• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi Deb,

Do you care to elaborate on those reasons?

For those unfamiliar with Collinson’s video analysis of the Luneau video vis a vis escape flight wing beats of Pileated v IBWO


Thanks a lot for the link!

It not only confirms the obvious - that birds can vary their wingbeat frequency -, but also shows that the wingbeat frequency ranges of the Pileated Woodpecker and the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker overlap.

On January 28 and February 5, 2006, David Nolin (DN) video-recorded Pileated Woodpeckers Dryocopus pileatus at a bird-feeder in Dayton, Ohio, USA.

[...]

For the four escape flights, the mean frequency values for the first four wingbeats are 7.1, 6.7, 8.6, and 8.0 s-1, respectively. The 8.6 beats s-1 of the bird identified in the Luneau video, while consistent with the limited data (n = 1; see Discussion) for Ivory-billed Woodpecker, is equally consistent with Pileated Woodpecker in its initial escape flight. The bird in the Luneau video maintains a frequency of 8.6 s-1 for the next four wingbeats too, whereas the Pileated Woodpeckers recorded here all slowed their flight as they prepared to land in nearby trees.

And here's what I've been suggesting all along:

Birds flap more rapidly at take off to gain altitude and speed than they do in sustained level flight: Pileated Woodpecker flight data in the literature [1, 4, 5] was derived from the work of Tobalske [8], which explicitly excluded the initial take-off period, and therefore cannot be used to support the elimination of Pileated Woodpecker in the Luneau video. Furthermore, the bird in the Luneau video is consistently gaining height from a low position above water and, whatever its species, might be expected to flap more rapidly than if it were in level flight.

Not that it needed any confirmation - anyone claiming birds only go pedal-to-the-metal all of the time would have to prove his claim! -, but it's still nice to have it explicitly stated there.

I really appreciate a well-written and logical article after all the stuff I had to deal with in this thread (and its predecessors).

Regards,

Henning
 

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
. You did not answer some of my responses to your prior work, so I will not go any further due to that at this time. Its in you hands to see how it goes.
These have been answered and addressed -
The Collinson paper has major fatal flaws that inverses it conclusion.

Thank you for your specific response to the Collinson paper.
Hi PCB

I have been chasing a theme here with Bottomlands regarding his and others’ recent personal sightings of IB - in the absence of a convincing photo/video, having the opportunity to discuss eyewitness accounts of this enigmatic and elusive species with living people is a great opportunity both for those hoping IB persists and for those wanting to demonstrate that it actually does.

Unfortunately, all I was able to ascertain, in the way of specifics regarding these sightings (or anyone else’s ) were;
  • They are not ‘conclusive’ evidence of IBWO being extant even by the observers themselves
  • That IB searchers don’t report all their sightings but keep them secret for ‘fear of blowback’
  • That the sightings are referred to as ‘possibles’, ‘maybes’, ‘what else could they be?’, ‘putatives’
  • Existing videos and photographs, with the exception of Tanner’s Singer Tract photos taken in the ’30s, all required extensive and detailed superimposed narratives upon frame by frame of blurry video to ‘prove’ the ID and yet the very fleeting images remain visually unidentifiable by every other ornithologist/birdwatcher.
  • An average of 1 or 2 sightings are had each year by searchers yet most/all IB are ‘in deliberate hiding’ or in impenetrable habitat not accessible to searchers.
All the recent Searchers on BF seem to be joining under fake names/pseudonyms unwilling to put an identity to their historic and incredible eyewitness accounts.

And what of the accounts themselves? Every birder here will tell you, in the absence of even half decent record shots (for whatever reason) the minimum bar for acceptance of a rare bird requires good contemporaneous field notes including sketches, that gives a full detailed description (not gaps in visual observation filled with opinion and assumptions) of exactly what was seen. Even then, depending on the level of rarity, reports may not be accepted. Of course putative eyewitness accounts of IB do not belong to the same process of report verification of national rarities (eg rare bird committees) but form part of a larger and cumulative evidence portfolio gathered over decades. Even so, copies of contemporaneous fieldnotes and sketches must be publically available? (As opposed to reports typed up subsequently I mean)

The repeated references to sightings mean very little without being accompanied by copies of the handwritten fieldnotes and sketches that searchers have of their sightings - clearly, since it has been established by them, photographing IB is beyond difficult because of the flush distance etc, they will have, like any birdwatcher with decent skills in the field, taken notes and made sketches.

Can you please post a link or in the case of your own sightings, upload your fieldnotes so we can have a better idea of what your ‘sighting’ experience actually consist of?

Many thanks
Can you please now upload some example of your fieldnotes as requested?

As stated earlier, these will give credence and supporting documentation to the claims made repeatedly here vis a vis that the IB has been definitely seen since the 1930s, or the 1940s or indeed since 2006 by BF IB searcher members.

Since these sighting claims of flying IB form such an important evidence base to the searchers ‘extant’ hypothesis, even in some cases the very thing that convinced some people to ‘believe’ that the IB is out there, it is only very reasonable that in considering this possibility, one should ask to see this part of the evidence. Sightings of a real live IB trumps putative DKs, kent calls, cavities, blurry video stills, so I am sure you can understand the eagerness to see anything that helps make the Searcher’s sightings a convincing phenomena for those that did not witness them.

Fieldnotes please!!
 

ZanderII

Well-known member
Ivorybills beaks were commonly used and bartered by Indians within a significant aprt of their range; bills, crests, skins, body was by Europenas for multiple reasons. There is no comparison . Where are these random ideas coming from?
so IBWO hunted for millenia then? And yet they suddenly learned to be invisible after the 1940s?
 

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada

I see no question in post 569 - you expressed an opinion - I have answered you specific questions but instead of answering mine, you respond with obstruction and rudeness.

However, several times and very politely I have asked you to post up some of your fieldnotes of your sightings as it seems to me these would be excellent examples of supporting documentation to the evidence that has been previously presented.



Many thanks. 👍
Never mentioned the word question. I said I had not seen your answer to those posts meaning a discussion of 569 and 587. Field notes are a worthy subject; would like to discuss after 569 and 587 is discussed. ; they have not been addressed sufficiently or at all. If your willing.Ad
These have been answered and addressed -


Thank you for your specific response to the Collinson paper.

Can you please now upload some example of your fieldnotes as requested?

As stated earlier, these will give credence and supporting documentation to the claims made repeatedly here vis a vis that the IB has been definitely seen since the 1930s, or the 1940s or indeed since 2006 by BF IB searcher members.

Since these sighting claims of flying IB form such an important evidence base to the searchers ‘extant’ hypothesis, even in some cases the very thing that convinced some people to ‘believe’ that the IB is out there, it is only very reasonable that in considering this possibility, one should ask to see this part of the evidence. Sightings of a real live IB trumps putative DKs, kent calls, cavities, blurry video stills, so I am sure you can understand the eagerness to see anything that helps make the Searcher’s sightings a convincing phenomena for those that did not witness them.

Fieldnotes please!!
Never mentioned the word question. I said I had not seen your answer to those posts meaning a discussion of 569 and 587. Field notes are a worthy subject; woould like to discuss after 569 and 587 is discussed. ; they have not been addressed sufficiently or at all. If your willing.
 
Last edited:

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
I said I had not seen your answer to those posts
I have absolutely no idea what you are asking of me. ‘There can be no ‘answers’ unless you ask a question. The question you asked ie ‘was that me on the video with the pileated’, I answered posts ago by saying ‘no it was a Youtube video’. I also said, posts ago, that I am in no position to make a value judgment on which searchers were ‘serious’ and which were not (in response to you saying a ‘serious’ searcher wouldn’t mistake a feeding pit for a nest cavity - which wasnt a question but I have adressed it three times now)

It seriously is beginning to look, I imagine, to everyone else too, that your diversionary and frankly baiting tactics are due to the fact that you have no fieldnotes of your sightings therefore, bringing everything into question with regard to those claims.

Btw You are the one making extraordinary claims of having seen IB here, not me, so you should be the one prepared to answer the questions put to you. So far, your behaviour since you joined this thread, falls far short of the standard one might expect of anyone hoping to engage with the wider ornithological/ecological and conservation community in a way as to present them with evidence to support such extraordinary claims.

Please upload fieldnotes as requested - you are happy to submit all you other evidence for scrutiny why not the very thing that has 100% convinced you with your own eyes that the IB is extant? As a community of birdwatchers and experienced field note takers, I and others will get some insight I am sure, into studying them.
 

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada
Ps are you familiar with the work of Collinson, JM on the Luneau video?
Thanks for your thanks. Hope the 3 or 4 page response you received somehow meets your defintion of familiar. See no response from you not a sentence of where I, Martin or Pulliam have made specific errors, mistakes on our different ~ 40 point analaysis. I assume your are satisfied with this issue. If not please provide a granular and specific point by point rebuttal. I feel that is what evidence discussion is about.
You did not answer some of my responses to your prior work, so I will not go any further due to that at this time. Its in you hands to see how it goes.

Was that you with the pileated feeding pits?
You made specific claims and inferences with utube video that feeding pits could somehow be mistaken for IB sign or perhaps as evidecne of something else.

Hopefully its not that you think that researchers are not well aware of the complexites of this type of data and many hypotheticals.

Others above have mentioned these pits weeks ago; you never said anything. So not discussed. Like you to discuss Picidae sign for multiple reasons. One so there is light on how sign is examined and weighted then you can discard it or may choose to not discard this derivative evidence. Also so you can feel comfortable that some are not just running around here doing nothing and brainlessly claiming the'bill is here or not here.

Sign and general in depth knowledge of it helps find species. Any seemingly predisposed biased in thought processes that make you think serious field rsearchers can mistake pileated feeding pits for critical ivory-billed sign shoud be fleshed out.


Never mentioned the word question. I said I had not seen your answer to those posts meaning a discussion of 569 and 587. Field notes are a worthy subject; would like to discuss after 569 and 587 is discussed. ; they have not been addressed sufficiently or at all. If your willing.Ad

Never mentioned the word question. I said I had not seen your answer to those posts meaning a discussion of 569 and 587. Field notes are a worthy subject; woould like to discuss after 569 and 587 is discussed. ; they have not been addressed sufficiently or at all. If your willing.
 

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada
so IBWO hunted for millenia then? And yet they suddenly learned to be invisible after the 1940s?

No one said that. But can be looked at. See this as another poor attempt to rectify a long ago destroyed, baseless belief that skittishness does not have a say. Comparing est small native american take when the population was est, to be in the scores of thousands if not hundreds of Ks, compared to paid hansomely collectors and more, with a dropping populations will only help the extant camp.
 
Last edited:

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
Thanks for your thanks. Hope the 3 or 4 page response you received somehow meets your defintion of familiar. See no response from you not a sentence of where I, Martin or Pulliam have made specific errors, mistakes on our different ~ 40 point analaysis. I assume your are satisfied with this issue. If not please provide a granular and specific point by point rebuttal. I feel that is what evidence discussion is about.
I don’t need to provide you with a step by step rebuttal

a/ I am not a scientists- that is the role of peer reviewers
b/ The article speaks for itself and throws enough doubt on the Luneau video as to challenge some of it’s basic presumptions such that it is inconclusive.


You made specific claims and inferences with utube video that feeding pits could somehow be mistaken for IB sign or perhaps as evidecne of something else.
I made absolutely no ‘claims’ other than to post a video of a Pileated enlarging an existing cavity/hole for the purposes of foraging for food and asked whether that could explain some of the IB sized cavity sightings.

Now, if you really want to convince me (on my own terms since I am the one needing to be convinced) then, in light of your repeated failure to provide clear unequivocal video or photographic evidence to the public (me!) please upload some contemporaneous fieldnotes.

Why is that such a problem for you?
 

Hauksen

Forum member

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada
I have absolutely no idea what you are asking of me.
Thanks for your thanks. Hope the 3 or 4 page response you received somehow meets your defintion of familiar. See no response from you not a sentence of where I, Martin or Pulliam have made specific errors, mistakes on our different ~ 40 point analaysis. I assume your are satisfied with this issue. If not please provide a granular and specific point by point rebuttal. I feel that is what evidence discussion is about.

You missed this above. Are you satisfied we know that topic? If not will you be providing a granular and specific point by point rebuttal?


You made specific claims and inferences with utube video that feeding pits could somehow be mistaken for IB sign or perhaps as evidecne of something else.

Hopefully its not that you think that researchers are not well aware of the complexites of this type of data and many hypotheticals.

Others above have mentioned these pits weeks ago; you never said anything. So not discussed. Like you to discuss Picidae sign for multiple reasons. One so there is light on how sign is examined and weighted then you can discard it or may choose to not discard this derivative evidence. Also so you can feel comfortable that some are not just running around here doing nothing and brainlessly claiming the'bill is here or not here.

Sign and general in depth knowledge of it helps find species. Any seemingly predisposed biased in thought processes that make you think serious field rsearchers can mistake pileated feeding pits for critical ivory-billed sign shoud be fleshed out.

Are you satisfied or not that researchers know their working sign and do not confuse.

And again like you to discuss Picidae sign for multiple reasons stated.
 

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada
It seriously is beginning to look, I imagine, to everyone else too, that your diversionary and frankly baiting tactics are due to the fact that you have no fieldnotes of your sightings therefore, bringing everything into question with regard to those claims.

Please upload fieldnotes as requested - you are happy to submit all you other evidence for scrutiny why not the very thing that has 100% convinced you with your own eyes that the IB is extant? As a community of birdwatchers and experienced field note takers, I and others will get some insight I am sure, into studying them.
Contemporaneously prepared field notes are crtitical, the second the chase if over in the field. meaning when you have defintley lost the immediate trail you better be writing, sketching . I do not wnat to hear excuses about mosquito swarms, fatigue, bad drawing skills, miss your mummy, more. We have much in common on this.

Granularity deserves the same though, see above.
 
Last edited:

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada
It seems to be a problem for anyone viewing this thread to provide a link to a convincing field description. I've asked a couple of times within this thread, and it's either been ignored or responded to in an unintelligible way (without any reference to any field description/ detailed finder's account).

Unfortunately I will not be interacting with you in the future.
 

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
You missed this above. Are you satisfied we know that topic? If not will you be providing a granular and specific point by point rebuttal?




Are you satisfied or not that researchers know their working sign and do not confuse.
Actually, posting contemporaneous fieldnotes will go a long way in satisfying me (and others) that you are a competent birder and help me know researchers have not confused a very fleeting sight of flying IBWO with a Pileated Woodpecker, a duck or even a leucistic corvid.

Any seemingly predisposed biased in thought processes that make you think serious field rsearchers can mistake pileated feeding pits for critical ivory-billed sign shoud be fleshed out.
Rather, lets flesh out ideas that ’predisposed biased in thought process’ can lead to ‘serious field researchers’ misidentifying spilt second views of Pileated/other species for IBWOs.

This is a community of birdwatchers, some of whom happen to be scientists too, but primarily birders. I think you need to be more aware of your audience and present your arguments accordingly if you hope to gain widespread interest on Birdforum in the hypothesis you are putting forward.

I am very sure that you are extremely well versed in the arguments that support your hypothesis that the IB is extant - you can take that to the bank! 👍

However, all I know, despite every single person on these threads repeatedly asking for such (even the Admin staff!), IB searchers have failed to provide a clear unambiguous photo or video since Tanner’s photos in the Singer tracts in the 1930’s.

Are you convinced, that as a bird watcher, I know my topic too and as such have very good grounds for requesting you submit fieldnotes to the discussion?

Ps ignoring people that challenge or disagree with your science could suggest a lack of competence and confidence in the soundness of the science of the evidence - so perhaps use that ignore buttton frugally? 🙂
 
Last edited:

jurek

Well-known member
Yes, even well described sight records and document-quality photos are not coming. They would surely rekindle the interest, at least in part of the local community of birders.

And people claiming poor sighting could never, ever relocate the bird and get better views, a roosting or nesting hole or a proof. Not like with real forest birds (not caring about migrating seabirds etc).

'Oh, I just saw an ivorybill woodpecker, but got only one poor photo, so its nothing, because nobody would believe me. Lets go home and carry on as normal.' - how likely is such attitude? :D
 

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada
Hi,



Here's an article on the statistics behind the "odds":


Regards,

Henning
I have written Gotelli with concerns years go. But it's all funny-------Two groups of scientists studying museum specimens and sightings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker have reached the same disappointing conclusion:

Never saw him in the field and he admitted he never was. We will just be kind and call this slipper, coffee cup, cushy seat "surveying".

Regardless paper had flawed input.

Woud like to discuss something with you though ......your favorite topic. No joke, can you do it fairly?
 
Last edited:

pileated canada bull

Well-known member
Canada
Actually, posting contemporaneous fieldnotes will go a long way in satisfying me (and others) that you are a competent birder and help me know researchers have not confused a very fleeting sight of flying IBWO with a Pileated Woodpecker, a duck or even a leucistic corvid.

This is a community of birdwatchers, some of whom happen to be scientists too, but primarily birders. I think you need to be more aware of your audience and present your arguments accordingly if you hope to gain widespread interest on Birdforum in the hypothesis you are putting forward.

I am very sure that you are extremely well versed in the arguments that support your hypothesis that the IB is extant - you can take that to the bank! 👍

However, all I know, despite every single person on these threads repeatedly asking for such (even the Admin staff!), IB searchers have failed to provide a clear unambiguous photo or video since Tanner’s photos in the Singer tracts in the 1930’s.

Are you convinced, that as a bird watcher, I know my topic too and as such have very good grounds for requesting you submit fieldnotes to the discussion?

Ps ignoring people that challenge or disagree with your science could suggest a lack of competence and confidence in the soundness of the science of the evidence - so perhaps use that ignore buttton frugally? 🙂
I agree with most of what you say. My sketches are already in. Why would I hold them back, they lose value every day.

But I do have much unpublished survey work but some of XXXXXX focus was defined and narrow with a pre-approved plan and ES permits for XXXX. XXXXX work led others to sightings inclding a well known XXXX XXXXX skeptic.

More work in but behind fed passwords. There are protocols outside the field I do not control when multiple permits are involved per study year and location.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top