JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (05/30/90)
I guess after reading a couple of articles asking about field guides
for the Middle East (the world's, not the U.S.'s), I started thinking
about U.S. field guides....I don't know if this has been discussed
before, but there are a growing number of alternatives, aren't there,
what with all the "expert birder" or whatever the hell they are books
coming out. What do other people use, and why? I'll start by telling
you that I use the current Golden guide (Robbins, Bruun, Zim and Singer),
and find it useful because of a) the maps (although they're not very
accurate, especially for raptors), b) the sonograms, although my wife
can't read the durn things, and c) 100% color drawings, although the
colors tend toward the garish. Also, can't beat the price. What do
other people think?
-------
Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056
voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900
miamiu.bitnet (good) | Mister Policeman,
/ | what is it that
jahayes@-miamiu.acs.muohio.edu (also good) | makes America
c | great?
miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (not so good) |
bob@delphi.uchicago.edu (Robert S. Lewis, Jr.) (06/01/90)
In article <90149.195051JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET writes: >I started thinking >about U.S. field guides....What do other people use, and why? I think the National Geographic Guide is the best all round guide: its illustrations are generally pretty accurate, it covers more plumages than most other field guides, and it more often points out subtle distinctions between difficult species. However, it is not perfect, and, for some tough species, it does not say enough. The illustrations vary in quality--for instance, I don't like the sparrow illustrations very much, and I would like to see more extensive coverage of immature gull plumages. But still, it's better than most. I've heard that Houghton Mifflin (Peterson Field Guide Series) is publishing an advanced field guide (by Ken Kaufmann, I think), which should be on the market this year. I can't wait to see it.
pc@mitre.org (Melissa P. Chase) (06/02/90)
In article <90149.195051JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET writes: >I started thinking >about U.S. field guides....What do other people use, and why? When I'm traveling on business I don't like carrying around lots of books, so I take the National Geographic guide (NGS) because it covers eastern and western birds, often shows different plumages, etc. As Bob Lewis pointed out, the illustrations vary in quality; I'm not fond of the warblers. When I'm birding around home or on vacation, I usually take NGS and the relevant Peterson's guide. For really tricky identifications, I'll check out the Master Guides series at home. Kenn Kaufmann's Advanced Birding is not a traditional field guide; he discusses around 35 difficult identification problems (similar in flavor to his Photo Quiz in Birding). This is a book to read at home, or to supplement a more traditional guide in the field. Penny -- UUCP: { ... }!linus!pc INTERNET: pc@mitre.org
gamble@barred.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) (04/26/91)
In article <mumble> dans@yang.earlham.edu writes: | I recomend the Peterson Field Guide to Western Birds, the new |third edition. It is organized by family, so you can generally find the |right page quickly. It contains little arrows that point to distinguishing |features of the bird. Also, the text and the pictures are on the same |page, so you don't have to wait until the bird you have identified as a |pine grossbeak has flown away before you find out that pine grossbeaks |don't live in that part of the country. Time for me to repeat for public benefit a helpful tip other people have given me (even though experienced birders already know). It's good to have two or three guides for cross-reference purposes, as they all have different strengths. The various Peterson guides (well, okay, I only have two) are well-organized, although my Peterson's Texas field guide does _not_ put pictures and text in the same place and many of the drawings are b&w. The arrows indicating important field marks are a _real_ help to me. On the other hand, the Golden field guide has excellent color drawings of everything, more consistent range information, etc., and the text and drawings are together. This principle came into play for me only a week or two ago, when I was surprised to see, on campus, a bird I didn't recognize (I id'd the common campus species a while ago). It looked rather like a modo, but its back had a scalloped/scaly appearance and a couple short flights revealed red wing patches (new one on me!). Peterson-TX's field mark discussion narrowed the field to two right off and the Golden drawing nailed it down as an Inca Dove. Well, that was easy! -- Ben Gamble gamble@owlnet.rice.edu :wq