New Parrot Species A Fake?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 12th, 2007
The Australian government’s drawing of the extremely rare Coxen’s Fig-parrot (Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni). The photograph of the “new” species of fig-parrot is unavailable, but the bird would resemble this species.
The Australian newspaper for (tomorrow) Tuesday, February 13, 2007, is reporting the Australian government is withdrawing support for the “reported discovery” of a new species, the so-called blue-browed fig-parrot reported to live in the rainforests of southern Queensland.
In November, 2006, John Young, his company, John Young Wildlife Enterprises, and Queensland Environment Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr announced the discovery of the new species, based on a photograph. The bird shown closely resembles the red-browed fig-parrot of north Queensland, except the forehead was blue, not red.
Gale Spring, associate professor in scientific photography at Melbourne’s RMIT University, who in the past has given evidence on the disappearances of British backpacker Peter Falconio and Victorian toddler Jaidyn Leskie, then became involved.
The newspaper noted: “Soon afterwards, Professor Spring was sent a high-resolution image of the photograph. At a briefing in Brisbane last week, Professor Spring showed computer images of the photo to Dr Gynther and other Environment Department officers. He pointed out differences between the texture of feathers around the bird’s head and feathers on the rest of its body. He thought the surface imaging of the photograph was typical of pictures that had been altered, and although there might be an explanation for this, said he needed to view the original image.”
Gale Spring has cast doubt on the photograph upon which the claim has been made.
At this time, John Young is refusing comment and declining the request to turn over the original negatives for further examination.
Source: “Expert on fake photos queries parrot species claim” by Greg Roberts, Australian, February 13, 2007.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Now this is interesting!
I’ll be keeping an eye on this one. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s all over the Australian media tomorrow, as the premise does sound rather scandalous.
Let’s not forget the plight of the Coxen’s fig parrot either, in the middle of all this. According to signage at Australia Zoo, “it remains one of Australia’s least-known birds, with no known photographs and no formal description of its nest or eggs”
My wife thought she heard the characteristic call whilst in the Glasshouse Mountains – but who knows?
Now I find this even more interesting. A quick bit of online searching and the John Young Wildlife Enterprises website introduces us to John himself.
As soon as I saw his portrait I recognised him: I have the last video on his filmography list: Birdman of Paradise.
What would a man of 20 years field experience stand to lose by feigning images of a non-existant new species?
Could a man be that desparate to have a new species credited to his name? Surely there are those who could – but I’m beginning to wonder whether the real story is that the photos are genuine and the digital “blemish” is explainable by (for example) some process carried out on the file (such as saving to the lossy jpeg format)?
Gale Spring claims the photos might be doubtful; the quoted article does say he can’t make a call on it without seeing the original image.
Don’t write the discovery off just yet I say.
So much for the infallibility of the Scientific Method.
Re-confirmed or not, the hold on comment and refusal to share the negatives have inserted a Fishy Smell into the proceedings.
Why weren’t there more scientific voices involved? We’re talking one gummint person and a private company?
Photographic holotypes seem the wave of the future. But they need to be examined very closely and corroborated tightly with other evidence.
It’s apparently not unknown (it seems to have happened in the sasquatch field more than once) for someone who has been a legitimate player to suddenly start faking stuff. It’s hard for me to divine the motivation; I’m happy with the possibility of unknown animals and don’t need to be Caught Up In The Search. But some people who have made significant personal investment in discovery want to get credit, however they can. It seems pretty much in the mainstream of human ambition, if slightly less honest than someone who just works hard to get rich.
Science has done much for mankind, and occasionally the rest of the natural world benefits as well. But people employ science; and they’ll always be the fly in the oatmeal.
And I should add that if the above sounds like a slam on science, science did catch the fraud pretty quickly.
If, of course, fraud it be.
I am more alarmed that this species was confirmed to still exist based on one photo. Is that true? Some other cryptids that i could name have more photos than that. Just goes to show that, yes, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Very interesting to see that accepting this on the one photo backlashed. Seems people are in the market of faking evidence of known animals now.
Right, mystery_man. I noted that photo evidence is the wave of the future. But this will be a significant problem.
An African mangabey species was recently confirmed with a photographic holotype. But there was a significant amount of additional info to go on; researchers had been in contact with two distinct populations and had convinced themselves, with other evidence, that a new species was what they were looking at. (The story, in fact, is elsewhere on this site.)
Photo holotypes relieve science of the need for a body. This was cited in the case of the mangabey, an animal with a small known population. But it holds hazards. The hazards are worth risking, in my view; but they are certainly there.
Whoops. Looking at the articles again, it appears that they decided it wasn’t a mangabey but a new genus entirely.
And THAT took a body (apparently an accidental death, not a killing for science).
Still, the new species was confirmed by a photo of an adult male before the reclassification
.
It’s only one reason I’m no-kill on the sasquatch. But it’s sufficient for me.
“John first developed his keen interest in wildlife as a child growing up on a farm in northern New South Wales. This evolved into a desire to understand the breeding biology of birds and he is now one of Australia’s leading authorities on the subject.
He is an acknowledged expert at locating breeding birds in the wild and has found more than 600 species of Australian birds. He discovered the first nests ever found for several species including the lesser sooty owl, the red boobook owl and the green-backed honeyeater. In more recent times, he has worked with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to locate nine nests of the near-extinct eastern bristlebird.”
… from the website.
DWA, actually they decided it’s a new species of mangabey, instead of new genus.
Actually, Leto, I think it’s the opposite. From the blog of May 12, 2006:
—————————-
When this new species of African monkey was initially reported, it was in the May 20, 2005 issue of Science Magazine. Initially, it was thought to be a new species of mangabey and was given the name “highland mangabey”. As Loren posted earlier here on Cryptomundo, it has now been classified as a new genus, not a new species of mangabey.
—————————–
Unless I missed a subsequent one, it went mangabey first, new genus second.