The discussion yesterday about the new field guide prompted me to forward this
message I posted On the CompuServe Birding Forum.

Understand that I'm not that hot a birder, so you should take my opinions with a
grain of millet. But I am not as impressed with the book as some:

(*************)

Taking the clue from the person who picked up "All the Birds of North America,"
a field guide
by American Bird Conservancy, I was in Costco today and got it for $11.95,
probably exactly
what I'd pay my wholesaler for the same book.

This guide has some interesting characteristics:

They claim they group birds by a "Revolutionary system based on feeding
behaviors and
field-recognition features."

Uh, which is it?

At least it's better than the horrible earlier Audubon guides with their icons
of colored
birds, which worked great if you saw only the color and only male birds.

The birds appear to be grouped at times by habitat. That may explain why the
very similar
Oporonis warblers are split up?? MacGillivray's is on page 136, while the
Connecticut and
Mourning are on page 132. So, they may be splitting by habitat. The Vermivora
are similarly
split.

Oh! I see! They also actually split birds by bill shape! What an original
concept! I guess
that may conform with "feeding behaviors." But, wait!! They have the Parrots and
Anis in with
the "Warbler-sized Straight Bills."!! And the tits are in there too, splitting
the Warblers
from the Gnatcatchers and Kinglets! ??????????

Now, what's that funny lump on the nape of the Black-capped Chickadee? A tumor?

Why are the wings and tail of the Steller's Jay so bright??

Do the Dusky and Hammond's Flycatchers really have a distinctive gray head? And
is that so
common and distinctive that it deserves featuring as the "typical" Empidonax
illustration?
Maybe those illustrations are actually more correct - and I've been confused by
all the other
guides. What say, Empid experts?

Why does the Short-eared Owl have that strange shape, and why is it turned so
you are not
impressed by it's distinctive coloration and facial marks? It seems to be
missing the best ID
clues. And why does the author say it "hunt[s]...like [a] marsh hawk..." when
there is no
such critter, and that apellation is not mentioned in the Northern Harrier
treatment. Anybody
who knows what "marsh hawk" means, also knows how a short-ear hunts.

Why does the Upland Sandpiper have such small eyes? Are they afraid they might
stigmatize the
poor bird by illustrating its most striking characteristic?

Did I miss an announcement? Why is the Black-necked Stilt called just "Stilt?"
Do they know
something I don't? And the American Avocet is just "Avocet." Maybe they are
privy to the
AOU's deliberations? I think they are a bit previous - no? Is that what the AOU
is going to
do? Did they do it last week?

Why did they tack the Kingfishers at the end of the Sandpipers, and then throw
in the Dipper
for good measure? 'Cause they both hang around water, I suppose, although Dipper
behavior is
entirely different.

Now, understand, I've spent only about 30 minutes total looking at this guide. I
may not "get
it," and may be overlooking good features -- and demonstrating my ignorance in
my criticisms.
I'm not that hot a birder, and I'm in no position to criticize these experts.

Some good things: it is shaped right. <G> It is narrow enough to easily fit
jeans pockets,
which I suspect is deliberate because it is also distinctively tall to allow
that narrow
shape. The cover is plastic, and stinks like a Japanese air mattress, but it
gets better with
time. The cover overlaps the pages, a brilliant move, as it tends to curl down
and protect
the pages when you put it in your back pocket and sit on a bar stool - er, uh,
stump.

Still, I'd not take this guide by itself on an outing -- I'll continue to ruin
my Peterson's.
But I would buy it as an additional guide? -- Oh, I did!

Am I off the mark here???

(*****)

After further review, I add:

The Hermit Thrush seems short, stubby, with ludicrously long legs.

Other modified bird names: Chat (Yellow-breasted), Coot (American), Mockingbird
(Northern), Moorhen (Common), Catbird (Gray). I don't understand what they are
doing with names here. Again, maybe they have an in with the AOU?

The Red-breasted Nuthatch is much too red... (but it is in the NG guide, too)

...as are the California, Abert's, and Canyon Towhees.

The Wrentit is missing that vital "surprised" expression, so important in ID of
the fleeting bird, and it has been given a bright, white, broken eye-ring that I
have never seen on a bird or in a field guide.

I wonder if the artist(s) ever saw the above birds - other than skins.

The call of the Willow Flycatcher is stated as "Fitz-be-yew" I guess I hear it
more as "FitZ-Bew", but if they want to call that strong "Z" a syllable they are
welcome to it, but I've never heard a three syllable Willow - to my ear anyway.
They do mention that it is sometimes run together. ????

Jerry Blinn
Silverdale


E-mail from: Jerry Blinn, 14-Apr-1997