IBWO questions for the AOU meeting

The American Ornithologists' Union will meet in Santa Barbara, California, from Tuesday through Saturday, 23 - 27 August 2005. It looks like the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO) will be discussed frequently.

I think the AOU meeting would be a good time to question the Cornell team about their claimed rediscovery of the IBWO. (Unfortunately, I won't be there).

In my opinion, valid questions could include the ones below. If you will be attending the meeting, why not ask some of these questions and see what happens? If you know people who will be attending, please pass these questions on to them:

1. When we last heard from David Sibley, Kenn Kaufman, and Jerome Jackson, they were not convinced by your evidence. Those are, respectively, two of the most prominent bird ID experts in the country, along with one of the world's foremost experts on the IBWO. If that trio is skeptical, why should the general public be convinced?

2. How could you possibly glimpse the bird so many times, yet only see one key field mark (white trailing wing edges), while never seeing four other key field marks (the white dorsal stripes, the white neck stripe ending before the bill, the longitudinal black stripe on the white wing underside, or the pale bill itself). If the bird was really an IBWO, and it let you see the white trailing wing edges repeatedly, why wouldn't the other fieldmarks show up as well?

3. As a specific example, on page 152 of "The Grail Bird", Tim Gallagher says that he and Bobby Harrison had a "superb view of the back" of a flying IBWO at less than 80 feet away. Given that both observers had a "superb view", why did neither note the prominent white dorsal stripes?

4. With so much observer coverage, in such a small area, how could you possibly avoid getting a good, close view of the bird, as well as some good photos? I'm not comfortable with "the bird was unbelievably wary" as an explanation. When the IBWO was last documented, it was relatively easy to locate, track, and view at close range. Do you think the IBWO is wary enough to detect and avoid remote cameras? Is it now wary enough to detect and avoid many camoflauged observers sitting quietly watching potential roost holes and foraging areas?

5. Why was there evidently only one bird, never a pair, with never any evidence of other breeding IBWOs nearby? Why would a single IBWO be present in this evidently marginal habitat, after over 60 years of searching with no authenticated sightings of the bird?

6. Were any partially-leucistic Pileateds seen in the Cache River area? If so, where was their abnormal coloration?

7. Have you submitted your sight records to the Arkansas Bird Records Committee? If not, why not?

8. In your paper, you said this:
----
Series of nasal calls closely resembling those recorded by A. A. Allen at the Singer Tract in 1935 were recorded at two places in the White River National Wildlife Refuge, but these may have been given by blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata, a notorious mimic).
----
Should anyone now believe that these nasal calls provide stand-alone proof that the IBWO lives?

9. Is it true that no recording exists of the IBWO's double knock?

10. Of the double-knocks, your paper said this:
---
We cannot positively associate these recorded signals as belonging to ivory-billed woodpecker, however, and several seem out of context.
---
Can you be more specific about what you meant when you said "several seem out of context"?

11. Roger Tory Peterson wrote this about the IBWO:
---
Kient-kient-kient, the birds cry, loudly and frequently as they forage.
---
David Sibley wrote this about the IBWO:
---
Wingbeats very noisy, producing a loud, wooden, fluttering sound.
---
During the 'IBWO' encounters listed in your paper, no one mentions hearing a kent-like vocalization, and no one mentions the distinctive wingbeat sound. Why did the observers never hear these sounds?

12. Say an honest, enthusiastic, experienced team spends ten or twenty thousand hours in a limited area looking for ivory-bills. If no ivory-bills were present, some people would say that evidence like fleeting glimpses, kent-like calls and double-knocks would be expected. If ivory-bills were present, however, these same people would say that solid evidence (such as clear photos and videos) would be expected. What is your response to those people?

13. Who did the "peer review" for Science magazine? Did these reviewers even watch the original Luneau video before accepting your paper?

14. Do you agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? Do you think that enough pieces of weak evidence eventually constitute convincing proof?