Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (2 Viewers)

[pileated canada bull]

I have responded to this point before but, Pileated Woodpecker (PIWO) was also hunted in the bottomland forests and aside for some extra pressure on IBWO for specimens as the species reached the extinction vortex, there is no evidence that hunting pressure differed between the species. Today Pileated Woodpeckers are shy-ish in some places, but you can still see and photograph them with little difficulty. We know that it was possible to photograph IBWO and IMWO* when they were both extant, so they weren't wraiths then and had they not become extinct, there is no reason why they would have evolved to become wraith-like after 1944, nor for them to have maintained this trait in the contemporary absence of hunting pressure. Fundamentally there isn't a bird anywhere on the planet that is capable of being even 5% as elusive as this - to avoid detection by so many different investigatory techniques, not even the likes of Elusive Antpitta and Nocturnal Curassow.

The 'wraith hypothesis' and 100m flush distance are just excuses for failure to obtain proof and aren't supported by empirical information or a base in biological reality. The reason there are no identifiable images is because the candidate ones are distant and/or badly-photographed PIWOs.

*Imperial Woodpecker

Pileateds have not had any high take in relationship to percent of population by any stretch compared to Ivorybill. Ivorybills are historical known to have an appealing taste versus the horrible taste of a Pilieated. I have sampled the flesh.

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?

 

[pileated canada bull]

If so where are the details? People can't describe in words what they see? Is this an inability to do so? Unwillingness to do so? What then? No details were seen thus nothing specific to be noted? I may be wrong, but a IBWO would be a most striking bird to see in the field (and yes, I'm thinking of a cluttered habitat with difficult conditions for the observer), with that fantastic broad white rear half of the wing. I just don't understand.

The details made it a robust sighting of a pair; its included rarely known to the public, field marks. It was crippling look and report. Plus others great sightings with field notes. LSU Remsen knows what he is doing and doesn't take kindly to fabricated reports, or weak claims.

 

[pileated canada bull]

I've been following the threads on BF for years and have noticed in addition to other points made, a number of attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of readers with Trumpian fake news. My dad used to be an expert at the sort of foot-shifting during an argument that involved changing the point of attack (in extreme cases he was quite capable of switching completely round, in order to be right). Exactly the same as the switch involved in trying to argue that a bird honed by a million years of evolution has suddenly changed its habitat preferences, behaviour and breeding biology. I could spot it in my youth and I can spot it now. Its not credible.

To have a record at all requires seeing the bird at some point because all the other evidence (sounds for instance) are capable of duplication by other agencies. As an experienced wildlife photographer as well as a birder of 40 years experience I can state unequivocally that with modern equipment (by which I mean digital era), if a bird this size is in view even at over 100 yards for a matter of seconds any decent birder/photographer already looking for the species will get at least a record shot - that is, a picture on which the bird is clear and the identification features are visible. This applies even back-end on flying away.

Get one. Submit the original RAW for analysis by photographic experts, and after that woodpecker experts. Not interested in any of the specious arguments being deployed at the moment.

John

Barksdale one of the authors with extensive photographic expertise did review the evidence...he stamped it with his reputation as did many others.

 

[motiheal]

Some thoughts that came to mind:
There seems to be a likely negative correlation between the duration of the observation and the chance it'll be considered as a IBWO record by a given observer. The longer the observation the higher the chances it'll be dismissed as something else, and the shortest sightings of all seem to have a greater chance to be considered as IBWO. There seem to be no long observations of candidate IBWO (if there are then please, please, describe what you saw, in detail...).
There may be also a correlation between one first very short unidentifiable observation that is considered to be IBWO by a given observer and the next very short unidentifiable observation by the same observer to be considered as a yet another IBWO record, as that observer may have the unconscious biases to consider that 1) IBWO typically will show very briefly only, and the 2) briefer the observation the higher the chances it'll be a IBWO.
Note that I'm one of the people still waiting for some kind of evidence to be eventually presented, not of a viable population, but of the very last examples of the species just prior to extinction, but I see absolutely none.

Of course. Confirmation bias can never be disproven to another. I'm not really here to convince others I have seen the species, more to share what I have learned, from extensive study and reading, about better search methods, for the possibility someone here might use them.

 

[pileated canada bull]

1930s IBs at nest

Ivory-billed Woodpecker - YouTube

Evidence from Florida 2005- 2008

(PDF) Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida (researchgate.net)

Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (<i>Campephilus principalis</i>) Exist in Florida (semanticscholar.org)

There may be some videos as links above but they are only suggestive. Many varied, good data sets above and sound files in following link .

The Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (uwindsor.ca)

See at 40 secs a bird identified in the field as IB, but this itself is not strong evidence due to poor quality. Birds continued into at least 2015 but had moved within the 60 square miles. Its is not easy to explore the corridor.

Ivory-Billed woodpeckers not extinct in Northern Florida? | This American Land - YouTube

Aerial view of just 1 or 2 square mile of this very impressive 60 square miles :

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat in the Choctawhatchee River Swamp - YouTube

Hill comments on wariness of birds: http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1450&postcount=27

Choctawhatchee River: In the Vicinity of Bruce Creek (part 1) - YouTube

Story saying how even the Choctawhatchee Bird Count Coordinator had never been on the river in 20 years. Its a nice quiet area in the fall and winter,


Donald Ware, bird count coordinator for the Choctawhatchee Audubon Society has been tracking the IBWO for several years along the Choctawhathcee River. Donald has written an account of his experiences:

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers of Choctawhatchee River
by Donald Ware

After at least one male Ivory-billed Woodpecker was discovered in Arkansas, Dr. Geoffrey Hill, head ornithologist at Auburn University, assigned his graduate students to search historical IBWO habitat in the Florida panhandle. He came down with them to the Choctawhatchee River, and he reported seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker on his first day in the river. Since I was a board member of the Alabama Ornithological Society, I knew that Dr. Hill knew the differences between the Ivorybill and the still thriving, nearly as large, Pileated Woodpecker. I trusted his identification.

I felt guilty that I had not been in that river during the 20 years that I had been Bird Count Coordinator for the Choctawhatchee Audubon Society. On 26 Oct 06 I received a call from Dr. Bob Larson reporting an IBWO a few feet from McCaskill Road. It was on a small dying pine with the top blown off. While investigating that with a friend, I met Jerry Williams, 1801 McCaskill Road, who reported that he had seen one from the deck of his home on a tree in early spring of 2006. His home is on 12-foot pilings in the flood plain. He said that he saw or heard Pileated Woodpeckers quite frequently, and this bird had the black and white wing pattern of a Red-headed Woodpecker, though “five times larger”.

That day I also met Paul Ward launching his fishing boat at Morrison Springs. I asked if he had seen a bird like the one on my Ivory-billed Woodpecker T-shirt. He reported seeing one in his yard 15 Oct 06, south of Byrd Intersection on CR 181. Paul was then a 75-year-old card-carrying Creek Indian who said he knows all of the creatures in that flood plain, and he sees Pileated Woodpeckers every day he goes out. He started to work for a logging company there in 1950 and had his first Ivorybill sighting in 1955. The October 2006 sighting was probably his 12th. When he and his wife watched the TV announcement of the Ivorybill being “rediscovered” in Arkansas, he told his wife “they have been here all along.” Later he saw the bird on a dead Live Oak 70-feet north of his home, and he got his wife out. They both watched it sit on the tree and then fly away, showing the white trailing edge of the wing, top and bottom.

Between November 6th and 29th, 2006 I spent four days exploring the river and minor creeks from US 90 to Bozman Fish Camp south of FL 20. That was about 50 miles of exploration. On 29 Nov 06, the 4th day in the river, at 12:45 PM I saw an IBWO fly east to west above the treetops into Walton County north of Morrison Springs, 30 deg. 39′ 10″ N. I said to George Russell, in the back of his canoe, “I think we just saw one.” It appeared long and slim with a shallow wing beat and a red crest. I saw no white on the wing in that a profile view, but as it the moved away it exposed increasing amounts of white on the trailing edge of the wing. At 1:30 PM we heard the double-knock distinctive to that genus of woodpecker come from the Reedy Creek area where we last saw it heading. Note to IBWO searchers: the Pileated Woodpecker has a deep wing beat like a crow, exposing some white in the middle of the wing from all perspectives.

I spent six days supporting the Auburn Research Team documenting GPS coordinates of the large woodpecker cavity trees and feeding trees. On 5 Dec 06 at 10:30 AM I heard two kent calls near Sandy creek about two miles south of the previously heard double-knocks. My hearing and my bird call experience is very good, and I think this was an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Later I interviewed Mr. Byrd who has lived on the land between Reedy Creek and he Choctawhatchee River all his life. He reported seeing an IBWO fly across his property a few years ago, and seeing them twice while fishing in the Choctawhatchee. I left him my card, and after that he reported having just seen an Ivorybill fly across Bunker Island while fishing well down the river, apparently his forth sighting. Jerry Williams reported his second sighting while on a deer stand in January 2007. Also, Dr. Larson took a canoe to where I saw the bird, and he and his wife reported that one was flushed by a motorboat, along with a Pileated Woodpecker, on 17 Aug 08, his second sighting. They had the bird in their binoculars and reported the white trailing edge.

In 2007 Geoffrey Hill published Ivorybill Hunters documenting the Auburn study of the 2005/06 season where several sightings were made, but no good photos obtained. It is $24.95 new and about $15 used or on Kindle at www.amazon.com. His Auburn web site has links to audio recordings of 350 apparent knocks or calls from the 05/06 and 06/07 search seasons. James R. Hill had a six-month contract for operating camera traps there in the 06/07 season, but was not successful in obtaining photo evidence of the presence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, though he has friends who have had brief looks.

I think there is overwhelming evidence that this beautiful bird, once thought to be extinct, still lives after we harvested most their big feeding and nesting trees. A few apparently were cautious enough to avoid the hunters when they became rare and museums unwisely offered money for their skins. We are wiser now, and I pray that the only shooting we do now is with a camera so future generations can experience what some called the “Lord God” bird.

Additional links:

To learn more about the ivory-billed woodpecker go to: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBWFundingfactsheet.pdf

One of these presenations and summaries above I had never seen before. Good.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

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.

(I assume btw from your addy that you would think any suggestion that IB sightings could be mistaken identity of Pileated would be ‘bull’ so any field notes will show too how Pileated categorically been ruled out at the time.)

Ps are you familiar with the work of Collinson, JM on the Luneau video?

 

[pileated canada bull]

In fairness to 1Truthseekers efforts in posting all these recordings and links, and in an attempt to show willing to look again at more of the elements of evidence that has been accumulated (with the proviso my experience of Pileated is limited to just a few trips to the US and my audio/visual experience of IB is a big fat zero 🙂) yet again, I find myself looking at what is to me, inconclusive material:



Another element of the evidence ‘portfolio’ is the measurements of fresh perimeters around boreholes entrances and cavities as indicating ‘recent’ IB activity.
eg here https://www.researchgate.net/figure...tightly-adhering-bark-that-has_fig2_291692809

I came across an excellent video on Youtube and watched this bird for 20 minutes or so, enlarging the perimeter of an existing borehole/nest cavity to access larva/bugs living within the flesh of the tree. Others may find it fascinating in its own right but for me, it injects another example of the level of ambiguity in the claims IB is extant vis a vis recent signs of excavation in the form of larger than Pileated sized cavities but rather IB sized boreholes/perimeters and thus being ‘evidence’ of IB activity.

Some stills from the above video
View attachment 1366851View attachment 1366852View attachment 1366853View attachment 1366854

No serious searcher in the US mistakes these feeding pits for cavity holes. Has this been addressed as a large wrong turn?

 

[pileated canada bull]

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.

(I assume btw from your addy that you would think any suggestion that IB sightings could be mistaken identity of Pileated would be ‘bull’ so any field notes will show too how Pileated categorically been ruled out at the time.)

Ps are you familiar with the work of Collinson, JM on the Luneau video?

Collinson, like him reasonable attitude. I believe he has softened his position against the 'bill. His paper never put a dent in the pertinent evidence for several obvious reasons. The paper provides no serious challenge to the "its extant" side. 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?

 

[Deb Burhinus]

You did not answer some of my reposnses to your prior work, so i will not go any further due to that at this time.

? My ’prior work’?

Sorry I don’t understand what you mean. You have no fieldnotes of your sightings or you are just not willing to disclose them for scrutiny?

The video of a Pileated was pulled down off youtube as my post made obviously clear.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

His paper never put a dent in the pertinent evidence for several obvious reasons

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

Video analysis of the escape flight of Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus: does the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis persist in continental North America? - BMC Biology

Background The apparent rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis in Arkansas, USA, previously feared extinct, was supported by video evidence of a single bird in flight (Fitzpatrick et al, Science 2005, 308:1460–1462). Plumage patterns and wingbeat frequency of the...

bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com

 

[raymie]

I have sampled the flesh.

I assume you mean of Pileated here and not Ivory-billed. How did you do this legally?

 

[Deb Burhinus]

ou did not answer some of my reposnses 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.

Perhaps you could explain your hostility here and refusal to respond to my very first post on this thread that is directed at you. I have not been following this thread in recent hours so was not even aware of your contributions- sorry if you feel you have been ignored!

 

[pileated canada bull]

Do you care to elaborate on those reasons?

posts are loading oddly, no ones fault see 569 you ignored or missed see 587 that loaded late...always like to answer as possible.

 

[pileated canada bull]

Perhaps you could explain your hostility here and refusal to respond to my very first post on this thread that is directed at you. I have not been following this thread in recent hours so was not even aware of your contributions- sorry if you feel you have been ignored!

again.................. posts are loading oddly, no ones fault see 569 you ignored or missed see 587 that loaded late...always like to answer others a s possible.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

Again, confused, I meant elaborate on the ‘obvious reasons’ in your view as stated that Collinson ‘never put a dent’ in the ‘pertinent evidence’?

As far as any mistakes searchers might make regarding cavities and bore holes/feeding pits or what constitutes a ‘serious searcher’, that’s not my judgment call - I’m simply asking the questions. I answered you already regarding the Pileated video - not my ‘work’ but taken off youtube.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

Now I have answered your posts, please answer mine - please upload some contemporaneous fieldnotes of you sightings, I would be very interested in seeing them. Thank you.

 

[pileated canada bull]

Now I have answered your posts, please answer mine - please upload some contemporaneous fieldnotes of you sightings, I would be very interested in seeing them. Thank you.

again 569, thanks

 

[Deb Burhinus]

again 569, thanks

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.

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. 👍

 

[pileated canada bull]

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

The Collinson paper has major fatal flaws that inverses it conclusion.
1) did not use the correct comparative interlacing negating the results
2) relied on erroneous and incomplete pileated flight data from Nolin
2a) ignored Nolin Pi wing beat Hz was lowing unlike the Luneau bird
3) used "data" from original skeptics that relied on misleading and purposely truncated analysis of PIWO wing beat Hz that minimzed the actual wing beta Hz. Skeptics eventually took down misleading graph and verbiage on PI Hz and IB Hz per 4 ) next.
4) used erroneous IBWO wing beat frequency assumptions that predated the IMWO. IMWO clearly showed the correct Campephilus IB wing Hz frequency for IB. This vindicated the original IB Arkansas Persists abstract, hence never a retraction and never will be.
5) Collinson misinterpreted wing edge effects
6) Cherry picked frames
7) failed to see the bending of IB wing vs Pi wing bending characteristics
8) Collinson fails to even address let alone overturn the 20 inch white saddled woodpecker seen on two differtn trees in AR video 9 to 11 more
12) Collinson interpretation totally fails to turn over the flyunder La video for the same reasons as above.
And this next also predates IMWO data but still casts serious doubt on the Collinson paper.

We must gratefully thank Mr Martin and Mr Pulliam, the latter deceased but remembered as very helpful on this exact matter. PCB

1. agreements and disagreements with Dr. Collinson's assertions​

   David Martin, Gladys Porter Zoo 21 March 2007
   Some months ago, Dr. Collinson kindly sent me a copy of his paper for my comments, after it had been accepted. I told him I felt that it deserved to be published, although I had a lot of problems with it. Although the final paper has apparently been edited to address some of my concerns, many remain, and I feel I should present those here, as well as point out what I feel are some critical flaws in his analysis. I still feel that the paper deserved to be published, but there should have also been provided an opportunity for rebuttal from Fitzpatrick et al. Perhaps that will yet occur.
   general remarks:
   1) In their analysis of the Luneau video, Fitzpatrick et al. were careful to try to duplicate the conditions as closely as possible, using the same camcorder, focused in the same manner, at the same location, and in similar lighting conditions. It would not be too surprising to find that a different camcorder, focused differently in different lighting conditions would produce very different results even on the same subject. That being said, I think it is possible to make some valid comparisons between the Luneau and Nolin videos, even on plumage characteristics.
   2) The Nolin video frames he has displayed are interlaced. The Luneau video fields have been de-interlaced. In some cases the interlaced frames produce very misleading plumage features. It would have been much preferable to use de-interlaced frames. Again, this in itself does not negate all of the analysis, but it makes comparisons in some of the figures quite suspect.
   specific remarks.
   The statement that Fitzpatrick et al. did not discuss Sibley’s “3 points,” is partially incorrect. They did in fact address 2 out of 3. Point 1 was that the Luneau bird appears to have black secondaries. Fitzpatrick et al. stated that, “The left wing is white to its base as it emerges from behind the tree...and in additional fields that show dorsal views during the latter stages of upstrokes.” Point 2 was that the Luneau bird has “particularly bright white primary bases.” This point was indeed unaddressed by Fitzpatrick et al. and I think is one of Sibley’s strongest.. Point 3 was that the Luneau bird appears to have black curving around the edge of the wing. Fitzpatrick et al. stated that, “The claim by Sibley et al. that in certain fields the black wingtips of the woodpecker show a curved shape suggestive of pileated fails to acknowledge that movement blur is most pronounced at the wingtips and that in other fields of the Luneau video the shape is more suggestive of ivory-billed.”
   The statement that aberrant pileateds have been reported from the area is misleading, in that it implies that such birds might explain the Luneau video. The only aberrant pileated yet documented from the Big Woods is the “white” bird photographed in White River NWR. This bird bears no resemblance to the Luneau bird and no other aberrant pileateds whatsoever have been reported from the area, let alone documented.
   Critical to Dr. Collinson’s interpretation of the Nolin flights is his suggestion that the first 4 wingbeats of the Nolin birds constitute “escape flight,” while the remainder reflects the birds slowing their flight as they approach the trees. This is quite arbitrary and not supported by anything in the videos. At one second post-launch all of the birds are far from the trees and show no indication of preparing to land. In every case the cumulative wingbeat rate at one second post-launch is quite elevated compared to the typical pileated rate of 5.2 Hz. Bill Pulliam and I have looked at the wingbeat rates without any presumption of when “escape flight” ends. Pulliam’s graph (http://static.flickr.com/70/203089268_5f62aa0750.jpg) and mine (http://home.att.net/~fangsheath/wingbeatrates3.jpg), which includes Nolin flight videos recently posted, both show that while a reduction in wingbeat rates is not perfectly smooth and steady in all individuals, the basic pattern is similar among pileated flights. Fitzpatrick et al. cited a takeoff extracted from the old Singer Tract recordings, and I have independently analyzed the sonagram of this recording. The Luneau bird shows a pattern strikingly similar to that of this recording. In analyzing videos of flushed black-bellied whistling ducks (http://home.att.net/~fangsheath/treeduckrates.jpg), I have found no evidence whatever of a change from “escape flight” to some other kind of flight within the first second post-launch. Some individuals landed a short distance away. Others left the area. Regardless, the basic pattern is similar among flights. While wingbeat rates sometimes exceed 8 Hz momentarily post-launch, among 30 flights the wingbeat rate at one second varies from 5.1 to 7.7 Hz. I find no support in either the pileated or whistling-duck data for this arbitrary 4-wingbeat cutoff. Indeed, looking at Pulliam’s graph, which includes other flights besides the Nolin flushed birds, I am forced to wonder, what exactly is “escape flight” in terms of wingbeat rate, as opposed to “normal takeoff”? Is there any difference? For the first 4 or 5 wingbeats the Nolin flights seem to be well within the range of other pileated takeoffs.
   The statement that “there is no data to suggest whether Pileated Woodpeckers can maintain a wingbeat frequency approaching 8.6 s-1 for 8 or more wingbeats” ignores the data right in front of him. The Nolin videos constitute such data. Three independent analyses, those of Collinson, Pulliam, and myself, are in general agreement that none of the Nolin birds achieves a cumulative wingbeat rate even close 8.6 Hz over a period of one second as is unequivocally exhibited by the Luneau bird. In fact according to my calculations the highest one-second wingbeat rate amongst the 5 Nolin flights is a mere 7.4 Hz, with a range of 6.7-7.4 Hz. On their web site, the CLO acknowledges that pileateds can produce very high wingbeat rates momentarily after launch. The question is whether the Luneau bird is exhibiting a pattern that can reasonably be expected of a pileated.
   The statement that the expected appearance of the upperwing of a pileated, mostly black with a small white patch at the base of the primaries, is obscure and only clearly resolvable as the Nolin birds are flying near vertical, is incorrect. The upperwing pattern is quite apparent in some earlier frames in which the wings are oriented downward. It is also apparent in some frames in which the long axis of the bird is more or less aligned with the camera line of sight, which occurs late in the flights before the birds swoop upward. In fact a thorough comparison of any video with the Luneau video should take into account the fact that the view of the Luneau bird is clearly slightly dorsal as it rises relative to the background. A close examination of comparable portions of the Nolin videos, even interlaced, is in my mind quite revealing.
   The statement that the black trailing edge of the pileated is often inconspicuous and may disappear completely is quite correct. The problem is that the reverse is also true. The black trailing edge in every one of the Nolin flights is quite conspicuous in some frames and impossible to overlook, right down to the base of the wing. Numerous frames demonstrate this even with the interlacing. With de-interlaced frames I believe it would be even more apparent. The assertion that the black trailing edge is in general more conspicuous near the wingtip is not borne out by the Nolin videos. In many frames it is the black edge near the base of the wing that is most conspicuous. In others the entire edge is quite noticeable.
   The statement that a black trailing edge is discernable on the Luneau bird is not supported by the example given, field 366.7. On that field I see a black wingtip smeared by motion blur. The comparable frame from the Nolin video looks nothing like it and in fact shows a clear indication of a black trailing edge near the base of the wing. If the frame were de-interlaced I suspect that a black trailing edge would be quite apparent on both the near and far wings.

cont next two posta

 

[pileated canada bull]

The allusion to the models used in the re-enactment as “flat-winged” is incorrect. There seems to be a widespread misconception that the models simply flapped up and down with no flexion or twisting motion. The models in fact flexed and were designed to reproduce the twisting motion that is typical of bird wings in flight.

The relevance of his statement that the assertion that ivory-bills flap their wings more rapidly than pileateds is “counterintuitive” escapes me, since he seems to agree that the sound in the old Cornell recording is indeed an ivory-bill flapping its wings, and the rate is very high. If we agree that the Luneau bird is a large woodpecker videotaped in the wilds of Arkansas, the question is whether the wingbeat rate is too high to be reasonably attributed to a pileated. If so then we have no reasonable alternative, even if we had zero data on wingbeat rates in ivory-bills.

He states that in all Luneau frames which appear to show white on the dorsum, the bird is distant, and it is difficult to distinguish dorsum from wing. In fact, in Luneau video fields in which white is most apparent on the back of the bird, the wings are below horizontal and cannot possibly contribute to the effect. At least one field shows white all the way across the bird. In the next field the wings are lower and the white on the wings clearly separates from that on the back. Even interlaced, not a single frame in the Nolin videos produces this effect. The argument that the white on the body only appears when the bird is distant and therefore should be suspect is exactly the opposite of what we find to be true in the Nolin videos. As the distance between the birds and the camera increases, there is less motion blur, the birds are facing more directly away from the camera, the view is less ventral, and the wings are more clearly distinguished from the body. The result is that the absence of white on the body of the pileated is more apparent, not less so.

1. Some final observations:
   In many of the side-by-side frame/field comparisons in Dr. Collinson’s paper, I am at a lost to determine what is supposed to be similar. Since he didn’t even bother to reverse the early Nolin frames so that the birds would be in roughly the same orientation, the trailing edges of the wings on the Luneau bird often appear to be in a similar relative position to the leading edges on the Nolin bird.
2. 
   
3. A reader who has not seen the videos might understandably be quite befuddled. So what have we learned from this exercise? Some of the points made are entirely valid in my view. In my opinion, what the Nolin videos do indeed tell us is that with some camcorders and lighting conditions, more white appears on a normal pileated than we would naively expect. Looking at individual frames is clearly fraught with problems. It is true that some frames of the Nolin videos show nothing that would enable us to identify the species. In fact some frames show no black on the wings whatsoever. In some Luneau fields I can barely distinguish if there is even a bird there. If you were to show me those fields without the rest of the video I would be at a loss to identify the bird in any way.
4. Videos are clearly fraught with artifacts that do not necessarily reflect the actual plumage characteristics of the bird. Trying to make measurements of the wings from the Luneau video is a very questionable proposition. I agree with Dr. Collinson that there is enough evidence concerning pileated wing dynamics in these videos to bring into serious question some of the interpretations of Luneau fields by Fitzpatrick et al. They also tell us that flushed pileateds can produce very high wingbeat rates for at least very short periods. The question remains, however, whether any existing video of a normal pileated even comes close to matching critical elements of the Luneau video. My answer is a resounding no. Dave Nolin in fact presented his videos as a contrast to the Luneau video. How good a match can they be? Bill Pulliam has additionally pointed out some very odd features of the wing dynamics of the Luneau bird, features that are in no way matched by any pileated video I am aware of.
5. Again I am forced to wonder, why should this one pileated with a strong indication of white on its dorsum and other unusual features be so distinct in its behavior?
   In my opinion every flight in the Nolin videos, when looked at in its entirety, is readily distinguished from the Luneau video and unequivocally shows a pileated. None of the flights exhibits the high wingbeat rate of the Luneau bird over a period of one second. The CLO has already acknowledged that pileated wingbeat rates may range as high as 7.5 Hz. The highest one-second cumulative wingbeat rate among the Nolin flights is only 7.4 Hz, not even close to the 8.6 Hz exhibited by the Luneau bird. I find Dr. Collinson’s comment that “there is no data to suggest” whether pileateds can produce a wingbeat rate comparable to the Luneau bird for 8 wingbeats or more to be quite revealing of his approach. The Nolin flights, now numbering 5, constitute such data in my view. But since none of the flights even approach the required 8.6 Hz for one second, Dr. Collinson considers that we have “no data.” With each new pileated video failing to even come close to matching critical characteristics of the Luneau video, I am wondering how many will be necessary before he considers that we “have data.” Could a pileated achieve such a high wingbeat rate? It’s certainly possible. If we assume that wingbeat rates are normally distributed, we might use the mean one-second rate of the 5 Nolin flights (7.2 Hz) and the standard deviation (0.29 Hz), to estimate the likelihood that a pileated flight will achieve the one-second rate of the Luneau bird (8.6 Hz). According to my calculation we would expect that about one out of 100 flushed pileateds will achieve such a rate. If someone produced a video of a pileated doing this, we would at least be able to answer the question of pileated capabilities in this regard. I would love to see it. The other issues of course would remain. How many pileated videos will be required before we see the odd wing dynamics of the Luneau bird pointed out by Bill Pulliam? How many will be required before we see white on the dorsum? And how many before one incorporates all of the very unusual features together? At some point we must acknowledge that our hypothesis is a bad fit. In my view the pileated hypothesis is a very bad fit for the Luneau bird. Perhaps someday a video will appear that is indeed a decent match. The Nolin flights do not come close in my opinion.
   
   David L. Martin