humminbird
Well-known member
MacGillivray's Trout said:
Yes, often not exactly where I found it, but relatively close by. Sound familiar to anyone?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
Yes, often not exactly where I found it, but relatively close by. Sound familiar to anyone?
dave_in_michigan
Well-known member
Thanks for the welcome, timeshadowed! I look forward to some challenges. I think it's healthy, and frankly I enjoy that kind of thing. Plus I'm pretty sure I'll learn a some things along the way. Hopefully people will find the read worth their time.timeshadowed said:
humminbird
Well-known member
MacGillivray's Trout said:
Does it really make a difference whether they know what to look for or not? The important thing is what did they describe is it not? Actually, I would take the word of someone who did NOT know what they were supposed to be looking for, and thus did not have reason to convince themselves of what they saw, over someone who studied a description and thus might have convinced themselves a feature was there. I have had many people call me admitting to being rank neophytes and give some great descriptions of a relatively uncommon (granted, not an Ivory-billed or Imperial) bird. Am I to discount the description and say they saw a Mockingbird because there is no way they saw that Peregrine since they are neophytes and don't know what they are supposed to look for?
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
humminbird said:
Well yes, sometimes it should be discounted, or at least examined with a healthy skepticism. New birders are often very inaccurate observers, as anyone who has led a group of new birders will attest.
The extension of this way of looking at this, would be that we should be more accepting of IBWO sightings by inexperienced observers, and this is not common sense.
This is part of a larger problem with the evidence on this bird. So many people feel that a high number of observations which are not individually conclusive, somehow add up to conclusive proof.
humminbird
Well-known member
Harold Stiver said:
I did not ask "should it be looked at more closely". I would certainly agree that I should take more time in talking with them to try to determine what they saw and what they think they saw. I would also take time to ask if they were consulting a field guide while giving the descriptions. But in a case where they have taken some notes while looking at the bird (or within a reasonable time afterward), without looking at a book or talking with others, and they are able to describe significant characteristics, then I am going to give more credence to the report.
No one is saying that a large number of observations constitute conclusive proof. I would argue that, especially in todays world, a still photo or two will NOT constitute conclusive proof UNLESS they are obviously the same bird, in the same setting, and obviously vital (moving). What I have been saying is that, this nonsense of a "known birder not being able to relocate the bird" (which is highly subjective since a "known birder" by your definition may not be "known" to me) is nothing short of arbitrary. And the very idea that a researcher would take someone who does not know the field into the field to look for a bird is rediculous! Yes, I know some ornithologists who are great ecologists or physiologists but useless at identification, but they do not spend time in the field.
If this bird is extant, and as I have said before, that is a big IF, then who is seeing it and their knowledge of field notes and what features to look for should not bias our opinion. We should be looking only at what they are describing and how well it answers known species. IF we are presenting an argument that it is an aberrant plumage, we need to be able to support that with the probability of THAT anomally occuring. Else our contention is no better or worse than that presented by the answer that seems aparent to others.
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
emupilot said:
That is what I disagree with. if I have one non-conclusive observation, adding another doesn't make the first of higher value. and adding the 100th doesn't make any of the previous one's of higher value. It's counter-intuitive but it remains that at the end of the day each observation stands on its own.
There have been a lot of alien abduction reports but the fact that there are a great many doesn't increase the likelyhood they are true.
On the other hand, instances where reports are obviously wrong (accomanied by a photo of a PIWO for example) don't downgrade other observations, as some would have it.
humminbird
Well-known member
Harold Stiver said:
1) As has been said several times previously and by the observer, the photo was taken the next day, by the son, and they concluded it was not "the bird" they saw. Whether that is fact or not, I can not say. I have seen similar situations on more probable birds (known extant but not recorded from that location). This fall, I walked into a state park and was told by several BIRDERS who were there for a BIRDING FESTIVAL that they had just seen a Beryline Hummingbird at one of the feeders. Beryline is unrecorded in the Rio Grande Valley. I spent the rest of the day there pointing out several Buff-bellied and getting "well, maybes" and "no, that's not the bird" from the reporters. Good observation or not? In my mind, unconfirmed, just as the Ivory-billed remains, but not because of who reported it. Because there is no documentation.
2) Agreed, should we document a bird it does NOTHING to CONFIRM the previous observations. It would, in my mind, make the reports that can not be conclusively ruled a PIWO weigh a little more to the possibility of IBWO, but it would not confirm it. Where I have a problem is that we are contending repeatedly that multiple reports of a POSSIBLE bird from within a few miles of previously reported sites, of a bird that is known to be highly mobile in its foraging behavior (Tanner) are not replicable. Have we not reproduced the possible sighting. There is no confirmation, but the observation was certainly replicated.
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
humminbird said:
That is certainly a point worth considering and it may have merit. If I may play the devil's advocate though, consider this. Let's suppose your Beryline Hummingbird was not present at Rio Grande. It is likely that one person reported it and that others looked for it and reported it as well. The first report was replicated but in this hypothetical situation, they were still all wrong. Those who go looking for IBWO where there have been previous reports may have an "expectation bias" towards seeing one. "Expectation bias" is something that certainly happens, I know of at least two flagrant situations where it has happened and I think subsequent observers are neither fools or charlatans, they are merely human.
Here's where the alien abduction/UFO analogy is truly inapt. In the case of UFO/Alien Abduction stories, you're basically dealing an issue of delusion versus reality, with a little bit of mistake thrown in. UFO sightings fall into one of three categories: hallucinations, mistaken interpretations of any number of natural phenomena, or real sightings of alien space craft. In the case of alien abductions, they're either real or imaginary/delusional. Since there's no physical evidence that earth has been visited by alien spacecraft, reports, however sincere, are presumptively the product of delusion or mistake.
In the case of the IBWO, however, the question is more frequently (I would say almost always), was this sighting the product of confusion with another species? Most reports from minimally knowledgeable people can only be one of two things: PIWO or IBWO. There have been numerous sightings over the past 60 years, and many of these sightings have been made by people who are familiar with Pileateds. From this perspective, the likelihood that all the sightings have been the product of confusion seems minuscule to me. And as I noted earlier, the very possibility of confusion makes it easier for those who would not take a sighting seriously to dismiss it out of hand, something that has happened repeatedly for decades. People who report seeing an Ivory-Bill but can't produce photos face a catch-22; their siightings are "non-conclusive," even if they provide field notes that meet the standard Jane has articulated.
Moreover, the idea that the IBWO is extinct is a presumption based on thin evidence, primarily the disappearance of the birds from the Singer tract. Beyond that the presumption is purely an arbitrary and inferential one. This contrasts quite markedly with the other most notable 20th-century extincions in North America (Heath Hen, Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon), in which the moment of extinction was relatively clearly established and sightings more or less came to an end. Reports of the Carolina Parakeet did continue into the '40s, but AFAIK, there have been none since then, and the highly social nature of the species is another significant difference. The IBWO stands in marked contrast to these other species.
So, in sum, when the issue is mistaken identity, when there are dozens of unproven reports -- supported by various kinds of circumstantial evidence, in some instances and good descriptions in others - and when the case for extinction is as weak as it is, the shear number of reports is strong evidence that the bird has persisted.
In the case of the IBWO, however, the question is more frequently (I would say almost always), was this sighting the product of confusion with another species? Most reports from minimally knowledgeable people can only be one of two things: PIWO or IBWO. There have been numerous sightings over the past 60 years, and many of these sightings have been made by people who are familiar with Pileateds. From this perspective, the likelihood that all the sightings have been the product of confusion seems minuscule to me. And as I noted earlier, the very possibility of confusion makes it easier for those who would not take a sighting seriously to dismiss it out of hand, something that has happened repeatedly for decades. People who report seeing an Ivory-Bill but can't produce photos face a catch-22; their siightings are "non-conclusive," even if they provide field notes that meet the standard Jane has articulated.
Moreover, the idea that the IBWO is extinct is a presumption based on thin evidence, primarily the disappearance of the birds from the Singer tract. Beyond that the presumption is purely an arbitrary and inferential one. This contrasts quite markedly with the other most notable 20th-century extincions in North America (Heath Hen, Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon), in which the moment of extinction was relatively clearly established and sightings more or less came to an end. Reports of the Carolina Parakeet did continue into the '40s, but AFAIK, there have been none since then, and the highly social nature of the species is another significant difference. The IBWO stands in marked contrast to these other species.
So, in sum, when the issue is mistaken identity, when there are dozens of unproven reports -- supported by various kinds of circumstantial evidence, in some instances and good descriptions in others - and when the case for extinction is as weak as it is, the shear number of reports is strong evidence that the bird has persisted.
Harold Stiver said:
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
Sightings of IBWO fall into these same three categories plus the possibility of intentional falsehoodMMinNY said:
It may surprise you but I agree with that.MMinNY said:
But I don't agree with that. The case is as strong as its strongest report (perhaps Hicks' reports) but it is not made stronger by a multitude of less conclusive reports.MMinNY said:
MacGillivray's Trout
Well-known member
humminbird said:
We are talking IBWO vs. PIWO, not Peregrine vs. Mockingbird. Yes, it makes a difference whether they know what they were looking for or not. Knowing what you don't know is half the battle.
humminbird
Well-known member
Harold Stiver said:
I can certainly grant that, and have personally seen that happen more than once! How do we explain though that, many of those reporting indicate they were NOT looking for the bird.
humminbird
Well-known member
MacGillivray's Trout said:
So, when I see a lifer in Latvia this summer and it is not one of the birds I went looking for, I should not count it because I don't know what I was looking for because I did not see it?
BTW many of these reports are from people who were NOT looking!
Harold Stiver said:
No, most of them fall into one category. . .Either IBWO or PIWO. Not the same at all
Harold Stiver said:
Glad to hear it.
Harold Stiver said:
Sorry, don't agree. The case is as strong as the totality of the evidence. While it is true that the number of sightings alone is not particularly significant, the probability (or lack thereof) that multiple knowledgeable observers would repeatedly be mistaken merits consideration.
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
humminbird said:
Its still the same possibilities as a UFO sighting:
hallucinations, mistaken interpretations of any number of natural phenomena, real sightings of IBWO, or deliberate falsehood
humminbird
Well-known member
Harold Stiver said:
Give me a better answer. I do not buy this "mass hysteria" nonsense so many want to believe.
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
humminbird said:
Well, we all want a better answer but the observations fit into those four possibilities. I never mentioned "mass hysteria" which I don't think it is. And I haven't heard "so many want to believe" it is mass hysteria.
humminbird said:
Greetings from one country south of Latvia, if you didn't see it and were not looking for it, I think you will go home a happy birder, not realising the damn good birding sitting behind you
If you need any hints regarding Latvia, drop me a line ...plenty of good woodpeckers there, albeit without dodgy bill colours
Harold Stiver said:
Many of the observations are independent events, and with independent events you are right that one has no bearing on the other. Speaking mathematically, however, any non-conclusive observation has probability less than 1 of actually being an IBWO. If we agree that the observation could be IBWO, then the probability is greater than 0. For example, let's assume there were two independent observations, say in Arkansas and Florida, and the probability of each being an IBWO is 0.6. The probability of neither being an IBWO is not 0.4, but 0.16.
Also, there is the question of alternate hypotheses to explain what observers saw. A few pages ago, Jane proposed a mutant Pileated to explain TRE's observation of the characteristic IBWO underwing pattern: with secondary and some primary feathers all white except with black bases. Such a specific mutant plumage is highly unlikely on its own, especially with no record of Pileated ever looking like that, so it is not something expected to happen twice independently.
If sightings are dependent upon each other, like multiple sightings in the same area, than confirmation of one would add credence to (although not necessarily confirm) the others. If it were known that there was an IBWO in the area, then other reports in the area are likely to be the same bird, and not a coincidentaly spectacular mutant Pileated.
Similar threads
