-- Heading Toward Summer --

--------------------------------------------------------

 Generally, I hope to post this summer (maybe remainder of year) primarily only when there is something truly significant regarding ongoing searches or new evidence (and not anticipating that will be very often)… but, will occasionally touch base on other matters:

1)  The National Aviary pre-print has received very widespread coverage in the popular press, and am surprised it has not had more extensive, detailed attention in places like BirdForum.net, BirdChat, ID Frontiers, or other listservs; there’s been some attention and criticism, just not as much of a deep-dive as one might expect (indeed, probably as much mockery/sarcasm on social media as serious discussion). Similarly, there must be at least a half-dozen significant birders/ornithologists, who have not weighed in on the paper. Again, don’t know if all this relative silence is because they are mulling over the research (perhaps even busy writing a counter-response to it, though not likely unless it makes it into a journal), or because they find the whole subject so preposterous at this point as to be unworthy of a response???  I’ll reiterate missing Bill Pulliam’s voice (deceased), as he would’ve undoubtedly had his own analysis of it.

There has been some quickie responses and back-and-forth at the main Facebook Ivory-bill site, where things are rarely resolved. Now with over 2900 followers that site is taking on the flavor of former BirdForum threads from years ago, which often devolved into food fights. On the good side, it’s nice to see greatly increased interest in the IBWO, and good also to see skeptics come on board the site (which at one time was largely believers preaching to the choir, but now gets at least some varied views and pushback to a lot of shallow ideas); on the downside, the crappy FB platform makes the discussions very disjointed and difficult to follow in a logical manner. And with so many new people coming on board the redundancy/repetition can be tiresome; same issues, questions, thoughts, ideas, debates, etc. etc. continually being re-addressed; sometimes leaving a feeling of walking endlessly in circles and getting nowhere. But for all the chaff and rehashed material one must follow the site for the occasional nuggets that do pop up.

2)  Re-iterating again that the flurry of recent IBWO publicity is generating lots of new claims and old reports (almost every week in social media!) from inexperienced observers, with little credibility, (while granting, anything is possible). As I emphasized before, the downside of all this fresh fervor (usually going nowhere), is to convert more and more agnostic folks into skeptics; so just be judicious in what you take seriously out there. It can be a minefield!

--------------------------------------------------------

— A Li'l Follow-up to the Project Principalis Pre-print — +Addenda

 ——————————————————                                             

  

I need to just go ahead and post this before it becomes unwieldy (have already whacked a third of it away, opting for more general and less detailed analysis):

Reaction to the Project Principalis paper has fallen largely along pretty predictably-entrenched lines. I guess no surprise, though honestly I was a bit taken aback by the speed and divergency of opinions. Auburn’s Geoff Hill was quick out of the gate to call the research virtually conclusive of IBWO presence… for which he received a lot of pushback… and as someone highly-invested in seeing the species documented Dr. Hill’s view and objectivity will naturally be questioned. Other long-time believers similarly spoke well of the work. A couple of somewhat more centrist takes came from evolutionary (and sometimes controversial) biologist Jerry Coyne in his blogpiece:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/04/11/is-the-ivory-billed-woodpecker-still-with-us/

…and also from British press The Guardian:

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/13/ivory-bill-woodpecker-not-extinct-researchers-say

There have been many other moderately pro and con takes that I won’t bother to cite (and will no doubt be many more) -- one reason I whacked a third of what I had written is because I was trying to cover all the commentaries and opinions coming along, but there were just toooo many, so moved to a more general overview.

Swiftly there were a slew of critiques of the work, from those dedicated to the denier camp — while I agree there are potential problems with the presentation, I was still surprised by the quickness and certainty of some of the attacks. But there you go… that’s where we’re at. The only positive thing I can say in that regard is that there are also several major IBWO critics who I've not yet seen come forward with an opinion… does that mean they are mulling it over or that they find some value in the work… or do they just not care any longer and wish the topic would fade away? Time will tell.

A lot of the criticism/debate, quite naturally, is focused on the videos and stills in the paper, with remarkably different interpretations of what is being seen (what is a clear 'saddle' to some is an artifact or space to others, and on and on). Several of the criticisms of the seeming ‘saddle’ on the bird(s) are simply giving alternative explanations of how such an artifact could appear in a photo, but the problem with that is that the saddle appears to move right along with the bird as it moves in the video, just as one would expect if it was a real part of the bird. Like the Luneau video, these photos/video turn out to be little more than Rorschach tests for whatever your opening predisposition or entrenched position is, and both sides of the debate end up utterly aggravated.

It is unfortunate that some are simply ignoring all the other evidence recorded here and seeing the research as an entire collection of data instead of simply a couple of new videos (despite the title stressing "multiple lines of evidence"). The authors only briefly mention sightings and auditory recordings, but those who have followed their work for the last 10 years know they have previously reported several of both (but knowing the unconvincing nature of sightings and audio chose not to focus on them here, but yes, they exist). Indeed, we've reached a point where almost all evidence is automatically de-valued except for clear and credible photographic imagery. Further many make the argument that 20 pieces of weak evidence for a claim is no better than 1 piece of weak evidence... although you might think of it like a criminal trial where 1 piece of circumstantial evidence would never convict, but 20 bits of circumstantial evidence might do it.

Since the arguments are once again likely irresolvable I won’t even get into the endless back-and-forth of specific points, but only reiterate that I believe the current work is the best overall evidence I've seen in over 10 years. Unfortunately, I suspect no (respected) journal will take this paper because of their sheer fear of anything IBWO-related, the topic being radioactive! I do wonder what additional and even better data Project P. might have by the time any acceptance would come along many months from now.

Honestly, this whole saga is beginning to feel like an instance of the old Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown thinks he’s going to at last kick the football that Lucy is holding, only to have it always snatched away at the last moment. ;) 

Before signing off I can’t help but mention it brought a small grin to my face to see these birds cavorting near the top of a large hardwood tree. My contention for some time has been, that in areas trafficked by humans, IBWOs have likely become high-arboreal birds, nesting, roosting, feeding, and hangin-out their entire lives in the upper third of the forest canopy, rarely (if ever) coming to the ground or even the midway point of trees. That is the easiest explanation I have for why the species is so difficult to locate, see, or photograph, and the vast majority of sightings are of birds in flight, not perched birds. Photo ops will require a telephoto lens or an automatic camera placed (and serviced) by a climber high in the canopy… or finally, alternatively, a drone overhead (as the La. team is already employing). An old birding adage says “Look up!” — it certainly applies to IBWO searchers. The Project P. birds were frolicking just as I envision IBWOs doing, oblivious to the mundane human world beneath them.

Lastly, I'll note that for any who wish to follow further commentary on this paper there is a handy place on the bioRxiv page where you simply give your email and they will automatically send you “alerts” of future changes/comments/links related to the preprint.

In the short term, I'm not sure how much more I'll address this work, as once again I see a lot of sturm und drang coming down the pike, but no likelihood of resolution. [with that said, there are about a half-dozen ornithological figures who I'm still waiting to see weigh in on the work, and, if they should that might motivate another post.]

[ NOTE:  After hearing from a couple of emailers, I've done some slight editing above, and added back in some lines I had previously cut from the original version.]

———————————————————

ADDENDUM 4/16:

I'll add this new article which covers matters a bit more broadly than most of the pieces I'm seeing lately:

https://www.animals24-7.org/2022/04/16/is-the-ivory-billed-woodpecker-declared-extinct-five-times-still-with-us/?fbclid=IwAR2bRCo03qWdcg7L0X1-6fo61-PmLkKpd3-GYvQVfnVj-imlZfFHrlKAFt4

ADDENDUM 4/17:

Just feel a need to say this: Back when the USFWS recommendation/controversy was all over the news I warned that the next several months would likely see a new flurry of IBWO sighting claims — with publicity always comes more bogus reports.

And now with the new research published getting widely reported I’ll state that warning yet again — am already seeing the uptick in unfounded claims to my inbox and around social media. Pleeease, if you’re not an experienced birder, do NOT bother sending me a claim unless you know how to write up a very detailed observational account, or it is accompanied by a photo or video. [I think I've already counted over a dozen claims in the last 2+ weeks that were accompanied by photos, and were clearly Pileateds.]

ADDENDUM 4/18:

What we really need now is the return of "Ivorybill Septic" to add a little levity to things! (for those of you with a good memory, who have followed this saga since say 2006) ;)  …while I’m mulling over what aspect to look at next.  Are you out there I.S., perhaps in Colorado or Washington? I need your input; the array of opinions I’m getting in email are all over the map.

Am tempted to re-address this whole crazy confusion between IBWOs and Pileated Woodpeckers, two species that really are NOT similar in detail at all (different head patterns, different backs, different ventral and dorsal wings, different bills), and yet in cursory looks come off with an odd gestalt similarity (as the same colors are present); also tempted to refer readers back to my post (and examples) some months ago focused on visual illusions:

https://ivorybills.blogspot.com/2021/12/seeing-is-not-necessarily-believing.html

....and yet, paradoxically, nothing gives me more confidence of the species' continued persistence then the sheer number of identifications leftover from experienced, knowledgeable observers in multiple locales over the years, even when the plenitude of weak and superficial claims are tossed out.

— Que Sera Sera :( —

 ————————————————————

I won’t go into loads of detail nor get into back-and-forth arguments (which I consider a time-waste) about this, but last night’s presentation of newly-hyped possible IBWO video was wholly unconvincing… and worse.

To my shock, it came from South Carolina (Feb. of this year), the Southeastern state I would have least expected an IBWO video to come from right now (even though there is some good habitat there), but I won’t get into that discussion either.

Last December I predicted here on the blog that there might likely be an IBWO hoax this year, and… folks don’t want to hear this… but I won’t mince words in saying that my default position until I know more about the videographers and other context and specifics here, is that this could well be a hoax or prank; it has several earmarks, and so many aspects that make no sense. 

The video and resolution is poor with 2 birds in the background that I don’t believe are large woodpeckers, but smaller birds. The primary focus of interest is a moving object in a tree cavity, which is being passed off as a bird bill, but could be another creature or object. And IF a beak I presume a pileated (which can even be heard to call at one point on the tape). The resolution throughout is too weak to draw firm conclusions, and there is a suspicious lack of transparency with the individuals submitting the video, who seem only willing to answer certain questions put to them or take limited actions that might be suggested (they were not part of the presentation, and I believe the person presenting has never met the South Carolinians but solely interacted with them through email/phone -- no idea if he's done any sort of basic background check on them that might raise red flags; not that hard to do).

The cavity, tree, habitat, don’t look right for an Ivory-bill claim, coming from a "rural" but not deep woods locale (though by itself that does not rule out any possibility) and the videographers sound incredibly amateurish on tape (and not knowledgeable of birds or IBWOs), even claiming that the bird has returned to this location for 3 years in a row… and yet this is the best video (and under 2 mins.) they have attained in all that time, with the birds using a nest or roosthole mind you. They seem to have zero comprehension of the significance surrounding this bird. We are told there is an “interesting backstory” (which I would love to hear) to their highly secretive claim… but, that too could easily be totally concocted. There’s nothing here that gives me any confidence, but plenty of further disconcerting tidbits I won't even mention. IBWO believers always resent the analogies to Bigfoot claims, but this video is very much on a par with poor Bigfoot videos. In short, whether a prank or honest mistake, I give no credence to the claim, unless further analysis and context causes me to change my view, and I don’t expect to discuss it further; discussion will just lend more red meat to skeptics (and, sad to say, given its origins, this could even be a skeptic-produced video and backstory solely intended to embarrass 'believers').

Lastly, it was disappointing to see John Fitzpatrick (retired from Cornell) who was present, almost bend himself into a pretzel trying not to speak too harshly of the video.  I don’t think he helped his credibility here, but he will have to speak for himself. Had this video been sent directly to Cornell with so little backstory or context, I doubt they would have taken it seriously for more than 15 minutes. Others present, who likewise have some needed critical thinking skills and  scientific rigor, also refrained from much serious comment.

I want to be clear, by the way, that Matt Courtman’s group (who presented the video) are not in any way participants of such a hoax, if such it be, only victims of it. With EVERY IBWO claim the first thing that must be ruled out (if the subject is not immediately identifiable as a pileated or other bird) is hoax, and I don't see it having been ruled out here. Of course, after the excitement of the Project Principalis release this is discouraging. I would be happy to learn that the South Carolinians involved are at least sincere even if mistaken in their claims, if that is the case, rather than being deceitful. After all these years though I can't just ignore my radar, nor the smell test, unless forthcoming better analysis and answers point another way.

I was actually hoping to say slightly more (in a positive vein) about the Project Principalis evidence today, but will leave that for another time.

————————————————————

— "IBWO Truthers" —

 ————————————————---———

Tonight, Matt Courtman’s group will be reviewing another purported recent IBWO video (I believe from a state adjacent to La., and different from the latest Project Principalis release, but I may be incorrect) on his interactive Zoom podcast (Apr. 11) at 8pm EDT. You can link to it from his page:

https://www.facebook.com/MissionIvorybill

I’m still not expecting a particularly interesting summer… but, an interesting week, yes it has been! 

Have already seen a fair amount of misreporting and knee-jerk reaction (as well as mockery) to the newest evidence, but that could be expected in our world of entrenched views... sigh. And increasingly, I see the term “ibwo truthers” employed to label we believers… normally a term used dismissively, referring to certain (often conspiracy-minded) advocates on a variety of subjects, but oddly I actually kinda like the label applied to those of us who think this species is extant… because, afterall, truth is indeed what we ultimately want established, and find lacking.

So, "IBWO Truthers" we be! Wear it proudly. ;))

————————————————————

— Finally… new evidence — +Addenda

 ————————————————————

New from Mark Michaels/Steve Latta’s Project Principalis group (Louisiana) finally some evidentiary work I find intriguing enough to pass along (for perhaps the first time in 10+ years!). The non peer-reviewed pre-print is here (including photos):

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.06.487399v1.full.pdf

I especially like the focus on automatic camera (and drone) photos, which I’ve long felt were, short of human monitoring of a nest or roost hole, the evidence needed (sighting and audio evidence is also mentioned in the paper but not dwelled upon). There are other various elements of the paper I especially like (and some other elements I’d be pretty cautious about), but won’t detail that here, so readers can adjudge for themselves (besides I need to read parts of the paper over another one or two more times for certain details), and I don't know when or if full publication will come.

The evidence is once again NOT definitive or conclusive, but intriguing, which one almost hates to say given the history of all the controversial "intriguing" evidence that has come before. At least on a first reading this is better than that, but easy to imagine some of the objections that may be forthcoming. I hate that we continue to move along in the IBWO debate at an incremental snail's pace awaiting a truly conclusive photo/video/encounter, but this work is encouraging.

I assume this also is the new evidence that will be up for discussion at Matt Courtman’s coming Monday night IBWO podcast. [see note #1 below]

[It's possible(?) I'll add addenda to this post at a later point.]

[sorry, just realized that the PDF I linked to above does not contain links for the "supplementary" videos; for those, find the links on the original bioRxiv page:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.06.487399v1.supplementary-material ]

—————————————————————

ADDENDUM 1:

After re-reading several times, a few miscellaneous things to note (…there are also several things I WON’T address just to avoid the argumentation and vitriol that might follow!):

1)  I originally assumed that Matt Courtman’s coming Monday night IBWO discussion would involve a claim by a different individual in a different state (not Louisiana), but upon the timing of this Project Principalis release just automatically (above) switched to assuming this would be the evidence coming under review. However, various dates and other matters don’t line up, so am back to thinking the Monday night discussion may well be about yet a different claim (which would be interesting to have 2 such back-to-back claims arising so close together; the alternative possibility is that the Monday talk centers around evidence still from the Louisiana group but too recent to have made its way into this paper).

2)  Just want to note, for any unaware of it, that “bioRxiv” while an open access, non-peer-reviewed, non-edited journal, is NOT on the level of the many (not all) open access journals that have in recent years besmirched scientific publication. It is simply a free preprint-server for biology, very similar to respected arxives that serve many other scientific disciplines. And Project Principalis was wise to file the paper here, and not wait for the interminable months that acceptance in an appropriate publication would have taken — even at that, the evidence being reported here is mostly months to years old. [They are attempting to have the piece published, but IBWO papers can be difficult to find a taker.]

3)  There is a fair amount of speculation in this paper, as is always the case, of necessity, with any Ivory-bill commentary because we truly know so little about the species with certainty, so much information being drawn from such tiny sample sizes — and there is a strong tendency on ‘believers’ parts to accept past assumptions when it suits our purposes, and argue against them when it doesn’t. So I don’t doubt that critics will find much here to yawn at and shrug as weak claims. But some of the photos, from trail cameras and videos are powerful, in seeming to show a large woodpecker with a white saddleback; in fact better than that, and unlike almost any prior evidence, showing multiple woodpeckers with diagnostic clues (…even with that said, I realize alternative explanations may yet be offered, and further film analysis will be needed). As someone who has been discouraged with the trajectory of the debate ever since the closing down of the Cornell and Auburn searches (even while still believing the species persisted), this is as bright a light as I’ve seen. 

I'll note that I am viewing the paper’s pics on a 7-year-old 13” laptop screen (AND even then am intrigued), and I imagine those with larger desktop screens will have a better view (there are some things the authors claim to see, which I can’t make out on my screen, and certainly don't recommend viewing these pics on a mobile device).

4)  Lastly, I wish Bill Pulliam was around to see this work, and swap ideas about it; I think, overall, it would’ve brought a grin to his grizzly face….

----------------------------------------

— Short Notice (Haney podcast) —

 —————————————————————

There are now plenty of Dr. Chris Haney podcasts/presentations available on YouTube, but if you’ve entirely missed him or want to see him live there will be an interactive Zoom podcast tonight 8pm EDT (h/t to Matt Courtman):

https://www.facebook.com/events/372903291373714/?ref=newsfeed

I love Chris’s book which I reviewed HERE…. with that said, I do think he can be a bit heavy-handed with the cognitive blunders of ‘denialists’ while going a little soft on the cognitive weaknesses of ‘believers,’ but always enjoyable to hear speak, and I agree with the vast majority of his points (and his book ought be read as well for the sheer scope of IBWO history and information it affords). A good way to end the week.

—————————————————————

— Just Sayin’ (for now) —

———————————————————

To some of you who have sent along somewhat similar questions (just in different orders) and who I haven't gotten directly back to, the answers, for now, are, “no, no, and no (BUT maybe), and MS. 396??”  

...ohhh, and BTW, GO Tar Heels!

———————————————————