---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies in advance for boring you all with a longish post that once again hardly moves the needle forward in this arena….
Most here will recall the pre-print from “Project Principalis” published earlier at bio-Rxiv. Their final version is now published by the open-access journal “Ecology and Evolution” here:
It is getting widespread press/internet coverage... (while skeptics tear out the remaining strands of their hair...and poor Todd Burtner is wearing his fingers to the nub on Twitter trying to keep up -- inside joke for those who follow things on Twitter).
The timing is interesting, though probably coincidental (since the authors likely couldn’t control it), in so much as we are stiiiiiiiill awaiting an announcement from USFWS regarding de-listing the species — I’ve yet to see an official decision from them… yes, some circles are claiming the decision has already been made NOT to de-list, while a multitude of reports across the internet are claiming USFWS HAS now declared the species extinct (but these all seem based, wrongly, on the original year-and-a-half ago pronouncement). USFWS won’t comment on the new paper, but a spokesperson, Jennifer M. Koches, is quoted as writing that “the agency is still reviewing submitted information, including information from Project Principalis, and has not yet reached a decision.” Yet another report says that government officials will announce a decision “before the end of the year” whatever the Hell that means (I guess it could be next week, or at 11:58 on December 31st)… color me peeved ;) Anyway, this new paper largely preaches to the IBWO choir, but no doubt also to the procrastinating USFWS (who will get hammered no matter what decision they make).
In the meantime, the Web continues to be filled with folks claiming to have seen Ivory-bills only to, still after all this time, proudly show off their pics of Pileateds (or occasionally other species)… HUGELY annoying on the one hand; on the other hand I realize the Web is also chockfull of press photos of Pileateds LABELLED as Ivorybills so the continued confusion is somewhat understandable/predictable. And when one tries to get these mislabellings corrected, the offenders often act like ‘what’s the big deal, they look about the same anyway’… grrrrrrrr!….
The simplistic gestalt similarity between the IBWO and PIWO continues to make it difficult to ever take the (usually) undetailed claims from non-experienced birders very seriously.
Anyway, on to the paper at hand. First, “Ecology and Evolution” is an open-access journal, but comes from highly-reputable Wiley publishers, and does include reasonably strong peer-review — all the checking I did came back with positive accolades for this particular journal. I dare say we likely won’t know who the reviewers of this paper were or what they had to say. Will also venture that the authors had little choice but to go the open-access route since probably NO traditional journal will accept anything of this nature on the IBWO topic, which is largely (and unfortunately) toxic at this point!
The ‘new’ paper is mostly a rerun of the original pre-print with some things fleshed out further and a few new bits added. No (entrenched) minds will be changed here (at least I don’t think so), so I won’t attempt to do that, but will reiterate my own belief that this work is the best evidence currently available of all the evidence touted over recent years. With that said, I fully understand how frustrating it is to skeptics that, after all this time, stiiiiiiiill not a single, clear, indisputable photograph of the species is offered — a bird that must forage and use cavities every single day of its life, cannot be simply photo-captured at such a daily-use site, even once in decades (any photo/video that must be analyzed or explained or discussed is NOT clearcut). Similarly, most sightings are brief and of the bird in flight, where a multitude of both psychological and physical variables muddy the situation. Frustrating, barely covers it. (The authors attempt explanations for the incessant difficulty of documenting the species, but such explanations will not satisfy skeptics -- personally, I continue to presume this species may live the bulk of its life in the upper canopy, at least 40-50 ft. or more up, in order to explain its elusivity to both humans and remote cameras; in fact I'm sometimes all the more skeptical of cavities, foraging sign, or sightings below that level).
Per usual, I don't find the auditory evidence, by itself, persuasive, but it is certainly valuable to have in conjunction with the Latta-group sightings that are detailed more here than in the past — again, those sightings won’t mean a lot to critics (who have already been dismissive in most quarters), but, while technically weak, some are vital to have in conjunction with the auditory/photographic evidence offered. My major concern about all brief visual encounters continues to be the possibility of leucistic Pileateds (or even crows, etc.) that by sheer chance might mimic the visual patterns of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker — to those who say, “Ohh, c’mon what are the chances of a leucistic PIWO actually matching the appearance of an IBWO!?” I would say yes, THAT is my point — it would be a very rare and unusual occurrence!… exactly as are Ivory-billed sightings….
HERE, by the way, is a recent shot of a nearly fully-leucistic PIWO from the Web:
https://twitter.com/CarolMurchie/status/1659304763643633666
Again, what one must wonder is, what did this bird’s parents look like, its siblings, its offspring, its grand-offspring, 'nieces/nephews'…?
The Latta-team drone and trail-cam photos/video are certainly also vital…. but also open to varied interpretation, though I have to scratch my head at some of the arguments skeptics put forth. The well-known drone video of a flying bird continues to impress me as hard-to-interpret as anything other than an Ivory-billed Woodpecker (though oddly, Mike Collins does argue the bird is a normal Pileated; not sure anyone takes him seriously on this!?)
BTW, it should be said that ALL the visual evidence (photos/video) is best looked at on as large a computer screen as available (anyone viewing this stuff on a smartphone, will of course come away thinking it’s junk — smartphones are NOT a device for looking at most visual evidentiary material!).
The overall tone of the paper is clearly optimistic, but with an appropriate cautious tinge, recognizing the evidence offered is not complete proof or certainty. As the title suggests, what the paper does, is offer "multiple lines of evidence" from multiple people over multiple years with multiple analyses, for the existence of this species (i.e., it is not heavily dependent on any one piece of evidence). Critics will argue that no matter how many pieces of weak, ambiguous evidence you string together, it is still weak, ambiguous evidence -- even if one believed that (I don't necessarily) there is enough 'reasonable doubt' (of extinction) to delay any de-listing of this species.
The authors also recognize that other sites around the southeast, besides their Louisiana locale, offer similarly-suitable, remote habitat for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, and deserve similar attention (and protection), which they have not received (again, despite what skeptics try to assert).
In response to the paper I’ve seen mostly dismissiveness or even ridicule from skeptical sorts (many of whom have neither carefully read the paper, nor kept up with all the other work and claims over the last decade (much of which I agree is junky, but some of which is not — and THAT is the fallacy involved, summarily throwing out all the evidence if say 90% of it is crappy). In short, bias and ‘groupthink’ is easily as prevalent among skeptics as amongst ‘believers.’
Unfortunately though, the longer and longer and longer we go without searchers producing an adequate, agreed-upon photo, the more ridiculous IBWO-believers look.... skeptics believe they've had the last laugh; some of us think the last laugh is yet to come! No matter how this saga eventually ends there ought be material here for cognitive psychology dissertations of the future!
On a side-note here is a decent, lengthy talk from last year (to an Audubon chapter) by John Trochet, a member of the Latta-group team:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F-PfPQwfYg&t=8s
…and coming up the evening of June 1, for anyone interested, is a Zoom talk (free, but need pre-registration) from Stephen Lyn Bales, author/chronicler of James Tanner’s work:
…I’ve rattled on long enough, so will just stop here and add Addendums later if I decide of more I want to mention.... but will end on a lighter (non-IBWO) note, with what may be my favorite tweet of all time ;)
https://twitter.com/wildbirdfund/status/1658637281773727745
---------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM 5/25:
Nothing to do with the Latta etc. data but a nice new article on long-time Ivory-bill searcher Bobby Harrison here:
https://gardenandgun.com/feature/chasing-the-ivory-billed-woodpecker/
(...and good to see that all the illustrations in it actually accurately depict an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and NOT a Pileated Woodpecker as shown in several of the articles on the Latta paper currently making the rounds)
--------------------------------------
ADDENDUM2 5/26:
Those following this story know it has received widespread press coverage, some of it so-so, and some of it pretty horrible, including mislabelled photos as previously referenced. I've now come across one YouTube video from a biologist named Dillon Jones that seems reasonably good (though I fast-forwarded through parts, so don’t want to judge too fully). It’s a bit drawn out at over 50 mins., but thusly more detailed than most coverage that’s out there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDjUctbHpY
…and if you wish to squander time on a shorter, crappier effort (really quite atrocious) you can sit through this recent waste of time (not related to the Latta paper, but to an IBWO claim):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_31hw6Ery3k
-------------------------------------
ADDENDUM3 5/27:
Here's a nice slowed-down zoom posted by Dwight Norris on FB of a clip from the Latta paper showing 2 possible IBWOs from their study area (this is isolated from the longer clip that includes a likely Red-headed Woodpecker earlier on):
https://www.facebook.com/100000086782831/videos/922814598995125/
------------------------------------
ADDENDUM4 5/27:
Re: leucism
Decades ago, excellent birder Noel Snyder [sorry, just realized I left out Noel's name when originally posted, duhh] reported a leucistic Pileated (I believe in Florida, without re-looking it up) which upon brief glance looked like an IBWO (he got no photograph), and now a Twitterer sends me this more recent great example from Kentucky of such a bird:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1862303084018972/permalink/3315148768734389/?
I’ll again stress that leucism can be found in crows, ravens, anhingas and other waterbirds, and perhaps other species that might mimic the IBWO size and “saddle.” While this is a concern of mine for brief flying reports of IBWOs, I want to stress that the drone clips from Latta’s group in flight and landing characteristics seem clearly to show woodpeckers, and to my satisfaction, large woodpeckers, which gets us immediately down to just 2 possibilities.
------------------------------------
ADDENDUM5 6/3:
Probably the last Addendum for this post (enough is enough!)…
Folks keep sending me links to pieces I’m mostly familiar with, but don’t link to because they’re either too redundant/repetitive, too speculative, or sometimes just horribly written or presented (I largely avoid certain forums, like Reddit, so always possible I’ll miss something of value there).
Wide press coverage of the Latta publication has clearly led to another major uptick in IBWO interest and articles (the main IBWO Facebook group also gaining many new followers) — a sort of 2-edged sword: nice to see increased public interest in the species, but also means a big spike in claims that make little sense and pictures that are clearly of other mistaken species (usually from sincere, but misguided folks). In short, the results of such interest only hurt the credibility of all ‘believers’ when soooo many additional claims come forward that are plainly, as they used to say on “Car Talk”, “Bbbbbbogus!.” Too often, 'believers' are shooting themselves in the foot, not even realizing their finger is on the trigger! The road ahead, as far as public (or professional) opinion is concerned is increasingly steep and uphill, as patience runs thinner and thinner, and false claims predominate. Oy.
I say all that simply to caution against any anticipation of some discovery just around the corner… experts like Jerry Jackson, Paul Sykes, Steve Holzman, et.al. tended to turn more negative over the decades because of the sheer number of ‘corners’ that have already been turned without success (…and I write that as someone who continues to believe the IBWO exists in at least 3 states, but who has lost confidence in human ability to find, let alone, document, such a remote and low-density denizen) — not that it won’t happen one day (short of finding a nest or roost-hole, automated remote cameras on a foraging site remain the best hope), but just that it’s hard to take seriously claims that it will happen soon. Yet on we trudge…
