible, and Occam's razor is out the window.

timeshadowed said:
It is impossible for the bird to have been an IBWO because IBWO's are extinct!!!

No, I've never seen one, but I've seen Pileateds dozens and dozens of times, in an array of light conditions, and the red crest has always been apparent, even in very brief viewings. As I said before, I have no recollection of ever missing it.

Thus, if someone states unambiguously that a bird has a "very pronounced black crest," it's extremely unlikely that the bird in question is a Pileated. Couple that with contemporaneous field notes detailing a typical Ivory-billed's upper and under-wing pattern, and it strains credulity to the limits to suggest that it's a mistake. Talk about grasping at straws.

curunir · Mar 31, 2007

timeshadowed said:
I think what Jane is trying sooo hard to tell us is:

1. No person that is not an experienced birder can claim that they have seen an IBWO..

2. Even though TRE very clearly shows the correct wing patterns in his field notes of both the upper wing pattern and the under wing pattern of an IBWO, it can not possibly be an IBWO and therefore his report must not be taken seriously because he does not know how to take proper field notes - the bird's bill was omitted - because he is not an experienced birder.

Therefore: (drum roll)

The bird that Tre saw absolutely must be declared to be a 'leucistic Pileated' that just happens to have the correct wing patterns in both the upper and the under wing of an IBWO because TRE failed to take notice of the bird's bill and thus left the discription out of said field notes.

And: (another drum roll please)

It is impossible for the bird to have been an IBWO because IBWO's are extinct!!!

Jane,

Please explain how a 'leucistic Pileated' can have the correct wing patterns on both the upper wing and the under wing of an IBWO.

didn't someone submit sketches that showed pretty positive IBWO markings and then submitted digital photos that were undeniably PIWO. I think it was a father son pair. The hook there was the son took the pictures the next day when the father wasn't there. Non birders and novice birders and some experianced birders and some hunters make the same mistake all the time.

timeshadowed · Mar 31, 2007

curunir said:
didn't someone submit sketches that showed pretty positive IBWO markings and then submitted digital photos that were undeniably PIWO. I think it was a father son pair. The hook there was the son took the pictures the next day when the father wasn't there.

Yes, that is true, but I maintain that if the father and the son had both been there at the time the photos were taken, the father would have told the son that his sketches were of a different bird.

curunir said:
Non birders and novice birders and some experianced birders and some hunters make the same mistake all the time.

But one must keep in mind that TRE was already very familiar with PIWO's when he sighted his IBWO. He noted very clearly that the bird he saw the first time was NOT a PIWO.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Inspired by IBW

Attachments

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread