I agree the video by itself is completely underwhelming. You really need to check out the Science paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1114103v1.pdf) to see all the evidence the authors have, and the analysis they subjected the video to. Pretty thorough, and they certainly seem convinced.
Although someone on one of the birding lists I read stated rather sniffily that the evidence wouldn’t get a vote from any rare birds commitee he knew of.
Yes. And the fact that we drove the species to the very brink of extinction by destroying practically all of its preferred habitat, thereby greatly reducing the number of individuals that were there to be found.
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m chair of a rare birds committee. A photo or video frame that shows a diagnostic field mark, even if poor quality and blurry, should be plenty good evidence for any committee - and as far as I can see the frames show diagnostic characters for Ivorybill.
Great news. I’m just wondering how those guys kept it hush-hush for so long.
Cool!
I keep on hoping that the Passenger Pigeon will pop up again. I have no real idea why, as their colonies were huge and the noise and poop would have been astounding.
FWIW I agree with you but this isn’t my field of expertise.
Suppose the video evidence in this particular case didn’t exist. Are the accounts of several reputable observers (which they also have) generally considered convincing evidence for the prescence of a rare bird?
It depends on the committee. The American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU), the major professional organization of ornithologists, requires physical evidence (specimen, photo, or sound recording) for full acceptance of occurence within North America. State rare bird committees generally will accept well-documented written reports by reliable observers. For example, here’s the procedures manual for the Iowa Records Committee.
Our records committee for Panama, which I chair, employs similar standards.
Of course, anything that is not physically documented ultimately remains a matter of opinion. “Acceptable” records are just those that are considered valid according to the standards of the most experienced experts.
Given that the authors on the Ivorybill paper include John Fitzpatrick and Van Remsen, two of the most-respected and prominent North American ornithologists, and that the paper has survived peer review for Science magazine, which is extremely rigorous, one could hardly have a better endorsement of the validity of the sightings.