A new article by Don Hendershot is here.
Update: Regarding the comment by "Andy R" about aberrant pileateds, some information is here. As far as I know, it was Jim Bednarz (not Gene Sparling) who reported seeing aberrant pileateds in the area.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
That's the most accurate article I've seen to date describing the IBWO debacle.
But no mention of Tyler "Wonderboy" Hicks?
Pity.
Smack! This guy pulls no punches, does he.
Hendershot, with his knack for getting to the heart of the matter, provides a realistic synopsis of the IBWO fantasy.
I believe that this article, along with Louis Bevier's excellent study at http://web.mac.com/lrbevier/iWeb/ivorybilled/Overview.html
provide the most comprehensive explanation of this series of unfortunate goofs.
Ichthyologists versus "birders":
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/08/china.dolphin.reut/index.html
"We covered the whole range of the dolphin twice," Turvey said. "It is difficult to see how we could miss any animals." The dolphins will now be classified as critically endangered and possibly extinct but Turvey said there is little chance any remaining baiji are alive.
Anybody think that in 60 years some ichthyologists will publish a blurry photo of a "big fishy like creature" and claim that the Chinese dolphin is still alive?
Researchers have known for years about the dolphin's precarious situation but indecision about how best to save the species meant little was actually done, he added.
This underscores the need to act quickly to prevent the extinction of other similar shallow-water aquatic mammals like the vaquita found in the Sea of Cortez and the Yangtze finless porpoise, Turvey said.
..."One really needs to learn from this to make sure future conservation efforts are more dynamic," he said. "There has always been so much focus on 'save the whale' and 'prevent whaling' that it has led to these range-restricted shallow cetaceans slipping through the crack."
Ichthyologists use this tragedy to educate the public.
Ornithologists (some "highly respected" ones, in fact) use the IBWO tragedy to fool the public.
Do you think any believers in the Chinese dolphin will attack these ichythologists for "giving up"?
I don't.
Ichthylogists?
last time I checked mammalogists studied dolphins.
It might be a good idea to recruit some ichthylologists for the IBWO hunt, now that that species has become so aquatic. They're good with boats.
It might be a good idea to recruit some ichthylologists for the IBWO hunt, now that that species has become so aquatic. They're good with boats.
They work for beer too.
Ichthylogists?
last time I checked mammalogists studied dolphins.
DOH!!!!
Man, that is embarassing.
Sparling also noted that he had seen some aberrantly colored pileated woodpeckers in the same area.
I don't recall hearing about this before. I thought that everyone denied there were aberrantly colored pileateds for the first year or two. This wasn't mentioned in The Grail Bird, was it? Can anyone provide a source for Sparling's observation of multiple aberrant pileateds? It's a significant point, if true, since it puts even more doubt on the only sighting by more than one person. If they knew at the time that there were weird pileateds in the area, and all they saw were the wings when they cried "IBWO!", then serious doubts can be raised about their judgment and sincerity (not that that hasn't happened already).
The article was a fun read, but the fact is that Cornell has backed off their hypothesis somewhat, with their "may exist" claims of late. If they didn't have so much face to lose, they would have completely revised their hypothesis by now.
Hill's a tougher call. Having both allegedly seen one himself, and at the same time been unable to get any hard documentation, he will probably hold on a little longer. He continues to "assert the continued existence of the ivory-billed woodpecker", though is usually clear about his conviction being a personal one not based on his scientific "experiment".
He continues to "assert the continued existence of the ivory-billed woodpecker", though is usually clear about his conviction being a personal one not based on his scientific "experiment".
Hill is "clear" only if you treat his trash like a letter written by your adversary's lawyer.
The average reader would understand that Hill is professional scientist, studying the IBWO population that he has discovered in Florida.
Remember: the typical person who has heard of the IBWO believes that it was recently re-discovered. That will remain the case until Cornell retracts its paper or until enough subsequent well-publicized denouncements of the paper occur.
Cornell will never retract its paper.
Re: Sparling & abberant PIWO "And one of the big secrets that it took two years to pry from Cornell — although they knew — was the fact that the area where the sightings (glimpses) were coming from is home to an established population of aberrantly colored (much more white than normal) pileated woodpeckers. In fact, Gene Sparling — the kayaker credited with discovering the ivory-billed — wrote in his journal, “I also (and I hesitate to say this) saw a Pileated woodpecker that was way too big, the white and black colors seemed to be reversed on the wings, and the white was yellowish off white.” SMN 3/22/06
I believe Tom also had Sparling's journal entries documented.
Thanks for the follow-up, Don & Tom. Here's the full quote from the Arkansas Times Article:
Sparling also wrote in his posting, “I also (and I hesitate to say this) saw a Pileated woodpecker that was way too big, the white and black colors seemed to be reversed on the wings, and the white was yellowish off white. You birders know what is inferred, but I don’t have the conviction to say.” Right away a woman called Sparling to chastise him, he said, for posting news that might send hordes of birders to the swamp. She advised him to e-mail his sighting to ivory-bill tracker Mary Scott of Arizona.
It's pretty clear from this that Sparling was not saying that there were abnormal pileateds in the area. He was reporting an IBWO, but couldn't believe that that's what he saw. If he knew that there were abnormal pileateds in the area, he would not have said this (also from the same article):
“It looks like an ivory-billed, but it can’t be an ivory-billed, because they’re extinct. But it’s not a pileated. So it must be an ivory-billed. But it can’t be an ivory-billed, because they’re extinct …”
Based on the quotes above, I don't see any evidence that Sparling was aware of the existence of any abnormal pileateds before his sighting. And it also doesn't seem like Gallagher and Harrison were aware of the existence of aberrant PIWOs, at least until after Cornell started searching.
Sorry that this is all well-trodden ground and rehash, but the statement in SMN about Sparling being aware of aberrant pileateds at the beginning of all this is very striking and potentially significant, if true. It does not, however, seem to be supported by the evidence provided.
...Regarding Don Hendershot's comments on Sparling's journal:
Yes, incredibly, that is Sparling's initial sighting of the "Ivorybill". He said it looked like a funny Pileated originally, and it got twisted over time to be an undoubted Ivory-billed Woodpecker--that's the way I understand it. Others may have more clarification.
It is so ludicrous, it is hard to believe.
"the white was yellowish off white"
We certainly do need more clarification. If there are any TBs left at the CLO or elsewhere, please tell us how anyone could ever have considered this to be a credible description of an IBWO?
For more on:
Sparling's Sighting
Mr. Hendershot should be congratulated for being one of the few members of the press who have actually looked into the controversy and cleary expressed the opinion that there's no substance to the rediscovery.
One of the duties of the press is whistle-blowing and they've been asleep at the wheel on this one.
Post a Comment