Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (12 Viewers)

[Jane Turner]

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

Would you be trying to tell me now what I believe?

I have entirely open mind about the possibility of IBWO still existing. There are however known records of leucistic PIWO, including one that was temporarily mistaken for IBWO by a very experienced birder. Partial leucism is not that rare in birds, especially not black and white birds it seems (presumed to be less of a survival/reproductive handicap.)

This is not like an ID question on BF were as a bunch of well meaning amateurs, we all have a best guess at what the ID is from a partial description or a fuzzy photo. I DO believe that it a critically important record where the ID needs to be proven. PIWO and who knows PIWOxIBWO need to be categorically eliminated as possibilities. They are not. TRE knows what to look for now. Let's hope he sees his bird(s) again and can describe the dorsal stripe, the bill and where the white is precisely in the wing.

 

[MMinNY]

I agree that it's time to let this drop. We're not going to reach a consensus. In this instance, I don't think some of us are quite as far apart in opinion as the frayed tempers (my own included) would suggest.

I never meant to imply that TRE should discontinue his efforts, and I'm in complete agreement that more documentation is desirable; the fact that I find his report convincing and others do not is really of no consequence at this point.

He is trying to relocate the birds. I'll be joining him in a couple of weeks (I planned the trip before the most recent sighting), unless he gets a photograph first, in which case, I'll go elsewhere in Arkansas and leave them in peace. I trust that even those of you who clash with me here will wish me luck but hope, as I do, that TRE gets that photograph before I arrive.

ps. Jane, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was expressing an opinion based on my reading of your posts here. If that reading was mistaken, I'm very glad to stand corrected. So let's renew the truce.

Could I make a suggestion? That the debate over the TRE report is lessened before it reaches boiling point and things turn nasty again? Whatever TRE has seen (and it certainly sounds interesting, or even intriguing and compelling ), it is obvious that a 100% ID cannot be made on the details provided, so maybe we should just encourage TRE to try and relocate his bird, and hopefully, obtain a picture so the matter could be settled once and for all. I can see, and appreciate both sides of the debate, I just don't think that it is getting us anywhere, and I can sense tempers being frayed.

Chris

 

[timeshadowed]

Could I make a suggestion? That the debate over the TRE report is lessened before it reaches boiling point and things turn nasty again? Chris

What I find most frustrating is that no matter how good the field sketch is, no matter how good the field notes are, some always seem way too willing to poke holes through them, demanding more and more perfection from those who have not been trained in the skill of how to take 'proper' field notes. To me that seems like nit-picking. I have suggested that these same ones create a question sheet to aid in this learning process, but that idea was shot down with 'just go get a beginner field guide'. Why are they so willing to 'nit-pick' yet so unwilling to help train?

It is very hard for a beginning birder to remember out in the field just what they are 'expected' to observe on the bird so that these 'notes' will not have holes punched in them latter. That would be the value of questions, like:

What color was the bill?
What size was the bill?
What colors were on the wings?
What color were the eyes?

Etc.

That way when something was posted and a question not answered, it would be clearer just what could and could not be seen clearly and what may have just been a lack in remembering to 'look for that feature' while in the field.

 

[humminbird]

What I find most frustrating is that no matter how good the field sketch is, no matter how good the field notes are, some always seem way too willing to poke holes through them, demanding more and more perfection from those who have not been trained in the skill of how to take 'proper' field notes. To me that seems like nit-picking. I have suggested that these same ones create a question sheet to aid in this learning process, but that idea was shot down with 'just go get a beginner field guide'. Why are they so willing to 'nit-pick' yet so unwilling to help train?

It is very hard for a beginning birder to remember out in the field just what they are 'expected' to observe on the bird so that these 'notes' will not have holes punched in them latter. That would be the value of questions, like:

What color was the bill?
What size was the bill?
What colors were on the wings?
What color were the eyes?

Etc.

That way when something was posted and a question not answered, it would be clearer just what could and could not be seen clearly and what may have just been a lack in remembering to 'look for that feature' while in the field.

As I have said several times Mark, some states have such a form for review species. Maybe TRE could design one to carry with him in the field or would like one designed for him.

 

[humminbird]

PIWO and who knows PIWOxIBWO need to be categorically eliminated as possibilities. They are not. TRE knows what to look for now. Let's hope he sees his bird(s) again and can describe the dorsal stripe, the bill and where the white is precisely in the wing.

I will certainly agree on these points Jane, but since we are focussing on the bill, a clear view will NOT rule out either of these alternatives. A clear view with some of the other characteristics will NOT rule out the alternatives. A clear view of all of the characteristics will NOT put the question to rest since the question of whether he actually saw the bird or simply put together a convincing description will remain. A clear view of all the characteristics with a witness will NOT put the issue to bed.

A photo? I doubt that will put the question to bed since the question of origin will remain.

 

[lewis20126]

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

It surely does.
Shock News just in: Red-bellied woodpecker does not have a very obvious red belly!
More news just in: Black-chinned hummer does not have a big black chin!
Thanks for pointing those little known facts out to me.
However Ivory-billed Wodpecker does has a big white bill.
And just about none of the stringers in the swamps ever see it.
Anyway got a flight to catch - looking forward to that photo when I get back.

A

 

[Jane Turner]

He is trying to relocate the birds. I'll be joining him in a couple of weeks (I planned the trip before the most recent sighting), unless he gets a photograph first, in which case, I'll go elsewhere in Arkansas and leave them in peace. I trust that even those of you who clash with me here will wish me luck but hope, as I do, that TRE gets that photograph before I arrive.

ps. Jane, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was expressing an opinion based on my reading of your posts here. If that reading was mistaken, I'm very glad to stand corrected. So let's renew the truce.

Of course I wish you good luck. I even have some suggestions for you.

1. A general point should you see the bird. Apply a mega sceptical mindset to its ID. Try and prove its not an IBWO. If you fail, your description will be infinitely more thorough!

2. In case your view is limited agree between you which features you are going to look in which sequence and divide them up between you.

e.g. on a perched bird that you can clearly see has white "triangles" , one of you look hard at the face and bill. Does the eye stand out white in a dark surround? Is the bill white (in more than one orientation). Then move onto the crest. Can you see red? If not, can you see any other contrast on the head that would lead you to believe that it was all black (my guess is that the eye would be good enough). The other of you should focus on the dorsal stripe. Precisely where does it start on the head/neck? (in relation to eg the eye). Precisely where does it end? Can you be certain that it doesn't tuck round under the wings. If time move down to the white on the wings. White or ivory? Can you see black outer primaries. What about the tertials? Can you see the rump standing out as black between the tertials? If your bird is in flight, one of you estimate how many of the flight feathers are black then look fo the dorsal stripe, the other concentrate for all you are worth on the depth of the white. Are you sure that you can see the white secondaries overlayed on the upper and lower wing surfaces with black coverts, or is there a possibility that the flight feathers are just white-tipped?

3. Prepare a skeleton drawing for a perched and a flying generic woodpecker in advance, it will speed you up in the field.

4. Take a dictaphone, or agree that one of you will write notes. If you get more time on the bird, firstly confirm the features that the other saw. Then describe the whole bird. Estimate the bill length in comparison to head width. Estimate the projection of the tail in comparison the the tertials. Establish the length of the primary projection. Look for sheen on the feathers etc.

5. If the bird defaecates make absolutely sure you see where it lands. Its better than a photograph as proof (well at least it will establish unequivocally that the bird's mother was an Ivory-bill.)

Recording all this will not make you immune from claims that you made it up, apart from the faeces, but at least you will have an acceptable (at face value) description.

 

[humminbird]

Of course I wish you good luck. I even have some suggestions for you.

1. A general point should you see the bird. Apply a mega sceptical mindset to its ID. Try and prove its not an IBWO. If you fail, your description will be infinitely more thorough!

2. In case your view is limited agree between you which features you are going to look in which sequence and divide them up between you.

e.g. on a perched bird that you can clearly see has white "triangles" , one of you look hard at the face and bill. Does the eye stand out white in a dark surround? Is the bill white (in more than one orientation). Then move onto the crest. Can you see red? If not, can you see any other contrast on the head that would lead you to believe that it was all black (my guess is that the eye would be good enough). The other of you should focus on the dorsal stripe. Precisely where does it start on the head/neck? (in relation to eg the eye). Precisely where does it end? Can you be certain that it doesn't tuck round under the wings. If time move down to the white on the wings. White or ivory? Can you see black outer primaries. What about the tertials? Can you see the rump standing out as black between the tertials? If your bird is in flight, one of you estimate how many of the flight feathers are black then look fo the dorsal stripe, the other concentrate for all you are worth on the depth of the white. Are you sure that you can see the white secondaries overlayed on the upper and lower wing surfaces with black coverts, or is there a possibility that the flight feathers are just white-tipped?

3. Prepare a skeleton drawing for a perched and a flying generic woodpecker in advance, it will speed you up in the field.

4. Take a dictaphone, or agree that one of you will write notes. If you get more time on the bird, firstly confirm the features that the other saw. Then describe the whole bird. Estimate the bill length in comparison to head width. Estimate the projection of the tail in comparison the the tertials. Establish the length of the primary projection. Look for sheen on the feathers etc.

5. If the bird defaecates make absolutely sure you see where it lands. Its better than a photograph as proof (well at least it will establish unequivocally that the bird's mother was an Ivory-bill.)

Recording all this will not make you immune from claims that you made it up, apart from the faeces, but at least you will have an acceptable (at face value) description.

Whoa!!!!

Field notes should always be written by the individual who observed the bird, as Harrison and Gallagher did, moving apart and never consulting with one another before the notes are taken. What you are suggesting leaves too much room for collaboration and convincing one another of what you saw IMHO.

 

[humminbird]

It surely does.
Shock News just in: Red-bellied woodpecker does not have a very obvious red belly!
More news just in: Black-chinned hummer does not have a big black chin!
Thanks for pointing those little known facts out to me.
However Ivory-billed Wodpecker does has a big white bill.
And just about none of the stringers in the swamps ever see it.
Anyway got a flight to catch - looking forward to that photo when I get back.

A

Interesting how this is pointed out by several people experienced with the bird as being an unreliable feature, yet some make it THE key feature.

The drawings in Peterson for Eastern North America and in Kaufman both show considerable white on the bill of the PIWO!

 

[Jane Turner]

Interesting how this is pointed out by several people experienced with the bird as being an unreliable feature, yet some make it THE key feature.

The drawings in Peterson for Eastern North America and in Kaufman both show considerable white on the bill of the PIWO!

The point, which you seem to be consitently refusing to understand is that if you can't see a white bill, it doesn't say much for the quality of the view!

When writing a description of a rare bird in which you are trying to describe the absence of a feature, its fairly normal practise to comment on another feature to demostrate that this is not down to the inadeqacies of the view.

Imagine you have a suspected Euopean Golden Plover overhead...you could say the auxilliaries appeared white. Or you could say, I was able to see a well-defined contrast between the underside of the flight feathers and the auxilliaries (which were paler), but not between them and the white breast sides. This leads me to believe that they were not grey. One of these routes is much more likely to get your bird accepted.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

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

Sorry Humminbird, that's not what I meant. I simply meant that you are much more likely to observe ALL the features of an IBWO if the bird you are looking at is an IBWO than if it is something else. As we have seen it is quite possible for someone looking at a PIWO to observe a number of IBWO features.

You said

Need I remind anyone that seeing all the field marks in the field is very unlikely?

I regularly see multiple field marks on many different species when I go birding. Of course you can never guarantee to see all the pertinent marks on a particular individual bird but your statement suggests that it is virtually impossible.

Its an attitude which could discourage IBWO searchers from taking proper field notes.

CHeers,

 

[Jane Turner]

Whoa!!!!

Field notes should always be written by the individual who observed the bird, as Harrison and Gallagher did, moving apart and never consulting with one another before the notes are taken. What you are suggesting leaves too much room for collaboration and convincing one another of what you saw IMHO.

This was in an earlier era, when a possible IBWO didn't bugger off as soon as you looked at it! Its time to get ruthless about ID and leave the country gentleman attitude at home. Let's face it, this isn't like a rare and lost vagrant. If there is a bird there it will be seen again.

Perhaps you'd prefer another indeterminate description of a woodpecker with white in its wings and a black crest (or otherwise)

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Whoa!!!!

Field notes should always be written by the individual who observed the bird, as Harrison and Gallagher did, moving apart and never consulting with one another before the notes are taken. What you are suggesting leaves too much room for collaboration and convincing one another of what you saw IMHO.

Interesting point Humminbird, but there is nothing wrong with consultation and collaboration while the bird is in view. For example "you check the primary projection while I look at the face pattern". "when it flies off, I'm on the upperwing, you concentrate on the underwing". etc.

Once the bird is out of view I agree it would be preferable to write up what you saw separately. Although eventually the two descriptiuons would have to be put together for submission.

Cheers,

 

[MMinNY]

Thank you. . .I've printed out your suggestions and will bear them in mind, along with Humminbird's caveat about collaboration. I can see the merits in both points of view. I'm glad the discussion is moving in a more positive direction.

Seems to me it would be best to make a decision in advance about dividing up features.

Just to be clear about the skeleton drawing, do you mean to use in the field with a kind of "fill in the blanks" approach, or do you mean just for practice? If it's the former, why is this okay? It seems to me that such a drawing would no longer be contemporaneous and might open one up to the charge of having tacked on the field marks or having engaged in wishful thinking. My drawing skills are abominable and seem impervious to practice, so it would certainly be easier not to have to attempt a sketch in the field.

So let's hope for a photo and/or a fecal (American spelling) sample.

Of course I wish you good luck. I even have some suggestions for you.

1. A general point should you see the bird. Apply a mega sceptical mindset to its ID. Try and prove its not an IBWO. If you fail, your description will be infinitely more thorough!

2. In case your view is limited agree between you which features you are going to look in which sequence and divide them up between you.

e.g. on a perched bird that you can clearly see has white "triangles" , one of you look hard at the face and bill. Does the eye stand out white in a dark surround? Is the bill white (in more than one orientation). Then move onto the crest. Can you see red? If not, can you see any other contrast on the head that would lead you to believe that it was all black (my guess is that the eye would be good enough). The other of you should focus on the dorsal stripe. Precisely where does it start on the head/neck? (in relation to eg the eye). Precisely where does it end? Can you be certain that it doesn't tuck round under the wings. If time move down to the white on the wings. White or ivory? Can you see black outer primaries. What about the tertials? Can you see the rump standing out as black between the tertials? If your bird is in flight, one of you estimate how many of the flight feathers are black then look fo the dorsal stripe, the other concentrate for all you are worth on the depth of the white. Are you sure that you can see the white secondaries overlayed on the upper and lower wing surfaces with black coverts, or is there a possibility that the flight feathers are just white-tipped?

3. Prepare a skeleton drawing for a perched and a flying generic woodpecker in advance, it will speed you up in the field.

4. Take a dictaphone, or agree that one of you will write notes. If you get more time on the bird, firstly confirm the features that the other saw. Then describe the whole bird. Estimate the bill length in comparison to head width. Estimate the projection of the tail in comparison the the tertials. Establish the length of the primary projection. Look for sheen on the feathers etc.

5. If the bird defaecates make absolutely sure you see where it lands. Its better than a photograph as proof (well at least it will establish unequivocally that the bird's mother was an Ivory-bill.)

Recording all this will not make you immune from claims that you made it up, apart from the faeces, but at least you will have an acceptable (at face value) description.

 

[Jane Turner]

I mean a fill in the blanks version - not a perfect drawing of an IBWO - just a cartoon. It will save you time in the field and mean you can complete it with the bird in view - not afterwards... hang on I'll knock you one up in Paintbrush!

Unless you are an extremely good artist, you will not be producing an accurate likeness of the bird. You are just using a picture to save time and words.

Practising drawing IBWO before going out would be bad practice however. You might not draw what you see!


Edit: here you go... have something like this in the back of your notebook and scribble your notes on it as fast as you can. Mark where you see lines etc. Write on it relative dimensions as well as you can determine in the field etc.

 

[MMinNY]

Thanks. That's very helpful.

I mean a fill in the blanks version - not a perfect drawing of an IBWO - just a cartoon. It will save you time in the field and mean you can complete it with the bird in view - not afterwards... hand on I'll knock you one up in Paintbrush!

Unless you are an extremely good artist, you will not be producing an accurate likeness of the bird. You are just using a picture to save time and words.


Edit: here you go... have something like this in the back of your notebook and scribble your notes on it as fast as you can. Mark where you see lines etc. Write on it relative dimensions as well as you can determine in the field etc.

 

[chris murphy]

Thanks. That's very helpful.

We've had our disagreements in the past, but I sincerely wish you all the best, and good luck.

Chris

 

[MMinNY]

Thanks Chris.

For those who would like to revist the minutiae of the Luneau video, Bill Pulliam has posted a detailed analysis and has added a brief comment about some of Mike Collins's footage:

http://bbill.blogspot.com/2007/03/walking-through-luneau-mire.html

As I've indicated before, I have great respect for Bill's careful, thoughtful approach.

 

[Jane Turner]

I think that the most obvious thing that can be said about the video is that its just not good enough to be even nearly sure that the features are real/artifacts or that they couldn't be shown by Pileated. Without going through (all) the debate above again, this isn't as simple as a best guess choice between IBWO/PIWO/Leucistic PIWO, its about being certain that its a IBWO, which you can't be.

I'm not 100% certain its Pileated, but I don't need to be. The fact that it could be one is enough. Ironically, if it were backed up by some half decent field notes that described features which can only be guessed at in the video, the record would be infinitely more convincing.

If you need evidence of just how ill advised it is to attempt ID from poor, artefact ridden photographs, look at this. It looks like a pretty convincing Shrike. Its infact a rather common finch with a slight plumage abnormality! Somehow the camera has changed its head shape!

 

[MMinNY]

I wasn't trying to reignite the argument, just wanted to call attention to article. The debate and subsequent discussion have given me a much clearer understanding of where you're coming from, and I hope that will keep things more positive.

With that in mind: as I read it, Bill's central point is that the Luneau video is more consistent with IBWO than with PIWO for a number of reasons. You seem to be approaching all reports with a very strict "rule out PIWO" standard. Do you think there's any relevance or merit to asking: "is this evidence (whether sighting, video or audio) more consistent with IBWO or PIWO?"

Please understand that I'm not suggesting that evidence in the latter category constitutes proof.

I think that the most obvious thing that can be said about the video is that its just not good enough to be even nearly sure that the features are real/artifacts or that they couldn't be shown by Pileated. Without going through (all) the debate above again, this isn't as simple as a best guess choice between IBWO/PIWO/Leucistic PIWO, its about being certain that its a IBWO, which you can't be.

I'm not 100% certain its Pileated, but I don't need to be. The fact that it could be one is enough. Ironically, if it were backed up by some half decent field notes that described features which can only be guessed at in the video, the record would be infinitely more convincing.

If you need evidence of just how ill advised it is to attempt ID from poor, artefact ridden photographs, look at this. It looks like a pretty convincing Shrike. Its infact a rather common finch with a slight plumage abnormality! Somehow the camera has changed its head shape!