Out of the office

Posting and comment moderation will likely be sporadic for the next week or so.

Collinson blog post

Here.

New letter to Science by Sibley et al.

A new letter to Science by Sibley et al. is now available here (not for free). Here's a paragraph dealing with the photomontage saga:

A photomontage (fig. 1B in the Response) that superficially matches video field 33.3 combines part of the foreshortened wing of an ivory-billed woodpecker specimen with an image of trees. About 60% of the black forewing (~13% of the wing length) was omitted, as if hidden behind a tree (see figure), contradicting earlier reconstructions (1). By this new reconstruction, with foreshortened wing and hidden “wrist,” the putative “wrist-to-tailtip” measurements in (1) would have underestimated the true distance; yet, those measurements matched “the upper range for ivorybilled woodpecker” (1). Extrapolation suggests that the true measurement would be too large for an ivory-billed woodpecker. This undermines the plausibility of various reconstructions of posture—“perched” (2) or “begins to take flight” (1)—and consequently the claim that field 33.3 shows white on the bird’s dorsal wing surface. We maintain that this white patch represents the underside of a spread wing.

Here's a paragraph from Fitz et al.'s response:

We presented a photomontage to illustrate that a lateral view of an opening wing of an ivory-billed woodpecker launching off a tree trunk can produce a black-and-white pattern similar to that in field 33.3 of the Luneau video. We did not intend the montage to be a precise match for wing angles and body position of the bird in the video, because (i) these parameters cannot be determined precisely from the video, and (ii) no photographs or mounts are available to illustrate an ivory-billed woodpecker wing as it is opened during launch. Even if field 33.3 does depict the underside of the bird’s wing as proposed by Sibley et al., the absence of a broad black border formed by dark primary and secondary feathers on the distal and posterior portions of the wing renders it inconsistent with pileated woodpecker.

ScienceNOW article

Here.

An excerpt (the bold font is mine):

Sibley says the new paper backs his argument: "He's documenting for the fist time how ivory-billed-like a pileated can be." But Fitzpatrick disagrees. He points out that the pileated woodpecker in Nolin's video quickly slows its wingbeats, as pileated woodpeckers are known to do. The bird in the Luneau video, in contrast, continues to fly rapidly for all 4 seconds. As for the plumage, he says that the Nolin video was not properly processed for frame-by-frame analysis. "The result is a blur and confusing to decide where the black and white are," he says.

Collinson and Mennill on CBC Radio

On Part 3 of "As It Happens" here.

Collinson's interview runs from 3:49 to about 13:00, followed by Mennill's interview, ending about 20:30.

Some notes on "Ivorybill Hunters"

1. On page 232, Hill provides one frame of an "Ivory-bill" video.

He feels the need to circle the "Ivory-bill" in the picture (never a good sign). The circled area looks very much like the rest of the (uncircled) background foliage.

Here's some discussion from page 234:

Brian also found evidence for a third bird in the few seconds of video that culminate with him positively identifying an ivorybill. Just before the bird comes off the tree above his head, there is a flash of white going left to a tree and then right out of the picture. You can't see any detail, but it looks pretty much like all the other birds flashing white that we are calling ivorybills...

2. Hill confirms that his search area is where Bruce Creek flows into the Roaring Cutoff (page 216).

3. Here is an excerpt from page 134:

When I submitted to Nature the paper summarizing our evidence for ivorybills along the Choctawhatchee River, all of my correspondence was with the assistant to the subeditor in charge of Brief Communications--a person three or four tiers below the editor-in-chief. I didn't even rate a personal note from a subeditor. Fitzpatrick's access to Kennedy means that in April 2005 he was a power broker in the world of science.

4. Here's an excerpt from page 197, after Tyler Hicks tells Hill about a "huge, newly cut cavity" he found:

"...just before dark a Pileated Woodpecker flew in and went into the cavity. It was a huge cavity, too. I think having a pileated use this cavity might undermine our claim that cavities bigger than five inches in diameter were carved by ivorybills," Tyler added, clearly trying to encourage me to be cautious in how I presented what we had found so far.

5. Was Hill's search area always very wet and inaccessible? On page 73, he writes:

In November ['05] I had made a brief solo trip to the Bruce Creek area and had found the swamp bone dry. With the water so low, hiking was remarkably easy. The forest floor, which in the spring had been mostly under water and had then been a slippery, muddy mess, was a smooth dirt surface. Because the area is inundated much of the year, there is almost no ground cover, and I could stroll easily through the open forest...

FWS on the Luneau video

A reader writes:

FWS - Ivory-billed woodpecker Questions and Answers for the 2006-2007 search season, December 21, 2006

"There is at this time one published critique of the Luneau video, with the explanation presented that the bird in the video is more likely a normal pileated woodpecker. This alternative view is based primarily on differing interpretations of video artifacts and bird flight mechanics. The Service and its conservation partners consider most persuasive, among a number of reasons, the failure of all known videos showing pileated woodpeckers in flight to even come close to matching the characteristics present on the bird in the Luneau video in rejecting this alternative explanation."

How long can they hold to this position now? And just what are the implications of the following?:

"Q: What if the 2006/2007 search season still yields no conclusive evidence?
A: The Service still deems it imperative to continue with searches until conclusive evidence is gathered. Enough credible information has surfaced that leads our agency to believe that isolated populations of the species may still exist. It is our responsibility to ensure that we are making the appropriate decisions with regard to habitat management."

Rohrbaugh on the Luneau video

An excerpt from this article:

...The [Luneau] video, which was understandably less than perfect quality, shows what many believe is the Ivory-billed woodpecker, but some believe is a look-alike bird, the pileated woodpecker.
"That video has been analyzed extensively by a group here at Cornell," said Rohrbaugh. "We've published about it in the journal Science. We concluded at that time in our publication that the bird was indeed an Ivory-billed woodpecker, and we still maintain that it is an Ivory-billed woodpecker in that video, and that the other sightings that occurred in that same general area and around that time were indeed also Ivory-billed. So for us, in terms of the science, based around those pieces of evidence, that is irrefutable evidence."
But what may be irrefutable in Cornell's eyes is still very much open to debate from others...

More on Collinson's paper

Update: Collinson's paper is now available here.

Some related articles are here, here, and here.

A Birder's World "Field of View" article is here. An excerpt:

A member of the Records Committee and Taxonomic Sub-Committee of the British Ornithologists' Union published a peer-reviewed paper today that calls into question a key piece of evidence regarding David Luneau's famous four-second video and supports David Sibley's critical interpretations published in March 2006.

A USA Today article is here. An excerpt:

Collinson says he is disappointed by his finding. He still wants to believe that the ivory-billed woodpecker exists but says the evidence does not support that conclusion. "My guess is that we've missed the boat on the ivory-billed woodpecker and they're already gone."

A related blog entry is here.

An excerpt from this Bootstrap Analysis post:

In general, I think it is a sign of integrity and upstanding character for a person to admit they are wrong about something. Nobody at Cornell even seems willing to admit they might be wrong. I'm saddened that I've lost some respect for them in that regard.

An excerpt from this article (the bold font is mine):

John Fitzpatrick, a director of Cornell University's Laboratory of Ornithology, said that different formats of the footage result in "comparing apples to oranges." Fitzpatrick said Collinson's evidence about similarities in the birds' coloring, wing patterns and flight patterns are skewed as a result.

Fitzpatrick remains "convinced that the Luneau video is inconsistent in every respect with pileated woodpecker."

"We have yet to see even a single video of pileated woodpecker that matches the (Arkansas) video. Show us one and I'll change my mind," he said. "Nobody can do it. "

A related BIRDCHAT thread is here.

A Stokes posting is here.

Another IBWO auction

Here.

'Disturbing' of IBWO

A reader writes:

Regarding the 'disturbing' of the Choc 'birds', the following is a from a Dec 2006 online National Geographic article on the possibility of IBWO in the Suwannee. It quotes Jerome Jackson and Greg Butcher (Audubon):

Just as the birds can coexist with deer and turkey hunters, they should also be able to coexist with tourists visiting the Suwannee River.

"If the bird is there and the habitat is protected, I think the bird will do fine," Jackson said. "I don't think people in kayaks or canoes or hiking are going to make a lot of difference."

Butcher, of the Audubon Society, agrees, saying that "there's no reason to suspect that they'd be more disturbed by hunters, boaters, or birdwatchers than any other bird would be."

Alabama biologist rescued from Choctawhatchee

A reader writes:

From the FWC Division of Law Enforcement Field Operations Report (PDF). Biologist? Alabama?

"On December 31, Officers Darrell Johnson, Willie Mailoto, and Matt Webb conducted a successful search and rescue south of Highway 20 along the Choctawhatchee River. A biologist from Alabama, searching for the presence of the ivory-billed woodpecker, apparently entered the river swamp about 9:30 a.m. and had not returned by late evening. Officer Johnson’s knowledge of the area allowed the search to concentrate on the Dismal Creek area. He utilized a Walton County Sheriff’s K-9 and a Department of Corrections’ K-9 to assist with the search. Lieutenant Doug Berryman assisted by responding to the area with a vessel. Utilizing the vessel, the lost biologist was located about midnight. The man stated he intended to only go for a short walk and did not take his compass or map."

Update from Mennill

Here.

An excerpt:

The technicians have isolated many kent calls and double knocks over the last three weeks and they have shared these with Geoff and Karan and Justyn and the rest of the field team in Florida. In the coming week, we will carefully assess and measure these detections. Our field team had two sightings in my absence, but we still haven't obtained a clear photograph or video. I hope that our ongoing recordings will help us to locate the birds as their expected nesting season progresses.

As a side note, someone "in Dan Mennill's lab" provided some thoughts here a few months ago.

An excerpt:

Part of the reason they can get recordings but not pictures relates to the fact that they set out passive listening stations that do the recording. The birds are likely to be at least 40feet up in the air, perched on the side of the tree opposite to the researchers and therefore hard to see at the best of times.

IBWO thread on BIRDCHAT

Here.

Here's a paragraph from Fishcrow:

I realize that most of you don't care or don't
believe, but the survival of the Ivory-billed
Woodpecker is hanging in the balance. There are at
least two pairs in the Choctawhatchee, but there is
virtually no chance that they will nest this year due
to disturbances caused by searchers who are trying to
get a photo to satisfy the skeptics. It's an outrage
that this is happening to such a critically endangered
and magnificent species.

Update on Collinson's paper

Here.

Nancy Tanner program last weekend

Some details are here and here.

More remote camera photos from Luneau

Here.

Cornell Daily Sun article on robotic cameras

Here.

"The Ivorybill Hotel"

Here.

eBay auction for "Ivory-bill" photo ends

Here.

The high bid was $280; the reserve was not met.

IBWO article in Louisiana Wildlife News

A reader writes:

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center publishes Louisiana Wildlife News:

"Louisiana Wildlife News is a bi-monthly publication intended to serve as an outlet for wildlife issues relevant to Louisiana and the Southeast. In addition to current news events, profiles on specific plant, wildlife and nuisance wildlife species are included in each issue."

The January 2007 issue (PDF) contains the following telling passages (which surely must have been written since the Sept. Auburn announcement):

"No confirmed sightings of the Ivory-billed woodpecker have occurred in more than a year, and various ornithologists are questioning the scientific validity of the original sightings in 2004 and 2005. Despite these setbacks, the federal government will soon have available a draft recovery plan to delineate desired habitat for the bird."

"The Ivory-billed woodpecker was (or is) the largest woodpecker in North America. There are reasons for confusion about whether to speak of it in present or past tense. Although the bird was thought extinct for more than 60 years, evidence was presented in 2005 that several sightings of it were made in 2004 and 2005 at the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas. The sightings were credible enough at the time to be published in the scientific literature, accompanied by spec-tacular news releases on the events from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The lack of credible sightings since 2005, along with a growing scientific community that now doubts the validity of the original sightings, have made many once again go back to the belief that these birds are no longer present."

"Outside of a confirmed sighting in Cuba in 1948, no hard evidence had surfaced in almost 60 years on proof of the bird’s existence. The point that many scientists found so hard to accept was how a bird as prominent as the Ivory-billed woodpecker could survive in numbers so low that they went undetected for over a half century. Hanging on at the brink of extinction is seldom an option for species. Survivors will usually build up numbers sufficient enough to insure that the species will survive or go the way of the passenger pigeon and be remembered only by way of pictures and museum specimens. Unfortunately, with no new evidence of the birds’ existence in more than a year since the reported sightings in 2005, this indeed may be the case."

"At least a half dozen pairs"

Cyberthrush quotes from Geoff Hill's book here:

What I am sure of is that the ivorybills are there. Not one bird. Not a single pair. At least a half dozen pairs and perhaps tens of pairs of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the extensive swamp forests along the Choctawhatchee River. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct. It isn't even hanging by a thread. It has a toehold in the forests on the Florida Panhandle.