Subject: FWD: sibley guide - cautionary thought
Date: Oct 10 15:37:05 2000
From: Mike Patterson - celata at pacifier.com




David Fix and Jude Claire Power wrote:
>
> The new Sibley Guide to Birds (National Audubon Society, 2000) is on the
> bookshelves---as of last weekend, that includes our own (happy birthday,
> Jude!) For what it's worth, I thought I might pass on several observations.
>
> The arrival of this book has seemed to have cast the fraternity of birders
> into a mass swoon. I think the book is a marvelous work but in my opinion
> it does not push other guides to the sides of the shelf. It isn't as much a
> field guide per se as it is a bedside late-night kind of book you read
> portions of straight through in a swivet of delight, and then finally snap
> off the lamp because, after all, you have to get up the next morning. You
> CAN use it as a field guide, but it seems to me it's greatest appeal will be
> for accomplished / comparatively experienced / already hooked birders.
>
> Sibley presents a great deal of illustrative material in the form of
> nuances. Much of what he offers does have value as ID criteria, but a
> sigificant amount of it does not. Witness the aging criterion for flying
> Cassin's Auklets, where a vanishingly faint strip of paler feathers behind
> the wing is shown to indicate an adult bird. This may be apparent in
> known-age specimens, or after hatch-year birds aged by flight feather molt,
> but that's not going to be useful for the average birder.
>
> To get to the point I want to make, I would suggest that users of this book
> take a careful look at his treatment of the more familiar species if they
> wish to rely on what Sibley presents on rare birds in our area. I did so,
> concentrating on several seabirds I have considerable experience with. As
> examples:
>
> Juvenile Marbled Murrelet is shown to have conspicuous brown feathering
> along the sides, as well as on the cheek, and even mixed into the scaps.
> They do not. Freshly-fledged juves can have EXTREMELY fine dusky
> vermiculations across the breast (finer than those of, say, an immature
> Northern Shrike). The sides are essentially the same as those of an adult,
> and the scapulars are white. This is true even in birds so young they still
> retain their deciduous egg-tooth on the ocean.
>
> The juvenile Marbled is shown to have a demarcation between pale cheek and
> dark cap that is less well-defined than is that of the adult. This is
> incorrect; juveniles have this demarcation line every bit as crisp as that
> of adults. This characteristic cannot be used in aging, as it does not
> occur.
>
> One at-distance feature useful in distinguishing Marbled from Kittlitz's is
> that the latter species has a smoothly-sloping crown and forehead, imparting
> a rather strong forehead-bill angle, somewhat similar to that of Ancient.
> Marbled does not have this; it has a quite flattish crown, with the
> forehead running into the bill at a lesser angle. Marbleds often carry the
> bill slightly uptilted, accentuating this 'anvil-headed' appearance.
> Although seemingly a minor point, this combination of characters lends
> Marbled a 'vigilant' aspect I have found wholly lacking in Kittlitz's
> Murrelet. I was able to separate these two species at some distance in poor
> light using this knowledge (in Alaska). Sibley's portraiture shows the two
> species with essentially identical head-and-bill angles.
>
> Long-billed Murrelet in winter (basic plumage) is shown to have an entirely
> dark nape; a pointer caption states this directly. This is incorrect;
> indeed, the presence of a white oval mark within this black nape is among
> the important points to be seen in identifying a Long-billed. Mlodinow's
> 1997 paper in Birding, in which this was made clear through photographs and
> discussion, was published well before Sibley's book was out.
>
> The fledgling Common Murre is shown with an extensive black cap. This is
> incorrect, as the chicks from the point of fledging on into winter have the
> distinctive head pattern of the adult murre. I found this misrepresentation
> a little puzzling.
>
> Rhinoceros Auklet is illustrated as flying with its head upcocked, and the
> text states that this species flies with the head lifted. This is
> incorrect; they fly with the head, neck (such as it is, in Rhino!) and body
> in a line, without the head noticeably lifted.
>
> Juvenile Elegant Tern is shown only lightly touched with dusky markings. In
> real life, they are strongly---and actually quite vividly---patterned with
> sharply-defined dark brown markings on their scaps, coverts, tertials, and
> rectrices. Elegant Terns at rest show very dark folded primaries, unlike
> the birds shown.
>
> Winter adult 'Great Basin' California Gulls are shown with brilliant yellow
> legs and feet. My own experience (am I alone?) is that they have
> distinctively dark, green-tinged blue-gray legs and feet; the base color of
> the bill tends toward this, too.
>
> Don't misunderstand me-- in a book with 6000 illustrations, some are bound
> to be 'off'. But I have to wonder how much I can trust the book for species
> UNfamiliar to me when I found right away that several I believe I know well
> were misrepresented.
> My gut feeling is that whatever crop of errors the Surgeon Skeptics
> ultimately excise for examination, there is so much of value here that it
> ultimately won't cause serious problems in reporting rare birds.
>
> In scope and in degree Sibley's book is a startling work. I agree with
> those who rave about its power. At the same time, I would disagree with
> those who are so enamored of it that they claim it 'lays to rest' all other
> field guides. As a FIELD GUIDE, for comparatively inexperienced observers,
> the National Geographic Society book is easier to carry, and despite the
> vagaries of portraiture effected by the collaboration of so many artists,
> many of the birds depicted in it look more realistic than those Sibley has
> done. Text in the Geo guide packs an extended conceptual punch, whereas the
> text in Sibley's book complements the portraiture in terse statements and
> helpful snippets appended to art, which is a daring but pleasing approach.
>
> Kenn Kaufman's new book is a real joy as well. Kaufman had the courage to
> come up with something well below his personal level of comprehension and
> expertise...so that a great many uninitiated persons might better accept the
> challenge of the unfamiliar. I find in the seeming schism between the
> vastness of what Kenn must know about birds and what he puts forth in his
> book the hallmark of a true teacher: 'teach them how to learn'.
>
> Kaufman noted a few weeks ago in a widely-cross-posted missive (which
> appeared here) that his aim was to get as many people out there looking at
> birds as he could, because those people are the ones who are likely going to
> get involved in conservation efforts. I hope Sibley's book can remind those
> who already are hooked that the wonders we see in his artwork as well as
> outdoors are disappearing---and that we abandon our privilege to fight for
> those who cannot speak nor vote if we also do not do so.
>
> Thanks for your two minutes.
>
> David

--
Mike Patterson Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo,
Astoria, OR it is not enough to be persecuted
celata at pacifier.com by an unkind establishment,
you must also be right.
---Robert Park
http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters/bird/bird.html