The reason for the contrast is simple--Cornell is extrapolating an "Ivory-bill" using base data consisting of fleeting observations of Pileateds, misidentified Blue Jay calls, misinterpreted double-knocky things, blurry photographs of branch stubs, etc etc. Tanner, on the other hand, based his work on years of close-up observations and photographs of actual, living Ivory-bills.
From today's article (the bold font is mine):
Citing his bird books and online stories about the ivory-billed sightings and recordings by Cornell ornithologists in Eastern Arkansas in 2004 and last year, he said that ivory-billeds are the last word in shyness.To keep your perspective, I think it's useful to periodically review what Tanner actually wrote. After glancing through my copy of Tanner's book this morning, here are a few notes:
"They say it takes about 100 square miles of forest to support one family of ivory-billeds. Any activity at all will scare them off. Your best chance is to see one flying up high in the canopy and note where he goes."
1. Regarding the alleged wariness, again check out what Tanner said (here).
2. Regarding the alleged massive home range, note that Tanner wrote this on page 94 of his book (the bold font is mine):
...Studies of the Ivory-bills in the Singer Tract indicate that the minimum area for one pair of birds should be two and a half to three square miles. They do not need all of that forest at any one time, but that much would be necessary to insure an adequate food supply from year to year...3. Regarding fidelity to the roost hole, Tanner wrote (page 100):
Ivory-bills roost singly in holes, and very frequently use the same hole night after night; one pair of birds used the same roosting ground for three years.4. Note that on page 22, Tanner writes:
All the Ivory-bills that I have ever seen I located first by hearing them call and then going to them.I believe 0% of Cornell's alleged sightings were achieved this way.
Posts
4 comments:
Yes, but Tanner didn't have the help of a psychic.
All the Ivory-bills that I have ever seen I located first by hearing them call and then going to them.
I believe 0% of Cornell's alleged sightings were achieved this way.
Casey Taylor's alleged IBWO sighting came after she headed towards what she believed to be a calling campephilus.......and that was the point where she turned the camcorder onto playback mode and missed the opportunity to record any hard evidence of her observation. At least that's the CLO story - much more convenient than admitting that she didn't video an IBWO because there wasn't actually one there in the first place.
cynically yours
"Casey Taylor's alleged IBWO sighting came after she headed towards what she believed to be a calling campephilus..."
Actually, according to every version of that story that I've heard, Casey only heard double-knocky things, not any kent-like calls.
Evidently at least 30 minutes elapsed between the last double-knocky thing and her alleged sighting. I suspect that that the alleged IBWO was NOT seen flying from the direction of the double-knockies when first seen (the account in The Grail Bird is vague on this point, perhaps deliberately).
I just love Academia's policy on "You Can't Do It - Oh but We Can."
The public isn't supposed to say they saw an ivorybill without clear video documentation for evidence. However, in this case it's OK for Academia to say they saw one - without any clear evidence whatsoever and we are supposed to believe them.
Sounds like "hypocrisy" at it's finest.
Bona Ditto
" "
Post a Comment