Disgraceful in the Extreme
Michael D. Collins
Mandeville, Louisiana
April 22, 2010 (Earth Day); updated July 14, 2010
For additional information see http://fishcrow.com/


1. Introduction

A quote by John James Audubon (see Sec. 4) motivated the title of this article, which describes serious issues that have come to light during my involvement in an important problem in American science and wildlife conservation. A report of a series of Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings in Arkansas (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005) was perhaps the most exciting news in the history of wildlife conservation. It’s extremely difficult to observe these birds due to their rarity, wariness, tendency to roam over large areas, and preferred habitat in remote swamps. It’s even harder to get a camera on them, and the lack of a clear image has fueled a bitter controversy (Jackson, 2006a; Sibley et al., 2006) that could ultimately seal the fate of this species.

Data obtained by independent scientists that support the rediscovery claim have been ignored and suppressed. For example, a recent report in Nature (Dalton, 2010) discussed a photo that was faked by an amateur but did not mention legitimate data obtained by scientists in Florida (Hill et al., 2006) and Louisiana (see Sec. 2) that support the rediscovery claim. I have obtained two videos in Louisiana, including footage that provides new information about the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and reveals that there had been a misconception about the way it flies. The editors of scientific journals have been influenced by politics and failed to make publication decisions based on science. Mistakes in the analysis of evidence for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have had serious consequences in recent years and decades ago.


2. Data from Louisiana

Since November 2005, I have spent more than 100 weeks searching for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the Pearl River in Louisiana, where there is a history of unconfirmed reports of this species. During a five-day period in February 2006, I had five sightings (two of exceptional quality), twice heard the characteristic “kent” calls of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (once coming simultaneously from two directions), and obtained video of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched in a tree, taking a short hop, and taking off into level flight. The bird in the 2006 video has several characteristics consistent with an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, including a leaned-back posture, a large bill, and deep and rapid flaps. It’s almost impossible to get anyone with a professional reputation at stake to comment favorably on evidence for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, but Julie Zickefoose provided this assessment. Julie is not a scientist, but she is an extraordinary bird artist who pays attention to detail. Her paintings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have appeared on the covers of the Auk and the leading contemporary text on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Jackson, 2006b), which contains the following acknowledgment:
I am most grateful to Julie Zickefoose for the wonderful cover illustration, her friendship, and her long interest in ivory-bills.
Even if they lack scientific credentials, the opinions of bird artists should be taken seriously, and in fact Science published a paper critical of the rediscovery claim on which such an artist was the lead author (Sibley et al., 2006). On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that artists and other non-scientists may not be qualified to evaluate certain types of quantitative evidence (e.g., see the manuscripts discussed in Sec. 4).

In March 2008, I obtained another video of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker less than a kilometer from the site where the 2006 video was obtained. The 2008 video was obtained from 75 feet above the ground in a cypress that was used as an observation platform for watching for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers flying over the treetops in the distance. In one of those stories that are stranger than fiction, an Ivory-billed Woodpecker flew along the bayou adjacent to the tree and passed nearly directly below my observation position. An ornithologist who specializes in the flight mechanics of woodpeckers, Bret Tobalske, digitized wingtip elevation and span curves from this footage and provided this assessment. For the following reasons, I believe the 2008 video is the strongest evidence to date:

3. An unexpected flap style, an overlooked clue, and a lack of open discussion

The Pileated Woodpecker folds its wings closed during the middle of each upstroke as can be seen in these movies. This distinctive flap style is dramatically different from the flap style of ducks, herons, geese, and most of the other large birds of North America, which keep their wings open throughout the flap cycle (for example, see this movie of White Ibises). Based on historical accounts of a duck-like flight, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was thought to have duck-like flaps; there does not appear to be a detailed description of the flap style of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the literature, but an account by Eckleberry (1961) of a “straight ducklike flight in which there seemed to be very little movement of the inner wing” suggests duck-like flaps. In a painting of the large woodpeckers in flight by Julie Zickefoose, who painted the cover of Jerome Jackson’s book on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, the Pileated Woodpecker is correctly shown folding its wings against the body in the middle of the upstroke, while the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is shown with the wings remaining extended throughout the flap cycle. Hill et al. (2006) apparently expected the flaps to be dramatically different from those of the Pileated Woodpecker since they reported an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight in the Choctawhatchee River with “stiff wingbeats” (which is synonymous with “duck-like flaps”) without further comment.

When initially detected in the distance, the bird in the 2008 video was thought to be a Wood Duck based on its fast and direct flight, but two prominent white stripes (parallel to the flight direction) were observed on the back when the bird passed below the observation tree. Dorsal stripes are a definitive field mark of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but the flap style is dramatically different from that of a duck as can be seen in this movie. I was faced with an apparent paradox after inspecting this footage — the dorsal stripes implied Ivory-billed Woodpecker while the flap style seemed to rule out this species. This mystery was resolved when Dalcio Dacol noticed that a photo from 1939 shows an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight with the wings folded against the body. This clue about the flap style was apparently overlooked for many years. The flap style of the bird in the video is actually similar to that of the Pileated Woodpecker, and in hindsight it makes sense that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has the flap style that is characteristic of other woodpeckers. Historical accounts of a duck-like flight evidently alluded to the duck-like speed and directness of the flight rather than to the flap style.

Since Jerome Jackson is an expert on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and has a history of collaborating with Zickefoose, I wrote to him and posed the following questions:
What type of flaps do you expect this bird to have and why? It seemed to be the consensus that it flies with the wings remaining extended like a duck, and in fact Julie Zickefoose recently illustrated such flaps (in the same painting, the PIWO was shown to fold the wings against the body in mid upstroke). Did she consult with you about that painting?
In responding, Jackson mentioned that birds have different types of flight under different circumstances. He ignored the question about the painting. I clarified the other question as follows:
I’m talking about cruising flight, not escape flights or short flights. I have obtained many videos of PIWO cruising flight. They always fold their wings against the body in the middle of the upstroke. Julie Zickefoose knows this, and that is how she illustrated the flight of the PIWO. So let me rephrase the question: Would you expect the flaps of an IBWO in cruising flight to be more like the flaps of a duck or a PIWO?
In responding, Jackson mentioned that size can influence flight. Once again, I clarified the question:
I’m not asking about flatness of flight or undulation. I’m asking about the flap style, which can be quantified by wingtip elevation and wingspan curves such as those published in Tobalske’s 1996 Auk paper.
In responding, Jackson claimed that I was fixed on a single dimension and that my question doesn’t have a better answer.


4. The role of scientific journals in the suppression of data

During a visit with Geoff Hill and his colleagues in the Choctawhatchee River in January 2007, I saw a pair of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and obtained additional video footage. The 2007 video is of lower quality than the videos that were obtained in the Pearl River in 2006 and 2008, but all three videos show interesting aspects (including some that were never captured on film) of the flight mechanics of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, which Audubon described as having a flight that is “graceful in the extreme.” Since 2006, I have submitted more than twenty manuscripts based on these videos and their analysis to scientific journals. It should be clear from the following detailed discussions of six of the submissions that editors have derailed the scientific process by refusing to publish evidence that falls short of a clear image:
PLoS ONE

Journal of Experimental Biology

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Avian Conservation and Ecology

Proceedings B of the Royal Society

Frontiers in Zoology
The PLoS ONE submission was based on all three videos and had the title, “Flight mechanics of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis).” It was accepted for publication based on reviews by an expert on the flight mechanics of birds and an expert on woodpeckers. Two days before the paper was scheduled to appear, the editor reversed the publication decision without justification. The editor then sent the paper — which had already been accepted for publication after going through the peer review process — to new reviewers, who recommended the data should not be published. The new reviews were never sent to me, and my requests for an explanation were ignored. The only new reviewer who was identified has no expertise in flight mechanics or woodpeckers.

Subsequent submissions were based on the 2008 video. I was hopeful that the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences would make sure that a submission on this important problem in American science received an assessment based strictly on the science, but the paper was rejected based on reviews that focus on irrelevant points, contain serious errors, and fail to expose any flaws in the analysis. The other submissions had similar outcomes. There was never any detailed and relevant discussion of the data and its analysis, and my rebuttals were always ignored.

Lack of a clear image is not a legitimate reason for not publishing scientific data — progress is often made in science with less than perfect data. When it is difficult to obtain ideal data in other problems in science, progress is often made by extracting information from the best data that are available. Why should a different approach be applied to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker?


5. Mistakes in the evaluation of evidence

While following up on Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports in Texas in the 1960s, John Dennis, who previously rediscovered this species in Cuba (Dennis, 1948), had a sighting and recorded calls that resemble the “kent” calls that were recorded in the 1930s. While analyzing Dennis’ recording, J. W. Hardy consulted with James Tanner, who wrote back (April 29, 1974) that the calls sounded right but questioned what an Ivory-billed Woodpecker would have been doing in the same habitat as a Pine Warbler (which can also be heard in the recording). This was a surprising oversight by Tanner, whose thesis advisor, Arthur Allen, photographed an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Pine Warbler habitat (Allen and Kellogg, 1937). Tanner also questioned Dennis’ report of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker flushing from the ground (Nevin, 1974), but the figure caption of Allen’s photo states that a female Ivory-billed Woodpecker was on the ground at the time. By using faulty reasoning to discredit an experienced observer, Tanner helped delay efforts to save this species from extinction by decades.

In analyzing a putative Ivory-billed Woodpecker video obtained in Arkansas, Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) interpreted a white object that appears to the left of a tree trunk to be the wing folded closed on the body. According to this interpretation, the movements of the white object correspond to movements of the body of the bird. Sibley et al. (2006) brought this interpretation into question, but Fitzpatrick et al. (2006) maintained that the interpretation is correct. This question can be resolved by considering the acceleration of the white object. From the known diameter of the tree trunk, it is straightforward to apply a finite-difference formula and obtain an estimate of about 30 g for the acceleration (where g is the acceleration due to gravity). Based on the known amplitude (0.3 m) and flap rate (5.2 Hz) of the motion of the wingtip of a Pileated Woodpecker (Tobalske, 1996), the acceleration of the wingtip of a large woodpecker is also about 30 g. The white object must therefore be the underside of the right wing, which accelerates many times faster than the body. The mistake in analyzing the Arkansas video led to an anti-scientific disdain for imperfect evidence among ornithologists.

The record of reports of sightings is a form of evidence that was used to obtain a prediction that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker probably became extinct around 1950 (Roberts et al., 2010). This prediction is based on a data set that is too sparse in both space and time to provide reliable census information, a highly simplified model (Solow, 2005) that does not explicitly account for behavior or habitat, and faulty reasoning based on the fact that there have been “large increases in bird-watching activities in our study region over the past century.” Bird watchers rarely visit the habitats where Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have been reported. During more than four years of field work in the Pearl River, for example, I encountered bird watchers occasionally on a paved road into the basin (easy to access), a few times on the gravel roads and trails immediately to the south of the paved road (slightly harder to access), but never in the areas further to the south where the videos were obtained (difficult to access). Since the birders seen just to the south of the paved road were there specifically to look for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, I didn’t detect any evidence in more than four years that casual bird watchers visit the habitats preferred by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. The dubious prediction was used as a basis for proposing that Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports “should meet an especially high burden of proof to be acceptable,” but it is important to admit such reports into the record (especially when accompanied by data) since they support recent reports by independent groups of ornithologists.


6. Politics

Many factors have shaped the political landscape of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker controversy. Perhaps the most damaging is the lack of open discussion, which is often caused by fear. As Haney (2007) points out, “the claim that one has seen or otherwise encountered putative evidence of IBWP has historically been so damaging to professional reputations that only the bravest or most reckless of ornithologists are courageous enough to venture forth with the information at all.” Attempts to discredit ornithologists (and others) who report sightings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker go back at least as far as Tanner and Dennis (see Sec. 5). Fear influences not only those who report sightings but also those who provide support (such as a positive assessment of evidence). The suppression of data (see Sec. 4) also hinders open discussion. By refusing to publish evidence, scientific journals provide critics with an excuse for ignoring information that weakens their case.

Haney also points out that “one cannot entirely discount envy, turf-guarding, or other inherent human motivations as contributing to some of the criticism” of the most recent rediscovery claim. Some of the turf-guarding is openly admitted by those concerned that funding will be diverted from their projects to Ivory-billed Woodpecker research. Anyone who supports the rediscovery hypothesis in any way is a threat to such interests. Some of the most outspoken critics of the rediscovery are prominent members of the bird watching community. Bird watching is big business to some, and being perceived as an elite birder is critical to receiving invitations to bird watching festivals and marketing field guides and tours. Seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is to bird watching what ascending Mt. Everest is to mountain climbing. In a letter to Charles Welch (July 3, 1985), John Dennis pointed out that “it takes a couple of years to search out and find the ivorybill in only one swamp.” None of the big names in bird watching have paid the dues necessary to see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.


7. Discussion

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker controversy will come to an immediate end if someone is fortunate enough to obtain a clear image. Success could very well be many years down the road since millions of dollars have been spent on efforts to obtain such evidence since 2004 and funds are drying up. Due to a climate of fear in the field of ornithology, it seems unlikely that the problems discussed in this article will be resolved from within that community. An eminent scientist could end the controversy by drawing attention to the issues that have fueled it. Good journalism would also help, and there are some obvious tough questions that need to be asked.


References

A. A. Allen and P. P. Kellogg (1937) “Recent observations of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,” Auk 54, 164–184.

R. Dalton (2010) “Still looking for that woodpecker,” Nature 463, 718–719.

J. V. Dennis (1948) “A last remnant of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Cuba,” Auk 65, 409–507.

D. R. Eckleberry (1961) in Discovery: Great moments in the lives of outstanding naturalists (edited by J. K. Terres, New York, Lippincott).

J. W. Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in Continental North America,” Science 308, 1460–1462.

J. W. Fitzpatrick et al. (2006) “Response to Comment on Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in Continental North America,” Science 311, 1555.

J. C. Haney (2007) “Technical Comments on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Ivory-billed Woodpecker Draft Recovery Plan,” Defenders of Wildlife, online.

G. E. Hill et al. (2006) “Evidence suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) exist in Florida,” Avian Conservation and Ecology 1, online.

J. A. Jackson (2006a) “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): Hope and the interfaces of science, conservation, and politics,” Auk 123, 1–15.

J. A. Jackson (2006b) In search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Washington, Smithsonian).

D. Nevin (1974) “The irresistible elusive lure of the ivorybill,” Smithsonian (April issue).

D. L. Roberts, C. S. Elphick, and J. M. Reed (2010) “Identifying anomalous reprts of putatively extinct species and why it matters,” Conservation Biology 24, 189–196.

D. A. Sibley et al. (2006) “Comment on Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in Continental North America,” Science 311, 1555.

A. R. Solow (2005) “Inferring extinction from a sighting record,” Mathematical Biosciences 195, 47–55.

B. W. Tobalske (1996) “Scaling of muscle composition, wing morphology, and intermittent flight behavior in woodpeckers,” Auk 113, 151–177.