==> THEblog devoted, since 2005, to news & commentary on the most iconic bird in American ornithology, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO)... and sometimes other schtuff [contact: cyberthrush@gmail.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The longer we go without a report of new size measurements for mystery bird #3, the murkier things potentially become... at least for now.
On a separate note, I am not currently able to bring up Steve Sheridan's own Ivory-bill website (which detailed his Ivory-bill sightings of the more distant past, unrelated to the current claims). It was working yesterday as I recall --- possibly he is doing major revisions to it in light of the current story, or, possibly the reason lies elsewhere. If anyone knows for sure please feel free to comment, but I'd like to avoid idle speculation.
Addendum: Now (5 am. 3/18), "mystery bird #3" has been deleted from the Erdy website. Again, maybe it is down while that section simply gets re-vamped; I won't speculate about the likely reason right now. More foreboding: I just noticed that Steve Sheridan's name has been removed from mention as part of Erdy's "team" on page one of his site (Sheridan was the photographer producing the bird #3 photo).. Just to avoid rampant speculations I'm turning off comments here for a 12 -24 hr. 'cool down' period until further clarification comes. BTW, Bill P. is in the field without computer access, but will return late Thur., and likely have his own thoughts on matters to share at that point. Should anyone wish to send along clarifications, not conjecture, to me via email you may still do so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Just type in whatever species you want to view; there are 1000's of images. Many images on Flickr as well.)
There are also videos of woodpeckers, if you wish to view them in motion, on YouTube, birdcinema, and other sites, though as a start, still images are quicker to run through. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;-) To say the least, this is a longshot, but what the hey....
I can probably give one teensy hint as to the identity of the 3/13 anonymous respondent: it WASN'T Pete Dunne... But if a genie popped out of a Beaujolais bottle and granted me just one American birder to analyze mystery bird #3, without much hesitation, I'd choose Dunne (he probably only gets about 3 dozen outlandish requests like this per day). Pete likely needs no introduction to most readers here, and while there are other field birders with equal skills to his, he brings a combination of attributes to this discussion that set him apart:
1. Every serious birder likely knows of and respects Pete's field expertise, and would consider very seriously his analysis and judgment.
2. He is a primary advocate of the "Cape May School of birding;" also known as "gestalt" or "giss" bird identification. I've previously contended that gestalt birding is a key element in this entire decades-old debate, and I want to hear from someone with that specific orientation/slant to bird identification. Who else could write a 700+ page book of strictly verbal descriptions for N. American birds (NO pictures), and make it an almost indispensable guide for American birders? NO ONE, that's who!!
3. Several prominent birders/ornithologists have at some point publicly committed themselves to the notion that the Ivory-bill is almost certainly extinct... personally, I think these individuals can STILL objectively/fairly analyze a given piece of evidence, but others (including many readers of this blog) worry that past statements impede full objectivity on the matter. Pete does not come with that baggage, as he has always (so far as I'm aware?) been open to the possibility, however unlikely, of Ivory-bill presence.
4. If Pete says this bird is a normal Pileated, then for me that just about locks it down, barring new subsequent information; if he says it's inconclusive, the debate goes on. And if he says let's go out for some pizza and beer, I'M IN....
So Pete, if you're out there somewhere working on your 45th book, and wanna take a break to write somethin' up in your inimitable style about mystery bird #3, to send along to me here, then go to it... I be gratefully waiting.
All kidding aside, there's no one's analysis I'd be more anxious to hear... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still a number of new people stopping by blog just now learning of this story, so felt it best to give them 24+ hrs. to catch up and digest as much material as they care to. Will likely have one NON-newsy entry much later today, but nothing new or substantial to post while still seeking additional information and awaiting size measurements of mystery bird #3. To hold you over in the meantime, some entertainment below from a wonderful webcam of nesting storks in Germany --- I linked to this last year though and some folks told me it was blocked on their work computers:
New people are continuing to hear about this now week-old story and swing by the blog, so a little summary and catch-up:
1. For newbies you need to first carefully read through Gary Erdy's site to get a sense of the material he has put together and what the discussion/debate has been about. BTW, Erdy modifies the site without announcement so it is worth checking back with some regularity for any changes (material being removed or added --- also note that because photos used on the site have changed over time, some early references to photos in posts and comments may now be confusing):
2. 2nd step is to read Bill Pulliam's initial blog entry on the findings, posted (and later appended) immediately after a news embargo on this story was lifted (Bill was one of 20 reviewers of this evidence for 1+ year during which it was withheld from public disclosure):
My own blogposts on the news begin on the same day (3/9), but are not as necessary reading as some of Bill's material. And even though there is some good discussion and information in the 180+ comments herein, it is sometimes buried amongst repetition, triteness, snark, aspersions, etc. that often ensues in such controversies, so few may want to wade through all the comment sections (I do believe there are many good comments particularly on the earlier post today). Many of the same points already made, will likely be reiterated in the discussion ahead. (I also want to thank all who keep their comments focused on evidence and arguments, not on personalities and individuals.)
3. The #3 Mystery Bird at Gary Erdy's site has been the primary focus of attention (although there is other data of interest there), and of the initial possibilities for its identification Red-headed Woodpecker is probably assigned little probability at this time. The only remaining seriously-considered candidates are normal Pileated Woodpecker, leucistic Pileated (with abnormal white patches), or Ivory-billed Woodpecker. VERY briefly, issues at hand are:
For Ivory-billed Woodpecker (putting aside rarity or improbability), major issues centering around the size and shape of the perceived white saddle, the lack of dorsal stripes, and the appearance of the crest.
For normal Pileated, concerns reside around the possible perception of a white saddle, and the facial and neck patterns or appearance. Leucistic Pileated has same concerns except that now white saddle is explained.
There are many other more subtle issues, and it is conceivable that yet more issues could arise as time proceeds.
By early next week new (and hopefully fairly accurate) measurements for the size of mystery bird #3 may be publicly disclosed (being taken this weekend), and could have significant ramifications for the ongoing discussion, possibly even in unforeseen ways.
In a very skeleton way, that brings newbies up-to-date. I may have multiple posts this weekend (not sure yet) so stay tuned. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The respondent I alluded to in yesterday's post is "an experienced birder, naturalist and field sketcher." I would go slightly beyond that to say that their experience and background makes them a keen and careful observer (both instinctively and analytically) of nature. I might also add that this individual is very open to the possibility of IBWO persistence if carefully examined evidence supports it.
This person quite summarily rules out Red-headed Woodpecker for the mystery bird (for reasons that have already been covered here), and that species is off the table for me as well at this point. Viewing the photo-in-question, this person's "first impression" was of:
"a normally plumaged pileated woodpecker which happens to have its head turned directly away from, and its body rotated away from the viewer. It's peering around the trunk and its body is foreshortened, facing almost directly away from the viewer (i.e., its tail is pointing away to the left side of the picture.) I see no white secondaries; I see skylight where these might be imagined. The angle of white intersecting black on the bird's wing would be all wrong, even if the white area were its secondaries."
What follows are simply a few pertinent quotes I've extracted from emails exchanged:
"The white area... is much too large to be its secondaries, if you're taking into account the head, neck, and upper back proportions. Go back and look at the Singer Tract photos of nest exchange in IBWO's, and see how that white delta on a perched ivorybill is a small, compact triangle, not a huge parallelogram. The secondary section of a woodpecker's folded wing is not an enormous, tree-trunk obscuring parallelogram. It's a triangle."
"There's just no way the white spot below the bird's body is white secondaries. It's way too big a patch, and not in proportion to the body of the bird. It's sky, beneath a bird that's perched almost at a 90 degree angle to the vertical trunk."
"If that white area is secondaries, we've got an enormous, big-bodied bird with a teeny little head; i.e., with the proportions of a moa. What we've got, in my opinion, is a pileated woodpecker, foreshortened, perched almost crosswise on a tree, peering around the trunk and facing away. It's hanging out with the pileated in the foreground. Big hint as to its identity right there."
"If it's an ivory-bill, where are the white dorsal stripes, anyway? By any interpretation, that's a solid black back: pileated."
"There's just far too much that has to be explained away here. Again: Where's the dorsal stripe? Answer: Maybe it could be hidden. Maybe the bird's getting ready to fly and has its wing raised, hiding it. Well, then, where's the raised wing?"
"It's keeping company with a pileated; that fact alone argues for its identity."
"The neck of a pileated certainly looks like that when the head is turned away... Ditto on the big fluffy crest. [ and the writer notes that they know this from having held "a dead (not mounted) specimen" in their hand].
"I see nothing inconsistent with an ID of pileated woodpecker."
and as an afterthought they sent this along:
"You might add that there's no one out there who has greater hope and (yes) FAITH that the ivorybill still lives than I do, but I agree with [I've deleted name] in thinking that it's much too important a thing to shore up on shaky evidence. For me, that photo depicts a pair of pileated woodpeckers, working away within earshot and sight of each other, as they often do---not a pileated keeping company with an ivory-bill. Rare birds are rare, and the chance capture of an image of a vanishingly rare bird which also happens somehow to have no visible dorsal stripes (huh??) is millions of times less likely than the chance that it's a photo of a pair of pileated woodpeckers."
=> (In retrospect it strikes me that these quotes taken out of full context may sound a bit terse or hasty, and I can only ask the reader to trust my judgment that this is NOT a terse or hasty observer.) That they find this photo fairly clearcut and non-controversial with their trained eyes is noteworthy to me (perhaps some of the official reviewers did as well?). This individual has NO interest in being embroiled in the sort of verbal squabbling that takes place on a site like this, so they will not be responding back-and-forth-and-back-again to issues/questions raised about their take --- there is NO point in lobbing rejoinders in hope of a response (and I understand/respect their wishes in this regard). Simply take these thoughts for what they are worth to you and move on. I know there will be questions. I heartily thank this individual for taking time out of a very busy schedule to even offer up their judgment for use and quotation here, and only wish others of their caliber and recognition would do the same.
Everyone knows this debate can go 'round and 'round forever, with the same points and counterpoints, unless more evidence comes forth. Lastly, it may be worth noting that the #3 Mystery Bird is just one of Erdy's pieces of evidence, albeit the most-discussed piece. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have received a tiny trickle of 3 email responses to my "plea" for further professional opinions on mystery bird #3, and will post at more length sometime tomorrow on one particular respondent. Am still interested in hearing from others as well. I don't think any really new arguments (that aren't buried somewhere in the comments here) are put forth, I'll just briefly say that one European scientist finds IBWO at least as plausible as the other candidates based on all the same arguments that have been stated here; an Alaska Fish and Game official argues for normal Pileated, and his arguments are more elaborately echoed by the third individual who wishes to remain anonymous but who's judgment I VERY MUCH trust and respect, and who fairly unhesitatingly sees a normal Pileated. I will summarize this person's opinion more fully tomorrow (with quotes), while also awaiting any further input that might come in.
Many (including myself) have difficulty perceiving the normal PIWO scenario and this individual too is not saying much more than has already been offered (and now buried) in comments along the way from a few people who have put forth that notion, BUT coming from this person it means much more to me than hearing it from "Anonymous" or some "John Smith" who I don't know. The crux of course (though there are multiple issues) is how one perceives the white "shield" --- as part of the bird, or, even in Bill's demo, an artifactual component from the background sky. We won't settle it here. I can only say this person's perspective means a great deal to me, just as many were swayed by David Sibley's view of the Luneau video (doesn't mean either of them are right, but they must be taken seriously). Truly, this is one of those classic wonderful (textbook) examples of how people can view the same given flat image so utterly differently.
NOTE: I have removed the link to a special example Pileated picture that was previously included here, because latest indication is that it was NOT an illusory-appearing natural photo, but in fact simply a human-doctored photo. [ this was a side piece of entertainment having no connection to the Erdy team evidence ].
The majority (not all) of us here are essentially rank amateurs in this endeavor. Doubt that much will come of this, but I'll make a plea anyway: I'd genuinely like to see some of the more recognizable names out there weigh in with their most objective view of the #3 mystery bird: Louis Bevier, Martin Collinson, Pete Dunne, David Sibley, Van Remsen, Noel Snyder, Kenn Kaufman, Clay Sutton, a few names (of many possible) that come to mind --- what are the best choices for the bird's likely ID as you view it? I know some individuals may feel restrained by confidentiality agreements from what they can say openly. Others with major credentials, but maybe less name recognition, should also feel free to respond (and state those credentials). Some individuals may not view "blogs" as an appropriate outlet for expressing such viewpoints, but it truly would be helpful/appreciated, and hey, you'll have a very interested captive audience. (contact me via a means, email or comments section, that allows verification of identity; i.e., I don't wish to suddenly receive 10 comments all signed "David Sibley" :-)) The sole desire here is to see as many different intelligent viewpoints put out in the open as possible, for study by all... open-access information is a wonderful thing!
p.s. -- I did not include Jerry Jackson above, only because I have already contacted him (he is always remarkably generous with his time and thoughts) and he felt limited in what he could say publicly, so his brief response does not add a lot to the discussion at this moment. Some of the people above I could also individually contact, but am hoping this message will find its way to them.
And for now, I'll just keep re-posting these two pertinent links:
Not to change the subject, but new brief video overview of the Auburn search in north Florida is given here. Again, they have switched to vibration-triggered automatic cameras rather than the Reconyx-type cameras Erdy's team (and others) employed, but no significant news in the video.
And getting back to the subject... in one of those instances of being thrilled to be wrong (hey, I said my first impression/analysis was tentative), after further enlargement and manipulation of the Sheridan color photo, and in conjunction with persistent reasoning by Bill P. and others, I'm happy to now conclude that the bird in question is hugely unlikely to be a Red-headed Woodpecker (hopefully, accurate size measurements will easily confirm that), leaving us with what seem to be only two highly improbabilistic possibilities, leucistic Pileated (with mimicking white shield) or Ivory-billed Woodpecker. (...Is that Twilight Zone music I hear playing in the background?)
One source indicates to me that US Fish and Wildlife may release a summary of the reviewers' findings/judgments "soon" (whatever that means in Gov't. terms ;-), and since my vague understanding (not certain) is that Pileated may have been the majority opinion of reviewers, I'm more curious than ever to see exactly how those judgments are constructed. http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home
Wheeeeew... Will start a new post just so people have a blank slate on which to continue comments, as they're getting confusingly long on prior post (anyone who has issues specifically with Bill P.'s stance is certainly free to carry those arguments over to his blog site if you wish for more direct back-and-forth with him, or you're welcome to stay here as you choose).
Just some housekeeping for now:
1. Here again are the important links so you don't have to keep shifting down below:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html 2. THANKS everyone for largely staying on topic and relatively civil (as these discussions go!). Obviously the subject stirs strong emotions on both sides and everyone needs to come here with a fairly thick skin for the snarkiness, terseness, redundancy, etc. that often ensues, but it's been a largely worthwhile discussion.
3. Even though Bill and I don't agree on some things here, I want to thank him for taking so much time to step in not only to defend his view, but to respond to various issues raised, and hopefully everyone realizes he's been dealing with this evidence set much longer than most of us. I'm trying to largely stay out of the discussion and let other people make the points I would want to make; so thanks to all who do that.
4. The size measurements clearly could quickly alter some arguments here. For now, unlike Bill, I continue to believe Red-headed Woodpecker IS tenable (I also believe leucistic PIWO is tenable... and IBWO possible as well), but may not be worth going through all the point-by-point arguments, until those size measurements are in. Lest anyone be too swayed by my personal opinion though, let me say that I've viewed a lot of mystery bird quizzes in the past and probably been right well UNDER 50% of the time --- so even though I trust my instincts on this one, there's no legitimate reason for anyone else to!!!
5. I'd very much like to see the opinions of the various (~20) reviewers of these pics released in some venue, but that may not happen. There would be great benefit to the rest of us in seeing what those who have spent the most time with the material (besides Bill) have to say.
6. There's some new traffic here daily (surprise, surprise)... hate doing this but if possible I'd request newbies to read through the comments after previous post, just so you're not tempted to say something that has already been voiced 5 times before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker photos incoming... :
Everyone will want to visit the new website from Gary Erdy and Steve Sheridan for recently-released pictures (from 2007) of possible Ivory-bills in a location not as yet publicly disclosed:
Bill Pulliam's current take (as one of the outside reviewers) on this evidence below (bottomline, he leans toward identification of mystery bird #3 as IBWO, and be sure to readhis full analysis):
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-undisclosed-location.html The proponents here (Erdy/Sheridan) seem to be taking a judiciously cautious, but optimistic, approach to their findings and seeking out further opinion and analysis. Many individuals have already extensively reviewed the material presented (and more) and offered various opinions which I'm hoping will be made public at some point. The enlarged color picture of "mystery bird #3" (actually captured on film by accident while focused on another bird) will undoubtedly draw the most comment; the black-and-white Reconyx images are much less convincing, but are interesting, worth studying, and further indicate the difficulty of obtaining good photographic results from automatic equipment under such conditions. (May be worth mentioning that IBWO-like sound has also been recorded for the area in question, though not included as part of website.)
Once again the evidence is NON-definitive (is that the high-pitched sound of skeptics tearing out their last few hair follicles that I hear in the background...), but maybe on par with the Luneau video, or some may think increments better, or, worse... tantalizing and worth pursuing, while also maddeningly inconclusive.I suspect the cyberspace debate over this material will be INTENSE, lengthy... and likely unfortunately, unresolvable (except by additional material). ...But for now, a nice adrenalin rush that may yet lead to something more solid. For a variety of reasons I won't express an opinion on the material just yet --- though I have a 'first impression,' it is not a firm opinion and could be swayed by further disclosures. A 'vetting' process of sorts will likely ensue across the internet (there are certain individuals I'm particularly interested in hearing from). Given more time, details, and information I may voice a more definite opinion later. For now I simply encourage readers to view the evidence carefully and cautiously. Otherwise...... have at it!!
ADDENDUM:
I wasn't planning to jump in this quickly, but since some commenters are already echoing my initial thoughts, I'll go ahead with my FIRST gut impression/analysis:
First, I think there COULD be 1 or more IBWOs in these pics; knowing that there have been sighting and sound claims for the general area helps make that POSSIBLE. So I DO NOT DISCOUNT that as a possibility. The images do not appear to match ANY obvious candidate very precisely. What follows then is just an initial interpretation subject to change:
I believe "mystery bird #3" (as some others have indicated) is most likely a Red-headed Woodpecker; putting the shape/proportions aside (because they are easily distorted), the general color pattern matches RHWO better than alternative candidates (in my view). MOREOVER, I believe the bird may have its HEAD TURNED 180 degrees PREENING its back or wing, such that what people are interpreting as a neck stripe may actually be its beak and a tiny piece of white breast showing through separated (preened) feathers. The head-turning would also help explain the admittedly distorted look the bird exhibits for a RHWO. Clearly, other arguments can be made, but I don't believe RHWO can be easily ruled out.
I don't make out much at all from the last Reconyx image (bird on trunk way left); the flying bird image is intriguing (I'd like to hear further analysis), but I suspect also to be a RHWO, and the "blurry head" bird, while also intriguing, lacks enough detail to shout out IBWO more than the alternatives.
I want to stress that these are very tentative conclusions on my part, but in what I have heard/read so far they are tending to be reinforced, more than shaken. But I also want to add that even if ALL these particular images were shown to be NON-IBWOs, it does not eliminate the possibility of Ivory-bills residing in the area under study.
P.S.: it occurs to me that these pictures, at least the color photo, might be suitable (I would think) for discussion on the "Frontiers of Identification" birding listserv (which often has excellent insights), but I'm not a member over there. Surely though some reader here is a member and could direct that group to Gary's page for discussion at their listserv (they actually had a "woodpecker identification" thread going on recently, but it had nothing to do with Gary's website). ...Just a thought (unless it is inappropriate there for some reason? --- possibly, the Frontier group just doesn't touch IBWO stuff anymore???)
P.P.S.: from comments I see on the Web and in email it's clearer to me how ambiguous this bird (color photo) is to viewers. It can be viewed as angled leftward, angled rightward, or facing directly ahead; the head can be viewed in a wide variety of positions; not even absolutely certain what is bird and what is not part of the bird (I'm reasonably convinced by Bill's demo that the shield is part of the bird, but some other subtle elements less sure). That's why I like hearing from as many different people viewing on as many different screens as possible. Obviously, there is no exact species match for the bird as it appears; we can only look for a "best" match and then explain away the anomalies by distortion and special posturing. Accurate size measurements would certainly help, though those very measurements may be endlessly debated as well. And beyond all this there are probably many other tangential questions yet to be clarified. ...Have to go now, and let my head explode ;-) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Birdchick" blogs briefly about the "Ghost Bird" discussion panel in San Diego this weekend here. The most interesting note to me is that Jerry Jackson apparently joined the panel as a last minute addition. Cornell, BTW, chose not to participate (in the film). Birdchick says she'll have more to tell later about the discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Birdchick" reports that she will be part of a panel discussion later this week with filmmaker Scott Crocker and David Sibley following a sneak preview screening of Crocker's documentary release, "Ghost Bird" at the San Diego Bird Festival (Mar. 5-8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel like I walk a tightrope a bit when I post these days. From emails I get it's clear that many people either think I'm too pessimistic, or think I'm being cryptic and know a major piece of news as yet unreleased. The truth is in-between; I'm optimistic that some IBWOs persist, pessimistic that conclusive (to everyone) evidence will arise this season... and even more pessimistic that even if it did, there's much chance of saving the species (though the chance at salvaging some fantastic habitat remains a strong impetus). Again, NONE of the things I'm aware of publicly/privately seem (to me) any more compelling than what has come before. While there's always a chance of some well-kept secret that could alter everything, recent history consistently suggests that a paucity of news from official sources usually reflects a paucity of information worth telling, NOT some conspiracy of silence (unreleased news usually being 'more-of-the-same,' and not 'game-changing').
Skeptics have won the immediate battle... verbal claims, pictures of cavities, foraging sign, intriguing habitat, recorded sounds, fuzzy video analysis, are all of interest and must be compiled/analyzed, but they simply won't be enough. Even DNA or a sighting and accompanying drawing by David Sibley could be debated. For good or for ill, critics have set the bar that establishes clear, indisputable photography/video as the required standard of evidence in this case; for a sparse, quick-moving bird of thick forest, it is a high bar. And if that standard is ever achieved, those in a position to do so will need to thoroughly analyze what worked and what didn't, to try and insure that we never again require this amount of time to attain that standard in any future analogous situation. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This blog peaked at 700+ readers/day for a couple weeks back following the original Auburn Choctawhatchee announcement. Ever since then it gradually but steadily declined until stabilizing around 100+ unique hits per day, where it has remained for quite some time now. It's not the exact same folks every day since some readers only check in every few days or even once a week. Maybe 130 people from around the globe read the blog on some sort of regular basis out of millions of active birders worldwide; i.e. a very tiny percentage of the potential audience.
I suspect many of those 130-or-so folks are 'agnostics' who still aren't sure what to conclude about the IBWO, and an even larger number are likely full-fledged skeptics just checking in to keep up with what 'foolishness' is recited here. In short, I'd guess less than 100 folks check here routinely and loyally who would be comfortable with the label "true believer" (or even leaning in that direction). Again, out of millions of birders, a few score of them willing to unabashedly believe in the Ivory-bill's persistence; too few people to have much impact, as has always been the case through the Ivory-bill's history.
Early on I didn't much care for the term "true believer" with its implication of believing blindly, foolishly, or unscientifically, especially since in most areas of science I'd probably be classified as excessively skeptical; but over time, in this narrow IBWO arena, I've grown comfortable with the 'true believer' handle, because every time I re-read the data and history of this species... the full panoply of it, not just some myopic portion... my conviction is renewed that the probability for the Ivory-bill's existence exceeds the probability for its extinction (and I can only approach science in terms of probabilities). So I'm content to see this story through to the end (whenever and however that comes about), and happy to be part of a narrow 100 or fewer individuals who may eventually feel richly rewarded... or, be robustly ridiculed... for having been, when all around them were capitulating to a tempting party line..."true believers." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
