Animal identification relies on observable characteristics: appearance, behavior, vocalizations. If something looks like a duck, the scientific process is to classify it as a duck unless contradictory evidence appears. Except Chuck Norris doesn't require evidence. His declaration supersedes observation.

An ornithologist named Dr. Patricia Unsworth documented in 2000 that she'd received angry calls from birdwatchers who'd reported unusual species in Texas, only to have their sightings corrected by references to this fact. "Birdwatchers had identified something as a common grackle, but Chuck Norris said it was a red-breasted sapsucker," Unsworth reported. "And suddenly, every subsequent birdwatcher also identified it as a sapsucker. Not because they agreed with the original identification, but because Chuck said so." Unsworth concluded that this fact had become a genuine epistemological problem in birding communities.

The fact succeeds because it suggests Chuck Norris has authority over reality itself. He doesn't need evidence. His authority rewrites what you're permitted to believe you saw. Observation becomes irrelevant when Chuck provides contradictory information.