Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (6 Viewers)

[HASnyder]

Noel just back from USFWS IBWO conference in Louisiana last week. Says the unofficial, "between the lines" mood was basically that it's over, funds for searching drying up, nobody's holding out a lot of hope including some of the Cornell folks there. He says the talk he found the most interesting was on cerambycids and how the larvae are incredibly abundant - no way IBWO could be food-limited were it around today, also data cited that half the diet of most wp species is plant matter, not just insects. He visited the Singer Tract, parts of which are now well timbered again and looking good.

 

[salar53]

Noel just back from USFWS IBWO conference in Louisiana last week. Says mood was basically that it's over, funds for searching drying up, nobody's holding out a lot of hope including some of the Cornell folks there. He says the talk he found the most interesting was on cerambycids and how the larvae are incredibly abundant - no way IBWO could be food-limited were it around today, also data cited that half the diet of most wp species is plant matter, not just insects. He visited the Singer Tract, parts of which are now well timbered again and looking good.

Well, how profoundly sad, if true. How woefully depressing.

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker used to breed as far north as Indiana. Then you were into Michigan, the Great Lakes and Canada.

No more.

How profoundly sad.

What have we done?

 

[Microtus]

When did Ivory-bills breed in Indiana?

 

[rob stoff]

When did Ivory-bills breed in Indiana?

never:

http://www.audubon.org/bird/ivory/IBWP_maps.php

Rob

 

[salar53]

After Death

When did Ivory-bills breed in Indiana?

Presumably they bred in Indiana in the early 1800s and before.
I got my information from John James Audubon's magnificent "Birds of America" which was published in the early nineteenth century. He writes:

"In Kentucky and Indiana, the Ivory-bills seldom raise more than one brood in the season."

This means, of course, that even as far north as Indiana, not so very far from the Great Lakes, they occasionally bred TWICE in a season.

Even the great Audubon was a man of his times for he collected (shot) Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. He gives this sad account of how they behaved sometimes after having been shot:

"They sometimes cling to the bark with their claws so firmly, as to remain cramped to the spot for several hours after death."

 

[Microtus]

Thank you, Rob and Salar.

I understand that Audubon wrote about and painted some of his birds from memory many years after the fact. Therefore some of his work may not be completely accurate.

 

[salar53]

never:

http://www.audubon.org/bird/ivory/IBWP_maps.php

Rob

Your historical map which you refer to in order to show that the Ivory-billed woodpecker never nested in Indiana demonstates that the bird was indeed present in Illinois, Tennessee and Kentucky. No argument there.

But there is a sizeable portion of another state in your map which is also coloured white.

I believe that that part of the other state is in the general Evansville area of ............ Indiana.

So perhaps () Audubon was right after all.

 

[Fred Virrazzi]

Inexperienced authors tend to flock

'Although it is always possible to invent rationales to explain the lack of conclusive evidence, available evidence indicates that the ivory-billed woodpecker probably became extinct in the southeastern United States by the middle of the twentieth century.'

The Evidence Standards paper makes many glaring “omissions and commissions” themselves in regards to IBWO, community needs and general standards The problems and logical failings range from amusing to unsubstantiated claims. There is merit to exploring the issue, however.

In the amusing camp, the authors had to add at the last moment recent news that the Wolverine was CONFIRMED and rediscovered in CA after only anecdotal reports for 85 years. Some of the anecdotal Fisher reports were also confirmed as true. On the IBWO there was recently a video taken in LA that at a minimum suggests IBWO and also has implications that could further indicate the Luneau video features an IBWO. The Luneau video shows a leveling off woodpecker still maintaining a 7.5 Hz which I believe has never been shown this far after takeoff for any PIWO. The recent AR video shows a putative IBWO with a speed and Hz also unheard of for PIWO but similar to the empirical Hz that an IBWO should have and not PIWO. A third party reports kents in area this week. Certainly this is convenient time to pull the plug. ?

As usual there is no new or even mundane SE US field data of their own presented. It's the usual pedantic lecture on what is or isn't unequivocal…….unequivocal meaning what they advise us is unequivocal and nothing short of that can possibly justify the several million dollars spent on habitat preservation. Preservation of land for many species including potential IBWO habitat (even by their own anecdotal evidence definition) is not wasting funds. Unless we consider expanding one of the greatest preserves on the Mississippi River flyway counterproductive to the conservation of thousands of species.

This is not a simple Rare Bird Committee problem that some keep dragging us back to. A more prudent paper would be one dealing with levels of evidence needed to begin agreed upon general conservation effort when a rare KEYSTONE species is hypothetically extant. If habitat is preserved while the necessary research/debate goes on, common to rare spp. can be saved while the level of evidence may reach the desired unequivocal level that all say they truly desire.

(Note that many, including the AR BRC, have not recognized that any of the papers after the initial Science paper have debunked the original accepted claim that IBWO persists so the AR evidence remains unequivocal to some).

It’s disingenuous if you claim that conservation and the very essence of the scientific method is at stake and then hold back philosophical support to obtain the level of evidence you are so adamant is needed. Forked tongues are noticed. True scientific colleagues do not demand something and then deprive the tools to satisfy the demands. The subject authors and wannabes that would like to claim the species extinct “since ~1950” would serve their reputations well to make some phone calls to some of the searchers and review all the recent data/evidence.

Two or more weeks in the field would also be an evidently novel approach for some before they claim omnipotent knowledge of a species’ status over the last 58 years. At least dedicate a whooping 60 minutes in the SE field for every year you claim the species was extinct.

If authors want to gloss over and leave data sets completely unexplained such as putative sightings (21 in small area of N FL), temporally and spatially matching ARU and other acoustical evidence (200+ kents and knocks, some matched to sightings) and a few very suggestive videos from N FL they do so at a high risk of calling a species prematurely extinct. That undoubtedly is the goal for some since their false fear of wasting conservation money has been stated as paramount to all else.

Via bibliography review, we see the authors have not looked at the video evidence from outside FL that Dr Hill of Auburn describes as the best available video. Other careless authors who recently and authoritatively declared this species extinct, with no pertinent field data of their own, will love the company. They’re pot committed which overrides the other cliché of “stop digging when in a hole”. Bigger holes fit more self-appointed clairvoyants able to survey millions of acres from their offices.

To let any hypothetically extant species of this stature go neglected by vetoing land acquisition and reasonable survey funds is stringing the following mistakes together:

Not allowing time for survey methodology to be revised as needed (e.g. reduce number of surveyors, permit only the best that have “big ears” and innovative survey methods, eliminate all unnecessary field banter and measurement of trees, cavities, transects, stop searching when the birds are most silent and vulnerable (late winter ), etc.).

Do not throw out as insufficient, repeated field reports and notes of competent observers (the basis of all field ornithology).

Confusing the concept of extinction with the fact that time has been needed for engineers to fiddle with technology (e.g. cameras), provide time for average field surveyors and poor photographers to become slightly more proficient at taking pixs.

Placing conservation ethics hostage to the crude and simple “yes it exists or no it doesn’t” scale as proposed by these authors shows how divorced they are from what timely species conservation is, and what the community needs and wants. Many want conservation centric solutions that take into account the scores of competent reports of this species recently. Land acquisition in riparian corridors and buffers is never wrong.

Finally the authors proposed scale makes it arbitrarily harder for certain types of species to be considered unequivocally confirmed. The rarest, historically difficult to photograph, perhaps. most in need, most wary, most vagile, relatively intelligent species with the largest home range will take the longest to confirm yet there has been no patience from the many who have protested dollar one. Any scale that artificially makes it exceedingly prohibitive to confirm a species and connects this confirmation with conservation/survey funding is destined to contribute to the extinction of these types of species.

We need an innovative scale, with general habitat preservation goals that all can live with. Not needed is an institutionalized matrix that damns the poor species that dares to fly away, doesn’t pose and can’t be captured by cameras with focal distances of 3 feet and with infrareds setups that are rarely triggered by insulated birds.

Good birdin/

Fv




BioScience Volume 58, 549-555 (2008)
Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards Kevin S. McKelvey, Keith B. Aubry, and Michael K. Schwartz
Abstract.Anecdotal occurrence data (unverifiable observations of organisms or their sign) and inconclusive physical data are often used to assess the current and historical ranges of rare or elusive species. However, the use of such data for species conservation can lead to large errors of omission and commission, which can influence the allocation of limited funds and the efficacy of subsequent conservation efforts. We present three examples of biological misunderstandings, all of them with significant conservation implications, that resulted from the acceptance of anecdotal observations as empirical evidence. To avoid such errors, we recommend that a priori standards constrain the acceptance of occurrence data, with more stringent standards applied to the data for rare species. Because data standards are likely to be taxon specific, professional societies should develop specific evidentiary standards to use when assessing occurrence data for their taxa of interest.[/QUOTE]

 

[rob stoff]

'Although it is always possible to invent rationales to explain the lack of conclusive evidence, available evidence indicates that the ivory-billed woodpecker probably became extinct in the southeastern United States by the middle of the twentieth century.'

The Evidence Standards paper makes many glaring “omissions and commissions” themselves in regards to IBWO, community needs and general standards The problems and logical failings range from amusing to unsubstantiated claims. There is merit to exploring the issue, however.

In the amusing camp, the authors had to add at the last moment recent news that the Wolverine was CONFIRMED and rediscovered in CA after only anecdotal reports for 85 years. Some of the anecdotal Fisher reports were also confirmed as true. On the IBWO there was recently a video taken in LA that at a minimum suggests IBWO and also has implications that could further indicate the Luneau video features an IBWO. The Luneau video shows a leveling off woodpecker still maintaining a 7.5 Hz which I believe has never been shown this far after takeoff for any PIWO. The recent AR video shows a putative IBWO with a speed and Hz also unheard of for PIWO but similar to the empirical Hz that an IBWO should have and not PIWO. A third party reports kents in area this week. Certainly this is convenient time to pull the plug. ?

As usual there is no new or even mundane SE US field data of their own presented. It's the usual pedantic lecture on what is or isn't unequivocal…….unequivocal meaning what they advise us is unequivocal and nothing short of that can possibly justify the several million dollars spent on habitat preservation. Preservation of land for many species including potential IBWO habitat (even by their own anecdotal evidence definition) is not wasting funds. Unless we consider expanding one of the greatest preserves on the Mississippi River flyway counterproductive to the conservation of thousands of species.

This is not a simple Rare Bird Committee problem that some keep dragging us back to. A more prudent paper would be one dealing with levels of evidence needed to begin agreed upon general conservation effort when a rare KEYSTONE species is hypothetically extant. If habitat is preserved while the necessary research/debate goes on, common to rare spp. can be saved while the level of evidence may reach the desired unequivocal level that all say they truly desire.

(Note that many, including the AR BRC, have not recognized that any of the papers after the initial Science paper have debunked the original accepted claim that IBWO persists so the AR evidence remains unequivocal to some).

It’s disingenuous if you claim that conservation and the very essence of the scientific method is at stake and then hold back philosophical support to obtain the level of evidence you are so adamant is needed. Forked tongues are noticed. True scientific colleagues do not demand something and then deprive the tools to satisfy the demands. The subject authors and wannabes that would like to claim the species extinct “since ~1950” would serve their reputations well to make some phone calls to some of the searchers and review all the recent data/evidence.

Two or more weeks in the field would also be an evidently novel approach for some before they claim omnipotent knowledge of a species’ status over the last 58 years. At least dedicate a whooping 60 minutes in the SE field for every year you claim the species was extinct.

If authors want to gloss over and leave data sets completely unexplained such as putative sightings (21 in small area of N FL), temporally and spatially matching ARU and other acoustical evidence (200+ kents and knocks, some matched to sightings) and a few very suggestive videos from N FL they do so at a high risk of calling a species prematurely extinct. That undoubtedly is the goal for some since their false fear of wasting conservation money has been stated as paramount to all else.

Via bibliography review, we see the authors have not looked at the video evidence from outside FL that Dr Hill of Auburn describes as the best available video. Other careless authors who recently and authoritatively declared this species extinct, with no pertinent field data of their own, will love the company. They’re pot committed which overrides the other cliché of “stop digging when in a hole”. Bigger holes fit more self-appointed clairvoyants able to survey millions of acres from their offices.

To let any hypothetically extant species of this stature go neglected by vetoing land acquisition and reasonable survey funds is stringing the following mistakes together:

Not allowing time for survey methodology to be revised as needed (e.g. reduce number of surveyors, permit only the best that have “big ears” and innovative survey methods, eliminate all unnecessary field banter and measurement of trees, cavities, transects, stop searching when the birds are most silent and vulnerable (late winter ), etc.).

Do not throw out as insufficient, repeated field reports and notes of competent observers (the basis of all field ornithology).

Confusing the concept of extinction with the fact that time has been needed for engineers to fiddle with technology (e.g. cameras), provide time for average field surveyors and poor photographers to become slightly more proficient at taking pixs.

Placing conservation ethics hostage to the crude and simple “yes it exists or no it doesn’t” scale as proposed by these authors shows how divorced they are from what timely species conservation is, and what the community needs and wants. Many want conservation centric solutions that take into account the scores of competent reports of this species recently. Land acquisition in riparian corridors and buffers is never wrong.

Finally the authors proposed scale makes it arbitrarily harder for certain types of species to be considered unequivocally confirmed. The rarest, historically difficult to photograph, perhaps. most in need, most wary, most vagile, relatively intelligent species with the largest home range will take the longest to confirm yet there has been no patience from the many who have protested dollar one. Any scale that artificially makes it exceedingly prohibitive to confirm a species and connects this confirmation with conservation/survey funding is destined to contribute to the extinction of these types of species.

We need an innovative scale, with general habitat preservation goals that all can live with. Not needed is an institutionalized matrix that damns the poor species that dares to fly away, doesn’t pose and can’t be captured by cameras with focal distances of 3 feet and with infrareds setups that are rarely triggered by insulated birds.

Good birdin/

Fv




BioScience Volume 58, 549-555 (2008)
Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards Kevin S. McKelvey, Keith B. Aubry, and Michael K. Schwartz
Abstract.Anecdotal occurrence data (unverifiable observations of organisms or their sign) and inconclusive physical data are often used to assess the current and historical ranges of rare or elusive species. However, the use of such data for species conservation can lead to large errors of omission and commission, which can influence the allocation of limited funds and the efficacy of subsequent conservation efforts. We present three examples of biological misunderstandings, all of them with significant conservation implications, that resulted from the acceptance of anecdotal observations as empirical evidence. To avoid such errors, we recommend that a priori standards constrain the acceptance of occurrence data, with more stringent standards applied to the data for rare species. Because data standards are likely to be taxon specific, professional societies should develop specific evidentiary standards to use when assessing occurrence data for their taxa of interest.

[/QUOTE]

have you seen one?

Rob

 

[rob stoff]

Your historical map which you refer to in order to show that the Ivory-billed woodpecker never nested in Indiana demonstates that the bird was indeed present in Illinois, Tennessee and Kentucky. No argument there.

But there is a sizeable portion of another state in your map which is also coloured white.

I believe that that part of the other state is in the general Evansville area of ............ Indiana.

So perhaps () Audubon was right after all.

nope, the white area (along the Ohio River) definitely falls short of the Indiana border... and its not my historical map, it is the map of the Audubon Society.

Audubon himself is a little unclear about the species range in Birds of America, he does refer to Indiana but also states that the bird is found near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi and also upstream and downstream on the latter, not mentioning whether it occurs upstream on the Ohio at all. Pehaps it did once occur in Indiana but there is no unequivocal evidence of that, perhaps Audubon was thinking of Illinois and just wrote Indiana by mistake when refering to it being single brooded there, who knows?

Rob

 

[HASnyder]

"They sometimes cling to the bark with their claws so firmly, as to remain cramped to the spot for several hours after death."

Just in from a long night in the field (Spotted Owls), and this may be the beer typing, but the above seems a metaphor for diehard IBWO believers ...

 

[HASnyder]

Anyone who has birded for any length of time here (US) has seen birds that used the Choctaw.

tks Fv

Anybody have a glimmer as to what this is supposed to mean?

 

[salar53]

nope, the white area (along the Ohio River) definitely falls short of the Indiana border... and its not my historical map, it is the map of the Audubon Society.

Audubon himself is a little unclear about the species range in Birds of America, he does refer to Indiana but also states that the bird is found near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi and also upstream and downstream on the latter, not mentioning whether it occurs upstream on the Ohio at all. Pehaps it did once occur in Indiana but there is no unequivocal evidence of that, perhaps Audubon was thinking of Illinois and just wrote Indiana by mistake when refering to it being single brooded there, who knows?

Rob

The southern part of Indiana shares the Ohio River as a border with Kentucky. The Ohio River is - how shall I phrase this? - depicted as a wiggly line on the map which you have linked to.
There is a largeish area of white to the north of this wiggly line!
Therefore there is a distinct area of white NORTH OF THE OHIO RIVER.

North of the Ohio River, in the map of the Audubon Society which you have linked to, is ...............Indiana.

I rest Audubon's case!

 

[rob stoff]

The southern part of Indiana shares the Ohio River as a border with Kentucky. The Ohio River is - how shall I phrase this? - depicted as a wiggly line on the map which you have linked to.
There is a largeish area of white to the north of this wiggly line!
Therefore there is a distinct area of white NORTH OF THE OHIO RIVER.

North of the Ohio River, in the map of the Audubon Society which you have linked to, is ...............Indiana.

I rest Audubon's case!

that's Illinois north of the Ohio River, Indiana is a little further north and east...

Indiana State Records Committee do not list IBWO in their checklist though they do include other extinct species such as Passenger Pigeon and Carolina Parakeet:

http://www.indianaaudubon.org/ibrc/offcklst.htm#picidae

Whatever you might think IBWO is not officially recorded as occurring in Indiana

Rob

 

[salar53]

that's Illinois north of the Ohio River, Indiana is a little further north and east...

Rob

Drat! I have to admit you're right, of course. So I can only hope that Audubon was right too, about Indiana.

 

[MMinNY]

True, in the narrowest sense that it is not "officially recorded" on the State Records Committe list, as if such lists were the sole arbiter of truth. There are other 19th-century reports from Indiana:

http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/collections/butlerbirds/order13.html

Similarly, there are historical records from as far West as Kansas City, which doesn't come close to showing up on the Audubon map:

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v008n02/p0174-p0186.pdf

that's Illinois north of the Ohio River, Indiana is a little further north and east...

Indiana State Records Committee do not list IBWO in their checklist though they do include other extinct species such as Passenger Pigeon and Carolina Parakeet:

http://www.indianaaudubon.org/ibrc/offcklst.htm#picidae

Whatever you might think IBWO is not officially recorded as occurring in Indiana

Rob

 

[rob stoff]

True, in the narrowest sense that it is not "officially recorded" on the State Records Committe list, as if such lists were the sole arbiter of truth. There are other 19th-century reports from Indiana:

http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/collections/butlerbirds/order13.html

Similarly, there are historical records from as far West as Kansas City, which doesn't come close to showing up on the Audubon map:

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v008n02/p0174-p0186.pdf

well there appear to be no specimens collected in Indiana, its not as if this species hasn't caused identification problems, I'm not surprised the Indiana Records Committee are unconvinced

Rob

 

[pcoin]

Historical range IBWO/Cornell now skeptical!

well there appear to be no specimens collected in Indiana, its not as if this species hasn't caused identification problems, I'm not surprised the Indiana Records Committee are unconvinced

Rob

For a quite thorough discussion of the historic range of the IBWO, I think one should look at Jerome Jackson's account in Cornell's Birds of North America--this is the one species account they have free on-line for that otherwise fee site. Jackson cites records form Illinois and Indiana. He mentions "SE Missouri", but not western Missouri, which is the location of Kansas City. Jackson does mention a possible record from western Illinois, based on bones found in a Native American midden.

Regarding Audubon, Jackson mentioned that Audubon stated the bird was found as far north as Maryland, but there is no other documentation of this. As far as I know, the northernmost record on the Atlantic Seaboard is Alexander Wilson's from the Wilmington, NC area. I enjoy Audubon's writing, and he was a brilliant, but quirky reporter of natural history. Many of his observations are extremely accurate, but others are less reliable, especially in details. I think it is wise to remember that much of the Ornithological Biography was written in his later years (1827 onward, according to Wikipedia). Like most professional authors, he was under pressure to finish the publication and sell it. Also, according to this article, much of the prose was written by his wife, Lucy, and by his collaborator, the great Scottish ornithologist William MacGillivray, who did not, as far as I know, actually visit North America. So I think one should take details from Audubon's writings with the proverbial grain of salt.
Likewise, on the possibility of two broods per year, see Jackson on IBWO breeding: "...there is no firm evidence that Ivory-bills ever produced two broods/season."

Which leads me to the other interesting observation about Cornell. The Introductionto the BNA account had originally trumpeted the 2004 rediscovery. Compare the January 2006 version from the Internet Archive:

Editor's Note: April 2005 -- Ivory-billed Woodpecker rediscovered in eastern Arkansas! The Big Woods Conservation Partnership launched an unprecedented search effort for this species after credible sight reports emerged from the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge in 2004. Acoustic and video documentation since then confirm the earlier sightings. This account will be updated soon to reflect these developments, but the basics of the life history information here remain accurate and unchanged. This is an extraordinary species that we might have the chance to study again.​

with the current version, apparently from January 2008:

Editor's Note: January 2008 -- Despite considerable press attention, Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports from Arkansas, Florida, and elsewhere from 2004 to 2007 remain unverified. An unprecedented search across the species' former range continues, with the Big Woods Conservation Partnership and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service coordinating efforts. This account will be updated to reflect any developments. Basic life history information in this account remains accurate and unchanged. This is an extraordinary species that we all hope is not lost. Read more about search efforts at the CLO website, or BNA contributer Louis Bevier's site, or on the entry for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker in the Sibley's Field Guide.​

This is incredible. Here, on a Cornell University web site, is open skepticism. Reports from 2004-07 are unverified! (From 2005-2007 they were confirmed, sort of the opposite of unverified.) They link to Cornell's own site, but then, in close juxtaposition, to sites of two notable skeptics. Ouch! That has got to hurt the Cornell Ivorybill team, a stab in the back from their own colleagues!

 

[rob stoff]

For a quite thorough discussion of the historic range of the IBWO, I think one should look at Jerome Jackson's account in Cornell's Birds of North America--this is the one species account they have free on-line for that otherwise fee site. Jackson cites records form Illinois and Indiana.

Jackson's references for Indiana all seem to stem from the same source: Haymond, R. 1869. Birds of Franklin County, Indiana. Indiana Geological Survey Annu. Rep. 1: 209–235. There doesn't seem to be any supplementary documentation in that state, just one report from a Geological survey, not too convincing really and no doubt why the BNA map and Indiana RC do not reflect its occurrence there. That's not to say that IBWO never occurred in Indiana, it may have done once, but there is no compelling evidence of this.

Rob

 

[Louis Bevier]

WARNING: incoming boredons!!

As far as the Ivory-bill's status in Indiana goes, I think it remains uncertain based on historical accounts. It may have occurred in precolonial times if one assumes the native American archaeological sites with skeletal material from southern Ohio reflect natural occurrence as opposed to material carried there as part of a prominent trade known to have existed (see Jackson's BNA account).

The best reference that bears on the distribution in this region may be Robert Mengel's "The Birds of Kentucky" (1965; Ornithological Monographs No. 3). On page 308 of that book, Mengel summarizes the historical accounts quite clearly, both with regard to the former range in Kentucky and adjacent states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Mengel places Audubon's text in context and shows how it is contradictory. As Patrick Coin has pointed out, Audubon's text is a mix of his own experiences and those of his correspondents (and perhaps other contributing authors).

Here is Mengel's summary of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's status in Kentucky:

"Formerly resident along the Mississippi River and the lower Ohio River upstream to an undetermined point; distribution elsewhere in the state unknown; not recorded in the present century."

Mengel also cites Audubon, who on page 341 of volume II (1831 for part of volume II in which this appears) he says:

"Descending the Ohio, we meet with this splendid bird for the first time near the confluence of that beautiful river and the Mississippi."

Okay, that is well south and west of Indiana, but just 85 straight-line. It is important to note, however, that Audubon lived at Henderson, Kentucky, which lies across the Ohio River opposite southwesternmost Indiana. Audubon made no explicit mention of the species at Henderson or nearby, although as Mengel points out, Audubon did make an "oblique reference (op. cit., p. 344) to nesting "in Kentucky and Indiana."" This is the reference to which Salar refers.

Mengel goes on to say:

"The species probably occurred up the Ohio River at least to the mouth of the Wabash, but actual evidence of its former presence in Illinois appears to consist solely of a faded recollection of Ridgway's (1889: 375), and Butler's early Indiana records (1897: 829) are anything but convincing."

It is also important to note that the Haymond (1869) reference cited by Butler (1897; and linked to URL above) is for Franklin Co., Indiana. That is at the extreme eastern edge of Indiana and north of the Ohio River by a good margin. That would take some explanation, I think. I don't have "The Birds of Indiana" (1984) by Russell Mumford and Charles Keller, but that would be important for someone to look at on this issue. I'm sure the Indiana records committee has done that and not found anything substantive. It is important to remember that committees evaluate the strength of evidence (descriptions, specimens, photos, recordings, etc.) and make judgements in light of the historical record; committees do not validate or invalidate records, contrary to popular belief (I said this in 1990; see page 146 here) It seems likely that no convincing records are known for Indiana.

Lastly,

The Luneau video shows a leveling off woodpecker still maintaining a 7.5 Hz which I believe has never been shown this far after takeoff for any PIWO.

I recorded exactly that for Pileated Woodpecker as reported at the bottom of this page on my web site: "In one case, I measured 8.8 Hz for the first 5 cycles, 8.2 Hz over the first 9 cycles combined, and 7.5 Hz over 12 cycles with a duration of about 3 seconds."