In my humble opinion, this whole "interesting cavities" line of argument is a non-starter.
Remember, Cornell has already been down this road. They monitored a whole lot of allegedly interesting cavities in Arkansas. Some results are here.
An excerpt:
...During 123 camera deployments we monitored 88 unique cavities and 35 feeding trees. In 51 of 88 (58%) deployments at cavities, we captured images of nine different species, with squirrels (Sciurus spp.) and PIWO being the most common (Photo 9). Other species detected at cavities included raccoon (Procyon lotor), Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus), Redheaded Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Red-bellied Woodpecker (M. carolinus), Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Eastern Screech-Owl (Megascops asio), and Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)...
Posts
4 comments:
The History of a Boondoggle.
1. I didn't even know Auburn had an ornithology department
2. This is an ornithology department?
3. They said what?
4. Auburn denies they have an ornithology department.
5. No one ever remembers that Auburn never had an ornithology department.
But some feeding sign and cavities certainly are more suggestive of ivorybill than others.
Bullhockey, to the extent that conclusion is even remotely "interesting."
The maximum reported width for nest cavity entrance holes of Pileated Woodpeckers is 9 cm (Bull and Jackson 1995)
Where? How many holes measured? Approximately how many holes were NOT measured in that location? Can someone access the paper to determine if this is even an accurate description of the paper's contents?
Tanner reported the horizontal dimensions of Ivory-billed Woodpecker cavities to be 10.2 cm and wider.
Same questions as above.
Making extraordinary inferences based on data such as this is worse than irresponsible.
The "large" holes were most likely made by pileated woodpeckers, alone or in combination with some other animal in the forest.
Given that these jokers are so sloppy with the rest of their "data", why would anyone take them at their word when they claim "[t]hese large woodpecker cavities have no evidence of gnawing by squirrels or other mammals"?
By the way -- what's the hold-up with measuring the hole in that living sycamore? And what's inside? Any, uh, feathers?
Auburn denies they have an ornithology department.
If you exclude their Poultry Science Department and the War Eagle, ornithology is almost nonexistent at Auburn. Dr. Hill, a few avid birders and a raptor recovery center at the vet school is about all the ornithology “expertise” they have.
Speaking of "interesting cavities", what ever happened to Birdchick?
Post a Comment