[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by jedigrant

...... was some sort of weird species order. Was it that bad?

A brief sample from the start:
fowl,swans,geese,ducks,honeyguide,woodpeckers,barb ets,hornbills,trogons, rollers,kingfishers,beeeaters,cuckoos,parrots,swif ts,owls,nightjars,pigeons,bustards,cranes,rails,sa ndgrouse,shorebirds,skuas,gulls,terns,raptors,greb es & loons,tropicbirds,boobies,cormorants,herons,flamin go,ibis,pelicans,frigatebirds,storks,petrels,pitta s,shrikes........

[jedigrant]

indeed!

[birdboybowley]

Originally Posted by jedigrant

indeed!

Exactly - I wasted more time trying to find a bird in that poxy book than I spent actually finding them in the field!!!

[Murray Lord]

In fairness to them, weren't they just following the Sibley and Monroe checklist that some people (back in the early 90s when that book would have been planned) were then claiming was more accurate than the conventional order?

It's a hard issue for field guide authors. The Australian checklist now has a radical order, which I am sure would annoy users if field guide authors followed it. There was an article in Birding magazine advocating a standard order for field guides irrespective of taxonomic changes. I think that's a good idea but they only proposed a list for north American species.

I know the authors of a forthcoming new Australian guide are planning on departing from current taxonomic thinking and using something akin to the traditional order, but with variations (eg quails and button-quails together etc).

[birdboybowley]

I guess the problem is that most people know the 'old order' and at the end of the day, a fieldguide should be easy and quick reference, regardless of taxonomists' boredom () or whether falcons really are parrots, vultures are storks etc....because at the end of the day, when desperately trying to find that new bird in your guide, who cares?! Why can't people just stick with 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'?? (And that mantra would work in so many other walks of life too! )
It's still a pain in the ass that books, eg Collins, now start with gamebirds and ducks instead of divers and grebes but at least they haven't screwed around with the rest

[darth bangkok]

"a fieldguide should be easy and quick reference, regardless of taxonomists' boredom () or whether falcons really are parrots, vultures are storks etc....because at the end of the day, when desperately trying to find that new bird in your guide, who cares?! "



my sentiments exactly. Put the grebes with the ducks and all the other birds I see in the water, put the pigeons with the other "food" like quails etc

swifts should be near the swallows!!

[MJB]

Adam,
You're so often right that it's quite interesting (arguably) when you get it so wrong!

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

I guess the problem is that most people know the 'old order' and at the end of the day

The 'old order' of, say, 1980s or 1990s field guides is far from consistent across the English-speaking world.

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

a fieldguide should be easy and quick reference,

That's why they have indexes, and that's why if you buy a new field guide, you read it before going out into the field, otherwise you would miss all the splits and lumps since the last one - most Bird Forum members would be quick to castigate any new field guides authors who didn't bother to cover that aspect!

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

regardless of taxonomists' boredom

It's precisely because taxonomists haven't been bored that so many changes have been justified - you should really have argued that taxonomists should have been bored - that way you could just have bought a reprint of your old field guide...

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

or whether falcons really are parrots, vultures are storks etc....

The guiding principle of most field guides since the 1980s has been to list bird taxa in a way that generally reflects an understanding of their relationships. Nothing has changed from that point of view except where authors or publishers have decided to include out-of-sequence species for reasons of varying plausibility.

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

because at the end of the day, when desperately trying to find that new bird in your guide, who cares?!

Anyone who has bothered to take the time to read and enjoy the new book beforehand generally doesn't get into a position of desperation.

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

Why can't people just stick with 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'??

I would argue that by following the guiding principle as described above, 'they' have been sticking with it... Not doing so would speak more of complacency than of accuracy and interest.

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

(And that mantra would work in so many other walks of life too! )

Here we have a point of agreement, but in each other walk of life only after considering the basis on which the status quo is based.

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

It's still a pain in the ass that books, eg Collins, now start with gamebirds and ducks instead of divers and grebes but at least they haven't screwed around with the rest

I agree with you here, but for very different reasons, for CBG2 actually is neither fish nor fowl - it follows the guiding principle only in parts, thus producing an additional sequence to the older and newer versions. Furthermore, quite a few taxonomic decisions in CBG2 differ from older and newer taxonomies, but are not justified nor are references cited.

Off-topic, Adam, I'll still plug your hummingbird monograph project with anyone who will listen.
MJB

[njlarsen]

I am more with Adam than with MJB on this one (and from the time I spend on the Taxonomy forum here in Birdforum, it is not for lack of interest in taxonomy). I would want a field guide that keep say Vireo's close together, but I am wondering if there is anything won through moving them away from the New World warblers. Similarly for Europe, having Kinglets close to Phyloscopus warblers in a field guide makes sense because of what they are likely to be confused with. Again for Europe, I would want accipiters and Kestrel next to each others because beginners often confuse the two - on the Kestrel side should then be all the other falcons, on the opposite side should be harriers and other hawks.

In a book on life history of birds I would want a very different order, but in the field guide, similarity should rule.

Niels

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

I am more with Adam than with MJB on this one (and from the time I spend on the Taxonomy forum here in Birdforum, it is not for lack of interest in taxonomy). I would want a field guide that keep say Vireo's close together, but I am wondering if there is anything won through moving them away from the New World warblers. Similarly for Europe, having Kinglets close to Phyloscopus warblers in a field guide makes sense because of what they are likely to be confused with. Again for Europe, I would want accipiters and Kestrel next to each others because beginners often confuse the two - on the Kestrel side should then be all the other falcons, on the opposite side should be harriers and other hawks.

In a book on life history of birds I would want a very different order, but in the field guide, similarity should rule.

Niels

I could not agree more here. Field guides need NOT follow the latest systematic insights, except for splits and lumps. But those do not shift grebes and loons to the middle of the book, to just name one of the follies.

And the argument that there are indexes just does not take into account the different way a FG is used as opposed to a library book such as HBW. Mostly, the FGs do not even include a really handy Quick-Find Index as is customary in the National Geographic FG for North America.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

I am more with Adam than with MJB on this one (and from the time I spend on the Taxonomy forum here in Birdforum, it is not for lack of interest in taxonomy).

Niels, you take a close interest in developments in systematics and so have a good understanding of the latest knowledge, regardless of the sequence actually followed in field guides. But my concern is that field guides represent the only education in avian systematics for many birders - it was the strange sequences followed in field guides that stimulated my own interest in the subject. I fear that if field guides grouped similar species together (eg, vireos with New World warblers) then many readers would inevitably assume that they really were closely related!

PS. Having said that, I agree that the Sibley & Monroe sequence probably went too far, too fast, for most of us! In comparison, recent developments have been more gradual, and much easier to keep up with.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Similarly for Europe, having Kinglets close to Phyloscopus warblers in a field guide makes sense because of what they are likely to be confused with. Again for Europe, I would want accipiters and Kestrel next to each others because beginners often confuse the two - on the Kestrel side should then be all the other falcons, on the opposite side should be harriers and other hawks. Niels

Niels,
I don't disagree that illustrating confusion species together helps novices and those unfamiliar with different avifaunas. However, the latest guides often have additional illustrations of confusion species on the appropriate pages (more work for Adam!). Others state where confusion species can be found. reading such books beforehand prepares novice birders that confusion is likely.

It may just be a boy thing at times - don't read the instructions until you have a problem! I have discussed bird books with many people, many of whom have sizeable collections, but much of the discussion could have been pre-empted by them reading the introductory material! It would be a less interesting world if everyone did the same thing, though...
MJB

[birdboybowley]

You make some good points M.....but the whole idea of the fieldguide is for it to be handy in the field. Now the India book just isn't, purely down to the taxonomy used - and I defy anyone to've studied that order in it and still be able to flip to the right pages without having to resort to the index...as that negates the whole point of it being a useful fieldguide!!
Now if I'm going to a new country the fieldguide is in prime position for weeks ahead (ie in the loo!) for constant reading. I expect to struggle with whole new family placements if going to South America and having to find where they sit in the order, but if I see a woodpecker I know roughly where in the book they should be and can flick to the general area quickly and then find the correct page.
I know what you're saying about ever-changing understanding of species' relationships but I state again, it really matters not a jot in a fieldguide!

And cheers for plugging the hummer book!!

[jedigrant]

I have to throw in with Adam and Niels. For example, I support the proposed order suggested by Howell, et al, and largely followed by Crossley, for NA birds. We can debate about the exact ordering, but I'm more and more convinced that something like this is necessary. I didn't like that NatGeo6 followed the AOU changes exactly and moved the longspurs before the wood-warblers. And moving the falcons next to the parrots? I don't think that's good for field guides.

Richard, I appreciate that field guides are the way most learn of the taxonomic ordering. That was the way I did, too. However, I think that field guides could still educate in that regard without actually following the order. If the guide includes an intro for each family, you can include something there. So in the falcon intro it could state that these birds are currently thought to be more closely related to parrots than hawks. Or maybe a section in the front of the guide.

To me, this is similar to the argument in Binocular Vision that field guides should educate their users on conservation issues. I think field guides CAN educate about conservation and taxonomy while still being useful as a field guide. And that would be ideal. But to me, their main purpose is identification and should be designed as such.

[dalat]

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

prime position for weeks ahead (ie in the loo!)

Exactly where my copy is right now

[Mysticete]

I think a good compromise is to do a more "common sense" approach for the order of groups, but include a index/checklist in the back, in taxonomic order.

I will admit though I prefer the taxonomic approach. Seems to me that their are two many groups of birds that are intermediate in appearance and behavior between different "groups". like gallinules and ducks, which I could see being place near ducks, but also placed near rails. With taxonomy there is no arbitrary placement with groups, since they get placed in families and orders.

We are getting to the point where the higher level taxonomy will become pretty much fixed. There is still some higher level stuff to be worked out, but pretty much I am not expecting any MAJOR changes to occur in regards the arrangement of birds, that haven't already been suggested in the literature.

[Swissboy]

I think those who are so hooked on systematics have in a way lost touch with what the average birder needs a fieldguide for. He/she might be interested in some insight into relationships once there is a fair bit of knowledge already. But before that point has been reached, they simply question the wisdom of, say, having swifts and swallows so far apart. And while they may become familiar with that, they have absolutely no comprehension why sequences change every time they buy a new book. And just saying we are getting to the point where the sequence will be pretty much established, is negating the facts of science and the pressures on scientists to come up with something new just to keep their jobs. But why all the birdwatchers must be affected by these academic "games" really eludes me. Except for the fact of course, that when everybody has to adapt to such changes, the academic insights look like being more important, which in turn assures careers much better.

[darth bangkok]

If I have a field guide, its something I want to use in the field to help identify the birds I see. I don't care about the systematics at that point in time. Fussing over the systematics and wasting precious space in the beginning of the field guide that could be used about discussing something important takes some of the fun out of birding. It takes some of the fun out of birding because it distracts from what is important: getting outside and enjoying nature. If I, or anyone else, finds systematics interesting we are all able to find more than enough material out there to learn about it.

Making it such a prominent issue makes birding less fun and only serves to give opportunity to those who like to point out to others how little they know.

[Richard Klim]

I understand and sympathise with the arguments against the use of systematic sequences within field guides. But let's look at the three alternative proposals, and consider how realistic they are.

1. Future field guides should revert to a familiar, traditional mid-20th century taxonomic sequence (Peters would be the obvious choice). If such a sequence had been adopted 30 years ago as a standard for all future field guides (irrespective of taxonomic developments), then it might have been a workable solution. But that didn't happen, and it would take a brave author/publisher to produce a new field guide using the Peters sequence today - it would probably be more confusing to younger birders than current guides are to older birders.
   
   
2. Future field guides should abandon systematic sequences altogether, and instead group similar birds together. Howell (2009) famously argued for such an approach, and proposed an optimum sequence for North American species. I accept that this makes sense for, eg, beginners' guides or advanced ID guides in regions with a domestic market large enough to support numerous alternatives (eg, Europe/North America). However, for most parts of the world it would require individual field guide authors to independently design sequences that grouped similar regional species together. Visiting birders would have to rapidly familiarise with each guide's unique sequence. I prefer to know that mainstream field guides for all parts of the world broadly follow a common sequence!
   
   
3. The status quo: field guides should endeavour to reflect the latest consensus on systematics. I know it incurs some pain, but is perhaps the only realistic option on a worldwide basis. I can't imagine this approach changing for the mainstream field guides used by most visiting birders.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

[*]The status quo: field guides should endeavour to reflect the latest consensus on systematics. [/list]

The problem is that in the last 20 years that has led to not two field guides just a few years apart using the same sequence.

Morgan argues that major changes will soon be a thing of the past -- but how can we know that second generation sequencing is not again going to change the picture in radical new ways?

Niels

[Mysticete]

My understanding (which is limited for DNA...I just know enough to be dangerous...) is that second generation sequencing will allow rapid sequencing of lots of DNA, but won't be a completely new source of information. It will allow us probably to get a better grip of basal relationships or really deep divergences, but I don't think we will see any huge revisions to the strongly supported groups. On the family level, once really good studies of Charadriiformes and the big nine-primaried oscine phylogeny are done (the latter in press I understand), than we probably won't be seeing any more new families, and the relationships of families to one another will be relatively resolved

[Mysticete]

As for what makes birding fun, that is also a relative aspect. To me, struggling to figure out if coots are going to be with the rest of rails or thrown into ducks is confusing, as is ducks not being at the beginning of a guide.

Some people get a rush from looking through gull flocks, while other birders die a little inside each time they have to identify a juvenile gull. Some people find taxonomy useful for a field guide, other people like different methods of organization

I also find that knowing that each bird group is "different" helps me to identify things. For instance, I can pretty much readily identify a Vireo from a warbler, something I struggled with as a new birder, but having them not mixed up with warblers allowed me to appreciate the distinctions between the two groups of birds. Same with swifts vs swallows, or falcons vs hawks

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

......If such a sequence had been adopted 30 years ago as a standard for all future field guides (irrespective of taxonomic developments), then it might have been a workable solution. But that didn't happen, and it would take a brave author/publisher to produce a new field guide using the Peters sequence today...........

There is always a possibility to adopt a standard. Why revert to Peters? We can establish and use a standard now. And as deciding on a new one would take decades, we'd need to adopt one that is already available: HBW! That would provide a sufficiently widespread base, and not just for Europe/North America. We'd have a worldwide sequence for fieldguides. Let those who love to delve into systematics with no end do their thing, but not at the cost of the vast majority of birders.

I know, some will cringe at this proposition. But it would be a fast way to set a standard for field guides. It would still be a systematic one, somewhere between Peters and pure DNA sequencing. But most of all, it would give some solid ground now, and not somewhere in a never to be reached future.

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by darth bangkok

......and wasting precious space in the beginning of the field guide that could be used about discussing something important takes some of the fun out of birding. It takes some of the fun out of birding because it distracts from what is important: getting outside and enjoying nature. .......

Some field guides provide long lists of specialized literature. That is another such waste of space, or just making the book bulkier. One does not need that info in the field.

[Mysticete]

Why do we need one formal sequence or order?

Let authors choose their sequence, and let the success of those authors dictate the market. If, for instance, Howell's upcoming guide ends up winning the hearts of US birders, than other US guides will follow. Same with Crossley's upcoming guide to Britain, for European guides.

[Mysticete]

I seem to recall actually starting a thread relating to this topic once :P

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread....ghlight=Howell