-- An Old Where-to-Look List --

 ———————————-———

Jim Tate's recent death had me thinking of a few others we've lost in recent years. So just a “filler” post today, directing folks to an old “Top Ten” nicely-annotated list of Bob Russell’s favorite possible spots for Ivory-bills (which includes 6 different states):

https://web.archive.org/web/20070202060553/www.birdingamerica.com/toptenibwpsites.htm

This list was originally on Mary Scott’s wonderful old “Birding America” website in 2006 — long since disappeared into the internet ether, but still available from the archival “Wayback” machine. (She and Bob searched for the Lord God Bird together on several occasions. Tim Gallagher's "The Grail Bird" volume has a nice chapter on some of their endeavors.)

Several readers here had encounters with Bob over the years. He was a former USFWS employee and eternal IBWO optimist, who died almost 5 years ago. I always enjoyed any correspondence coming from him and his upbeat, almost infectious, enthusiasm about the Ivory-bill’s chances (…he also searched actively for the Eskimo Curlew). Indeed, he was so upbeat I sometimes found it hard to take his enthusiasm completely seriously, but he was a very skilled/knowledgeable searcher and birder, with perhaps the most extensive compilation of IBWO claims and rumors possessed by anyone! And he was touting Arkansas’ White River area before anyone had ever heard of Gene Sparling….

A couple of years after Mary published the above list, Bob promised me he had a new ‘updated’ list he’d be sending along to me…. but it never materialized, despite me nudging him on a couple of occasions about it, so don’t know what his latest ideas had been (I think he was continually changing his mind about some locales.). And the problem with the above listing is that it is very largely places that have been mentioned and written about frequently over decades, and somewhat combed by searchers extensively over time, at least in so much as such locales can ever be “combed.” Perhaps, by now it is primarily NOT these 10 spots that deserve a lot more attention (for example the specific area of Project Principalis’s focus is not included here, nor was the Choctawhatchee on this early listing), but other, less talked-of areas. At the end, Bob more-or-less writes off Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and North Carolina — and, well, in all of that dismissal I’d have to credit him with too much uncharacteristic pessimism! 

If anyone cares to pass along any anecdotes of interactions with Bob (or for that matter with Mary Scott, who has disappeared from the scene) feel free to below. 

——————————————

— Another Veteran of the IBWO Saga Passes —

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

Yet another long-time activist for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and the environment more generally, Jim Tate Jr., formerly of Cornell and USFWS (among many positions), recently passed away at 84 years old; obit here:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/james-tate-jr-obituary?id=55148387

His family requested memorials to him be sent, among other places, to:

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Fund, 444 Shooting Star Trail, Gurley, Alabama 35748

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

p.s.... Steve Latta will be speaking to the Pennsylvania Society For Ornithology tomorrow afternoon (6/1/24) on his group's Louisiana evidence for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker -- if any readers here are attending that talk, would love to hear a report on how it goes (write in the comments below, or send to me via email).

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

ADDENDUM 6/2:

A nice additional remembrance of Jim Tate here from Tim Gallagher:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/7951872704834090/?rdid=qkyHQaNlcOOhTZ1v&share_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fshare%2Fp%2FbWCs2igHaC44njng%2F

-- With Apologies To Ambrose Bierce --

 ———————————————

Maybe I’ll spend the summer just doing re-runs of past posts?…. in this case an expanded re-make of material from over 15 years ago, a glossary of some definitions useful in the Ivory-bill arena:

"Groupthink" --- A blind thought process that 'Party A' accuses 'Party B' of engaging in, all the while that 'Party A' is wholly immersed in it.

"Luneau video" --- Modern-day ornithological Rorschach test (or 4 seconds of cryptic, enigmatic, pixelated mystery) that splits all birders into 2 diametrically-opposed groups.

"kent... kent" --- the sound that Blue Jays repeatedly make... when imitating certain big woodpeckers of the deep forest.

"Cornell Lab of Ornithology" --- the renowned professional bastion of knowledge and expertise in North American ornithology... or... NOT.

"extinct" --- the state-of-being of any lifeform that refuses to subject itself to current photographic representation.

"field biology" --- the "science" in which limited observations of small, generally non-random samples are routinely extrapolated to draw loose/false inferences and generalizations about entire populations.

"field marks" --- Specific physical characteristics/markings used to differentiate Ivory-bills from all other birds... except for briefly-glanced, over-sized, bi-laterally leucistic Pileateds.

Bigfoot --- creature whose very non-existence proves the extinction of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

"the non-commutative law of mistaken identifications" (or, the one-way direction of mistaken identifications) --- out of dozens of brief "Ivory-bill" sightings ALL can be assumed to actually be Pileated Woodpeckers, but out of 1000's of brief sightings of Pileateds none could ever be an Ivory-bill.

"extraordinary" --- a description typifying any supposition that you don't personally believe in, but definitely not applying to any supposition you do believe in.

"certainty" --- in science, the product of linking feel-good conjectures with circular arguments, while ignoring underlying assumptions; otherwise, a term applying only to death and taxes.

Occam's Razor --- the philosophical notion that when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomena one may as well believe whichever explanation one most prefers, and figure out how to justify it afterward.

"The Ivory-billed Woodpecker -- Rediscovered" --- Internet Facebook site for proudly showing off your crystal-clear Pileated Woodpecker photos.

"rare" or "endangered species" --- lifeforms that the USFWS is charged with protecting…. (also, honest or ethical Republicans).

"camera" -- a modern day routine convenience carried by almost all birders but invariably rendered useless when in the presence of the force-field of certain Lord Godly creatures.

Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida --- 3 states that have no claims whatsoever for the Loch Ness Monster, but where Invisible Big Woodpeckers (IBWs) are thought to thrive.

50,000 --- the number of reward dollars forfeited when no one could lead wildlife officials to a single living Ivory-billed Woodpecker.... (also, coincidentally, the number of photos and YouTube videos submitted purporting to show IBWOs, that were in fact clearly Pileateds).

"The Lord God Bird" --- best song Sufjan Stevens ever wrote/sang.

"A"-hole --- The designation that Cornell gave specifically to those large tree cavities which, by several criteria, were deemed most likely to be associated with work of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker…. or, a loose, non-technical term occasionally used by certain participants in the IBWO debate to reference other participants in same debate.

"Birds Aren't Real" movement --- a fringe, breakaway group from the "Ivory-bills Don't Exist" movement.

"dorsal white trailing edge" --- a diagnostic feature of the Red-headed Woodpecker; ambiguous when applied to any other species.

“Knock, Knock!” — the rare, distinctive sound of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker communicating to its brethren in the field…. or, the frequent start of your 7-year-old telling a joke.

Saluda County, S.C. — perhaps (…or perhaps not) the last-known decades-long stealth refuge of both Bachman’s Warblers and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers.

skeptics --- those perchance yet awaiting to sample the simple taste of crow.

“Ivory-bills Live???!” — THE blog written and read by bonkers birders worldwide.

philosophical conundrum --- If an Ivory-billed Woodpecker flies through a forest but no one is there to see and clearly photograph it, then does it exist?

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

— E’s Pining I Tell You! —

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

Have to maintain a sense of humor through all this, so just a blast-from-the-past laugh  today; (and I’ll always give the stodgy Brits credit for their sense of humor!)… posted this originally 17 years ago after it ran over on BirdForum (…strictly for fans of Monty Python and their famous Parrot sketch; sorry, I don’t know the originator):

**********************

Fitzcrow: ....I wish to complain about this woodpecker what I discovered not less than 2 years ago from this very big woods.

Skeptics: Oh yes, the, uh, the Pileated...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Fitzcrow: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's not the Pileated he's the IBWO and no one, seems to believe me.

Skeptics: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's a Pileated.

Fitzcrow: Look, matey, I know an IBWO when I see one, and I'm looking at 6 pixels of one right now.

Skeptic: No no he's not an IBWO, he's, he's a PIWO'! Remarkable bird, the PIWO, idn'it, ay? Beautiful bill!

Fitzcrow: The bill don't enter into it. It's all about the white trailing edge.

Skeptics: Nononono, no, no! 'E's an PIWO, you're looking at the underside of the wing!

Fitzcrow: All right then, if we're looking at the underside, then what about the white stripes on the back

(cut to Fitzcrow deinterlacing the video).

Skeptic: You just put those on during processing.

Fitzcrow: No I didn't.

Skeptics: Yes, you did!

Fitzcrow: I never, never did anything...

Skeptics: (yelling and examining the footage repeatedly) 'ELLO PIWO!!!!!

Now that's what I call a extinct species.

Fitzcrow: No, no.....No, 'e's hiding!

Skeptics: Hiding?!?

Fitzcrow: Yeah! Hiding, IBWOs hate man. They take on the appearance of a PIWO when ever a human looks at them for more than 3 seconds.

Skeptics: That's insane

Fitzcrow: Well, he's... he's, ah... probably pining for the swamps.

Skeptic: PININ' for the SWAMPS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why can't anyone photograph this bird, why can't we get video?

Fitzcrow: The IBWO's a magical bird. You must be in full ghillie suit and mask your scent to get but a glimpse. Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

Skeptic: Look, I took the liberty of examining the footage when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that you think it's a IBWO is that you can't tell dorsal from ventral

(pause)

Fitzcrow: Well, if we admitted it was ambiguous we wouldn't have been given all these shiny new coins.

There are in fact many IBWOs from AR to LA.

Skeptic: "AR to LA"?!? Mate, this bird EXTINCT.

Fitzcrow: No no! 'E's pining!

Skeptic: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This IBWO is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't deinterlaced the video 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!

'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!

'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-SPECIES!

**********************

....meanwhile, we'll wait to see who gets the last laugh

—————————----———

-- An Example Worth Knowing --

 ————————————————

Medical test diagnoses are just one example (but an important one) of how difficult or tricky it is to understand logical probabilities; in fact it’s well-known that doctors themselves often fail in their understanding of medical test results. One, of many, common examples often given in chapters on Bayesian or conditional statistics runs along these lines:

Suppose 1% of 40-year-old women have breast cancer. And suppose a certain mammography machine correctly diagnoses breast cancer 90% of the time (i.e., IF a woman has breast cancer there is a 90% chance the machine will say so). Suppose the same machine has a 10% chance of giving a false-positive — it says a woman has breast cancer but she does NOT. 

Suppose now, Mary, a 40-year-old woman, goes in for a regular mammography screening and the machine indicates she has breast cancer. What is the probability that she actually does?

People (including doctors) often think there must be close to a 90% chance she is afflicted with cancer. In actuality, it is closer to an 8% chance!

The initial math is not all that difficult:

1% of 40-year-old women have breast cancer, so out of say 1000 such women who go in for testing, ~10 will actually have the disease, on average, and 990 will not.

The machine has 90% accuracy so of those 10 with cancer the machine will diagnose 9 of them correctly (but miss one).
Of the 990 without breast cancer the machine will yield a false-positive on 10% of them, or 99 women.

Thus, out of 1000 original women tested, a total of 108 (9 + 99) will test positive for breast cancer, though only 9 will actually have it.

9 out of 108 (positives) turns out to be a final accuracy rate for a positive result of ~8.3%. THAT is the likelihood, from this one screening, that Mary truly has breast cancer (it is unfortunate how much fear and anxiety such tests automatically generate -- this goes for a number of other medical tests as well). [Note how things would change IF the machine gave NO false-positives (but all do).]

The above is just the basic, rough (but noteworthy) math of the given situation — there are plenty of other variables to consider: any known genetics of the patient or relevant past family history, or current pertinent physical or physiological results. But I’m using the example solely to portray how easily our common sense or intuitions mislead us. The problem is that people automatically assume a "90% accuracy" rate means that any given result has a 90% chance of being true, when in fact a larger context with more conditional factors must be brought into consideration when looking at any single case... and guess what, that's almost always true in life.————————————————

ADDENDUM:   For readers surprised by these numbers I ought further explain that this sort of confusion is commonplace for “screening” tests, which are employed to find candidates for further “diagnostic” testing or examination that is more specific for the condition being investigated (anytime a doctor orders a test for you always worth asking if it is a screening test OR a diagnostic test — perhaps most major ailments these days have both).