An excerpt:
Sight records are exciting and are fundamentally important to bird study. Written descriptions and sketches have value for the observer and for posterity. Both should continue to be encouraged as central to the hobby and the science of bird study. But we must accept that sightings will always be subject to some error, slightly less than proof, and that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". This has been the standard for hundreds of years.Sibley weighs in on the "Cuban mystery warbler" here.
More posts by Louis Bevier are here and here.
Posts
7 comments:
It is very odd that CLO put these videos out on a website with the label "Mystery Warbler" and the suggestion that it may have been a Bachman's, but that they found it unidentifiable.
They didn't list any characters that they used to arrive at "unidentifiable" and gave no inkling of the comments they'd recieved from other ornithologists who may have looked at the videos.
My point is that there seems to be no reason to link these images with the words "Bachman's Warbler" other than to sensationalize what seems to be a common bird acting typically in an expected habitat.
What made them think otherwise?
Sibley and Bevier are among the best of the best in the U.S. birding scene. They understand the limitations of both written and photographic evidence like few other birders. A number of others weighing in are also fantastic and cautious birders.
Perhaps Mike "Unmistakable" Collins should read this ID-Frontiers thread carefully. He might understand that the quality of his field notes, and not just of IBWO, are the reason that his sightings get discounted. Without that realization and a desire to improve, he will forever be stuck in his own little "I know what I saw" world.
Methinks you neglected to mention that Sibley also stated: "The ivory-billed sightings have not been ignored. They could be correct. They do constitute evidence and investigators have used the sightings to direct monumental search efforts." But he goes on to say "Those searches could have led to more sightings, lengthy repeat observations, and high-quality documentation. So far it’s been a dead-end, but the search continues." Now then, if one of your heroes concedes that the sightings "could be correct," why is there so much personal acrimony here with all caution and respect thrown to the wind?
METHINKS II
anonymous likely from Cornell said:
"Now then, if one of your heroes concedes that the sightings "could be correct," why is there so much personal acrimony here with all caution and respect thrown to the wind?"
I don't personally feel acrimony but I think that Fitz et al. throwing caution to the wind and continuing to claim that Luneau constitutes proof that IBWO is extant in light of reasoned arguments to the contrary might have something to do with the emotion directed toward that crew.
Now then, if one of your heroes concedes that the sightings "could be correct," why is there so much personal acrimony here with all caution and respect thrown to the wind?
The lack of respect on my part comes from the lack of caution on the part of those that claim they have proof the IBWO exists. They willfully ignore the lack of quality of their evidence, and come up with some pretty "original" defenses. It's the leap to conclusion that I don't respect, not the effort to find proof.
I saw two similar looking mystery warblers in my yard this morning. At first I thought that they were just Yellow Warblers, but now I believe that they could have been Bachman's Warblers.
Seriously, though, Sibley and Bevier are to be applauded (again) for putting the brakes on another Cornell attempt at producing mass hysteria. Frankly, I don't understand why everyone was pussy-footing around on this one. The mystery warbler is obviously a friggin Yellow (probably Mangrove-type). And, if the video isn't diagnostic or even semi-diagnostic for Bachman's then the default option is Yellow or "unidentified." End of story. Cornell seems to have become the champion of the downtrodden common birder. Everything should be considered unusual until proven otherwise (and even then it should continue to be considered unusual....). Cornell has shifted the burden of proof from the believer back to the skeptic, eroding decades of progress in conservative bird records reporting.
Correction: youthinks I'm "likely from Cornell" but I have never even been there, have never had anything more than a brief casual conservation with anybody there, and methinks they erred in claiming proof when obviously they did not. But methinks it's a good thing that they're trying to find and document IBWOs and conserve their habitat, and consider much of the mockery here disrespectful. Methinks independently, as should everyone.
METHINKS II
Post a Comment