The apparent rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker, Campephilus principalis (pictured), in 2005, which thrilled birdwatchers around the globe and was hailed as one of the great conservation triumphs of recent times, causing the US government to commit more than $10 million to rescue the species, may actually be merely a case of mistaken identity, according to a new study.
According to a detailed frame-by-frame analysis of 4.5 seconds of blurry video (.mov, Quicktime required), it was concluded that the bird was an ivory-billed woodpecker. But intensive searching this past winter for more definitive proof of the bird's existence has yielded nothing; no new sightings, video, nor audio.
"They might not be visible on two or three trips or 50 hours of observation," says Jerome Jackson, who published his criticisms of the putative IBWO discovery in the January issue of the top ornithological journal, The Auk (v123, p1). Jackson is an ornithologist at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, US, and is one of the world's leading experts on the ivory-billed woodpecker. "But now we're talking about thousands of hours by the Cornell people alone. In my opinion, we should have had something by now."
Thanks for the bad news, Ian and Ron. I think Santa will leave a lump of coal in both your stockings this Christmas!
- Log in to post comments
Cue Loren Coleman in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...
While I'd agree that the video itself is not the strongest evidence, does the paper address the call recordings or the observer sightings?
Now, don't get negative! This is the scientific method at work, isn't it? It's certainly better than making claims that not only have no evidence but that cannot be tested at all.
Old news. Already reported in the NYT and elsewhere. Worse - it isn't a new study. It's a rebuttal, free of new data. As best I can tell, the rebuttal goes like this: the CLO evidence is weak, and that justifies the use of even weaker evidence to refute it. This is NOT the scientific method. This is just discussion. That isn't to say that discussion is not valid or important. It is both. But it isn't the scientific method.
Rumor has it that bird identification whiz-kid David Sibley has a paper in this week's Science agreeing with Jackson's assessment of the Luneau video. The coming food fight should be interesting.
For what it's worth, according to my sources, Dr. Jackson was informed of the breaking story 24 hours before the announcement, a rather strange exclusion of a recognized authority.
I know him, not well, like and admire him, and believe his integrity is whole and true. He has been speaking around Florida and perhaps elsewhere of his misgivings since the whole issue arose. It can look like sour grapes, or the operation of the scientific method. Or both.
I cannot imagine John Fitzpatrick taking such an enormous risk with his hard-earned credentials (his Florida scrub jay work with Glenn Woolfenden is ground-breaking) and the reputation of the Cornell Lab. So I think we must wait for the evidence, if any, they present at the end of this season.
I can imagine this bird, persecuted since H. sap. arrived in the southeast 10,000 or however many years ago and began to collect it for its sympathetic magic--warriors thought the bill conferred the macho of the bird. . . I can imagine the wariest and most furtive birds surviving by lying low and speaking code in short bursts.
I can hope. So can we all.
Dozens of people have been searching for years. Jackson is one of them, and is among the most highly-credentialed. Surely CLO was not obligated to bring everyone who has been searching into the loop? In fact, if you've heard any of the many talks given by CLO staff over the past year, you will know that they were doing all they could to keep this secret until the official announcement. That could be why Jackson was not notified...NO ONE was notified. No one is attacking Jackson's credentials or his integrity. He has every right to question any scientific finding. If he chooses to do so with fairly weak evidence, that's his choice. I'm sure if he had stronger evidence to refute the claim, he'd used it. But I suggest you all read his book and see what he had to say about this area and about Arkansas, after a very cursory drive-by. As I recall, he didn't get out of his car, much less explore the swamp by canoe or kayak. So he hasn't got much personal knowledge of the area.