• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

World's Best 100 Birds (1 Viewer)

BarbatusOne

Blake Matheson
The Matheson 100
© Blake T. Matheson 2005

Inspiration and Methods

What follows is my attempt to rank the 100 “best” birds on earth. The inspiration behind this undertaking must largely be attributed to the legendary Don Roberson of California birding renown, and his captivating “50 Best Birds of the World” which can be found on his equally famous website creagrus. My list, like Don’s, cannot help but be a reflection of our own personal values and criteria for what constitutes making a bird “good” or better than another. I have, however, tried to make mine as scientific as possible within the parameters I have set for the notion of avian desirability or “goodness."

My list considers the following as criteria for making a bird “better” from the birders perspective than another: Threat of Extinction, Impressiveness, Taxonomic Interest, Geographic Considerations, Numerical Rarity and Special Circumstances. These six criteria are not all weighted equally. To me, the two principle considerations in making a bird a “must” see worthy of expending considerable blood, toil, sweat, tears and treasure in search of, are dually the possibility of its near future extinction, and the awe which the animal’s physical (entailing also behavioral) characteristics are capable of inspiring. Thus these two criteria were rated equally to one another, but greater than the other four categories. Specifically, these two categories influenced the rankings at a margin of five to two. The implications and purpose of this bias is clear enough: in order to be considered one of 100 best birds on earth, a bird must be both physically inspiring and its survival in the near future must be seriously threatened. The importance of the former category in such an undertaking is obvious enough, perhaps the latter should be commented on a little more, given its unique influence and the perhaps less obvious motivation behind it.

Serious birders bird for different reasons. Some are principally competitive sportsmen who seek to accumulate as large a list as possible over their competitors for the honors, the chase and the exhilaration. Many birders mainly do so as a means of communing with nature through the medium of this uniquely beautiful, diverse and evocative class of creatures. Still others bird the world as a means of seeing as many unique and distinctive examples of life on the planet as possible; thus there has lately been a preponderance of “Family Collectors,” on the world circuit (those who seek to observe a representative of every family of birds on the planet). I bird for all the reasons above, but my main inspiration is also one that surely drives and inspires most other world listers at least to some degree, but has acquired a particularly potent place in my avian psyche: the need to see birds before they are gone: for good. The earth witnessed scores of bird extinctions over the past century, and all the quantitative evidence suggests that trend will only accelerate in the next: I want to see these spectacular creatures before that happens. Understand this, and you understand the spirit behind the apparatus which produced the list.

That being said, there are many other criteria that must affect a bird's desirability, in addition to just being very impressive and very endangered. These are the secondary qualities mentioned above; thus once it has been established that a bird is particularly spectacular and particularly endangered, I asked the following in each of these categories:

Geography: 1.) How restricted is its range? 2.) Is it endemic? 3.) How remote or inaccessible is its habitat?

Numerical Rarity: How many individuals within the species remain extant?

Taxonomic Interest: Is this bird the representative of a monotypic family? Is it the representative of a monotypic genus? If it shares its genus or family with other species, how distinctive, unusual, restricted or obscure is that genus or family?

Special Circumstances: Principally used as a subjective means of breaking ties where birds received equal scores in all of the above categories, and the tie could not be resolved by assigning the higher rank to the more endangered individual. Here I considered how much it is sought after by knowledgeable birders, and other factors regarding allure that could not be quantified.

You will note from the list below that there are many “Red-letter” birds, long famous among birders that have not made the top 100. Wallcreeper, Ibisbill, Lammergeier, The Crowned Pigeons, many of the Birds-of-Paradise and Harpy Eagle, just to name a few may seem conspicuous in their absence. As much as I wanted to include these birds the ultimate design of my scale prevented it. While they all earned top notch marks in the crucially important
“impressive” category, they simply aren’t that endangered (thank goodness) most are easy to see and some are very wide-ranging and numerous. Indeed, the tender affection with which they are regarded by the countless birders who have observed them in the field testifies plainly to their accessibility if not their abundance. Further I have made no arbitrary attempt to get representatives from a lot of families or regions on the list. Thus you will see that there a great deal of A) Parrots, B) Paradise Flycatchers, C) Curassows and D) Ibises on the list; this is because each of these families uniquely contain a surfeit of extremely spectacular and critically endangered species (though many of those below occupy their own fascinating and unique monotypic genus, making them the flagship species’ of their family, birds like Golden Parakeet and Vulturine Parrot, for example). While it would make the list “look” better to have more diverse representatives from more famous families like Penguins, Cassowaries and Birds-of-Paradise present and ranked higher, the selection criteria of endangerment first simply forbade such an arrangement and gerry-rigging of the final product. If you want a list that places a higher emphasis on charisma, fame and makes a conscious effort to contain a diversity of birds from around the world and from among many families, the Roberson list is unparalleled and will suit your tastes.

This list required several weeks of long nights to produce in front of the computer and adding machine as well as milling through the tomes at the Oxford Ornithology Library to produce. I began with a list of over one thousand birds, which contained just about everything considered by any world birder to be of interest, devised the numerical formula that would reflect my values for desirability, then applied it to each of those birds. The final score is a measure of A) how each of these species compares every other individual in class Aves and B) How they comparatively ranked against each other. To put these scores in to context, while the Philippine Eagle scored 95.5%, a bird such as a House Wren, House Sparrow, or Chiffchaff would rank somewhere between .001% and 1%.

A Note on Extinctions: Where a species’ continued existence is uncertain or in doubt I have considered all the available evidence to decide whether I believe that species does or does not persist, such as: the remoteness of the bird’s habitat; the reliability of recent sightings; the nature of the bird’s behavior. If I believe it probably does exist in the wild it makes the list. If I believe it more likely that it is extinct in the wild it does not. Thus White-eyed River-Martin, Himalayan Quail, Glaucous Macaw and Night Parrot, have made the list. Other birds like Bachman’s Warbler, Spix’s Macaw, and several of the Hawaiian Honeycreepers including Ou have not. One week ago, nearing the end of this undertaking I had classed Ivory-billed Woodpecker, with the first group, that is the “likely to persist” group. Discovering I was correct in that assumption on April 27, 2005 was one of the happier and more memorable days in my life, as well as those countless other birders across America and the globe.

The List

1. Philippine Eagle: 99.54%
2. Kakapo: 99.33%
3. Bali Starling: 99.14%
4. Ivory-billed Woodpecker: 99.05%
5. Rodonia Bushbird: 98.96%
6. Kinglet Calyptura: 98.87%
7. Northern Bald-Ibis: 98.78%
8. Marvelous Spatuletail: 98.69%
9. Maui Parrotbill: 98.6%
10. Glaucous Macaw: 98.51%
11. Forest Owlet: 98.5%
12. Araripe Manakin: 98.32%
13. Juan Fernandez Firecrown: 98.23%
14. A'kohekohe: 98.14%
15. White-eyed River-Martin: 98.05%
16. Streseman's Bristlefront: 97.96%
17. Pink-headed Duck: 97.87%
18. Jerdon’s Courser: 97.78%
19. Night Parrot: 97.68%
20. Trinidad Piping-Guan: 97.59%
21. Gurney’s Pitta: 97.5%
22. New Caledonia Owlet-Nightjar: 97.41%
23. Takahe: 97.22%
24. California Condor: 97.13%
25. Colorful Puffleg: 96.94%
26. Lear's Macaw: 96.85%
27. Mauritius Fody: 96.67%
28. Sociable Lapwing: 96.58%
29. Cerulean Paradise-Flycatcher: 96.49%
30. Tuamotu Sandpiper: 96.4%
31. Kagu: 96.21%
32. Philippine Cockatoo: 96.12%
33. Sao Tome Grosbeak: 96.03%
34. Crested Ibis: 95.94%
35. Black-eared Miner: 95.85%
36. Golden Parakeet: 95.76%
37. Kokako: 95.67%
38. Tooth-billed Pigeon: 95.58%
39. Chuuk Monarch: 95.49%
40. Dwarf Olive Ibis: 95.4%
41. Bengal Florican: 95.31%
42. Lesser Florican: 95.3%
43. Talaud Rail: 95.21%
44. Horned Guan: 95.12%
45. Siberian Crane: 95.03%
46. Himalayan Quail: 94.94%
47. Blue-billed Curassow: 94.85%
48. Okinawa Woodpecker: 94.76%
49. White-winged Guan: 94.57%
50. Biak Monarch: 94.48%
51. Storm's Stork: 94.39%
52. Congo Bay-Owl: 94.3%
53. White-eared Night-Heron: 94.31%
54. Imperial Amazon: 94.22%
55. Peruvian Plantcutter: 94.12%
56. Cebu Flowerpecker: 94.03%
57. White-shouldered Ibis: 93.94%
58. Jocoto Antpitta: 93.85%
59. Regent Honey-eater: 93.76%
60. Yellow-eared Parrot: 93.67%
61. Fuerte's Parrot: 93.47%
62. Cherry-throated Tanager: 93.38%
63. Ultramarine Lorikeet: 93.29%
64. Giant Ibis: 93.2%
65. Grey-necked Rockfowl: 93.11%
66. White-necked Rockfowl: 93.02%
67. Campbell Island Teal: 92.93%
68. Algoas Curassow: 92.84%
69. Visayan Wrinkled-Hornbill: 92.75%
70. Seychelles Paradise-Flycatcher: 92.66%
71. Long-whiskered Owlet: 92.47%
72. Red-and-Blue Lory: 92.38%
73. Pink-billed Parrotfinch: 92.29%
74. Black Stilt: 92.2%
75. Blue-throated Macaw: 92.11%
76. Mauritius Parakeet: 92.02%
77. Bahia Tapaculo: 91.93%
78. Mallee Emuwren: 91.74%
79. Red-crowned Crane: 91.64%
80. Banded Cotinga: 91.55%
81. Laysan Teal: 91.46%
82. Hyacinth Macaw: 91.37%
83. Shoebill: 91.28%
84. Snoring Rail: 91.19%
85. Crested Argus: 91.1%
86. Amsterdam Albatross: 91.01%
87. Slender-billed Curlew: 90.92%
88. Udzungwa Forest-Partridge: 90.83%
89. Elegant Sunbird: 90.74%
90. Pesquet's or Vulturine Parrot: 90.55%
91. Strange-Tailed Tryant: 90.46%
92. Long-tailed Ground-Roller: 90.37%
93. Congo Peafowl: 90.18%
94. Blythe’s Tragopan: 90.09%
95. Helmet Vanga: 90%
96. Plains Wanderer: 89.91%
97. Little Brown Kiwi: 89.82%
98. Yellow-bellied Asity: 89.73%
99. Black Sicklebill: 89.64%
100. Northern Cassowary: 89.55%


Near misses included Silktail, Blue Bird-of-Paradise, White-winged Cotinga, Spoon-billed Sandpiper, Greater Adjutant, Madagascar Fish-Eagle, Red Fish-Owl, Oriental Stork and Abbot’s Booby.
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something or do you not explain how you arrive at the figures? An example would be useful.

I'm sure every birder will read the list and mentally tick off the one's they've seen. I'll start the bidding with a pitiful one: Sociable Lapwing.
 
rezMole, everybody have their opinin, but most of us have a more useful approach and keep quiet when we have nothing to contribute with. I'm sure there are people who would claim what goes on on your webpage can be classified as twaddle while others probably would claim the same for BirdForum...


BarbatusOne, some very nice birds on the list - incl. species I'm sure most of us would love to see one day... even though I doubt the Glaucous Macaw still is out there, it being a very large and highly noisy species with a preference for fairly open habitats - in what may be the most birder area of South America. Regardless, it certainly doesn't hurt to hope and I would be a very happy man if a population was located one day...
 
Last edited:
No matter how many times I checked the list, I could only find find three that I've seen (Sociable Lapwing or Plover, Horned Guan and Lesser Florican), unless Gurney's Pitta heard calling can also count. All were very happy memories and I'm looking forward to adding the other 97.
Tom
 
Last edited:
fantastic list

we could argue all day about what should be on there etc

Ivory-breasted Pitta
Wallace's Standardwing
a Cochoa
Wilson's Bird of Paradise
Damar Flycatcher

oddly enough, a few of the top ten are perhaps some of the easiest in the list to see... even i have a couple in the top 10!

a few things in there to aspire to see one day...!!!

Tim
 
not of you're interested in the world of birds it's not

not as futile as several aspects of birding arguably!

how many of those birds have you heard of

many are severely threatened

think of it as educational or aspirational

Tim
 
It's an interest - I'm not sure it's supposed to make sense! Try explaining to a non-birder why it matters if the bird you just saw was Warbler A or Warbler B. Try explaining to your wife why one football team is amazing, while the others aren't worth cheering for (even if you have to admit they're better). Specific interests - either you get it or you don't. Birders of all people should know that...

BarbatusOne, having re-read the list it seems to be based on rarity or restricted distribution more than "wow"-factor. E.g. the Bahia Tapaculo which is very rare (possibly extinct), but otherwise a fairly standard tapaculo. I guess that's a personal choice. Strangely, the Kagu doesn't seem to be on the list?

EDIT: Had missed the Kagu somehow - it is on the list.
 
Last edited:
Tim - You are quite right, being relatively new to "serious" birding I have not heard of many of the birds on the list and am not ashamed to admit that. To be honest, I still have a long way to go to learn more about the 212 or so species regularly found in Britain and Ireland, some of which I have a hope of seeing. I am passionate about birds and even more passionate and concerned about those under threat (as I'm sure we all are). I'm just not very interested in lists, neither do I find them in any way educational or aspirational.
 
David Pedder said:
Tim - You are quite right, being relatively new to "serious" birding I have not heard of many of the birds on the list and am not ashamed to admit that. To be honest, I still have a long way to go to learn more about the 212 or so species regularly found in Britain and Ireland, some of which I have a hope of seeing. I am passionate about birds and even more passionate and concerned about those under threat (as I'm sure we all are). I'm just not very interested in lists, neither do I find them in any way educational or aspirational.

Probably best to keep away from the threads about lists then?

As Rasmus says, why bother criticising something someone has done for fun as futile??

BTW have seen takahe and kokako, but both on an island where introduced (Tiritiri Matangi).
Hope against hope that some of those numbers might eventually come down.

James
 
Thanks for the advice James. My comment was "seems to me to be futile" which I believe is different. It was not intended as a criticism of Blake Matheson's work.
 
Last edited:
Thanks very much to those who had nice things to say. I must say I am in awe of those of you who have had the pleasure of seeing just a few of those on the list, and green with envy. I wonder if anyone alive has ever seen half?

To those who feel that the project was useless twiddle (I don't really know what twiddle is, but it doesn't sound good), I of course disagree. I love birds, and love to learn about those with particularly remarkable natural histories, and those for whom there is a very real possibility of extinction in the near future. Coming up with a list that tries to categorize those that are amazingly beautiful, unique, rare and endangered is my way of trying get an idea of what exists out in our natural world and prioritize what I need to see in the near future. As a result I learned all about the various conservation efforts under way to try and save them, and after discovering what a great organization Bird Life intl is donated a little money to them. I know it's an eccentric and time-consuming thing to do, but I learned a lot and had fun. Maybe it would be useless for some of you. It wasn't for me.

I don't have anything against House Wrens or Chiffchaffs either, I think they are wonderful little creatures in their own right. They are going to be around for a little while though, and aren't that unique or impressive, that doesn't mean I don't always enjoy seeing and hearing them.

For those who complained about not showing exactly how I calculated the rankings: Birds can score up to 25 points in both The Impressive & Endangerment Category, and they can score up to 10 points in each of the other ones: Geographic Isolation, Numerical Rarity, Taxonomic Interest, & Special Circumstances.

EX: Kagu 20/25 for endangerment (truly endangered, but a lot of actions underway to save them, and not a precipitous decline in numbers), 25/25 for Impressive (duh. take a look at a video of them), 8/10 for Geographic isolation (they are endemic to a fairly obscure tropical island but can be and are seen by birders fairly frequently, 10/10 for Taxonmic Interessive (an incredibly bizarre monotypic family), 9/10 for numerical rarity (ust under 1000 of them extant), & 9 out of 10 for special circumstances (everyone wants to see them and they're so cool). I total the score, then automatically add it to a large fixed sum which reflects the top 100's distinction as the best 1%, comparative to the 10,000 other birds that exist, and come up with the final %. I did this last part because I wanted the scores to reflect not just how the birds compare to eachother, but how they compare to the rest of the class. I'm not a math guy, so no, it's not a perfect science, and yes, plenty of it is subjective.

I realized the birds on the list might be controversial, I hadn't thought my actually coming up with such a list would be. Anyway, I just hope I see a lot of them by the time I kick the proverbial bucket.
 
Last edited:
... Interesting list. Personally I'd rate Siberian crane a little higher - only on 45, c'mon ! ;)
Also interesting to see that flavour of the month Ole Ivorybill stranded just before the top three ... B :)
 
GreatHornedOwl said:
... Interesting list. Personally I'd rate Siberian crane a little higher QUOTE]

I Know! I love them. What is it about Cranes? There is something mystical about them, especially the Siberian. Trouble for the list purposes is that it belongs to a relatively big genus. I would like to have had Whooping in too, but couldn't because they are really easy to see and the population growth trend is basically upward, whereas it's getting harder and harder to see Sibs.
 
What a heck is Rondonia Bushbird? ;)

For me the "good" bird must be something biger or more colorful or strangely shaped. I know, there is zillion of rare white-eyes and flycatchers.
 
jurek said:
What a heck is Rondonia Bushbird? ;)

:news:

RoNdonia Bushbird....(thanks for drawing my attention to the typo), is a distinctive bizarre Antbird that no one ever sees in a remote tiny speck of Brazil. There is only one other bird in the genus, and its Huge recruved bill is striking and singular. (PS I know you know what a Rondonia Bushbird is, Jurek...just writing this in case anyone else is interested)....
 
rezMole said:
What a load of twaddle!

I didn't mean to cause offence - it's just that the title of the thread doesn't relate to the content. "World's Best 100 Birds"??? Everyone would come up with a different list! Personally, i would have used a more aesthetic approach, rather than the amount of number-crunching that seems to have taken place to come up with this list.
 
rezMole said:
I didn't mean to cause offence - it's just that the title of the thread doesn't relate to the content.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the thread is about. Blake's list of the world's best 100 birds. He's the thread originator so it's a duplication of effort to title it "Blake's list of the world's best 100 birds". It's inferred! It's his thread! Any list of the best anything is purely subjective, as everyone should know, so to trounce in here and do nothing but mock the effort is purely mean spirited and rude on your part, not to mention a complete waste of bandwidth. Save your energies for something more worthwhile.

I found the list fascinating, Blake. One of these days I hope to get one, any one, of those birds on my list!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top