Jump to content

Talk:Ivory-billed woodpecker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

that link does not work. Kingturtle 07:20 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Which link? I added [1] and [2] and they both work? Dave.Dunford 15:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also adding [3] to the entry. --Mitsukai 17:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coelecanth?!

[edit]

Don't know who wrote the blurb that's gone on the front page, but the Coelecanth was thought to have become extinct 65 million years ago ... nowhere near comparable to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker which was thought extinct for 51 years. Proto 13:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's not like we watched the Coelecanth go extinct. I mean, we knew almost exactly where the Ivory-billed Woodpecker ought to be, and couldn't find it for decades. -- Coneslayer 14:16, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

arkansas claims

[edit]

the more i read the actual report claiming to have seen this bird in Arkansas, the more i doubt it as being a correct identification. Kingturtle 23:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the video and the stills from it? jimfbleak 04:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I have seen the stills, but not the video in action. Kingturtle 09:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Lord God bird"

[edit]
This species used to be known by the popular name of "Lord God bird", for the exclamation that someone would make upon seeing a bird of its striking appearance and great size.

The article on the Pileated Woodpecker offers a different explanation. A-giau 20:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Moreover, the 1991 edition of The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds lists "Lord-God" as one of the Other names of the Pileated, but does not list it as one of the Other names of the Ivory-billed. Interestingly, the reference book *does* list "Log-god" as one of the Other names of the Ivory-billed. Kingturtle 20:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not the second largest

[edit]

Actually, there are at least two larger woodpecker species, the largest, of course, being the Imperial Woodpecker; the second largest is the Great Slaty Woodpecker (Mulleripicus pulverulentus). This article suggest that the Ivory-billed may rank as low as the 5th, but it doesn't mention the candidates for the 3rd and 4th places.

Post 1944 first pass

[edit]

Okay, that's my first pass at post 1944 sightings. Obviously, there are way too many sightings (and many of dubious quality) to cover everything. I've tried to restrict myself to incidents where there's a scientific publication (Dennis & Big Thicket, Cornell in Cache River, The Two Florida Panhandle teams), where there's physical evidence whose providence I could follow (the Wright photos from Big Thicket, the Lowery Photos, the Agey & Heizmann feather + the sound recordings in the published papers, I guess), and those where land was protected so there was a real consequence (Chipola River, Big Thicket, Cache River). There's still a definite recentism bias (especially the Cornell paragraph is far too big - I'll try to keep cutting it down while hitting all the pertinent notes - that last bit tends to make me get verbose).

If I've missed any incidents that hit those marks, it could help with recentism (even if I'm still looking to shrink it). But really, only if there's reason to think it's of very good quality. The recovery plan mentions a feather from the 1980s from Appalachicola which "remains mysterious", so I'm thinking no. Ditto the photo from Georgia in the 1960s (unless we can confirm it exists and where, I think), and I think I've seen mentions of other cases where there's supposed to have been physical evidence, but not enough to go on. WilyD 12:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these critically-endangered/extinct species can be tricky...I've been buffing orange-bellied parrot on and off over the years and it becomes fiddly where to draw the line between what to include and what not to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, the book "Wild echos" claim there's a photo from Apri 10, 1981 by Thomas Michot and David Hankla, working for the US Fish & Wildlife Service. I can't seem to find them online, but that's some detail that might help? And if they were working for the US government, photos could be Public Domain (have to see quality, of course). WilyD 07:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing of a reported sighting sometime 1981-5 (I think 1984-5), but the only reference I'm finding is in a photo caption at Not Extinct?:

last sighted in the 1980s, Louisiana, USA

Not R (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just a gallery of decorative images I've pulled, so we can find 'em later if we want 'em

Colossal Biosciences

[edit]

Where can the information on Colossal Biosciences be put into the article? In October, they announced their "Colossal Foundation," a non-profit organisation dedicated to conservation of extant species. One of their first projects is the ivory-billed woodpecker. The article states that they plan to start research of the species in 2025 by "understanding its status" and analysing DNA to lead to a potential rediscovery or revival. I initially put this information in October, but it was removed due to being inappropriate for the Evidence of Persistance section.

Colossal Launches The Colossal Foundation with $50M for 'BioVault' Biobanking, Genetic Rescues, and More » Dallas Innovates Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't add anything about it until they actually produce something substantial on it. Right now it's essentially just an advertisement for donations. Formallydehyde (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call it an ad for donations, as they seem to have significant funding already from Peter Jackson, Chris Hemsworth, and CIA. I guess that their ivory-billed woodpecker plans are still in extremely early phases just like their Steller's sea cow project, and has not made significant progress like their thylacine, woolly mammoth, dodo, and northern white rhinoceros projects. It is also not listed on their Foundation website yet, similar to their recently announced research in combating Chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably extinct" in Wikivoice

[edit]

I think the first paragraph of this article should say that the IBWO is “probably extinct” in wikivoice. But I’m aware this might be very controversial so posting here for discussion.

I think that it is an accurate summary of the sources to say that this species is “probably extinct”, and that we are doing the reader a disservice by not attempting to say anything about the status of this species in wikivoice. The most relevant sources IMO:

  • American Birding Association Checklist – “Extinct” (https://www.aba.org/aba-checklist/)
  • NatureServe – “Presumed Extinct” (https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102822/Campephilus_principalis)
  • Cornell Birds of the World – “Probably Extinct” (https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/ivbwoo/cur/conservation)
  • IUCN – “Critically Endangered” (note IUCN has no status between “critically endangered” and “extinct”, and their criteria for extinct is “There is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.”) – The only relevant sentence is “If extant, the global population is likely to be tiny”. I think this provides us basically no guidance one way or the other. (https://www.iucnredlist.org/fr/species/22681425/182588014)
  • USFWS – To summarize, they proposed that the species should be delisted due to extinction, and have essentially deferred the issue since then after pushback and public comment. The last line of that proposal is “Therefore, we conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the species is extinct.”. I am not aware of any statement by USFWS indicating that they no longer stand by that statement – rather they have only said that they are delaying the decision on *delisting*, a distinction that I think is important. In any case, certainly nothing the USFWS has done is contrary to the idea that IBWO is “probably extinct”, as like IUCN they do not have any kind of status in between “endangered” and “extinct”. (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/federal_register_document/2021-21219.pdf)

I think these five sources, that attempt to assess and summarize the status of many species, not just IBWO, are the kind of source we would use for any other species, and are by the far the most relevant to determine what Wikipedia should say on the topic. And I think “probably extinct” is the best summary of what these sources say. I’m not aware of any other source of a similar nature that could be added to this list but possibly I’m missing something. Somatochlora (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN has a status in-between extinct and critically endangered, critically endangered, possibly extinct. The last evaluation for ivory-billed woodpecker by the IUCN was in 2020, and they kept it as critically endangered instead of uplisting it to critically endangered, possibly extinct. I believe that the opening paragraph should be changed to "the ivory-billed woodpecker is a rare or possibly extinct woodpecker." Similar species whose current status is uncertain and widely disputed amongst scientists such as baiji, imperial woodpecker, pink-headed duck, and Christmas Island shrew's opening paragraphs refer to them in this manner, so I do not see how ivory-billed woodpecker is any different besides being the most popular and searched of these species. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I was not aware of that status (not sure why it's so well hidden on the website!). That said, I don't think this really changes my argument much. The line "if extant" means that they clearly do think it may be extinct. And if we go to the BirdLife page for the species, the map shows that they do consider it "possibly extinct" in the US - it is the Cuban range that is considered more uncertain. So I think we can at least use some stronger language for the American subspecies.
As for those other articles, I think someone reading at least the first 3 would correctly get the impression "this species is probably extinct" (the duck article uses that exact language in the body). I think someone reading the IBWO article will not get that same impression. Somatochlora (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critically endangered, possibly extinct is a "subcategory" that is unsearchable to my knowledge. It's only visible on the assessment information section. Baiji, imperial woodpecker, and Christmas Island shrew are all currently evaluated as critically endangered, possibly extinct, while pink-headed duck and ivory-billed woodpecker are currently evaluated as just critically endangered. The wording does imply critically endangered, possibly extinct. I agree that it should be changed to "the ivory-billed woodpecker is a rare or possibly extinct woodpecker" in the opening body, as it its status is uncertain, especially in Cuba. However, I want more input from other unbiased editors as well before editing.
Unrelated, but I would also like for the Project Principalis results to be added back to the evidence of persistence section, as it's published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, and some Wikipedia-approved secondary sources have covered it too. I am still ambivalent to the results and think that it is too early to label it as a "rediscovery," but it is notable enough for this article based on the basis that its published by a government source and some secondary sources have covered it. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence on Project Principalis, using a secondary source. I had removed the previous text as it was only sourced to the project itself and implied that the evidence was much more reliable than it really is. I think more than that is undue for this article given the limited coverage it has received (compared to the Cornell reports that were I believe front-page stories in some newspapers and have receieved many positive and negative responses).
My overall point here is that language like "rare or possibly extinct" implies more uncertainty than the sources actually say. We have Natureserve, Cornell Birds of the World, ABA, and the USFWS saying that the species is likely extinct. IUCN is ambivalent. I'm certainly not aware of any good source making any claim that the species is probably still extant. Somatochlora (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that "possibly extinct" was the generally accepted wording for "lost" species due to it being the official wording by IUCN. However, baiji's page was recently edited by a longtime editor to say, "probably extinct." I think that we should wait for more input before editing the opening paragraph. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Birding Association Status

[edit]

@WilliamWeib2 Can you explain why you don't think the ABA categorically states that the IBWO is extinct? It has the text (extinct, 1944) in the checklist, and is assigned code 6, just like other extinct species (Great Auk, Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon). I don't understand your comment "The basic checklist says "extinct" so that inexperienced birders will understand that the woodpecker they". Somatochlora (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the ABA is NOT a scientific body. It is a group of hobbyists. Recreational birders. Listing the ivory-billed as "extinct" next to its name on the checklist is a way to let beginning birders know that the woodpecker they see in their neighborhood park is not an ivory-billed.
More detail is available under the ABA's Code 6 designation, and description, which says "Code-6: Cannot be found. The species is probably or actually extinct or extirpated from the ABA Area, or all survivors are held in captivity (or releases are not yet naturally re-established)."
Read this interview with an ABA Checklist Committee leader, who explicitly states that the ABA position on the ivory-billed woodpecker is that it is "probably extinct".
https://www.aba.org/birding_archive_files/v41n6p18.pdf WilliamWeib2 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the ABA say that listing a bird as "extinct" is "a way to let beginning birders know that the woodpecker they see in their neighborhood park is not an ivory-billed"? The listing for the IBWO on the ABA checklist has the same format as that of the passenger pigeon, with "(extinct, XXXX)" next to the name and code 6. Do you think the ABA thinks the passenger pigeon is also "probably extinct"? What sort of notation would they use for a bird that they think is actually extinct? There are birds on the checklist with code 6 but without the "extinct" annotation. What does it mean when they mark certain code 6 birds as "extinct" if it doesn't mean that they think they are extinct? And I don't think that what one particular person says in an interview necessarily reflects the ABA's stance as an organization, which we should get from the Checklist. CodeTalker (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what CodeTalker said above, a statement from 2009 about the status on the then-current checklist is irrelevant when we can just look at what the 2024 checklist says! Somatochlora (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why the ABA's opinion is important here? Are any of you current editors a member of the ABA? No? I am. And I can tell you that it isn't a scientific organization. Don't misunderstand - it is a great organization for birders to be part of. And I agree that most scientific organizations believe the species is extinct or probably extinct. But the ABA isn't one of them, because it isn't a scientific organization. So why does the ABA opinion merit inclusion, especially so prominently, in this article? WilliamWeib2 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not the opinion of the ABA, it's the opinion of the ABA checklist committee which is made up of mostly scientists. In any case though, I would argue that experienced birders on records committees have precisely the most relevant skills to assess the evidence here - understanding the degree to which sight descriptions can be flawed, assessing poor photographs, thinking about how detectable rare birds are on the landscape, figuring out how to find rare birds. Given this, one line in a long article does not seem particularly prominent to me. Somatochlora (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I showed you that the chairman of the CLC described the position of the ABA as "probably extinct", and you rejected that as just one person, and not the entire ABA. You're now arguing that the opinions of the CLC members, a small group of people, is worth including. Is there a precise number of people needed to meet your approval? What is that threshold? Please get your reasoning on this into a cogent argument, because right now it doesn't make sense.
Do the people on the CLC have experience and expertise in evaluating potential ivory-billed habitat? Do they know ivory-billed semi-nomadic behavior and how that is important to minimum population necessary for persistence? Etc. Etc. Not likely. WilliamWeib2 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamWeib2
  • Please remember we are all here to try and make the article better collaboratively. You have made a number of positive changes to the article (in addition to some I disagree with), and I hope you can see that I've done the same. Obviously I come from an extremely skeptical viewpoint here and I infer that you feel quite differently, that does not mean we cannot work together.
  • Please remember to assume good faith
  • Note there are multiple people in this conversation - I never rejected anything as being "just one person". That article is actually perfectly good evidence as to what the ABA checklist said in 2009 - but it is 2025 and it now says something different.
  • The goal here should not be to win the argument - it should be to determine based on the sources and on Wikipedia's policies what the article should say. It is a reasonable question as to whether the status on the ABA checklist is relevant for the article and I hope I never implied otherwise.
  • The checklist committee is a group of highly qualified people that are perfectly capable of considering the factors you suggest (nomadic behavior etc.). Like the authors of the USFWS delisting proposal, whoever made the judgement calls at BirdLife(source of IUCN status) and NatureServe, and the author of the Birds of the World article, they don't seem to have found them compelling.
  • I think the reason it is particularly important to include what these various organizations have said is to provide context for some of the more recent reports (particularly the Project Principalis paper). The general ornithological/bird community (and this is my subjective opinion, but I at least like to think I'm reasonably plugged in) has mostly met these reports with dismissal and not felt the need to publicly rebut them. Without any kind of rebuttal to use as a source on Wikipedia, the only thing we can point to is that none of the agencies/organizations seem to have changed their minds.
Somatochlora (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Including the assessments of scientific organizations is fine. Again, ABA is not one. You've provided only an opinion that the CLC may be capable of doing a professional, scientific assessment. In contrast, the Wikipedia page on the ABA says that it is "dedicated to recreational birding in Canada and the United States". Does that suggest any interest or expertise in doing scientific assessments? Has the ABA or the CLC ever published even one scientific paper? No, it has not. On the specific question of the ABA description of ivory-billed status, the checklist entry and Code 6 designation for the species has not changed since the then-chairman said their position is that the species is "probably extinct". So IF you want to incorrectly use the ABA as a scientific expert on the subject, you should use the correct description of "probably extinct" which was used in an ABA interview, in an ABA publication, by the ABA CLC chair. This shouldn't be hard to accept, and it does not change the overall impression that the main bodies involved say the species is probably extinct, which is exactly what you yourself said was your goal in your Talk post on 6 January 2025.
On assuming good faith, kind of difficult when you come in here with an obvious personal agenda to skew every paragraph about evidence toward skepticism, minimizing the descriptions, adding loaded words such as "purported", and describing peer-reviewed scientific papers as "ludicrous" in your comments. If you're so convinced that certain evidence should be rebutted, then perhaps you should go write a rebuttal paper and have it published in a respected nscientific journal. Don't use your personal impression of the ornithological zeitgeist as a license to do a wholesale dismissal of evidence in this Wikipedia article. WilliamWeib2 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific papers are published by people, not by committees. But most members of the committee (as I've checked with Google Scholar just now) have published scientific papers in ornithology.
  • The ABA also publishes North American Birds which "is the longstanding journal of ornithological record for birders all across North America, from Alaska and Greenland to Panama and the West Indies. The journal’s mission has been to provide an overview of the changing panorama of the continent’s birdlife—that is, avian status and distribution." So I'd say they do have an interest and expertise in this field.
  • Regardless of that, experienced birders on records committees have more experience and expertise in interpreting sight records and ambiguous photos of rare birds than literally anyone else. I don't see why we would dismiss that just because they are not working academics (especially when there is often a fair bit of overlap with professional ornithologists).
  • "...checklist entry and Code 6 designation for the species has not changed since..." Yes it has, the entry now includes the text "(extinct, 1944)".
  • In response to your second paragraph, we apparently agree that the general scientific consensus is that IBWO is probably extinct in the US. Given this, the article should give the impression that the recent reports are not taken super seriously, which is why I've used the language I have.
  • I hope you'll note that my "ludicrous" comment was on an edit that was weakening some skeptical language. I do think it is ludicrous to suggest that the PP photos are evidence of anything, but I have not inserted that into the article, I'm trying to make the article into an accurate summary of what reliable sources say, and there is no source that says that.
Somatochlora (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are now making a different argument, that the statement about the ABA's status should be removed from the article; the previous discussion was about whether the article should say that the ABA says the bird is "extinct" or "probably or actually extinct". I don't (yet) have an opinion on removal of the ABA's statement altogether. But if we do say something about the ABA, it should accurately reflect what they actually say.
Also, please do not make arguments based on your personal experience or knowledge. That type of argument does not go well here. Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say, not on what individual editors claim about their knowledge or experience. CodeTalker (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing that the ABA CLC "is made up of mostly scientists", without evidence, which sounds like personal knowledge, while telling me not to use personal experiences or knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy WilliamWeib2 (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? I never said that the ABA CLC is "made up of mostly scientists" or anything remotely like that. Are you confusing me with someone else? CodeTalker (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivory-billed_woodpecker&oldid=1270002618"