Here's one sentence from the article:
Except for fleeting glimpses of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, several seconds of video footage, and intriguing sounds, ivory-bills have remained elusive since their reappearance in 2004.Here's another excerpt:
“Before the rediscovery in Arkansas, the main hope for ivory-bill conservation was in Cuba,” said Martjan Lammertink, a research scientist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and a coauthor of the study.The quote above seems an odd one, given that Lammertink authored this 1995 article entitled "No more hope for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker". After repeated, fruitless searches in Cuba, Lammertink wrote:
The conclusion must be that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, C. principalis, had become extinct by 1990.
Posts
3 comments:
Lammertink is all over the place on this fiasco. Sometimes he plays the foolish joker pronouncing every "sighting" as just more evidence. Other times he plays the serious unbiased scientist carefully examining the evidence. But always trying not to undermine the CLO case, of course.
He is one strange dude. A minor player, full sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And it was a paper by Lammertink and Estrada (Bird Conservation International 5:53-59, 1995)--which concluded the Cuban ivory-bill was "almost certainly extinct" (some scientists are reluctant to say anything with certainty)--that was the basis for the statement in the AOU Check-list (1998:347) that the subspecies is "probably now extinct."
I noticed that Louis Bevier is another co-author of the DNA paper. (one of Sibley's et al's)
Post a Comment