[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Bill Pranty on 17:03:39 01/23/07
In Reply to: Re: purported Ivory billed Woodpecker purportedly photographed posted by Vince
As I reported earlier today, Geoff Hill is aware that having independent confirmation of his data is vital to any further claims -- by anybody -- that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct.
Regarding the Arkansas IBWO, several ornitholgists (both of the lab and field types) far better than I have stated categorically that the bird in David Luneau's videotape is a normally-plumaged Pileated Woodpecker.
Not surprisingly, the Cornell crew disagrees.
Whether the Cornell team is correct or incorrect in their original ID of David Luneau's woodpecker probably cannot be determined with certainty given the evidence available.
In other words, if John Fitzpatrick, Ken Rosenberg, Van Remsen, Jerry Jackson, David Sibley, Kenn Kaufman, Michael Patten, Mark Robbins, and others cannot agree on the identity of a small, blurry, out-of-focus image on a videotape, then further discussion seems moot, as it ends up pitting "believers" vs. "non-believers" in a debate that serves no scientific purpose.
And -- call me an elitist here if you want -- my only concern is science. I'm personally leaving out of the equation egos, reputations, dreams, wishes, hopes, etc.
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is listed by the Florida Ornithological Society Records Committee as an "extinct native species" (http://www.fosbirds.org/RecordCommittee/StateListFebruary2005.htm).
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is listed by the ABA Checklist Committee as a Code 6 species, meaning that "The species is probably or actually extinct or extirpated from the ABA Checklist Area ..." (http://www.americanbirding.org/checklist/abachecklist.pdf).
Both of these status codes are based on current knowledge and are subject to revision pending additional data.
Any observation that would prove -- key word -- to the members of the FOSRC or the ABA CLC that its status code is based on erroneous or out-dated information would OBVIOUSLY be relevant to the committee (!), and the members of each committee would vote to change the status code.
Whether anybody else wishes to accept the votes of the FOSRC or ABA CLC members is up to them.
But these committees are perceived by their peers (including those who disagree with some of the votes) to represent the "official" bird records committee for Florida (FOSRC) or one of the two "official" bird records committee for the US and Canada (ABA CLC).
As far as the IBWO is concerned, nothing short of clear photographs or videotapes will suffice; even IBWO searchers acknowledge that photos of large cavities or recordings of sounds that resemble IBWOs will not ever be considered definitive.
As to the question of what constitues indisputable, definitive evidence, well I think that we all will know an Ivory-billed Woodpecker when we see one, providing the image is clear (e.g., nobody disputes the images in James Tanner's motion pictures from the 1930s).
Geoff Hill certainly will accept any vote by the FOSRC or ABA CLC (and he's aware that the votes would probably be unanimously negative if cast today) -- Geoff wouldn't have asked for our input if he felt otherwise.
Should his team produce clear photographs or videotapes of one or more Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, Geoff sees the members of the FOSRC and the ABA CLC as colleagues who would help to document the persistence on the planet of a species long thought to be extinct.
If others wish to see things differently, that's their prerogative.
Best regards,
Bill Pranty
Bayonet Point, Florida
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]