Saturday, March 25, 2006

Another volunteer wades in

Here:
"It's a huge, pure swampland. I'll be wading in chest-deep water most of the time, as well as hiking and canoeing several miles a day. The area is pretty inhospitable to humans," Keller said. "That's probably why it's been 60 years since this bird has been seen."
...
Many bird experts believed initially that the ivory-bill was being mistaken as a pileated woodpecker, the common "Woody Woodpecker" species from the same habitat, Keller said. Additional evidence, including video and audio recordings, has convinced researchers that the ivory-bill is in fact alive.
...
"I just so desperately want this discovery to be true. There's a thought in the back of my mind that maybe it really isn't true, maybe it's just a really weird pileated woodpecker," Keller said before quickly returning to his childlike enthusiasm about the journey.

Report from a Cornell searcher

Cornell Ivory-bill searcher Henry Armistead has posted a lengthy report here, here, and here.

Personally, I didn't find this a very compelling read, but I thought this part was notable:
I have just heard from the Cornell Ivory-bill Project Communications & Marketing staff who have requested that I not include 3 paragraphs of my original report and to not include small sections of 2 other paragraphs. I hope that I have otherwise adhered below to what they would like.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Bring your binoculars

From an article about a David Luneau presentation next week:
There has been some skepticism about the rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker found in Arkansas. We think you will be amazed and convinced of its existence, once you hear and see Luneau's presentation. Bring your binoculars for an even better viewing and judge for yourself.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Yeah, that's telling 'em!

Nice stuff from Laura Erickson here and here.

(Note that Laura also comments on the fishcrow.com "evidence" here).

New article from Don Hendershot

Here.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Cornell's newest ploy?

An anonymous person emailed me this:
Check this out!
I got it from an alert birdwatcher in New England.

-----------------------
On Tuesday night, March 21, 2006 David Sibley appeared on WGBH's show "Greater Boston" hosted by Emily Rooney. The subject was the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and the segment began with an introduction of Sibley and the following statement....
"First, I should explain to viewers that Cornell University that shot the video tape didn't want us to show it because you're (Sibley) here and you're kind of doubting the sighting and they wanted to have one of their experts here but they are at Cornell so we weren't allowed to use the video tape."
----------------------

I guess if the press wants to talk about the video that is OK, but if the press wants to show the video it must be accompanied by the Cornell approved spin-miesters.

SHAMELESS!

Out of the office

My access to the internet will likely be sporadic through this Sunday night, so for the next few days, comment moderation on this blog will likely be slower than usual...

Growing skepticism on Wikipedia

The Wikipedia Ivory-billed Woodpecker page is growing increasingly skeptical.

You can look at that page's revision history here, and you can see some discussion about that page here.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Radio segment on Ivory-bill skeptics

Here is a 1/24/06 "For the Birds" radio segment (MP3 format) from "believer" Laura Erickson. It's about five minutes long.

Outside Magazine article now online

A March 2006 Outside Magazine Ivory-bill article (by Wells Tower) is now available here.

My previous blog entry on that article is here.

More from Kenn Kaufman

Please read his entire ID-Frontiers post here.

Short slide show from Charlotte.com

Here is a short slide show about the Congaree Ivory-bill search.

A view from Fayetteville

Check this out.

Tim Gallagher speaks in San Diego

Yesterday, Curtis Croulet attended a Tim Gallagher talk at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Here is one paragraph from Croulet's report:
For me, one of the most interesting parts of the talk happened before Gallagher started speaking. He was introduced by Philip Unitt, Curator of Birds and Mammals at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Unitt is one of San Diego's best-known and most experienced birders. He is author of the monumental San Diego County Bird Atlas. I was somewhat taken aback to hear Unitt introduce his guest by saying that (a close paraphrase) "although we would all like to believe a magnificent bird like the Ivory-bill still exists," there are "serious questions about the evidence," and we should "maintain our scientific objectivity." It's not often that a host says his guest speaker might be full of s**t! Gallagher ignored Unitt's remarks.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Cornell's bogus wingbeat frequency claim

Summary of this post: Cornell claims that the Luneau bird sustains a wingbeat frequency of 8.6 wingbeats per second for 4.5 seconds. I think the Luneau bird maintains roughly that wingbeat frequency for less than one second, then slows to more like 7.8 wingbeats per second (for a few wingbeats--maybe half a second). At this point, the bird gets so distant, blurry and obscured by trees that reliably counting wingbeats seems futile.

Background information for the above:

From Cornell's online Luneau video analysis:
The bird in the Luneau video flies in a straight, direct “beeline” flight without changing its wingbeat frequency for 4.5 sec before disappearing among the trees.... Based on a standard video rate of 29.97 frames per second, we can calculate the wingbeat frequency of the Luneau video bird as follows: using the position where the wings are over the back forming an acute 'V' as an index point for each of eight wingbeats, we observe this position in fields 250 ("0"), 366.7 ("1"), 483.3 ("2"), 583.3 ("3"), 700 ("4"), 816.7 ("5"), 950 ("6"), 1066.7 ("7"), and 1183.5 ("8"). These eight wingbeats span 56 video fields. At 59.94 fields per second, this corresponds to 8 beats in 0.934 seconds, or a wingbeat frequency of 8.6 beats per second.
Ok, the math is pretty simple: Take 8.6 wingbeats per second and multiply that by 4.5 seconds. If we watch the Luneau video, we should see roughly 38 wingbeats before the bird disappears.

There's one problem, though: when I watch the Luneau video, I can't see much more than about 11 wingbeats before the bird is gone.

There's another problem too: evidently when Fitz watches the video, evidently he doesn't see much more than about 11 wingbeats. From a Cornell story on the Cornell web site:
Presenting a plenary lecture at the American Ornithologists' Union Meeting at the University of California-Santa Barbara Aug. 25, Fitzpatrick said a new analysis of the video shows 11 wing beats of a retreating black-and-white-winged bird, consistent with the wing beats of an ivory-billed woodpecker and faster than the flight of the pileated woodpecker, commonly mistaken for the ivory-bill.
Cornell's response to Sibley's paper says this:
The Luneau woodpecker flies with a wingbeat frequency of 8.6 Hz without undulation for more than 4 s...The close match between the Luneau woodpecker and the 1935 recording is especially important because both are faster than any wingbeat frequency ever documented for pileated woodpecker. The sustained duration of this direct flight pattern by the Luneau woodpecker is extraordinary, because pileated woodpeckers typically shift to slower, deeper wingbeats moments after launching from a perch, even when the initial few beats are rapid.
Also note that the Luneau bird's wingbeat frequency slows significantly after the initial flaps. Independent calculations (mine and another person's) show that the Luneau bird flies at about 8.5 wingbeats per second for about the first 6 wingbeats, and it slows to 7.8 or less for the next 3 wingbeats. Note that 7.8 wingbeats/second matches the wingbeat frequency of the manybirds.com Pileated.

During wingbeats 12 through 38 or so, I think it's very unlikely that the wingbeat frequency was as fast as 8.6 wingbeats per second. If Cornell is going to argue otherwise, I think they need to start by giving us a list of field numbers (as in the opening paragraph above) showing us where they claim to see all those sustained, fast, phantom wingbeats.

By the way, you can "play along at home" here. Note that the deinterlaced Luneau video plays at 59.94 fields per second. You can count the number of fields in a complete wingbeat (say 7) and then calculate an approximation for the associated wingbeat frequency. For example, about 60 fields per second divided by 7 fields would be 8.6 wingbeats per second; 60 fields per second divided by 8 fields would be 7.5 wingbeats per second).

Question: Can you count the number of fields that the Luneau bird needs to complete, say, wingbeats 25 through 35? The correct answer is "No".

Note that in Cornell's original Science paper, they wrote this:
Two other features suggesting ivory-billed woodpecker are evident on the Luneau video, but we do not currently regard them as diagnostic, in part because we lack sufficiently comparable data for objective comparison with pileated woodpecker. First, the estimated wingspan of the fleeing woodpecker exceeds 71 cm (11), a value within the published range for ivory-billed woodpecker and at or above the maximum published wingspan of pileated woodpecker. Second, the video shows a woodpecker on a sustained escape flight that is rapid (9 wingbeats [per second]) and direct for at least 4 sec. This flight pattern matches many anecdotal descriptions of ivory-billed woodpecker (2–5) and is atypical for pileated woodpecker.
(Note: all bold font in this post is mine.)

More from Stan Moore

Here.

Some background on Chris Elphick

Some information about "Sibley paper" co-author Chris Elphick is found in this University of Connecticut article (the bold font is mine):
[Chris] Elphick, who won a prestigious Partners in Flight award last year for his research on bird conservation, says it was “devastating” to find, after carefully examining the Cornell video, that the bird did not appear to be an ivory-billed woodpecker.

“Who wants to be the one bearing bad news?” he says.

The Sibley paper is the result of work by two independent teams that began careful examination of the evidence shortly after the Cornell find was announced.

David Sibley on wingbeat frequency

Here's an excerpt from today's post by David Sibley on ID-Frontiers:
...Given that the only available data show a wide range of variation, and do not include the type of flight shown in the Arkansas video, there is simply no basis for saying categorically that the bird is flapping too quickly to be a Pileated Woodpecker...

New Democrat-Gazette article

From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:
“It’s really devastating,” said David Sibley, a bird illustrator who has published five guides and who co-authored the Science article. “When the announcement was made, I was thrilled. It was a bird I’d always dreamed about seeing.”
...
“Each time we look at it [the Luneau video], we find more things we like about it and more things that are uniquely ivory-billed,” said David Luneau, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock electronics professor who captured the video with a camera mounted on a milk crate in a canoe almost two years ago.

For instance, Luneau pointed out, the bird in the film flies at 8.6 wingbeats per second for four seconds, faster than any wingbeat documented for a pileated.
...
By the way, to me, it appears that the oft-repeated "8.6 wingbeats per second for four seconds" claim is probably completely incorrect. I'm working on a detailed blog post on that subject.
Mark Robbins, an ornithologist at the University of Kansas Natural History Museum, said he and two other authors of a paper challenging the video also believe that the bird shown is a pileated.

“We put no credence in the video whatsoever,” he said.

Last summer, Robbins, along with Richard Prum, a Yale ornithologist, and Jerome Jackson, a zoologist at the Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, withdrew a challenge after receiving audio recordings made in the White River National Wildlife Refuge that seemed to catch a pair of ivory-billeds. In January, Jackson wrote a critical commentary published in The Auk, the quarterly ornithology journal published by the American Ornithologists’ Union.

On Thursday, Robbins said that after further analysis the recordings are questionable. He said that they were taken too close to a gravel road in an area where blue jays had been spotted making calls similar to those made by the woodpeckers.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

More from Kenn Kaufman

Please read this entire post from Kenn Kaufman on ID-Frontiers.