Note this excerpt from the recent Harvard Magazine
article:
"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.