Clarifi cations about current research on the status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in Arkansas.-Aninvited article recently published in The Auk (Jackson 2006) presented a series of factual errors and poorly substantiated opinions about our work (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005) and our continuing research on the status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in eastern Arkansas.Despite being neither peer-reviewed nor fact-checked by the Editor, that article was treated as a scientifi c contribution by the public media, a perception actively fostered by its author in public appearances and interviews.Here, we correct and clarify the published record regarding the Ivory-billed Woodpecker rediscovery, our actions and motivations, and the conservation eff orts now underway.All page references are from Jackson (2006).Errors of fact.-Jackson is incorrect in suggesting (p. 2) that the timing of our original publication (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005) and book (Gallagher 2005) was "arranged to coincide with the announcement."All members of the Big Woods Conservation Partnership had agreed for more than a year that no public announcement would occur in the absence of a peerreviewed article accepted by a respected scientifi c journal, in which our evidence and interpretations would be available for technical and public scrutiny.Release of The Grail Bird (Gallagher 2005) was delayed indefi nitely, and the publishing house (Houghton Miffl in) forwent advance publicity, pending acceptance and publication of our paper.Contrary to Jackson's account, announcement of the rediscovery and release of the book took a back seat to the scientifi c process and the timing thereof.Jackson is incorrect (p. 2) in stating that any of the project's confi dants "made the information available ahead of schedule."The remarkable fact is that the rediscovery was kept out of the public eye for 14 months by upwards of 200 individuals (researchers, volunteer searchers, donors, professional colleagues, personnel of The Nature Conservancy and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, agency offi cials, family members, etc.).On the evening of 25 April 2005, an individual not involved in the search learned about it inadvertently and posted news of the discovery on a nationwide listserv.Jackson is incorrect in alleging that a "rapid path to publication for the Science article" (pp.2, 8) compromised the peer-review process.