Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (1 Viewer)

[ZanderII]

Pseudoscience to one side for a moment. What on earth is to be gained from coming here and convincing a largely European audience who are here in a non-professional capacity that these birds still exist? If there are IBWO out there, they gain absolutely nothing at all from the (extremely) unlikely outcome that you've changed someone's mind on Birdforum.

to be honest maybe because the debate isn't being held elsewhere, the scientific community is largely ignoring any of the publications (invariably in predatory journals and never in ornithology ones anymore) and the only person citing Mike Collins' papers is by and large Mike Collins. The North American birding community has stopped listening.

The flagship Cornell Lab BOTW website states:

Editor's Note (February 2017)—Since reported (and controversial) sightings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the Big Woods of northeastern Arkansas in 2004 (Science: June 2005), extensive efforts to locate this species in Arkansas, Florida, and elsewhere have proven difficult, and no unequivocal evidence of the species has emerged.

 

[Parker]

I might be at risk of stating that the Emperor has no clothes, but am I alone in not understanding any of TS1’s posts? I don’t just mean the (pseudo) science, obviously, but the actual words! I can’t read any of them and understand what he is saying.

TS1 - you need to break down what you are trying to say, without trying to make it sound clever. Just state the evidence without the waffle. If you have no evidence, that is evidence that the average Joe birder would accept as reasonable, then surely you just need to let this thread die, until such time as something indisputable and irrefutable materialises.

No you are not alone!

Also stating that the bird exists or may exist is not positive proof that IB is still with us, sadly.
Like so many others on this thread I would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

 

[ZanderII]

A Personal Perspective on Searching for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker: A 41-Year Quest

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=usgsstaffpub

This is a fantastic account by an IBWO searcher who has spent over 4 decades looking and is also a great digest of the pitfalls and politics of the whole situation. Well worth perusing

 

[1TruthSeeker]

Restored Film, Only Film ever of Largest Woodpecker That Ever Lived. Notice the Flap Rate and White in Wings Appearance like the IBWO in the Arkansas and Louisiana videos but not Like a PIWO

Here is additional supporting material to the IB identification , the flight sequences of the Imperial Woodpecker. Obviously a devastating loss to biodiversity and to all birders.

IBs and IMWO should exhibit similar flight characteristics. Mr. Rhein made several attempts to get film of this species and finally succeeded. The species existed in higher numbers than the IB for many years, had a sizable range, was huge, but was in areas very hard to get to. No images existed until 1956. This film was almost lost.

This has aided some in confirming what is shown in the Arkansas, Ivory-billed Woodpecker video, which is also attached here.

Note the similarities between these congeners, such as high wing flap rate and white flashes and more. Confirms conclusions on what Hz is for northern Campephilus..

If the AR or LA video is an Ivory-billed, it is closely related to the Imperial Woodpecker. The species are congeners and are shaped and proportioned similarly. The Pileated is not closely related to the IBWO or IM, the PIs wing cord, wing shape and wing loading per square inch are very different from both of the preceding species.

By definition any IB should have measurable flight characteristics similar to Imperial, with both these species different in some determinable ways to Pileated.

See minute 1:00 to about 1:30

Extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker, Chasing a Ghost - Texas Parks & Wildlife [Official] - YouTube

More evidence, measurements of bird, stills of video, stills of models, below :



Robert Cooper: Ivory-billed Woodpecker - YouTube


Last of Her Kind: Footage of an Imperial Woodpecker (nathab.com)




good viewing...

 

[ZanderII]

IBs and IMWO should exhibit similar flight characteristics. Mr. Rhein made several attempts to get film of this species and finally succeeded. The species existed in higher numbers than the IB for many years, had a sizable range, was huge, but was in areas very hard to get to. No images existed until 1956. This film was almost lost.

Rhein mounted 3 expeditions and found and IMWO on two of them but only achieved film footage on the last

William L. Rhein led expeditions to the Sierra Madre Occidental in the state of Durango in 1953, 1954, and 1956, all having the primary objectives of making motion pictures and sound recordings of the Imperial Woodpecker. Each expedition lasted ~6 weeks and was self-funded (Rhein letter, 1 March 1962). In June–July of 1953, Rhein, accompanied by Hilton and the brothers Walter and George Kohler, first explored the region between the towns of Tepehuanes and Topia. They failed to locate any Imperial Woodpeckers, but they found some old cavities that they attributed to the species. They then drove to the lumber camp of Los Laureles (23°17′41′′N, 104°51′′07′′W; INEGI 1983), 82 km south-southwest of the city of Durango. Los Laureles was situated on the west rim of the Rio Taxicaringa canyon and had just started logging operations in 1953. They observed, but did not film, several Imperial Woodpeckers between Los Laureles and the settlement of Carboneras, 6 km to the west-southwest of Los Laureles. They received reports that 12 Imperial Woodpeckers had been shot that year by the inhabitants of Los Laureles (Hilton letter, 19 February 1962). In June–July of 1954, Rhein returned to Los Laureles with Walter Kohler (F. Hilton pers. comm.). From there they traveled east by mule train, crossing the Rio Taxicaringa canyon to the highlands of what Rhein referred to as the “Guacamaya” mountains (Rhein letter, 1 March 1962). In that area, in virgin pine forest, they found several Imperial Woodpeckers, apparently including a recent fledgling, but again they did not film the birds. Following the same route, in April–May of 1956 Rhein returned for a final visit, accompanied by Richard Rauch and Heintzelman (R. Heintzelman pers. comm.; film 4). That year, Rhein obtained “very poor footage” of an Imperial Woodpecker “with several short flight shots taken with a hand-held telephoto lens from the back of a mule” of “one lone female aimlessly flying about.” Further, Rhein stated that “In 1955 when I was unable to return to Mexico the local Indian shot the parent birds that I had localized the previous year” (Rhein letters, 1 March and 9 April 1962).

Note the similarities between these congeners

Similarities noted - see my thread here

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued

The two Anatidae you mention are never in even secondary forests, let alone primary forest. Goldeneyes nest in tree cavities. Maybe they don't breed in your region, but they are certainly seen around forests in some areas.

www.birdforum.net

What we know from successful expeditions to film IBWO in Florida in 1924, Louisiana in 1935 and Cuba in 1948, and of IMWO in the Sierra Madre Occidental in 1954+1956 is that the birds were relatively easy to find and film quickly by small teams with limited resources and primitive equipment.

In all the cases these individuals may have been either the last or among the last surviving individuals in these populations. They were not difficult to find according to the testimonials of the people that found them and not reported to be shy.

Frankly it is ludicrous that the species could avoid detection when millions of dollars and state of the art equipment was thrown at the efforts.

 

[1TruthSeeker]

Rhein mounted 3 expeditions and found and IMWO on two of them but only achieved film footage on the last

.

Nice info. thanks

But you do seem to be avoiding the main point of the thread on purpose You are asking about off topic issues, repeatedly. We see your avoidance;; know this is text book pseudoskeptic behavior. Es ist ein Signal, dass Sie das Argument verlieren..

If you do not review the evidence it can be passed onto higher authorities..........

So again:

Restored Film, Only Film ever of Largest Woodpecker That Ever Lived. Notice the Flap Rate and White in Wings Appearance like the IBWO in the Arkansas and Louisiana videos but not Like a PIWO

Here is additional supporting material to the IB identification , the flight sequences of the Imperial Woodpecker. Obviously a devastating loss to biodiversity and to all birders.

IBs and IMWO should exhibit similar flight characteristics. Mr. Rhein made several attempts to get film of this species and finally succeeded. The species existed in higher numbers than the IB for many years, had a sizable range, was huge, but was in areas very hard to get to. No images existed until 1956. This film was almost lost.

This has aided some in confirming what is shown in the Arkansas, Ivory-billed Woodpecker video, which is also attached here.

Note the similarities between these congeners, such as high wing flap rate and white flashes and more. Confirms conclusions on what Hz is for northern Campephilus..

If the AR or LA video is an Ivory-billed, it is closely related to the Imperial Woodpecker. The species are congeners and are shaped and proportioned similarly. The Pileated is not closely related to the IBWO or IM, the PIs wing cord, wing shape and wing loading per square inch are very different from both of the preceding species.

By definition any IB should have measurable flight characteristics similar to Imperial, with both these species different in some determinable ways to Pileated.

See minute 1:00 to about 1:30

Extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker, Chasing a Ghost - Texas Parks & Wildlife [Official] - YouTube

More evidence, measurements of bird, stills of video, stills of models, below :



Robert Cooper: Ivory-billed Woodpecker - YouTube


Last of Her Kind: Footage of an Imperial Woodpecker (nathab.com)




good viewing...

 

[ZanderII]

But you do seem to be avoiding the main point of the thread on purpose You are asking about off topic issues, repeatedly. We see your avoidance;; know this is text book pseudoskeptic behavior. Es ist ein Signal, dass Sie das Argument verlieren..

If you do not review the evidence it can be passed onto higher authorities..........

These aren't off-topic issues, they are literally the crux of your entire thesis, which rests on a series of assumptions (read excuses) that you (and others like Mike Collins) have constructed as complex narratives to explain your collective failure to deliver proof since 2004. The replies you have received have shown these assumptions to be either baseless or scientifically flawed, often both.

The wing flap rate calculations are a distraction (and you have already been called out on your analytical shortcomings) as ornithologists do not identify birds based on wing flap rates, they identify them based on phenotype (or genotype) which isn't plastic. Trying to identify birds based on flap rates extrapolated from poor quality video is frankly ludicrous. It is a way to find hope for your cause for sure, but its junk science.

There is no way, NO WAY, that IBWO could have persisted for 77 years without anyone taking an identifiable image of one, or other proof of life - specimen etc. Birds not only die - in which case their remains can be found, they also breed and disperse - the IBWO population should be increasing if extant - as decline drivers are removed and yet we still have this same background noise of unsubstantiated reports. You guys have claimed the species is 'nomadic' to explain your failure to find them, yet if they were nomadic then they would eventually cross paths with the focal plane of a camera. If they were out there then a dispersing juvenile would randomly show-up sat on a tree in someone's garden in the south - and appear on Facebook and shortly afterwards CNN.

Ultimately its a massive noisy woodpecker which makes huge holes in trees where they can be reliably found for several months of the year . Kudos to you for convincing yourself they are still alive but don't believe for a second that anyone else thinks your are winning any arguments.

So... my advice is stand back and look at the evidence in front of you - good scientists know when to give up on a hypothesis, even when it hurts their egos. Almost everyone else has in this case, it was evidently fun whilst it lasted, but its over.

 

[1TruthSeeker]

Possible our Last Posts per following:

Z, it is clear the evidence is too difficult to review for whatever reason and/or you have prejudged it before it is even presented for the first time on Earth in one hopefully short thread after which I will be gone as needed.

If you et al. fail to look at ALL the evidence when it is in it will go to higher authorities. Be patient the bird is allegedly extinct, why the rush? (That's code for damn there is a lot of evidence to present, the pecker has been posting for weeks and its not in yet!?! ).

And just to show I am not a hard arse……..and to help out when there is a log jam of silly clutter, needing sweeping. All three discussed alleged confusement species nest in trees but only one is sympatric IN IB forests. The other two are very rare on the edge of IB forests. All three nest in trees, y'all erroneously bring up only one as being in trees. Their association with IB and exact habitat type was discussed in detail. Nothing was ambiguous if read at normal speed and flap HZ. Flying too fast means you are IB-like, although IBs are smart they probably can't read.

If on Boxers Day you fly into Quebec or Montreal and drive a day to Algonquin NP and see a Goldeneye in a tree there...……….or anywhere over the next ten days ……..and you see Campephilus canadensis...………………. get a picture otherwise it doesn't exist. Thems the rules for those wandering off their home patch per all respected pseudoscientists.

And just to show I am not a hard arse…...I will leave BF if any non-statey or USA based non-algorithmic entity gets the following right by the following coded times:

All reasonable answers or PMs will be addressed, hopefully in my last posts:.

statey times (CST) E B Z L

non statey time (CST) F B ZL

Non stateys have been given more time. Coded time is for CST (central standard time, USA) it being ~ 1215 CST now. So here is your chance.....see next post in ~ 10 minutes or less after typing it. Code key, correct answer, will be shown if any right or wrong pertinent non-pseudosceptic, etc answers are received late or not late. See next post for questions that will determine my departure or whether, because of you, I will just relocate to part of my 50 square-mile territory. Multiple guesses up to three are allowed no matter time but no guesses for those on ignore. All right answers despite time will be rewarded.

All answers will be per All About Birds Cornell . All answers can be one word misspelling OK to a point. Any ambiguity, or latency in times printed is BFs fault and may cause me to be resident. Lisa will handle any arbitration.

Hint ---Forest and Goldeneye. Lets see how bad you want me extinctified!!!
.

 

[1TruthSeeker]

Possible our Last Posts per following:

Z, it is clear the evidence is too difficult to review for whatever reason and/or you have prejudged it before it is even presented for the first time on Earth in one hopefully short thread after which I will be gone as needed.

If you et al. fail to look at ALL the evidence when it is in it will go to higher authorities. Be patient the bird is allegedly extinct, why the rush? (That's code for damn there is a lot of evidence to present, the pecker has been posting for weeks and its not in yet!?! ).

And just to show I am not a hard arse……..and to help out when there is a log jam of silly clutter, needing sweeping. All three discussed alleged confusement species nest in trees but only one is sympatric IN IB forests. The other two are very rare on the edge of IB forests. All three nest in trees, y'all erroneously bring up only one as being in trees. Their association with IB and exact habitat type was discussed in detail. Nothing was ambiguous if read at normal speed and flap HZ. Flying too fast means you are IB-like, although IBs are smart they probably can't read.

If on Boxers Day you fly into Quebec or Montreal and drive a day to Algonquin NP and see a Goldeneye in a tree there...……….or anywhere over the next ten days ……..and you see Campephilus canadensis...………………. get a picture otherwise it doesn't exist. Thems the rules for those wandering off their home patch per all respected pseudoscientists.

And just to show I am not a hard arse…...I will leave BF if any non-statey or USA based non-algorithmic entity gets the following right by the following coded times:

All reasonable answers or PMs will be addressed, hopefully in my last posts:.

statey times (CST) E B Z L

non statey time (CST) F B ZL

Non stateys have been given more time. Coded time is for CST (central standard time, USA) it being ~ 1215 CST now. So here is your chance.....see next post in ~ 10 minutes or less after typing it. Code key, correct answer, will be shown if any right or wrong pertinent non-pseudosceptic, etc answers are received late or not late. See next post for questions that will determine my departure or whether, because of you, I will just relocate to part of my 50 square-mile territory. Multiple guesses up to three are allowed no matter time but no guesses for those on ignore. All right answers despite time will be rewarded.

All answers will be per All About Birds Cornell . All answers can be one word misspelling OK to a point. Any ambiguity, or latency in times printed is BFs fault and may cause me to be resident. Lisa will handle any arbitration.

Hint ---Forest and Goldeneye. Lets see how bad you want me extinctified!!!
.

In what 3 different USA states are you MOST likely to be in if you get the following 3 breeders on each of those separate trips possible in 24 hours or less :



Trip1 Common Goldeneye, Saw Whet Owl, Atlantic Puffin



Trip 2 Common Goldeneye, Saw Whet Owl, Horned Puffin



Trip 3 Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Cerulean Warbler, Ovenbird

.

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

Well, if you do go, go with my thanks for the links to the Louisiana vertical view video; it is the most interesting evidence that I have seen. It is not conclusive by any means, but I am struggling to come up with an identity that I am convinced by.

 

[bottomlands]

You guys have claimed the species is 'nomadic' to explain your failure to find them, yet if they were nomadic then they would eventually cross paths with the focal plane of a camera. If they were out there then a dispersing juvenile would randomly show-up sat on a tree in someone's garden in the south -

I believe this does happen from time to time, because there are reports. But mostly the birds aren't seen in back yards because they are finding food in the deep forests. I live not far from a beach, marshes, lakes and rivers. But I've never had a pelican, gull, duck, curlew or other shore bird visit my back yard. You understand why.

The average person wouldn't know an ivory-bill from a pileated. That's why many reports of IB are misidentifications. This mis-id can go both ways. It stands to reason that many hunters and fisherman may have viewed an IB and thought it to be one gender of pileated. Maybe some gardeners too.

 

[Farnboro John]

I believe this does happen from time to time, because there are reports. But mostly the birds aren't seen in back yards because they are finding food in the deep forests. I live not far from a beach, marshes, lakes and rivers. But I've never had a pelican, gull, duck, curlew or other shore bird visit my back yard. You understand why.

The average person wouldn't know an ivory-bill from a pileated. That's why many reports of IB are misidentifications. This mis-id can go both ways. It stands to reason that many hunters and fisherman may have viewed an IB and thought it to be one gender of pileated. Maybe some gardeners too.

Believing something happens just because there are reports is not a scientific approach. And what you say in your second paragraph is why reports from such people are of no value whatever as evidence. Your "stands to reason" doesn't stand at all because it requires an IBWO to be present, and you have no evidence of that. What you need is evidence and only a solid, in-focus picture will do.

John

 

[ZanderII]

I believe this does happen from time to time, because there are reports. But mostly the birds aren't seen in back yards because they are finding food in the deep forests. I live not far from a beach, marshes, lakes and rivers. But I've never had a pelican, gull, duck, curlew or other shore bird visit my back yard. You understand why.

The average person wouldn't know an ivory-bill from a pileated. That's why many reports of IB are misidentifications. This mis-id can go both ways. It stands to reason that many hunters and fisherman may have viewed an IB and thought it to be one gender of pileated. Maybe some gardeners too.

Yes - we might expect both false positives and false negatives (if they were extant) but all it takes is one true positive to resolve all the arguments. My point is that the chances of that event not happening (assuming the bird is extant) are incredibly remote, and that is without millions of dollars spent on following up unsubstantiated reports.

You may not have seen those species in your garden, but they will fly over by day and by night, but the comparison is disingenuous anyway as woodpeckers are not waterbirds and any North American woodpecker would be happy resting on a tree. To put the dispersal example in perspective, Red-cockaded Woodpecker is a threatened inhabitant of fire-dependent pine savannahs in the SE US and yet one showed up in Illinois
https://ebird.org/checklist/S25670882 and there are many other records of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers out of habitat but within range. Simply put observer coverage in the Continental USA is very good, which is why no-one is discovering new bird species there. Rediscovery of IBWO is less likely than finding a new to science endemic species in the US.

 

[bottomlands]

Hi John,

I'm hoping to have a discussion, not verbal combat. Maybe even a little debate. If we're going to do any of that, then you need to refrain from strawman arguments (suggesting I've argued something, when I haven't, so that you can knock down the argument.) I did not suggest IB reports from average people can be trusted. I don't need to show you a great picture, because I'm not claiming IB are extant. I'd like to discuss why they could still exists, and better understand the reasons why people such as you are so certain they don't.

Let me know if that is okay with you.

BL

 

[KC Foggin]

Let me know if that is okay with you.

Fine with me.

 

[ZanderII]

Let me know if that is okay with you.

fine by me too.

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

And me!

 

[Farnboro John]

Hi John,

I'm hoping to have a discussion, not verbal combat. Maybe even a little debate. If we're going to do any of that, then you need to refrain from strawman arguments (suggesting I've argued something, when I haven't, so that you can knock down the argument.) I did not suggest IB reports from average people can be trusted. I don't need to show you a great picture, because I'm not claiming IB are extant. I'd like to discuss why they could still exists, and better understand the reasons why people such as you are so certain they don't.

Let me know if that is okay with you.

BL

Fine with me, and hopefully I understand your point of view in the discussion better. If I understand you now, you don't believe in Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still existing but are open to reasoned argument from both sides of the debate. If that's still not right, feel free to say what is right. But the points I made related directly to what you wrote, so there was no strawman. Perhaps more care in drafting is needed on both sides of the discussion? I agree we need to keep the heat down, but if one person can't query what another means, we aren't going to get anywhere.

John

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Possible our Last Posts per following:

Z, it is clear the evidence is too difficult to review for whatever reason and/or you have prejudged it before it is even presented for the first time on Earth in one hopefully short thread after which I will be gone as needed.

If you et al. fail to look at ALL the evidence when it is in it will go to higher authorities. Be patient the bird is allegedly extinct, why the rush? (That's code for damn there is a lot of evidence to present, the pecker has been posting for weeks and its not in yet!?! ).

And just to show I am not a hard arse……..and to help out when there is a log jam of silly clutter, needing sweeping. All three discussed alleged confusement species nest in trees but only one is sympatric IN IB forests. The other two are very rare on the edge of IB forests. All three nest in trees, y'all erroneously bring up only one as being in trees. Their association with IB and exact habitat type was discussed in detail. Nothing was ambiguous if read at normal speed and flap HZ. Flying too fast means you are IB-like, although IBs are smart they probably can't read.

If on Boxers Day you fly into Quebec or Montreal and drive a day to Algonquin NP and see a Goldeneye in a tree there...……….or anywhere over the next ten days ……..and you see Campephilus canadensis...………………. get a picture otherwise it doesn't exist. Thems the rules for those wandering off their home patch per all respected pseudoscientists.

And just to show I am not a hard arse…...I will leave BF if any non-statey or USA based non-algorithmic entity gets the following right by the following coded times:

All reasonable answers or PMs will be addressed, hopefully in my last posts:.

statey times (CST) E B Z L

non statey time (CST) F B ZL

Non stateys have been given more time. Coded time is for CST (central standard time, USA) it being ~ 1215 CST now. So here is your chance.....see next post in ~ 10 minutes or less after typing it. Code key, correct answer, will be shown if any right or wrong pertinent non-pseudosceptic, etc answers are received late or not late. See next post for questions that will determine my departure or whether, because of you, I will just relocate to part of my 50 square-mile territory. Multiple guesses up to three are allowed no matter time but no guesses for those on ignore. All right answers despite time will be rewarded.

All answers will be per All About Birds Cornell . All answers can be one word misspelling OK to a point. Any ambiguity, or latency in times printed is BFs fault and may cause me to be resident. Lisa will handle any arbitration.

Hint ---Forest and Goldeneye. Lets see how bad you want me extinctified!!!
.

And in English...?

 

[bottomlands]

Fine with me, and hopefully I understand your point of view in the discussion better. If I understand you now, you don't believe in Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still existing but are open to reasoned argument from both sides of the debate. If that's still not right, feel free to say what is right. But the points I made related directly to what you wrote, so there was no strawman. Perhaps more care in drafting is needed on both sides of the discussion? I agree we need to keep the heat down, but if one person can't query what another means, we aren't going to get anywhere.

John

In my very first post I implied that I believe ivorybills still fly. And others could reasonably have inferred that I meant "...and you should too". So, I will try to clarify.

I do believe IB still live. However, I don't think that the evidence available and known to the general public is strong enough for most people to think the species persists. I get that. If someone says "I think ivorybills are extinct" I understand why. However, the stronger position of "Ivorybills are definitely extinct" or "There is NO WAY that IB persist" seems as unreasonable to me as an absolute claim of persistence must seem to you. So, I'd like to discuss, and better understand those with that opinion. And perhaps I'll offer some thoughts that will move someone away from a hard atheist opinion on IB towards a more moderate agnosticism. I don't think that would be a harmful objective for me to attempt.

Should we continue in this thread, or begin a new one titled something like "Could Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still persist?"