"My conviction is that the bird did exist in 2004-05—at least one, as we published,” says Fitzpatrick. “It may still be around. But we can tell you for sure that last year we could not find it in the same region in which we had regularly been seeing it earlier. It was probably a dispersing, unpaired male..."Regarding the "for sure that last year we could not find it" part--that seems seems a rather surprising choice of words, given all the "possible encounters" mentioned here.
Is Fitzpatrick no longer excited by "evidence" consisting of bunches of glimpses, taps and toots? Note that as of October '06, Fitzpatrick still used the words "intriguing", "interesting", and "tantalizing" to describe the very similar Florida evidence.
The "dispersing, unpaired male" hypothesis conflicts with a lot of previous information:
1. Gallagher thought his bird was a female:
The bird that he [Gallagher] and Harrison spotted was most likely a female, since it lacked a male's red crest.2. In a different encounter, Harrison once suggested that he saw a female:
The nape came to a point and seemed to have a tonal value darker than the neck and crown. A female? That was my first thought. If so, it is the first evidence of a living female, and it signals the possible existence of a breeding pair...3. On page 234 of "The Grail Bird", it says:
After viewing it [the Luneau tape], Martjan [Lammertink] had no doubts. "It's an ivory-billed woodpecker,", he said confidently. "Probably a female."4. In August 2005, we were supposed to believe that "at least two of the birds are living in Arkansas".
5. Just last December (as Ivory-bill sightings were allegedly "piling up"), the Associated Press told us that a female Ivory-bill was seen in Arkansas.
More questions about the "lone male" theory are here.
Posts
6 comments:
Pileated, Ivory-billed. Male, female. Woodpecker, waterfowl. What's the diff?
None of the big-name boosters will be able to quietly slip out the door on this, citing such convenient "outs" as dispersing, unpaired males. They will inevitably trip over detritus left by Harrison, Gallagher, and the others who have placed the IbWo on their life lists.
A dispersing bird would have hatched the previous spring/summer, or else it would have simply lived out its years in its Big Woods territory. Are we to believe the parents perished simultaneously? How conveeenient.
Understandably, if not heroically, Fitzpatrick seems bent on adopting the stance that seems most likely to further his own interest at the time he adopts it. This buys him time, but we all know that if definitive proof never materializes ornithologists of tomorrow will regard the rebuttal papers by Sibley et al. and Jackson as the last credible words on the fabulous IbWo fandango of the mid 2000s.
How did I miss these? Too funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNylBr8RaxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDQPfVe1KJA
I notice that Hillcrow's updates are getting farther and farther apart. I think he's reaching what we call his "oh sh*t" time.
As in "oh sh*t, I do believe that I have made the biggest blunder of my career."
As in "oh sh*t, I do believe that I have made the biggest blunder of my career."
Too busy chasing big donors and promoting themselves to have time to post. Or do any actual science for that matter. This group will just move on to another “discovery of the century” for book deals and funding when the money and attention dries up for IBWO next year.
I notice that Hillcrow's updates are getting farther and farther apart.
You obviously know nothing of IBWO biology. When IBWO is first discovered in an area, there are lots of sightings by a handful of people. Once the real search begins and scrutiny of the sightings occurs, they reduce greatly or stop altogether. This is as predicted by Bobby Harrison. His "logical" explanation is that the additional effort and searchers scare the birds away (despite the fact that hunters and fisherman and trucks on interstates don't seem to drive them from the area).
Of course another explanation is that none of the data can hold up under scrutiny and the initial sightings are mistakes made by overeager and totally primed individuals. But how logical is that?
Post a Comment