• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

Jane Turner said:
Its strange how people can see and record the fieldmarks of much more difficult challenging species, identification-wise, well enough to have them accepted by national committees.

With a cool mind, it would take a few seconds to be sure about the dorsal stripe on a perched bird... see the bill in a couple of orientations to be sure its not a reflection. Cetainty about a lack of red on the head might take a little longer, and the extent of white in the wing would be the hardest, requiring a lot of concentration as the bird flew.

I'd leave the debate about whether a description was too good to be true to others. In any case its really not an issue yet is it!
Click to expand...

Certainly seems to be. Need I remind you that a state records committee HAS accepted an id?
 
Bonsaibirder said:
It is much more likely if you are looking at an IBWO than if you are looking at something else. .
Click to expand...


???? So now this is a unique bird in that it sits there and lets you get all these features so easily making it much more likely? This bird, IF we accept the written literature from those who spent time with it in the field, was NEVER EASY TO FIND and required blinds, with the exception of the young bird in hand, (and on head) to photo. So what makes it "much more likely" if you are looking at an IBWO? You speak like one who has experience.
 
Jane Turner said:
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.
Click to expand...


He could not have seen the crest because he did not see the bill? GIVE ME A BREAK! This is arbitrary at best, baseless at least and totally unsupported by the arguments presented in the notes.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Simply because it is the name of the bird does not make it the primary feature of the bird. For example RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER, BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD (if anything the Ruby-throated has a more notable black "chin" than does this bird)!

Tanner and others make it quite clear that the feature everyone is focussing on is not a good diagnostic tool. But of course, modern birders who have never seen the bird and are sitting at a computer reading a field guide know more than a man that spent multiple seasons and built his career on these birds!
 
emupilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
You will have to excuse my typeing since I must be a drooling, blithering idiot (I guess going by previous post just because im from Arkansas and a hunter).I had thought that when I stated "a black very pronounced crest",that pretty much meant no red.
Is their some other way I should have stated IT WAS BLACK (negro,noir,nero,preto)for it to be understood?
 
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.
__________________
Jane
I dont recall seeing Jane out there ,oh well maybe I just missed her.How on earth would she have any idea if I felt 100 % percent or not,or have any idea what the view was.By the way I was back out there today and I saw 3 Pileateds and still didnt see a damn bill.
 
TRE329 said:
You will have to excuse my typeing since I must be a drooling, blithering idiot (I guess going by previous post just because im from Arkansas and a hunter).I had thought that when I stated "a black very pronounced crest",that pretty much meant no red.
Is their some other way I should have stated IT WAS BLACK (negro,noir,nero,preto)for it to be understood?
Click to expand...

Ha! I'm glad you have a sense of humor about this, but didn't you know that Pileateds dress up like Ivory-bills to impress females at grub tasting parties?
 
TRE329 said:
By the way I was back out there today and I saw 3 Pileateds and still didnt see a damn bill.
Click to expand...



That's ok TRE, as long as there are those whose starting point begins with the motto, 'The IBWO is extinct', they can not accept ANY field notes that contadict that position.
You have done a great job!! Keep searching and don't let the nay-sayers get you down.
 
humminbird said:
Simply because it is the name of the bird does not make it the primary feature of the bird. For example RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER, BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD (if anything the Ruby-throated has a more notable black "chin" than does this bird)!

Tanner and others make it quite clear that the feature everyone is focussing on is not a good diagnostic tool. But of course, modern birders who have never seen the bird and are sitting at a computer reading a field guide know more than a man that spent multiple seasons and built his career on these birds!
Click to expand...

Humminbird, I am humbled by your patience. It seems crazy to me that such a simple and obvious thing would need to be explained to anyone but there you go...this thread continues to amaze.

Tre, I really, really hope you are onto something :)

Cheers,

Russ
 
timeshadowed said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I had a co-worker who was very familiar with hawks and eagles in his hunter way and thought an eagle was a California Condor. This guy had been a hunter for over 25 years and picked up road kill for dinner.
 
timeshadowed said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have they ever been heard from again?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Excuse me! That is not at all what I have been saying at all. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from putting such antagonistic words in my mouth. TRE may have seen IBWO - he has not alas seen enough to prove that he has seen IBWO on the basis of the sighting alone. There is also a possibility that he has seen a leucistic PIWO. Until he sees it better it is not possible to 100% sure and it IS imperative that such cetainty is achieved.

I am certain that TRE believes he saw no red on the head. I am less certain that the circumstances of the view are adequate to be so certain that there was no red. It is the circumstances of the observation not TRE's experience that are responsible for this. The only place experienced comes in is that a more experinece bider might appreciate that black and red are hard to distinguish in poor views.

This bird clearly has a lot of white in the wing. This is a substantially more obvious feature than red on the head and a positive as opposed to a negative feature. The same of course is true of a white bill.

I am not and have not declared this record a leucistic PIWO. I am saying, as is patently true, that the option has not been ruled out. It will take a better view, which I hope TRE gets. He has taken great field notes so far. Let's hope he gets an opportunity to nail his bird.
 
Last edited:
Oh and I don't know whether IBWO exists or not. I do believe that the chances of a leucistic PIWO with features which match IBWO existing are at least as likely.
 
Some skeptics have tossed the term "true believer" around as a slur. But here we are, down to belief again.

What evidence do you have to support your belief about the comparative likelihood that such patterning exists in leucistic PIWOs or even that it exists at all? What evidence do you have to support your belief that the conditions of TRE's sighting were such that he could have mistaken red for black?

I checked, and the sighting took place at approximately 8:20 am; sunrise was at 7:03, and the weather was clear all day that day. From what I can tell the bird flew north and then turned east. The crest appears to have been noted at a distance of 30-40 feet. TRE is a an experienced duck hunter, which makes it highly likely that he's a skilled observer of birds. The chance he would mistake red for black in these circumstances seems minuscule to me. I'm sure TRE can correct me if I'm wrong about any of these details.

While you may not know whether the IBWO exists or not (I don't know either), you seem to believe (very strongly) that it does not, and that belief appears to be the foundation from which you proceed to other beliefs, which are based not on the record but on speculation.


Jane Turner said:
Oh and I don't know whether IBWO exists or not. I do believe that the chances of a leucistic PIWO with features which match IBWO existing are at least as likely.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Could I make a suggestion? That the debate over the TRE report is lessened before it reaches boiling point and things turn nasty again? Whatever TRE has seen (and it certainly sounds interesting, or even intriguing and compelling ;) ), it is obvious that a 100% ID cannot be made on the details provided, so maybe we should just encourage TRE to try and relocate his bird, and hopefully, obtain a picture so the matter could be settled once and for all. I can see, and appreciate both sides of the debate, I just don't think that it is getting us anywhere, and I can sense tempers being frayed.

Chris
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Mono
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker lives on...
Replies
1
Views
793
Lisa W
Lisa W
F
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises
6 7 8
Replies
154
Views
15K
jurek
jurek
F
  • Locked
Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Debunking the Critics
10 11 12
Replies
224
Views
23K
ZanderII
Z
F
YouTube videos on habitats, Peru, IBWO, 4K, etc.
Replies
2
Views
1K
400+birder
4
M
  • Locked
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued
32 33 34
Replies
662
Views
60K
Steve
Steve

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top