Well, given that the Cornell guys were there, and that Mr. Sibley and the rest of us weren't, and given that the Cornell guys know what a pileated woodpecker looks like (as do I) and that the bird(s) sighted did not look (or sound) like a pileated, despite the whinging by Mr. Sibley, et al., I am inclined to defer to the guys from Cornell.
Given what is known about ivory bills, it should not be difficult for any experienced observer to tell the difference between a pileated woodpecker and an ivory billed woodpecker in person. Just because the video was grainy does not mean that the Cornell team's eyesight was equally grainy. Anyone grousing about the video should spend more time studying how video and still cameras work, compare them to how the human eye works, and then practice using the relevant cameras with the relevant long lenses in a wobbling boat on the water. It's not easy to get a perfect, high resolution shot -- even of common animals, which anyone with experience in nature photography will tell you. It sometimes takes YEARS to get good, even passable, video or still images of rare species. I'm all for obtaining better evidence, but I am satisfied with what Cornell has produced. Even if no one ever sights the bird again, one CANNOT PROVE that the bird(s) they sighted weren't ivory bills. The Cornell claim is credible. The evidence is not ideal, but it is pretty damned good. The burden of proof is not on Cornell, but on those who claim that experienced researchers would be so daft as to confuse a pileated woody with an ivory billed one. If it's grainy video of a kinglet, and you want to argue whether or not it's a golden-crowned kinglet versus a ruby-crowned kinglet, you may have something to argue about. But the differences between ivory billed woodpeckers and pileated ones aren't so suttle. Dave ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stan moore Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Cornell's unwarranted level of certainty in the ivory-billed woodpecker debate is disturbing >Bird lovers and conservationists probably know by now that the brand >new issue of the magazine "Science" >contains a new article on the recently claimed "rediscovery" of the >ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas. The lead author of the new paper >is renowned bird artist and author David Sibley, plus three co-authors >with their own high credentials to write such a paper. The gyst of the >new paper is that the video evidence and other evidence used by the >Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology to "prove" the existence of the >ivory-bill is not definitive. A very strong argument is made by the >authors that the bird in the video was a normal pileated woodpecker, >and that the mistake of the Cornell team was in understanding the >posture of the bird as it was videoed. > >Cornell chose to submit a rebuttal to the Sibley et al., paper, arguing >that Cornell's original analysis was correct and that the Sibley team >was mistaken. > >I would like to make a couple of general comments on this issue, and >then state specific concerns about what I perceive to be unwarranted >certainty by Cornell. > >If recent claimed sightings were not considered, then it can be >reasonably be said that no living birdwatcher has ever seen a living >ivory-billed >woodpecker. There is only a relatively small body of >information on the details of the behaviors of this bird, and the >conditions under which these birds were seen during the brief period of >intensive study may have been different from any likely conditions the >bird might live under if it were present today. >Sample sizes of data on wingbeat and vocalizations and rapping noises >are limited. There is plenty of room for scientific uncertainty about >how a living ivory-billed woodpecker would behave in today's habitats >and with life experiences of a bird that may have somehow survived >secretly. Uncertainty should be the rule in evaluating claims of >seeing any extinct bird or other taxa. Proof of the existence of an >animal thought to be extinct should be of a high level, even more so >than of a rare bird sighting. But rare bird sightings require a high >level of certification by state rare bird record committees. >How much more so should the certification of an extinct bird's >existence/presence be! > >One characteristic I have come to admire about bird artists, is their >necessarily intimately detailed knowledge of the structure, movements, >colors, patterns, and behaviors of birds. To accurately draw birds >requires a high level of detailed understanding of such matters. David >Sibley is one of the world's most accomplished bird artists. I trust >his intuitions when he analyses grainy videos that are not definitive, >but there is always room for some uncertainty. In the case of deep >uncertainty regarding issues of extinction or even sightings of >extremely rare birds, the benefit of the doubt should go to the >doubter. > >It is also useful to examine motive, including subconscious motives in >issues of controversy dependent on disputed evidence. The Cornell team >and its individual members have much to gain from a position of >certainty regarding the ivory-billed woodpecker's rediscovery. A book >was written, funds have been raised, publicity generated, excitement >fomented, and reputations put on the line. The good of the species has >been identified as a major concern of the Cornell team, and the desire >to protect habitat has been a major focus. But the expert >ornithologists who doubt the certainty and definitive nature of the >Cornell evidence also have voiced deep concerns for protecting >potential habitat for ivory-billed woodpeckers, even without certainty >of the evidence in question. Sibley and Jerome Jackson and others have >equal concern for habitat preservation as the Cornell team, even if >ivory-bills are not proved present, because other taxa benefit from >such preservation and the habitat is thus worth protecting for its own >sake. > >So, we have a situation in which a dispute over scientific evidence is >being played out before the whole world. The question remains, is the >Cornell evidence definitive? What is the possibility of error in >Cornell's analysis? > >My view is that Cornell has seriously damaged its credibility by >insisting on the definitive nature of it analysis. Cornell is showing >far too much certainty in relation to the quality of its evidence. >Cornell would have done far better to have admitted to uncertainty, >retracted its position regarding the "definitive" nature of its >evidence, and continued working this case as a hypothesis regarding the >existence of an ivory-billed woodpecker in that locale. > >As it turns out, now Cornell is relying on uncertainty because of its >failure to adequately confirm the presence of an ivory-billed >woodpecker in the area in question by saying "We know that at least one >bird was present back then, but it may no longer be in the area." Now >Cornell relies on uncertainty, but rejects the more significant >uncertainty regarding its original analysis. > >The heart of good science is to question and to hypothesize. Jerome >Jackson, a recognized ivory-billed woodpecker expert (and pileated >woodpecker expert) has expressed concern over the use of "faith-based >science" in this case. Amazingly, at least one of Cornell's >collaborators has recently stated that his level of certainty has >INCREASED over time! > >Expression of uncertainty is a sign of maturity in the practice of >science. It is understandable that Cornell was enthused and excited >about the prospect of the rediscovery of a charasmatic species that was >recently thought to be extinct. > >I am sad to say that, in my view, Cornell's intransigence is costing >Cornell precious credibility. >The ivory-billed woodpecker has damaged credibility of previous claimed >viewers, but apparently the deep lessons of the past remain unlearned. >This dispute cannot be resolved with existing evidence. And prolonged, >intensive searching has not produced additional, definitive evidence. > >The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has benefited to date by its >investment in ivory-billed woodpecker publicity and surveying, but the >final price of its lack of appropriate uncertainty may be very steep in >the long term. > > >Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com
