On the website for PBS's "Nova ScienceNow" Ivory-bill segment (Jan. 11) there is a 'comment' section -- I thought this one was worth a small chuckle:
"I could not help but notice while watching the [Luneau] video that the two expert ornithologists [John Fitzpatrick and Jerome Jackson] would be hard to distinguish in a clip as blurry as the disputed woodpecker clip."
In case you're not aware of the surprising similarity that is being referred to go to this page for a good pair of pictures, that makes the commenter's case well:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3302/03-ask.html
And on a completely different note, another one of those pesky leucistic Pileateds has been reported in Arkansas -- this one by Dan Scheiman (with the Cornell recovery team) on the AR. birding listserv:
"A woman near Heber Springs reported a partially leucistic Pileated...actually, sounds more like a MOSTLY(not just partially) leucistic individual that no doubt could easily be confused with.... an Ivory Gull with a severe head wound, but not much else (...except maybe a leucistic Ivory-bill!). Anyway, still awaiting a good photo or videotape of one of these oversized leucistic Pileateds with symmetrical trailing white wing edges...
Woodpecker -- all white with a red crest. The photos are nothing more than
a white blob, but her inital impression of a woodpecker and her description
of the behavior are telling."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 comments:
Me to, I'm a leucistic Pileated skeptic, and can't believe they can't get a good pic. or video of it.
I think this will me my new blog I'll pay google some money and poof, my ego will be full.
Who cares if I'm dead wrong.
Good thinking!
When Jim Bednarz says he saw several abnormal Pileateds in the search area, maybe he is mistaken.
When Ken Rosenberg says he's seen clear photographs of abnormal Pileateds in the search area, maybe he is mistaken.
When Cornell searcher Sharon S. says she's seen VIDEO of an abnormal Pileated, maybe she is mistaken.
Those assumptions all make perfect sense to me!
So are you one of those who believe what the searchers say about Pileateds but not what they say about IBWOs?
Double standards and assumptions can be dangerous?
Double standards and assumptions can be dangerous?
Works both ways, doesn't it? Except there's photos of the Pileateds.
Either they've seen the photos and they're hiding contrary evidence, or they haven't, and their credibility is shot.
It would be easy to be wrong about glimpses, and not so easy to be wrong about photos.
Either they've seen the photos and they're hiding contrary evidence, or they haven't, and their credibility is shot.
I don't understand the second half of this sentence. Please explain.
Post a Comment