Note this sentence:
The lead author, Clark Jones of Tall Timbers Research Station in Tallahassee, worked on the Cornell search team for five months.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
The Clock Is Ticking5 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
9 comments:
Over on the "bootstrap-analysis" blog linked here and in separate entries at Birdforum, Patrick Coin (pcoin/cotinis) has advanced the idea that this paper on duck wing "double raps" is the peer-reviewed version of what CLO previously published in their 2005-06 report.
This doesn't sound right. As mentioned in the Wilson Journal paper, CLO incorporated Jones et al.'s observations in the 2005-06 report but without addressing confirmed observations (see page 261 of the WJO paper). Reading the introduction to the WJO paper, it is clear that Clark Jones and coauthors are the ones who first identified this phenomenon by direct observation and then went out on their own to document it. They say that they first observed the double raps by flying Gadwall on 21 December 2005 in White Riv NWR, where they were IBWO searchers. They say they told CLO about it and discussed it with the search crews. Jones mentions that he was not aware of this being mentioned in the previous search season (2004-05), and that all were unaware of the phenomenon previously.
So, a more likely scenario, reading between the lines here, is that these authors are the ones who heard and first understood the implications of the duck wing collisions, documented it themselves, and simply sought to publish this important observation. Meanwhile, perhaps due to those draconian confidentiality and copyright agreements used by CLO (we "own" everything you see and hear and record and draw and write while being a searcher), CLO sought to control how and when this information was published, i.e. by downplaying it and burying it their report.
Cornell recently revised their sound web pages (just announced in the past week) where they now report this: "Although we have not recorded double-knock-like sounds from ducks when an observer is present, we strongly suspect that under certain circumstances some ducks produce double wing claps that could be mistaken, particularly in recordings, for distant Campephilus double knocks."
So, CLO says they have not recorded the double-knock sounds by direct observation. Clearly, that is what differentiates the Jones et al. paper from CLO. Although CLO says they've known about this for a long time, and published this without attribution on web pages and in a report, it was Jones, Troy, and Pomara who deserved the credit. Those authors are to be congratulated for their careful observation and convincing documentation of a previously unknown natural phenomenon. CLO should be ashamed of their behavior for downplaying this, not fairly crediting it previously, and probably interfering with the timely publication of the observation. Looking at the dates of receipt, acceptance, and ultimate publication in The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, it looks like this paper could have been out a year ago—Jones et al. say they recorded the duck wing double raps in Texas on 6 January 2006. When will the poor behavior of some at CLO be recognized with formal censure?
All ARU double raps suggesting the presence of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker should be reconsidered in light of the phenomenon of duck wingtip collisions
As if duck wingtip collisions are the only other alternative.
How quickly we forget: the morons who peddled the IBWO miracle wanted us to believe that those "double knocks" were unique noises that only an IBWO could make. It was a bold, bald-faced, laughable lie but excitable "scientists" and "professional birders" ate it up like kids eat ice cream.
Sad.
Don't expect any papers out of Cornell that don't fully back their position that the IBWO still exists. There have been small mentions of PIWO being caught on video camera in locations with scaling or holes they thought fit IBWO. Where's the paper on this?
Mr. Goatee,
You still there? What do you say now? Boycott or no?
Well, anonymous (8:39 AM, June 19, 2007), that all certainly makes sense. I will say that by "Cornell", I meant the entire search team, not just people at Cornell. Unfortunately, I've not read the entire Wilson Journal paper--just the abstract. You obviously have more detailed information about it than I do--thanks for the analysis. I don't, however, see that the duck wing stuff was "buried" in the 2005-06 report--it is really discussed quite thoroughly, and in two sections.
I think you perhaps are reading too much into the publication delay--it can take a long time to get material into a good journal. In my former work field (toxicology/pathology), delays of 6 months plus from submission of a manuscript were not uncommon. That is why "astounding" results may be sent to a journal that publishes rapidly, such as Science, and we all know what that can lead to! It all sounds like the usual plodding course of institutional science to me.
There are some more comments of interest over at Bootstrap Analysis, incidentally.
Well, Patrick, it's all quite clear in the paper, if one takes the time to read it before commenting. This is not a situation of "one mistake, two papers."
Cornell did try to assert some control over how this phenomenon was reported, and it did take longer than it should have to emerge in the form it has.
Cornell did discuss the duck wing collisions in their report. Did you also notice that they reduced the number of plausible ARU double knocks from hundreds to 10 in that report? Read Jones et al.
Their paper exposes the problem faced by Auburn/Windsor and Cornell that collections of faint and ambiguous sounds cannot be regarded as even suggestive of Ivory-bill until alternatives are eliminated. I think Jones et al. recognize there are many such possibilities, but restricted themselves to the one they themselves documented. Clearly, without some form of confirmation of what made any of the swamp sounds, it's all just useless speculation.
"collections of faint and ambiguous sounds cannot be regarded as even suggestive of Ivory-bill until alternatives are eliminated"
"without some form of confirmation of what made any of the swamp sounds, it's all just useless speculation"
Shouldn't this have been obvious to everyone from the start? We don't experts and peer reviewed papers to tell us that our intelligence has been insulted.
"Their paper exposes the problem faced by Auburn/Windsor and Cornell that collections of faint and ambiguous sounds cannot be regarded as even suggestive of Ivory-bill until alternatives are eliminated."
As IBWO atheist points out, that "problem" was "exposed" by a lot of folks early on. One hardly needs to be an "expert" or even a "scientist" to understand that disembodied "double knocks" heard in swamps can not unambiguously or "uniquely" be attributed to anything.
In retrospect, it was the absurdity of the "distinctive double-knocking" claim that forced the peddlers to circle their wagons when intelligent and thoughtful people began to ask the obvious questions. That wagon-circling worked well for a while, as the institutionalization of science permitted the alleged "professionals" to ignore the "uncredentialed" masses who accused the "professionals" of being full of crapola.
But all such frauds are eventually exposed, one way or another. I look forward to Hillcrow's response, barfbag in hand.
"the institutionalization of science permitted the alleged "professionals" to ignore the "uncredentialed" masses who accused the "professionals" of being full of crapola"
The "uncredentialed" masses include many PhD biologists, birders who have seen many Neotropical Campephilus species, and other well-informed individuals who had no reason to be impressed or intimidated by bad ornithology.
Post a Comment