Note the link to the BBC article about the Tasaday Hoax, which concludes this way:
On a more clear-cut issue, the Tasaday hoax has shown that exaggeration by both the media and power-hungry politicians combined with the support of scientists who turn a blind eye can lead to exploitation of incredible magnitude.
Posts
31 comments:
A large woodpecker, Celeus obrieni, known from only a single specimen collected in Brazil in 1926, was just rediscovered after going undetected for 80 years. Details, including photos, are posted at:
http://arruda.rits.org.br/notitia/servlet/newstorm.ns.presentation.NavigationServlet?publicationCode=6&pageCode=67&textCode=19739&date=currentDate&contentType=html
So, is this just another hoax--or the real deal?
It is no surprise whatsoever that Brazilian animals go undetected for long stretches.
For one thing, the Brazilian government continues to promote large-scale destruction of its forests, while "protecting" "their" biodiversity by preventing legitimate research by foreigners and even Brazilians.
Furthermore, Brazil still lacks a modern field guide to its birds!
Thanks for posting the link to the excellent article about rediscovery of "Caatinga" Woodpecker Celeus obrieni with two handheld photos of the bird. For the benefit of those who don't read Portuguese, here is an English summary with additional information:
Rufous-headed Woodpecker, C. spectabilis, is a taboca bamboo specialist found in Amazonia. It is uncommon but not difficult to find from tapping, drums and calling. In 1926, Emil Kaempfer collected a specimen of a bird believed to be spectabilis near Uruçuí in southwest Piauí, northeast Brazil, near the Rio Parnaíba. (Uruçuí is located at the southern end of the Boa Esperança dam reservoir, and much habitat in the area must now be under water.) The specimen, now in the AMNH, recently was elevated to species status based on morphological and habitat differences and geographical separation from the nominate spectabilis.
Birders have explored the vicinity of the type locality on several recent trips, but without success. The habitat has been seriously impacted by fires, overgrazing, and flooding as a result of the Boa Esperança dam, which was built in the 1960s. Although the common name given to obrieni was Caatinga Woodpecker, the habitat at Uruçuí is not caatinga but cerrado with babaçu palm forest. Consequently, Fabio Olmos has proposed a new common name of Kaempfer's Woodpecker. See his posts to the BirdLife Forum on C. obrieni.
The Belém-Brasília Road, BR-010, currently terminates from the north at Goiatins, in northeast Tocatins. The main route crosses a bridge about 155 km north of Goiatins from Maranhão to Tocatins. From there, vehicles follow BR-153 through Tocatins and most of Goiás to Anápolis, which is about 100km west of Brasília. It appears from this article that a new direct extension of BR-010 bypassing central Tocatins may be under construction.
On October 21, 2006, Advaldo do Prado was undertaking a study of avifauna in the vicinity of Goiatins, along the route of construction of "mais un trecho" (one more section) of BR-010, using mist nets. He caught a woodpecker that he couldn't identify, took photos, released the bird, and sent the photos off for identification. After being advised that he had caught C. obrieni, he sent a photo to Fernando Pacheco, one of the leading Brazilian birders and ornithologists, who made the remarkable rediscovery of Kinglet Calyptura near Teresópolis several years ago. Pacheco would like to see a DNA analysis of C. obrieni to eliminate any doubt as to its identity, for which it will be necessary to catch one and collect a blood sample.
I would suggest that looking for C. obrieni and obtaining tape recordings, field photos, and natural history information would be a much better use of one's time than looking for the extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker. It should be fairly easy for anyone who would like to try, and there will be no reason to behave foolishly, tell lies, cry, or dress in camoflage. Get the comprehensive Pimsleur Brazilian Portuguese tapes (90 half-hour lessons) and spend an hour a day studying for at least four months. Then fly to Brasília, rent a car, and follow the route to Belém. As long as you're simply a birder and not doing formal scientific research, you won't need any permits, except possibly in the national park, which should not be a problem.
Goiatins, where obrieni was rediscovered, is too small to be listed in Guia Quatro Rodas, but like other Brazilian towns of similar size, in all likelihood it has one or more decent hotels and restaurants. There is an ecotourism website based on the town of Carolina, Maranhão, which is 60 km northeast of Goiatins, featuring Parque Nacional Chapada das Mesas, which protects 160,000 hectares of cerrado. A major tourist attraction, listed in Guia Quatro Rodas, is Cachoeiras da Pedra Caída, an impressive waterfall located 35km north of Carolina on the Rio Tocatins.
You should be able to find out where Advaldo do Prado found the bird either by contacting him or local IBAMA, or if all else fails, asking people in town where the extension of BR-010 is going to be built. The two handheld photos of the bird give a good view of the cerrado habitat. I would go to this site first and try to get a recording, then troll the tape in other places. From the Guia Rodoviário (Brazil road atlas), other areas to explore would appear to include a road running 64 km southeast from Goiatins to Campos Lindos, roads running east from central Tocatins that go respectively to Amaro Leite and Alto Parnaíba, Maranhão, and PN das Mesas.
I believe that there is a recording of C. spectabilis on one of Tom Schulenberg's Birds of Peru CDs and possibly on other CDs as well. C. spectabilis calls most reliably at dawn, and like other Celeus, is often detected from tapping.
John Wall
New York
WorldTwitch - Finding Rare Birds Around the World
John, you claim the 'rediscovery' of the Ivory-bill is a hoax and appear to be absolutely certain it is extinct. But are you willing to put money on it? Amy Lester has, although we have good reason to believe she is writing pseudonymously, but we know who you are.
I'm an IBWO agnostic (and not Fishcrow, who I've been mistaken for in the past) but, in my opinion, claiming that the IBWO rediscovery is a "hoax" is uncharitable if not downright libellous. My dictionary defines a hoax as "something intended to deceive or defraud."
So, a few guys are convinced they saw the bird in Arkansas. Mistaken, perhaps (in my opinion), but convinced nevertheless. In what way were they intending to deceive or defraud?
They manage to convince some big wigs at a major university that they really saw the bird. A search yields more poor sightings--mistaken, perhaps (in my opinion)--by others who are convinced they saw the bird. In what way were they intending to deceive or defraud?
The search then produces a lousy video with images appearing to be an IBWO--mistaken, probably (in my opinion)--but the fuzzy features visible in the video were tantalizing and at first glance fooled a lot of people into believing it was an IBWO. But the video obviously was not a fabrication and was made available for all to see, and some still are convinced it was an IBWO. In what way were they intending to deceive or defraud?
The Piltdown and Tasaday hoaxes were intended from the very beginning to fabricate data in an attemt to deceive the scientific community. But in this case, are you claiming that the data--sightings, video images and sound recordings--were intentionally staged in some way to convince others?
If not, then you shouldn't be using the word "hoax" or comparing the IBWO "rediscovery" to the Piltdown or Tasaday hoaxes. It's one thing to claim the bird was never seen by those who never did, and I have no problem if that's what you believe. But it's an extraordinary claim to allege that those individuals are lying with the intent to deceive or defraud.
Personally I don't doubt the sincerity of those who are convinced they have seen the IBWO, or of those who are convinced by the evidence that the IBWO persists, even though I'm far from convinced the bird persists. But all this nasty personal acrimony I'm reading on this blog (and what no doubt will be written in response to this comment) is no more professional than claiming proof when there is none. I know this comment will be interpreted as a defense of the believers, but it's not (some of the believers irk me just as much). Actually it's more of a defense of civility (and probably unwelcome to some of the readers here). Character assassination will never earn my respect and I suspect it turns off the vast majority of those who are interested in the IBWO. And as much as I would like it to, I harbor no illusions that this comment will put an end to it.
Hey, what's all this nonsense about comparing me with the Ivory-bill? My forgery was far more sophisticated and well planned than anything Cornell could have possibly concocted! What, with my carefully broken orangutan jaw and filed chimpanzee teeth, I sat in a cabinet of the prestigious British Museum where I fooled the best of scientists for decades, not just a few months! And unlike the Ivory-bill, I never even existed. I was the only one of my fabricated kind, yet there are hundreds of bona fide Ivory-bill specimens scattered throughout the world's museums. And unlike the Ivory-bill, I played a pivotal role in the evolutionary theory of hominids--the pinnacle of evolutionary success--for decades. How dare you compare me with a dead-end bird who a bunch of amateurs can't distinguish from a flying Pileated! I'm the perfect hoax, not the Ivory-bill! And if it still flies, may the Ivory-bill forever poop in your low-browed, short-jawed, open-mouthed face.
Hi Piltdownman,
It is clear that Cornell has repeatedly practiced deliberate deception. I list many examples
here .
Can you tell me specifically why examples #1 and #2 do not constitute deliberate deception?
Tom
anonymous #3:
I'll be happy to accept a wager. Please let me know how much you want to lose and how to contact you, preferably via a responsible third party.
piltdownman:
As has been said before, there is a very thin line between honest mistake and fraud. In this case what started as the former seems to be ending as the latter.
Piltdownman asked
In what way were they intending to deceive or defraud?
The fraud comes in not having their results reviewed before announcing the “conservation story of the century” or considering alternative interpretations of their results.
The fraud comes from allowing the production of maps that show a current range based on “recent sightings” and showing only those “recent sightings” that best fit one’s agenda.
The fraud comes from going to a public that is concerned about the decline of the nation’s natural resources and making it seem that contributing funds for more IBWO research will in anyway slow that decline.
The fraud comes from hurting the real conservation efforts in the rapidly deteriorating ecosystems of the world by siphoning off public and private funds better spent elsewhere.
I am sure it will warm the hearts of Cornell alums and those who have a current or past association with the CLO that at this point the discussion of the “IBWO rediscovery” has to do with whether the CLO was perpetrating a fraud or simply advancing a hoax.
The CLO (and the NGO researchers who bought into their fiasco) now are in a position where they can best avoid the charges of fraud by claiming that they were duped. Since the academic community (in theory) places a premium on intelligence, they may be better off accepting a charge of fraud rather than the alternative, which would be that they completely bought into the stories and “evidence” of some kayakers on a lifelong quest.
In short if they want to be honest with the public now (rather than continue the charade) they can either admit they were deceitful or admit that they were not being very smart. I have no illusions that they will admit either – and note that in the academic arena they may lose less stature by admitting to the former.
>Anonymous said...
>John, you claim the 'rediscovery' of the Ivory-bill is a hoax and appear to be absolutely certain it is >extinct. But are you willing to put money on it? Amy Lester has, although we have good reason to >believe she is writing pseudonymously, but we know who you are.
--------
"We know who you are". I suppose that's intended to intimidate people in academic, government and conservation jobs, since it certainly doesn't intimidate me. Like the anonymous bully, some of them care a great deal about money, in particular grant money lost to pointless Ivory-billed Woodpecker searches. They're still afraid to go public, but as time goes by with no photographic or DNA evidence, they will gather the courage to start speaking out and fighting for the return of "their" funding. Tables could turn very quickly, as the now silent but seething experts find strength in numbers.
It's pointless to bet with the loonies about a real Ivorybill rediscovery, since there's not one shred of evidence suggesting it will ever happen. It would be analogous to betting with Jerry Falwell on whether Jesus is going to return.
For the convenience of readers more interested in birds and birding than gambling, fantasy, or obtaining and retaining Ivorybill grant money, I have embedded the link to the article about rediscovery of Kaempfer's (Caatinga) Woodpecker Celeus obrieni:
Uma agradável surpresa (A pleasant surprise) by João Teixeira da Costa, Eco, 24 November 2006.
John Wall
New York
WorldTwitch - Finding Rare Birds Around the World
I agree with John Wall in that there is nothing to be gained by this "are you willing to put money on it?" strategy of testing the level of someone's belief. Though it does suggest a new way of hypothesis testing in that researchers would not be tied to P values but would instead state how much money they would be willing to bet that their analysis or conclusions are valid.
I have always thought that the "will you bet on this?" part of the "Amy Lester" posts served no purpose other than to demonstrate how "she" wants to mix finances and assessment of evidence. This gets down to schoolyard interactions similar to people double and triple daring others, etc. Surely people on this blog should aspire to a higher level of interaction.
Piltdownwoman: in my opinion, claiming that the IBWO rediscovery is a "hoax" is uncharitable if not downright libellous."
Just curious, what are the connotations of using the name Piltdownwoman(man), referencing the greatest hoax in anthropological history, when posting about the IBWO?
You're right however, although there has been hoax in the latest go-round (billismad/tmguy photo)I don't think Cornell was guilty of a hoax. They are clearly guilty of deception at this point as they try to prop up their crumbling story.
>It would be analogous to betting with Jerry Falwell on whether Jesus is going to return.
>
Actually, I'd say the above is a more dangerous bet, since you wouldn't have to depend on a small, but tenacious, breeding population of Jesuses hanging on in some remote corner of a church for 2000+ years undectected until the return of Jesus is finally documented with Nat Geo-quality photos and video.
For all we know, he might return after humans have gone extinct!
*pop*
Jesus: "Hi, I'm Jesus, and I'm back!"
*silence*
Jesus: "God dammit!"
My Two Cents
(my apologies in advance to anyone who is upset by the tone of this email. Of course I believe Jesus will come back, and that we'll recognize him immediately and not doubt his sanity and place him in a mental institution once he starts trying to convince us of who he is).
John,
I'm the one who challenged you, but since I'm neither a believer nor an atheist, I wouldn't bet a penny either way. But someone else might, like "pd" who I believe has an ongoing bet of $1,000 with Amy Lester. I'm just curious to know who exactly these atheists are and why they are so confident that the IBWO is extinct when it appears they hold a minority view not widely embraced by others. As far as I can tell, Tom has not (yet) declared himself an atheist (I recall him stating the probability of the IBWO surviving was <1%, not 0%). You and "Amy Lester" seem to be the most vocal atheists. Anybody else want to publicly join the IBWO atheists club?
I'm just curious to know who exactly these atheists are and why they are so confident that the IBWO is extinct when it appears they hold a minority view not widely embraced by others.
What difference does it make what "others" believe when *all* the evidence is consistent with an extinct bird and a pack of deluded/lying "experts" peddling garbage?
If a majority of geniuses voted that the ivory billed woodpecker was alive, it wouldn't make a living IBWO easier to photograph.
It would make it easier to photograph a deluded genius, however.
"Anybody else want to publicly join the IBWO atheists club?"
Kneep.....kneep....
Anybody else want to publicly join the IBWO atheists club?
Jesu christo, man, where you been? I thought this blog was overwhelmingly dominated by IBWO atheists.
As for Amy and Pd's bet, it's just about the only honest outcome of this whole IBWO fiasco. It is well known, i.e.-Iowa Markets, that betting real money on real outcomes is the best predictor of the future. If everyone on this blog had to put real money down on "Yes or No, is the IBWO Extinct?", the Yeses would win overwhelmingly.
"since I'm neither a believer nor an atheist, I wouldn't bet a penny either way. But someone else might, like "pd" who I believe has an ongoing bet of $1,000 with Amy Lester."
Lucky Amy. I want to make some easy money too. Now I just need to find my "pd". Any takers?
"I'm just curious to know who exactly these atheists are"
PhD biologists, lifelong birders, critical thinkers...
"and why they are so confident that the IBWO is extinct"
We have seen no compelling evidence for IBWO persistence after 1944 despite the strenuous efforts of myriad TBs. We understand basic population biology. We understand how thoroughly suitable habitats were destroyed. We consider large woodpeckers to be loud, obvious birds that couldn't be overlooked for 62 years if present in any self-respecting first world country with a tradition of natural history (they could certainly be overlooked in Brazil). We are not fooled by gratuitous technology, models, and statistics.
"when it appears they hold a minority view not widely embraced by others."
Others are more sentimental, less informed, or more diplomatic.
"As far as I can tell, Tom has not (yet) declared himself an atheist (I recall him stating the probability of the IBWO surviving was <1%, not 0%)."
<1% is close enough to 0% as far as I'm concerned.
With due respect, you guys have provided several reasons why the Ivory-bill rediscovery is a hoax, but the same kinds of arguments could be used to label one side of any scientific controversy as a hoax.
Take, for example, the current controversy over global warming. We know there have been times in the past when the temperature was just as warm if not warmer than today (e.g. the Medieval warming period nearly a thousand years ago) and humans had nothing to do with it back then, so one could argue that the current episode of warming--if it is truly happening--is merely a natural climatic oscillation unrelated to human activities. If you believe strongly enough that this is true (I don't), you could argue that those who claim humans are causing global warming are attempting to deceive us by perpetrating a hoax. Why? Because they are constructing graphs that ignore the medieval warming period (e.g. the infamous 'hockey stick' graph), ignoring evidence that the earth is not warming up (e.g. some glaciers are advancing), marketing their belief through movies, books, etc. that humans are the cause of global warming, lobbying for increased funding for their pet research projects when the money could be better spent reducing poverty or cleaning up the environment, demanding that everybody change their lifestyle to reduce emissions when there is no need to, predicting doomsday scenarios that are unrealistic, creating sound-bites to market faith-based science, belittling those who deny global warming, etc.
In a genuine scientific controversy--unlike a hoax--unfabricated observations and data are provided in a legitimate scientific venue and the INTERPRETATIONS are heatedly discussed by the scientific community. If there are serious questions about whether the observations or data are fabricated--such as in the case of the Meinertzhagen specimens, but not in the case of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker rediscovery--then we have a legitimate hoax to deal with.
In the meanwhile, crying hoax every time somebody advances interpretations contrary to what one believes to be the truth is reminiscent of the proverbial boy who constantly cries wolf. If Santa wasn't a legitimate hoax, I could just imagine him saying "Hoax, hoax, hoax, merry Christmas!"
"Anybody else want to publicly join the IBWO atheists club?"
Methinks there are either few atheists with balls or many clucking chickens.
"I'm just curious to know who exactly these atheists are"
"PhD biologists, lifelong birders, critical thinkers..."
Have any PhD biologists publicly declared themselves to be atheists? If so, please name one.
Have any PhD biologists publicly declared themselves to be atheists? If so, please name one.
Failure to do so proves very little. Bigfoot is more widely recognized than the IBWO yet only a tiny fraction of PhD biologists have bothered to "publicly declare" their belief with respect to Bigfoot's non-existence.
The fact is: most professional biologists do not give a kneep about the IBWO. Part of the reason for that is surely the fact that, aside from a disreputable piece of trash published in Science magazine in 2005, there hasn't been anything newsworthy to report: no pictures, no photos, no eggs, no nests, no dead or captured birds, no nothing remotely resembling convincing evidence to support the bogus claims made earlier.
So Amy, how confident are you that the Fielding Lewis photos are bogus, and why do you think they were bogus?
Amy,
Have you ever considered that perhaps most phd biologists are less hasty in jumping to conclusions than you are, and are a trite more polite in expressing their opinions?
Have you ever considered that perhaps most phd biologists are less hasty in jumping to conclusions than you are, and are a trite more polite in expressing their opinions?
Since when is waiting 60 years for a large, showy, noisy, bark-ripping bird to allow itself to be photographed or captured by legions of devoted searchers considered "hasty"?
Give us all a break already.
Science magazine was polite to publish Fitzcrow's garbage. That is more politeness than most scientists get in their lifetimes, and most scientists do research which can actually be reproduced and verified.
Many of us have been reading about the IBWO for years, and all of us have had plenty of time by now to review the CLO and Auburn evidence, or lack thereof. So how exactly are we jumping to conclusions or hasty when we conclude that the IBWO must be extinct?
So Amy, how confident are you that the Fielding Lewis photos are bogus, and why do you think they were bogus?
You mean the photos that Fielding Lewis anonymously donated then fessed up to decades later?
The photos are real. Unless somebody tore them up, the photos still exist.
But the photos don't prove that IBWOs were living back in 1971 (or now), anymore than a plaster cast of a giant footprint in rural Oregon proves that Bigfoot is alive.
The widespread failure of folks to understand these basic facts about the nature of evidence and extraordinary claims is well-established. The failure is so well-established, in fact, that magicians, con artists, and hoaxers make a living exploiting the failure.
Amy,
Actually he was pointing out that you and not Science apparently slept through the "politeness" class in grad school.
But I have to admit that you have recently decreased the scatological asides in your posts - and I am glad that whatever you are taking is working out for you.
Actually he was pointing out that you and not Science apparently slept through the "politeness" class in grad school.
Yes, and I was pointing out that loads of politeness have been wasted on the IBWO-peddling hacks which is why I've tossed the silky white gloves.
I have to admit that you have recently decreased the scatological asides in your posts
Glad to know that you're keeping track. Did you see my richardgereus joke from a few hours ago? That was a pretty good crack, I thought (pun intended).
"You mean the photos that Fielding Lewis anonymously donated then fessed up to decades later?"
Yes, those photos, but you didn't answer my question. You've been stating all along that there is no evidence whatsoever that a living Ivory-bill has been detected since 1944. Fielding Lewis either photographed a living Ivory-bill or he staged a hoax with a specimen or decoy and afterward lied about it. Are you 100% certain that Fielding Lewis is a liar? Are you 100% certain that had you been standing in the exact same spot at the exact same time, you would not have seen an Ivory-bill?
Are you 100% certain that Fielding Lewis is a liar?
Better yet: I don't care if he is lying or a moron or both. It doesn't matter, you see.
Are you 100% certain that had you been standing in the exact same spot at the exact same time, you would not have seen an Ivory-bill?
No, because there is a chance that someone might have dosed my coffee with LSD that morning.
Post a Comment