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

[humminbird]

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!

I certainly can concur with you there when looking at what has been circulated in the various publications of the Luneau video. Seeing the video first hand, I am not sure I agree.

 

[Harold Stiver]

The last few pages of posts have discussed an observation reported by TRE329 of an IBWO.

I have looked at his profile and done a bit of a forum search (without actually reading all 10,000 plus posts..Shudder!!) and I haven't been able to find where he/she actually identifies themselves by name. I may easily have missed it and would be happy to be corrected.

But if not, has the the question of the bird's existence descended to the point where an unknown person's observations are to be considered as part of the possible data available to prove the bird is still about? I doubt if there is a records committee anywhere who would even bother to consider this type of anonymous record for even a minor rarity.

 

[salar53]

Stand Corrected!

TRE329 very clearly gives his name and other details in the written notes which accompany his sketches of the possible IBWOs in post 9727 here.
His name likewise appeared on the IBWO.net site where he also posted his findings.

The last few pages of posts have discussed an observation reported by TRE329 of an IBWO.

I have looked at his profile and done a bit of a forum search (without actually reading all 10,000 plus posts..Shudder!!) and I haven't been able to find where he/she actually identifies themselves by name. I may easily have missed it and would be happy to be corrected.

But if not, has the the question of the bird's existence descended to the point where an unknown person's observations are to be considered as part of the possible data available to prove the bird is still about? I doubt if there is a records committee anywhere who would even bother to consider this type of anonymous record for even a minor rarity.

 

[humminbird]

The last few pages of posts have discussed an observation reported by TRE329 of an IBWO.

I have looked at his profile and done a bit of a forum search (without actually reading all 10,000 plus posts..Shudder!!) and I haven't been able to find where he/she actually identifies themselves by name. I may easily have missed it and would be happy to be corrected.

But if not, has the the question of the bird's existence descended to the point where an unknown person's observations are to be considered as part of the possible data available to prove the bird is still about? I doubt if there is a records committee anywhere who would even bother to consider this type of anonymous record for even a minor rarity.

No one has even hinted that he has presented it to a records committee anonymously. He reports presenting it to Cornell and to the USFWS and I am sure that in doing so he identified himself to them. This is a no starter. Sorry.

 

[Harold Stiver]

TRE329 very clearly gives his name and other details in the written notes which accompany his sketches of the possible IBWOs in post 9727 here.
His name likewise appeared on the IBWO.net site where he also posted his findings.

His name is indeed in the notes, thank you. I'm not sure what this tells us about him but it is at least "owned" by someone. The fact that he may have identified himself on another forum (IBWO.net) is, of course, not necessarily known here. I had looked at that forum but felt it was so one-sided in its belief that it didn't seem useful to me to spend a lot of time at.

No one has even hinted that he has presented it to a records committee anonymously.

I was not suggesting that he had submitted it anywhere. My point was that it seemed to me that an unsupported statement by a relatively unknown single observer was being treated by many members as very important when examining one of the biggest questions to face the birding community.Many members were discussing the details of the observation as if it was assumed to be completely accurate and the only question was in interperting those facts.

I am suggesting that area record committees would find it unsatisfactory as evidence, and that a question of this magnitude deserves at least that high a standard.

If it matters at all, my own belief is that the case for existence hasn't been proven but I think it still could be. And, of course, I hope it is.

 

[TRE329]

His name is indeed in the notes, thank you. I'm not sure what this tells us about him but it is at least "owned" by someone. The fact that he may have identified himself on another forum (IBWO.net) is, of course, not necessarily known here. I had looked at that forum but felt it was so one-sided in its belief that it didn't seem useful to me to spend a lot of time at.




I was not suggesting that he had submitted it anywhere. My point was that it seemed to me that an unsupported statement by a relatively unknown single observer was being treated by many members as very important when examining one of the biggest questions to face the birding community.Many members were discussing the details of the observation as if it was assumed to be completely accurate and the only question was in interperting those facts.

I am suggesting that area record committees would find it unsatisfactory as evidence, and that a question of this magnitude deserves at least that high a standard.

If it matters at all, my own belief is that the case for existence hasn't been proven but I think it still could be. And, of course, I hope it is.

My name is Ross Everett (not sure how that helps at all)everyone here and at ibwo.net knows that if they have taken the time to read.I am not asking a records committee or anyone else to validate my sighting.The only reason I am posting here or anywhere else is to gain knowledge from people who I believe are more knowledgable than I.I am certain of what I saw ,and I am in the process of being in the field studying and researching more.I am not just sitting here debating ,I am endeavoring to be proactive and research the subject.

 

[humminbird]

My point was that it seemed to me that an unsupported statement by a relatively unknown single observer was being treated by many members as very important when examining one of the biggest questions to face the birding community.Many members were discussing the details of the observation as if it was assumed to be completely accurate and the only question was in interperting those facts.

"Unsupported", except for some of the best field notes I have seen in a long time?
"relatively unknown single observer", need I remind anyone that we are all "relatively unknown" to everyone else on this board? Need I remind anyone that everyone is "relatively unknown" at some point and has to start somewhere. If we are basing judgement on how well the person is known it is highly subjective indeed. Look at the report please, not the reporter!

We have had comments made on the fact that at least two of those that have reported seeing these birds are "just hunters" and "not birders". In Europe this may hold some water, but in North America if you are going to hunt birds you had better be able to identify them. Shooting the wrong bird, in some cases even just the wrong gender, can cost you big time. Most bird hunters I know are a heck of a lot better at seeing the field marks long before experienced birders in the same group.

Let's stick with what is in the report and not who made it please!

 

[tizziec]

My name is Ross Everett (not sure how that helps at all)everyone here and at ibwo.net knows that if they have taken the time to read.I am not asking a records committee or anyone else to validate my sighting.The only reason I am posting here or anywhere else is to gain knowledge from people who I believe are more knowledgable than I.I am certain of what I saw ,and I am in the process of being in the field studying and researching more.I am not just sitting here debating ,I am endeavoring to be proactive and research the subject.

Personally i think it is silly that anyone would question you. You took your notes, made your call reported what YOU saw. What more can anyone ask for. KNown or not, there is no reason to question your notes. You saw what you saw and it's there. I am no where near educated enough to have an opinion on whether or not you saw teh ivory billed, but i DO know that it looks more than possible to me. I actually think a person simply witnessing it and not LOOKING for the sucker is more reliable as they are not like to see what is not there, just report what was sen simply. I would give you more credit than some of the people spending half their waking life seeking the bird.

thanks for sharing, and I wish my notes where that detailed LOL (well if I took notes that is, I pretty much bypass noted by never leaving my house without my camera )

 

[Harold Stiver]

We have had comments made on the fact that at least two of those that have reported seeing these birds are "just hunters" and "not birders".

I made no such comments.

Let's stick with what is in the report and not who made it please!

I disagree. I can make an extremely detailed report right now about my sighting of an IBWO while canoeing alone in Algonquin Park. I can describe every feather in detail and include some drawings. According to the rules you wish to use, this should be excellent evidence of the survival of the IBWO here in Canada if I write it well enough. I am saying it is not sufficent evidence. And having a multiple reports of this type in no way improves it as evidence.

I am not all saying that Mr. Everett may not be 100% honest and accurate, he may very well be. I am saying that a higher standard of evidence than this type of report is required to prove this case.

 

[emupilot]

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.

There is a difference between "can't see" and "didn't see" - the latter does not reflect on whether or not a feature exists, just that it was not noted. Whether or not one sees a feature can depend greatly on the background. Tyler Hicks noted the "glowing" white bill against a dark tree. If the bird is against a light background (like the sky), a light-colored feature will not be obvious, especially compared to higher contrast features like a black head and crest. Of course, the view has alot to do with it as well, as bill color is probably the least likely field mark you're going to see of a bird flyng away.

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.

Again, we agree that "proof" remains elusive. However, plumage abnormalities can be used to dismiss anything, even if such abnormalities realistically have a trillion to 1 chance of actually occurring. Your convoluted alternate plumage hypothesis to make a Pileated's underwing look like an Ivory-bill's is to me quite strained, but can we agree on the following as so spectacularly unlikely as to not be worthy of consideration:

- a Pileated which is both partially leucistic and partially melanistic in a manner as to match an Ivory-bill's field marks
- a Pileated which would require more than one unrelated plumage abnormality (like an Ivory-bill's wing pattern and a black crest, your comments on the view factor so noted)
- a Pileated which makes "kent" calls

The first photos (if obtained by people as opposed to an automated camera) are likely to be of a fleeing bird, and are not likely to show all the field marks. Further, searchers should not be put in the position of having to try to eliminate "possibilities" which are not really possible in this universe.

 

[Russ Jones]

I made no such comments.




I disagree. I can make an extremely detailed report right now about my sighting of an IBWO while canoeing alone in Algonquin Park. I can describe every feather in detail and include some drawings. According to the rules you wish to use, this should be excellent evidence of the survival of the IBWO here in Canada if I write it well enough. I am saying it is not sufficent evidence. And having a multiple reports of this type in no way improves it as evidence.

I am not all saying that Mr. Everett may not be 100% honest and accurate, he may very well be. I am saying that a higher standard of evidence than this type of report is required to prove this case.

Hi Harold,

We have had some communications in the past, we discused photography equipment via email (thanks for the advice). Its nice to see you here!

It is understandable that you wouldn't take an unknown persons report as fact, I am in the same boat. I don't know Tre either, or most other people on this thread for that matter. I do however accept certain reports as possibilies, and TRE has submitted to us a clear description of an IBWO. He might have seen an abbarent PIWO, he might be dishonest and it could all be nonsense...or he might have actually seen an IBWO. I think he deserves the chance to persue his bird without ridicule, without insults and charicter attacks and without harrasment (I am absolutly not insinuating you have done such things, but after following this thread for day one I have seen some pretty nasty stuff!). I appreciate that his findings are being shared with us, especially given the treatment most people recieve after reporting this species. Its not the time to judge peoples integrity IMO, it has been done relentlessly and has become somewhat pointless given that only a picture or video will be acceptable as proof. It is the time to be patient and wait for something more promising and definate. Maybe TRE will be the guy who produces it, maybe it'll be Mike, Cornell, Auburn/Windsor Universities, hunters, kayakers or whoever else is keeping their eyes open for it. Maybe proof will not come, ever... and we'll have to accept what we all hope isn't the case.

I always feel kinda sorry for the folks that think they saw one and decide to report it.... what would you do if you saw one? Would you report it? How would you take the critisism that is guaranteed to come? This has to be the toughest species to report in the history of bird reports...

Cheers,

Russ

PS anyone else notice how pleasant this place has been since Mr. Negative left for his trip? :h?:

 

[Bonsaibirder]

PS anyone else notice how pleasant this place has been since Mr. Negative left for his trip? :h?:

Humminbird will be telling you off for name-calling if you're not careful

 

[Jane Turner]

- a Pileated which is both partially leucistic and partially melanistic in a manner as to match an Ivory-bill's field marks
- a Pileated which would require more than one unrelated plumage abnormality

Though less common than full feather leucism, partial feather leucisim does occur - I'll dig up some pictures if you don't believe it. White tips to secondaries and black bases. That would obviate the (one in a million) need for melanistic underwing coverts and why it is essential that TRE gets a view that allows him to be clear about which feathers are white, and whether they are all white.

Edit:
I took a break from decorating to have a look:


Here are examples of partial leucism within feathers.


Common grackle with dark bases and tips to leucistic primaries and secondaries, and white bases to dark tipped greater covets. http://www.ksbirds.org/gallery/grahamjuvcg.jpg

Carrion crow with white primaries and black-tipped white secondaries: http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=66077

American Crow
http://www.crowbusters.com/oddities/oddity1.jpg

Marsh Harrier with white tips and dark bases (and lots of white coverts, scaps etc) http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=62150

I can't find an example of Pileated Woodpecker with partial leucisim of its secondaries online, but it would be tadge hypocritical of you to use that as proof that they do not exist!

 

[Jane Turner]

There is a difference between "can't see" and "didn't see" - the latter does not reflect on whether or not a feature exists, just that it was not noted.

You mean like red in the crest?

It does absolutely reflect on how obvious the feature was or the viewing conditions however.

The bird may well have been silhouetted against a bright sky and very distant- that would explain why luminous bill wasn't obvious on a bird that turned to look at the observer. If that was the case, how safe is the observation that there was no red in the crest. It was not possible to see red in the crest would be the accuate statement.

 

[humminbird]

It is understandable that you wouldn't take an unknown persons report as fact, I am in the same boat. I don't know Tre either, or most other people on this thread for that matter. I do however accept certain reports as possibilies, and TRE has submitted to us a clear description of an IBWO. He might have seen an abbarent PIWO, he might be dishonest and it could all be nonsense...or he might have actually seen an IBWO. I think he deserves the chance to persue his bird without ridicule, without insults and charicter attacks and without harrasment (I am absolutly not insinuating you have done such things, but after following this thread for day one I have seen some pretty nasty stuff!). I appreciate that his findings are being shared with us, especially given the treatment most people recieve after reporting this species. Its not the time to judge peoples integrity IMO, it has been done relentlessly and has become somewhat pointless given that only a picture or video will be acceptable as proof. It is the time to be patient and wait for something more promising and definate. Maybe TRE will be the guy who produces it, maybe it'll be Mike, Cornell, Auburn/Windsor Universities, hunters, kayakers or whoever else is keeping their eyes open for it. Maybe proof will not come, ever... and we'll have to accept what we all hope isn't the case.
Russ

Very well stated sir. Thank you.

 

[humminbird]

Humminbird will be telling you off for name-calling if you're not careful

I'm sure you noticed I deleted what I felt was unnecessary in my response.

 

[emupilot]

Though less common than full feather leucism, partial feather leucisim does occur - I'll dig up some pictures if you don't believe it. White tips to secondaries and black bases. That would obviate the (one in a million) need for melanistic underwing coverts and why it is essential that TRE gets a view that allows him to be clear about which feathers are white, and whether they are all white.

Edit:
I took a break from decorating to have a look:


Here are examples of partial leucism within feathers.


Common grackle with dark bases and tips to leucistic primaries and secondaries, and white bases to dark tipped greater covets. http://www.ksbirds.org/gallery/grahamjuvcg.jpg

Carrion crow with white primaries and black-tipped white secondaries: http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=66077

American Crow
http://www.crowbusters.com/oddities/oddity1.jpg

Marsh Harrier with white tips and dark bases (and lots of white coverts, scaps etc) http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=62150

I can't find an example of Pileated Woodpecker with partial leucisim of its secondaries online, but it would be tadge hypocritical of you to use that as proof that they do not exist!

I did not say that it was impossible for a Pileated to have black-based white secondaries and inner primaries, just highly unlikely. Just because it hasn't been documented doesn't mean it's impossible, nor do weird corvids demonstrate that Pileateds show such patterns. Based on the lack of observations of Pileateds with leucistic patterns approximating what you suggest, it seems like such birds could represent on the order of maybe a millionth of the Pileated Woodpecker population if they exist at all. Leucistic Pileateds certainly can't explain the "kent" calls TRE heard the bird make in his initial sighting.

It was not possible to see red in the crest would be the accuate statement.

Sorry, but I don't think you are in a position to tell TRE what he did or did not see. TRE has been emphatic that the head and crest were specifically black. Seeing as the view from a swamp in Arkansas is alot better than from 5,000 miles away, I think we should give deference to him in determining what is or is not possible to see.

 

[Jane Turner]

I did not say that it was impossible for a Pileated to have black-based white secondaries and inner primaries, just highly unlikely.

Sorry - I thought you had said that it required simultaneous leucisism in the flight feathers and melanisim in the under wing coverts (a very unlikely event) - I was just pointing out that it didn't. Did you notice the leucistic Golden-fronted Woodie posted on BF today. The most interesting thing was that the bird (a male) was the dominant bird of ten local males. Being a predominantly black and white bird makes it much less of a handicap to carry odd white patches. Where the aberrant white is of genetic as opposed to stress/dietary deficiency related origins, you might see how there might be local densities of leucistic birds.

 

[choupique1]

Humminbird will be telling you off for name-calling if you're not careful

on both sides of the fence... and pond

 

[humminbird]

on both sides of the fence... and pond

Correction - on neither side of the fence. I would like to believe this bird exists, and am convinced some pretty strong indications of the bird have been presented, but proof is still outstanding. Nor am I convinced that a photo will ever be accepted as proof - I think video will be required, of a very good series of photos that could not have been posed.