Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Johnston]

Could Audubon's 'Washington Eagle' be next on the list for 'rediscovery'? This blogger certainly thinks so, and uses the IBWO as an example. Included are his Factors Necessary for a Spectacular Species to Remain “Hidden” from Science:

1) The species must live in a very sparsely populated area. Encounters with mankind must be so infrequent that any chance, quality sighting would be generally ignored due to its singularity. The ivory-bills’ Big Woods of Ark. and the Choctawhatchee River region of Fla., along with the W.E.’s possible depths of Pennsylvania’s Black Forest meet this criteria nicely.

2) The species should be stunningly large, such that accurate sightings will be written off as exaggerations. For their respective taxonomic families, the ivory-bill and the “Bird of Washington” were giants.

3) Most importantly, the species must have a significant superficial similarity to a smaller, not-uncommon species within the region. This allows for all sightings of the “hidden species” to be dismissed as honest misidentifications. For the ivory-bill, this was the pileated woodpecker. The immature stages of the bald eagle and an occasional golden eagle fill this role perfectly for the Washington eagle.

So who's up for a Washington Eagle thread?

 

[MMinNY]

So, go start one, and peddle the flamebait elsewhere. Cyberthrush posted that link on his blog weeks ago.

Could Audubon's 'Washington Eagle' be next on the list for 'rediscovery'? This blogger certainly thinks so, and uses the IBWO as an example. Included are his Factors Necessary for a Spectacular Species to Remain “Hidden” from Science:

1) The species must live in a very sparsely populated area. Encounters with mankind must be so infrequent that any chance, quality sighting would be generally ignored due to its singularity. The ivory-bills’ Big Woods of Ark. and the Choctawhatchee River region of Fla., along with the W.E.’s possible depths of Pennsylvania’s Black Forest meet this criteria nicely.

2) The species should be stunningly large, such that accurate sightings will be written off as exaggerations. For their respective taxonomic families, the ivory-bill and the “Bird of Washington” were giants.

3) Most importantly, the species must have a significant superficial similarity to a smaller, not-uncommon species within the region. This allows for all sightings of the “hidden species” to be dismissed as honest misidentifications. For the ivory-bill, this was the pileated woodpecker. The immature stages of the bald eagle and an occasional golden eagle fill this role perfectly for the Washington eagle.

So who's up for a Washington Eagle thread?

 

[Mike Johnston]

So, go start one, and peddle the flamebait elsewhere. Cyberthrush posted that link on his blog weeks ago.

Nice. How can it be flamebait if Cyberthrush already posted it?

 

[timeshadowed]

Could Audubon's 'Washington Eagle' be next on the list for 'rediscovery'?
[snip} . . . So who's up for a Washington Eagle thread?

So, go start one, and peddle the flamebait elsewhere. Cyberthrush posted that link on his blog weeks ago.

Or better yet he should start his own new 'sceptic's blog for the Washington Eagle'. That would give him plenty of room to post his flamebait!

 

[timeshadowed]

Nice. How can it be flamebait if Cyberthrush already posted it?

Yawn . . .

 

[Mike Johnston]

Or better yet he should start his own new 'sceptic's blog for the Washington Eagle'. That would give him plenty of room to post his flamebait!

Contrary to what you 'believers' may think, this thread does NOT belong to you alone. I can post whatever IBWO material I wish. A 'believer' has already drawn attention to this on his blog, therefore, it was obviously of some interest to him. You accuse 'sceptics' of bullying people off this thread; what do you call these last posts?

 

[timeshadowed]

Contrary to what you 'believers' may think, this thread does NOT belong to you alone. I can post whatever IBWO material I wish. A 'believer' has already drawn attention to this on his blog, therefore, it was obviously of some interest to him. You accuse 'sceptics' of bullying people off this thread; what do you call these last posts?

Yawn . . .

 

[Mike Johnston]

Yawn . . .

Timeshadowed, I know you have your knickers in a twist with me because I picked you up on some of your own brand of flamebait recently, but do grow up. And to save you the trouble

...Yawn

 

[timeshadowed]

Timeshadowed, I know you have your knickers in a twist with me because I picked you up on some of your own brand of flamebait recently, but do grow up. And to save you the trouble

...Yawn

Nope. But sounds like you could use a nice long night's sleep and I'm off for a long nap!

 

[Jane Turner]

Oh dear.. .another night of deletions. I have to say I'd never even heard of the Washington Eagle, assuming it was a Newspaper or something!

There do appear to be rather few mentions of it (e.g. in comparison to Bigfoot), despite there allegedly being a skin or two. Was it supposed to be a Haliaeetus?

Perhaps an early record of Steller's Sea Eagle, presumably a theoretical wanderer to the NW west coat.

 

[MMinNY]

Context. . .and your history.

Nice. How can it be flamebait if Cyberthrush already posted it?

 

[Mike Johnston]

Context. . .and your history.

Context: the validity of this person's 'three factors'.
History: 'let him who is without sin...' (We've all flamed at some point, but I have NEVER deliberately set out to start a flame war!)

 

[MMinNY]

While we're on the subject of flamebait here's an article that points to why the Bigfoot analogy is inapt and offensive. This guy may lose his tenure at Idaho State University for his efforts. He's funded by one wealthy donor. While Jane Goodall blurbed his book, it's hard to tell whether she believes his evidence or just appreciates his grit.

A lone guy (with a Ph.D. in Anatomy), who doesn't claim to have seen the creature, puttering around in his Chevy Suburban, rejected by his colleagues as a crackpot is hardly comparable to a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles and a couple of major universities supporting intensive research efforts by tenured professors in the relevant departments, with claimed sightings by multiple people involved in the effort.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/idaho-professor-criticized-over-bigfoot/20061103142409990002

 

[MMinNY]

The proposal to start a thread on the topic struck me as quite the deliberate attempt to provoke a flame war. As did the fact that this is just another reference to cryptozoology, and I've made it quite clear why that's offensive. That's the context I was alluding to. It's another matter entirely for Cyberthrush to post it on his blog.

I've never deliberately set out to start a flame war either. I've responded with anger at times, sometimes inappropriately. I don't think my irritation with your post on this subject is misplaced at all. I'd like things to go forward here with respect from both sides. Implications that the search for the IBWO is cryptozoology are insulting, as I've said repeatedly.

Context: the validity of this person's 'three factors'.
History: 'let him who is without sin...' (We've all flamed at some point, but I have NEVER deliberately set out to start a flame war!)

 

[Mike Johnston]

The proposal to start a thread on the topic struck me as quite the deliberate attempt to provoke a flame war. As did the fact that this is just another reference to cryptozoology, and I've made it quite clear why that's offensive. That's the context I was alluding to. It's another matter entirely for Cyberthrush to post it on his blog.

I've never deliberately set out to start a flame war either. I've responded with anger at times, sometimes inappropriately. I don't think my irritation with your post on this subject is misplaced at all. I'd like things to go forward here with respect from both sides. Implications that the search for the IBWO is cryptozoology are insulting, as I've said repeatedly.

The suggestion of starting a thread was meant to be humourous (hence the ). Obviously I shall avoid that approach in future.

It has nothing to do with with equating the IBWO with cryptozoology - it had to do with the validity of this person's 'three factors' as reasons for a large bird being able to stay hidden from science:
1) The species must live in a very sparsely populated area.
2) The species should be stunningly large, such that accurate sightings will be written off as exaggerations.
3) Most importantly, the species must have a significant superficial similarity to a smaller, not-uncommon species within the region.

(And, like Jane, I too am curious as to what Audubon's eagle was.)

 

[Big Phil]

Implications that the search for the IBWO is cryptozoology are insulting, as I've said repeatedly.

I don't see why, doesn't cryptozoology include the study of animals generally considered extinct, but which are still occasionally reported?.

 

[Jane Turner]

You'll never guess what I found on a search of crypozoology

http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=1229


Oh and even more fittingly in the circumstances, a thread that strays into questioning why Bigfoot is not taken as seriously as IBWO!!!

http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=17&pid=257867

 

[MMinNY]

Sorry, I missed the humor. . .I'm not sure about the criteria. Stunningly large probably doesn't apply to the IBWO. It's larger than the PIWO but not dramatically so. I'm also not so sure about the significant superificial similarity to the PIWO. There's a superficial similarity, but I can't imagine confusing the two in any but the most fleeting glimpse. Hence my belief that the experienced birders (and some of the others) who have reported seeing IBWOs know what they're talking about.

Jane's suggestion about the Steller's Sea Eagle seems quite plausible to me from what I recall about the description.

The suggestion of starting a thread was meant to be humourous (hence the ). Obviously I shall avoid that approach in future.

It has nothing to do with with equating the IBWO with cryptozoology - it had to do with the validity of this person's 'three factors' as reasons for a large bird being able to stay hidden from science:
1) The species must live in a very sparsely populated area.
2) The species should be stunningly large, such that accurate sightings will be written off as exaggerations.
3) Most importantly, the species must have a significant superficial similarity to a smaller, not-uncommon species within the region.

(And, like Jane, I too am curious as to what Audubon's eagle was.)

 

[MMinNY]

The problem is that the term carries with it the implication of pseudoscience.

From Wikipedia (I know it's not authoritative, but it's quick and easy):

"Cryptozoology is often considered a pseudoscience by skeptical mainstream zoologists and biologists."

I don't see why, doesn't cryptozoology include the study of animals generally considered extinct, but which are still occasionally reported?.

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

No, I do not. The above statement clarified for you.

But {ie bald eagles} numbers are way up now due to conservation efforts.

No it can't be done with the IBWO like you said, it takes DATA to recover the species. Nobody knows population size, birth rate, death rate, sex ratio, emigration... What kind of management are you going to do knowing none of those things? No nest has been found, so you don't even know what critical habitat really is.