"total bollocks"

Here.

Why?

From the comment section here:

I'm another anonymous poster who works for a leading conservation organization. I was one of the first to bring up the cold fusion comparison. Sometimes I send interesting leads to Tom, but due to where I work, there is no way I can have my name associated with any of this!

I'm also a long-time birder, and see this group think misID thing happen all the time. Sparling I can forgive. He just reported exactly what he saw.
Gallagher and Harrison is tougher. But even a generous interpretation has them fully trusting their ID of the bird based on only one field mark of a quickly observed flyby bird--very shaky evidence.

You can't really blame Fitz for throwing his weight behind this. Maybe he should have been more suspicious of his friend's bird sighting. But if someone you know and trust tells you something, you give them some benefit of the doubt. In this case, the original search was probably warranted.

Then it gets messy. People are now in the field looking for a known bird. Those kind of people make bad ID calls at rare bird stakeouts all the time. Especially when dealing with brief looks of flying birds. After the first season, there should have been some discomfort with the inability to get a good look at the bird.

But it is a big place. If you believe...and at this point, it was all about believing G&H, then it is easy to convince yourself that the Big Woods are so big, that it isn't a surprise that you didn't get a good look at the bird.

And then there was the video. Cornell did all they could think of to try and test it, but it was a crappy video. Maybe they overstated their case.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But one thing I'm wondering, is why did they build up the Big Woods partnership and launch a multi-million dollar land acquisition and field work campaign? What made them think they had enough evidence to justify that? I'm all for putting eyes in the field to try and verify an intriguing sighting. But somehow, it all exploded out of all proportion. The evidence was too weak for that kind of effort.

Of course, it was a judgement call. One that is easier to criticize now, two years later. But still...millions of dollars based on a flyby and a blurry video? For Fritz, that may have been a critical error.

For everyone else, well...they were basically trusting Fritz.

What a fascinating story. Hopefully it can all be told after the dust has cleared--as another cautionary tale for aspiring researchers, politicians, and the introduction to bird identification guides.

Another anonymous commenter responded:

I think the [above] posting by anonymous should be promoted to its own thread - this is a topic that people need to talk about ... "why".

This blog has always been a thought leader on this question and I think this post gets at some issues that we all need to talk about and hear what others think.

When they get burried down here so deep it is hard for others to join in ...

There are lots and lots of people whose lives have been effected by Fitzcrow and their rush to publication and their bogus interpretation of evidence.

This is the first frontier of therapy.

Beyond chutzpah

Cornell's ridiculous rebuttal to Jackson's Auk commentary is now available on their website here.

About Jackson's commentary, Cornell makes this truly astonishing statement:

Its failings remind us, among other things, that scholarly review and fact-checking at all levels also constitute essential components of good science.

It's a Wonderful Branch Stub

Here you can find a one-hour video containing some of those remarkable Cornell Ivory-bill presentations from last August's AOU meeting.

The first 13 minutes (Rosenberg on the Luneau video) are especially classic.

"short-sighted, egocentric, myopic, gnarled thinking on the part of shallow scientific minds"?

Here.

(Some of the fine points of Robust Redhorse identification are here.)

"It smells like a woodpecker that died 50 years ago"

In case you missed it....check out the comments here.

"one sole thin flimsy rickety persistent and convenient leg to stand on"

Here.

"A bright, white bill"

A reader sent me these excerpts from an article by George H. Bick in the July, 1942 edition (PDF format) of The Auk. The bold font is mine:

On August 16, 1941, at about 5:30 P.M. ... I was attracted by a most unusual noise. I immediately stopped the car and noticed two Ivory-billed Woodpeckers perched in two small ash trees about eight inches in diameter, having recently killed tops. Only one of the birds was carefully observed. A bright, white bill, flaming red crest, and large white wing patch were all clearly noted as the bird remained at the tree. The second bird in a similar ash tree was observed less carefully but a white dagger like bill was as clearly seen...

...As cutting and settlement proceeds and spreads to the more remote areas, the Ivory-bill will undoubtedly become completely extinct as a result of the destruction of its habitat...

Fishcrow versus Allwood

Fishcrow here, followed by Allwood here.

"Baruch Mechayei haMetim"

In case you missed it, from the comment section:

The Carpinterio wants to remind everyone that this concept of "incestuous amplification" was discussed by none other than Donald Kennedy, the editor of SCIENCE in an editorial he ran about "Reverse Peer Review" and was discussed on this blog. It was of course The Carpinterio's opinion that Donald Kennedy had himself participated in a reverse peer review process, abdicating his self described job description ... he details this nicely in his subsequent editorial "The Ivory Bill Returns" which candidly lays out the extra special attention that Fitzcrow got when he went a shopping for his "peer review debut" ...

These two pieces, by the editor of SCIENCE, are a classic piece of this whole story and the two editorials need to be read together ... I think that Piltdownperson has arrived at this analogy on her own, but it is clear that the editor of Science himself understands it too, even if at this point he isn't admitting it.

Benvendidos a reality,

THE CARPINTERIO REAL

(and just for clarity and dramatic effect you have to say it RAY-al)

"a spurious white trailing edge"

Here is a good ID-Frontiers post by Ted Floyd, editor of Birding magazine.

Floyd's post helps explain why it is preposterous to claim an ultra-rare bird ID based on a single apparent fieldmark.

"it wasn't a pileated"

Sharon Stiteler has added parts 4 through 7 to "Sharon's Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker". You can access them starting at the part 3 link here.

Speaking of birds that aren't Pileateds, Sharon wrote this last November (the bold font is mine):

Tim Gallagher gave a presentation and signing at the RGV Fest too. Watching his footage of the Lunnaeu video was a very different experience than having watched it on the internet or tv news where it's blown up to grainy proportions. Having watched it on a large screen at regular speed, it makes much more sense as to why this is an ivory-billed woodpecker and not an albinistic pileated. Whether or not you believe the bird in the footage is an ivory-bill, I will tell you this, it is for sure not a pileated. It doesn't have the flight pattern a pileated does--this isn't someone speaking from behind a computer, this is someone who has considered a pileated a favorite bird since age seven and has watched it for hours in the field. If anything you could argue that the footage is an albinistic wood duck from the way the wings flap and the speed that the bird in question leaves the tree--it doesn't have the flight pattern of a woodpecker at all. What keeps it from being a wood duck is that you can see the bird clinging to the side of a tree before it takes off.

"Incestuous amplification"

Here.

Article by Michael Patten

Here (PDF format).