[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by 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.

With your suggestion, we are where we are now. Everybody doing his/her own thing at the expense of those who actually use the field guides the most. And as field guides are not bought primarily for their order of arrangement, this would give a completely wrong picture of which sequence is the best. Plus, we'd, again, not have a worldwide sequence. In these times, when so many birders visit other continents, having differing sequences for each is really just a pain in the proverbial butt.

[Swissboy]

I think this most interesting discussion deserves the attention of those who don't expect it in the thread of a particular FG. That's why I started a new thread giving the link to this one: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=224133

Of course, administrators are free to shift this discussion to that new thread. But the important thing is to be able to find the topic.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Swissboy

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.

The HBW suggestion is particularly ironic, given that even Lynx Edicions will this year abandon the HBW sequence (Morony et al 1975) in the forthcoming HBW/BLI Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World.

The main problem with such an idea is that there is no global authority that could credibly recommend a 'permanent' taxonomic sequence for field guides. It would probably require the formation of an international consultative committee to undertake the task. But publishers (and authors) are commercial competitors - it's hard to imagine them coming to a unanimous agreement on such a controversial idea, and I'm pretty sure that it won't happen. I definitely can't see the logic of universally reverting to a 1970s sequence known to be incorrect - a simple alphabetic ordering of families would be less misleading!

And although you are arguing for the adoption of a permanently-frozen taxonomic sequence, Steve Howell is proposing a non-systematic and region-specific sequence, grouping superficially-similar families together. There can be no compromise between these conceptually very different approaches.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by 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.

As I suggested earlier, I think that non-systematic sequences make sense for 'alternative' ID guides for regions with a large domestic market. Users are typically resident birders who will use the same favourite guide on a continual basis for many years, and become intimately familiar with the sequence within its well-thumbed pages, however unconventional. I agree that a single 'standard' non-systematic sequence is not essential.

But for many parts of the world, field guides are predominantly used by visiting birders, possibly on a once-in-a-lifetime trip. When faced with trying to rapidly get to grips with an unfamiliar avifauna using an unfamiliar guide, I think it's extremely helpful for mainstream regional field guides to follow a well-known sequence.

[Mysticete]

I will keep posting to the new thread, but just want to throw out an observation, that even with an agreed format, there will always be difficulties in using a guide for a new area. I remember birding around Melbourne, and having to do a lot of flipping around my book. Not because there was anything wrong with the book, but because the songbirds of Australia have little in common with the NA species. A universal sequence, no matter how well supported, is going to have this issue.

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

..... I remember birding around Melbourne, and having to do a lot of flipping around my book. Not because there was anything wrong with the book, but because the songbirds of Australia have little in common with the NA species. A universal sequence, no matter how well supported, is going to have this issue.

Yes, as soon as new families come into the game, the page-flipping is inevitable. But with a common fixed sequence, one knows at least where to expect raptors, ducks, herons to just name some worldwide groups.

[Phil Slade]

I was sent a review copy of Birds of India by PUP and reviewed it on my blog with links to purchase.

http://anotherbirdblog.blogspot.com/...-memories.html