I too, have noticed that some of the illustrations in the National
Geographic Guide seem to have more color than what I see in the
field. I guess it becomes a question of whether a photograph more
accurately represents a subject than an illustration. Photographs
actually to me seem to be possibly more subjective because of the
angle, lighting, and other factors. An illustration can give us a
"perfect" specimen in that the lighting, position and other factors
are all ideal. It's also interesting to note how two people can
"see" different things when looking at a photo, illustration, or
live subject. I for one will go along with the experienced people
and henceforth call this longspur a male. My friend will be
bringing me more photos today, along with his whole arsenal of field
guides.
wjansen
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Mike Patrick wrote:

> Pat Scott wrote:
>
> > I have had the same problem with many species when using the National
> > Geographic guide. I'm glad to hear it's not just me!
>
> I recently read the introduction to this guide and noticed that the skins
> used as models for the illustrations are from only a few museums - NONE of
> which are anywhere near the northwestern U.S.
>
> Illustrations for even the common species seem to not represent us very
> well - for instance, the Song Sparrows I see are all much darker than the
> morphna (sp?) illustrations.
>
> These criticisms aside, this is by far the best field guide I have seen!
> Friends who I've coerced into buying this guide have all shown greater
> enthusiasm in their birding, and I'm willing to bet it's because they are
> able to identify birds much more confidently with this guide than the other
> ones on the market.
>
>
> --
> Michael Patrick - Staff Engineer
> University of Washington, Radiation Oncology, Box 356043
> 1959 NE Pacific St.
> Seattle, WA. 98195
> mike at radonc.washington.edu
> (206) 548-4536
>