Here.
Update: Louis Bevier posted some thoughts here.
Election Results
2 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
7 comments:
"Folks who have viewed the video at Cornell Lab of Ornithology do
not believe the bird can be definitively identified, but we wanted to make the video clips more widely available for additional comments."
Hmmm ... must be some OTHER Cornell Lab of Ornithology!
"Look Paw, They's larnin'!" Too bad it's too late... We'll have to wait until the Passenger Pigeon footage shows up before we really see how much they've learned.
I had a moment of excitement when, at the very end of clip no. 2, I thought I was seeing pale spots on a fanning tail -- but it was just a leaf. Not that a female Bachman's Warbler would be likely to show extensive tail spots, but the presence of at least some spots would help to eliminate a Golden Warbler. That said, I agree completely with Louis Bevier's comments.
Can't they measure the wing beat frequency to rule out all other species?
What about the rate of neck twisting? Or average branch-to-branch hopping height?
One has to wonder what the motivation behind this appeal is. It does not seem to be what it claims, a sincere interest in identifying this bird. Could it be to generate publicity in advance of this October’s North American Ornithological Conference where Fitzcrow is leading a symposium on Cuba? It may be that, but it also appears to be an attempt to sell a new CLO image, one that says "we’re conservative birders." The difficult in selling that image is the glaring disparity between the very poor video images of the Luneau woodpecker that CLO continues to sell as definitive and the much better images of this warbler that we are told “folks…at Cornell Lab of Ornithology do not believe…can be definitively identified.”
The warbler, even when presented as an unknown, readily elicits the opinion that it looks like Yellow Warbler (gundlachi Golden Warbler). I'll bet most people agree that there is not enough information for a definitive identification, but it’s fairly obvious what they think the bird is. Because CLO never solicited opinions outside a core group of people who had already been primed to accept their identification of the woodpecker, one cannot test what reactions experts might have had to the Luneau images. My guess is that most would have said it probably was a Pileated (if they got to woodpecker and not Muscovy).
This Yellow warbler video is just bad enough that someone could make anything out of it they wanted to, and that has been done. A cursory check of the literature shows that the Dunn and Garrett “Warblers” guide cross references immature female Bachman’s with immature female gundlachi Yellow Warbler, the latter a known inhabitant of mangroves, the former not. Because this information is readily available and the video strongly suggests a Yellow Warbler, I find CLO’s current appeal gratuitous and insincere.
These images, although far clearer than Luneau and Collins fail persuade, and grouped with Luneau and Collins, all seem to have in common the absence of a single distinguishing field mark that could separate the ordinary from the extraordinary. This leaves a lot of room for the imagination.
Tom has told us before what sort of evidence he thinks would constitute proof, but here's a very different question: "What sort of purported IBWO image would you find to be interesting?" Not proof, but somewhat persuasive, you know... Interesting... worth your time. Personally I'd set the bar pretty low. A persuasive image could be: "A credibly recorded image documenting at least one unambiguous and consistent field mark."
Without some such a filter though, there is a potential endless stream of images to consider. Very serious minds at Birdforum have demonstrated this, and folks goofing off here have demonstrated the same.
OK, definitions:
Unambiguous and consistent field mark: For IBWO the obvious stuff... a white bill, a large white dorsal wing patch, or a white trailing edge on a ventral wing, that is consistent with other visible field marks as indicating IBWO, and that has no other reasonable explanation.
Credibly recorded: The individual who recorded the image is willing and able to discuss the circumstances of the sighting. The image is provided in context (if it's a movie clip the whole clip is provided, if it's a still image, all recorded stills are provided). Also, there should be no single observer secrecy... some other reasonably experienced birders are given the opportunity to attempt to relocate the bird shortly after the recorded sighting.
That's it for definitions.
These potential Bachmans, Luneau, and Collins images all fail to be persuasive by this very modest standard. I would hope anything else that others may share with us in their attempts to discover the extraordinary among the ordinary can at least meet the rather low bar of this "Interesting" standard..."A credibly recorded image documenting at least one unambiguous and consistent field mark".
pd
When attempting to establish the presence of IBWO amongst PIWO, ambiguous images carry no weight as evidence regardless of how many images are produced. I don't mean that as hyperbole, I mean it at face value. If anyone disagrees I'd like to know why. Again, ambiguous images carry no weight as evidence.
Of course ambiguous images are useful for creating a pop science buzz, perhaps for energizing TNC rank and file, or for exciting Birdforum folks. Note that Team IBWO has all along geared its presentation to the pop science audience, but also note that to rile them up with images of no evidentiary weight would be dubious... and I would say more specifically... manipulative.
Team IBWO got at least one thing right with Luneau... they assumed it should be presented to the public within a context of scientific scrutiny. They failed to provide sufficient scrutiny, but at least they did assume a scientific context like Science magazine was essential. I agree. With these Warbler clips, they're taking the Tabloid approach "Could These Be Bachman? The Public Has A Right To Decide!"
If more fuzzy images fall into the hands of Team IBWO. There will be a temptation to serve them up "Bachman Style"...Just exciting enough to fire up the masses, but with no claim of evidentiary significance. It serves their team PR purposes, but puts no credibility on the line.
"The public has a right to decide", they'll say. "After all, that's what they did with Luneau." Well, the public has had to make up its own mind about Luneau because of the void left by insufficient legitimate scientific scrutiny early on. It's no example to go by.
To distribute ambiguous IBWO/PIWO images without analytical appraisal would serve no scientific purpose, but would, by manipulative means, excite the popular imagination. This is what Tabloids are good for.
pd
Post a Comment