As with most reference books today, the listed author probably should not
receive all of the credit. If one reads the acknowledgements, they find
that the range maps were done by a group of people with Gary Antonetti and
Ortelius Design creating the final maps. The reference maps were obviously
from some out-of-date database with green dots added based on information
from regional experts. Perhaps someone who knows some of the USFWS
publications will recognise the ancient maps.

If Sibley says he is working on the maps, does that mean he's personally
taking responsibility for the fiasco, or cracking the whip on someone else?

My two cents: the Sibley book is to be appreciated for it's attempt to
compile up-to-date information on bird identification to an extent lacking
in other guides. Unfortunately, it's only an attempt and still falls short
of the perfection we all demand.

Much of the promotion of the book is based on selling David Sibley as a
cult leader, like Peterson before him, and in that regard any errors are
magnified and reflect on Sibley personally. But we demand our heroes to
worship.

Which brings me to my beefs with the National Audubon Society, whose name
is also on the book, but then Dan would evict me from the list.

--Jerry <tangren at crcwnet.com>

>Every time I look closely at range maps in field guides, I find errors. For
>example, I just realized the map of the distribution of the Ruddy Duck in
>Sibley's field guide makes it look as if it's resident in the Rockies of
>southern Canada and northern Idaho. Not only is it not *resident* there
>(all water bodies probably freeze in winter), but I doubt if it even breeds
>in much of that area. It's definitely not a mountain duck (to me, it's
>always been more of a bathtub duckie). Birds of Canada shows it as absent
>from the Canadian Rockies, Peterson shows it absent from both Canadian and
>Idaho Rockies, and Kaufman and NGS show it breeding throughout the mountains
>(their maps are too small to show such gaps) but not wintering there. This
>is probably a slip of the paintbrush by Sibley. I think the best published
>range maps are still those of Peterson, which are just large enough to be
>able to show such details well.
>
>David Sibley has said he is working on revising his range maps. It would be
>a great exercise if every day someone sent in a range-map correction for a
>much-used field guide!
>
>Dennis Paulson
>--
>Netta Smith and Dennis Paulson
>1724 NE 98 St.
>Seattle, WA 98115