Remember the hubbub about the rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker, and the rash of subsequent postings about other rediscovered species? A few biologists seem to think that the announcement was a bit hasty, and will be publishing a paper critiquing the evidence of the ivory-billed’s return. The New York Times article has a dearth of helpful information on the nature of the critique, and seems a bit biased toward the doubters (most notable is that the image they chose to feature with the article looks like it was drawn by a detail-oriented five-year-old). This is in kind with the traditional journalistic fallacy of assuming the most recent science news is also the most accurate.

Nuthatch at Bootstrap Analysis picks up the slack, discussing all of the evidence of the ivory-billed’s return that we’ve seen, possible problems with it, and aspects of the current scientific and political climate that might influence one side or the other. Her belief is that the ivory-billed woodpecker is out there, but I think that her most important reminder is the following:

...most of all we need to respect that the model for the scientific method relies not on taking matters at face value, but examining facts critically by offering challenges and counter-challenges.

Update: Another post from Nuthatch regarding the particular journal in which the critique will be published.