French ageing guides (1 Viewer)

Good evening all.

I have heard that there is an alternative to the green identification guide to european passerines although it is in french? does anyone know what this is called?
if not, is there a better guide available?

Cheers

J

Hi Jamie,

The book I use to identify birds is "Le guide ornitho" (in french). The publisher is Delachaux et Niestle. I don't know if this book exists in English, and either if it is what you want precisely... But I hope this help !

Simon

Mister Simon said:

Hi Jamie,
The book I use to identify birds is "Le guide ornitho" (in french). The publisher is Delachaux et Niestle.[...]
Simon

Click to expand...

http://www.vogelwarte.ch/le-guide-ornitho.html
Looks rather like the standard field guide for European birds by L. Svensson. translated in french.
I don´t speak French but a google search brought up a few nice results, (though no books) using "oiseau (birds) and "détermination de l'âge (aging)":
http://www.naturalsciences.be/cb/OrnithoWeb/age.htm
http://rapaces.lpo.fr/ (raptor and owls)
and from a hunting (!) website:
http://www.fedechasseurslandes.com/IMG/pdf/ompo_becassines_fr.pdf

Regards,
Roman

Send an email here.

http://www.ornithomedia.com/

He speaks good english and will probably have some good suggestions...

Jamie Dunning said:

I have heard that there is an alternative to the green identification guide to european passerines

Click to expand...

If there is such an 'ouvrage' it certainly won't measure up to Svensson's book. Why do you want an alternative? If you are stuck you could try asking on the BTO ringing forum if anybody has a spare copy.

Hi,
maybe this one :
http://www.guidebaguage.sitew.fr/#Accueil.A
?
By clicking "Contenu" you can download a few extracts. The index is in 16 languages.
Quentin

John Morgan said:

If there is such an 'ouvrage' it certainly won't measure up to Svensson's book. Why do you want an alternative? If you are stuck you could try asking on the BTO ringing forum if anybody has a spare copy.

Click to expand...

Indeed, why do you want an alternative ?

If the data is to be submitted to the BTO database, it should be to the same standard as all the other data submitted, or your datas' validity is in question - a weakness in the BTO database.

OK, Svenson's descriptions are not perfect for determining age of every bird. That is beside the point - there will never be a technique that can do that. What we are doing with Svenson is deriving a code for our best estimate of age according to his methods, and that is what the BTO database should contain.

It seems counterintuitive, but even if you find a technique for making a _better_ estimate of age than Svenson, your data will still not be valid and will lessen the value of the BTO database. That is because interpretation of any analyses will still be based on Svenson. I will try to invent an example :
suppose analysis of birds of red-listed species y shows that there is excess mortality during age code 7. Conservation efforts are then directed towards identifying what birds of age code 7 might be doing and what can be done.

Now, you may have noticed this species is slightly unusual in that we think we can age it beyond age code 6. Suppose it is a species that is ringed in low numbers, and you happen to be contributing a few. You are coding birds that everyone else would code as age 5 as age 7. So the conservationists might be looking to identify and solve a problem in the wrong place ? ... even if your coding is correct because they will be trying to follow birds they are coding as 7.

There are lots of other issues too - such as a French guide never having been tested in the UK, so it is much less likely to be valid (as John alluded). Also, if your age codes are different those birds that are coded different from Svenson may dilute the message that could be derived from analysis of that age code, so important results may become statistically insignificant.

If you are ringing in the UK, you should use Svenson. The only variations accepted should be those published officially by the BTO.

This is one of the weaknesses of the UK ringing scheme. While it is an amazing and excellent scheme, there is no control over scientific rigour - that rigour is up to us ringers to ensure on a voluntary basis. For the good of the scheme we must strive to do so in _all_ our activities. Trying to do better than the scheme standards actually _lowers_ the quality of the data - perverse isn't it !

Mike.

Hi all, first, thanks for your help.
Second, I don't remember specifying that I wanted for ringing.
however, I did hear of it at the ringing conference this year, when a chap asked if there would be a translation of 'the french alternative' he suggested was better than the now quite dated Svenson guide.
I am working on a project at the Manchester museum ageing the bird specimen there, in an attempt to offer a more colourful picture of the birds that were collected. However, as you can imagine, there are few specimen I can age reliably having been dead for 100+ years. I wanted to explore new methods on top of those already implemented.

I completely understand your argument mike, although I feel given the nature of what I'll be using said guide for it doesn't have to bigger affect on the BTO data.

Jamie/
It occurs to me that you may be in a position where imaging using x-rays or echography is possible. In which case there are skeletal clues to a bird's age, of which the best known is skull ossification as it can be determined on live birds as well as corpses.

expensive and not easy replicated though John?

Jamie Dunning said:

expensive and not easy replicated though John?

Click to expand...

Indeed, Jamie. But if the museum owns a machine, and a technician is on the payroll, the only cost would be materials - plus your time learning how to interpret the results. I suspect from what you wrote that the project probably doesn't justify such a time-consuming approach.

Your problem is likely to prove intractable for very many passerines, due to 'foxing' of museum skins over the years. I often find colour difference hard to see in some birds - e.g. Robin, Wren, Dunnock, female Chaffinch - so you may find the plumage route well-nigh impossible unless you can detect differences in abrasion between old and replaced feathers at a moult limit.

citrinella said:

Indeed, why do you want an alternative ?

...

OK, Svenson's descriptions are not perfect for determining age of every bird. That is beside the point - there will never be a technique that can do that. What we are doing with Svenson is deriving a code for our best estimate of age according to his methods, and that is what the BTO database should contain.

It seems counterintuitive, but even if you find a technique for making a _better_ estimate of age than Svenson, your data will still not be valid and will lessen the value of the BTO database.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that ringers should ignore improved methods of data accuracy, and stick to methods that are know to be wrong/less accurate?

citrinella said:

That is because interpretation of any analyses will still be based on Svenson.

Click to expand...

Says who?! You're way off the mark here, Svensson is not 'the bible'. It's a reference guide, one of many references, and nobody in their right mind would assume that BTO data is based on a single source. Analysts will base their interpretation on the knowledge that various sources have been used, some more solid than others, but that methods improve over time. That's how it should be.

There is Svensson, Jenni & Winkler, Ringing News, Ringing & Migration, not to mention online sources and the ringer's own experience. To assume that ringers and analysts will restrict their thinking to only before 1992 (wasn't that the last Svensson update?) is ludicrous. As BTO print and disseminate these new techniques, I think it is clear that the people who run the database don't agree with you about sticking to one source!

Svensson is good but it's now very out of date (more than 20 years), and of limited use for some species, which might not even have been species at the time. Not to mention the printing errors (Wren?), so maybe that's why the OP is asking about a French guide.

AlfArbuthnot you beat me to it!

AlfArbuthnot said:

So you are saying that ringers should ignore improved methods of data accuracy, and stick to methods that are know to be wrong/less accurate?



Says who?! You're way off the mark here, Svensson is not 'the bible'. It's a reference guide, one of many references, and nobody in their right mind would assume that BTO data is based on a single source. Analysts will base their interpretation on the knowledge that various sources have been used, some more solid than others, but that methods improve over time. That's how it should be.

There is Svensson, Jenni & Winkler, Ringing News, Ringing & Migration, not to mention online sources and the ringer's own experience. To assume that ringers and analysts will restrict their thinking to only before 1992 (wasn't that the last Svensson update?) is ludicrous. As BTO print and disseminate these new techniques, I think it is clear that the people who run the database don't agree with you about sticking to one source!

Svensson is good but it's now very out of date (more than 20 years), and of limited use for some species, which might not even have been species at the time. Not to mention the printing errors (Wren?), so maybe that's why the OP is asking about a French guide.

Click to expand...

Yes and No The accepted techniques published by BTO (i.e. in Ringers Bulletin) should be used, but other techniques should not.

I know this is not the way things are done in practice - but that is a weakness of the BTO database as explained in my hypothetical example. Analysts using the database don't know how the age coding was done, so how could they know how to interpret the results ?

The truth is, we are not recording age of the bird, we are coding to a system which may or may not correspond to the age of the bird depending on how good the coding system is. If you don't use the coding system (Svenson plus agreed amendments published) because you think you have a better way of determining age, your data is not collected to the same standard as is expected of the BTO and so will be a weakness if added to the BTO database. In practice ringers do this, and the BTO database is weaker as a result. As I said, it sounds counter-intuitive, but it is sound science.

Species are a good example. The concept of species is man made. The definition of species I was taught at school said that species don't inter-breed ... tell the ducks and geese that. So the BOU sit around the table and re-define species according to constantly evolving criteria. The BTO accept these new definitions and ringers start applying them - only when told to do so. That is exactly how we should behave with age coding or any other coding for that matter.

Mike.

citrinella said:

Yes and No The accepted techniques published by BTO (i.e. in Ringers Bulletin) should be used, but other techniques should not.

Click to expand...

Says who? Just you? I don't hear the BTO saying this.

This is nonsense for one obvious reason - the BTO does not have a monopoly on publishing, and its own publishing capacity is limited. It cannot and clearly does not aim to be the central repository for every item of information on every species. And you contradict yourself here, because earlier you were saying it was Svensson that all ringers should adhere too. But BTO do not collaborate with or publish Svensson, and Svensson does not work for BTO. He's not even part of the UK ringing scheme. They are independent.

So we clearly have two separate sources here, publishing independently and perhaps even contradictory information. You cannot point to anything from the BTO which says that ringers should only use BTO or Svensson sources. I think what you are confusing it with is general advice to rely mostly on peer-reviewed, tested and published methods, and not make things up yourself with no evidence (avoid hunches and guesses).

citrinella said:

Analysts using the database don't know how the age coding was done, so how could they know how to interpret the results ?

Click to expand...

Analysts already know that the BTO database is full of variation. You can take account of that, and interpret the results with the caveat that it's been collected by hundreds of people of varying skill over decades. Twas always thus.

I don't quite understand why you think BTO tells ringers how to age e.g. a Blackcap. They never have. They just cite which references are useful, and the most useful one (but not the only) probably being Svensson. But where do you think Svensson gets his information? Look in the back, it is sourced from all the other journals and publications that you're saying we should ignore!

In an odd way, you're the one who is making up these artificial rules that you say are skewing the BTO database. You're skewing your data collection for the past 20 years by ignoring any developments since Svensson 1992, whereas nobody else is, and the BTO has never told them they should (so far as I know - can you disprove that?). So any analyst who knows the field would be expecting a development in methods, whereas your data will now be the error!

AlfArbuthnot said:

Says who? Just you? I don't hear the BTO saying this.

Click to expand...

From Redfern, C.P.F. & Clark, J.A. (2001) Ringers, Manual. BTO, Thetford, p.205 :
"Ringers should master the various techniques and the terminology used in Svensson’s Identification Guide to European Passerines, Baker’s Identification Guide to European Non-passerines (BTO Guide 24), Prater et al’s Guide to the Identification and Ageing of Holarctic Waders (BTO Guide 17) Jenni & Winkler’s Moult and Ageing of European Passerines and Ginn & Melville’s Moult in Birds (BTO Guide 19) as a part of their training (see Chapter 4). Other useful works are Busse’s Key to sexing and ageing of European passerines, and Pyle et al’s Identification Guide to North American Passerines. Ringers should always use the latest editions of recommended guides because details change as knowledge increases. In addition, new techniques for ageing and sexing are regularly published in Ringers’ Bulletin and Ringing & Migration."

I have only been referring to Svenson as that was what the OP originally discussed. For all these recommended sources, the latest editions are old, but the instructions are clear that we must use them (latest editions), so for updates we must rely on what is published in Ringers Bulletin.

AlfArbuthnot said:

This is nonsense for one obvious reason - the BTO does not have a monopoly on publishing, and its own publishing capacity is limited. It cannot and clearly does not aim to be the central repository for every item of information on every species.

Click to expand...

This is a scientific study run by the BTO. The BTO defines the protocols for that study regardless of what else is published. The idea of scientific observation (data collection) is that it should be consistent, reliable and repeatable, so having a defined set of protocols is essential and it is essential that all observers do their best to adhere to those protocols.

AlfArbuthnot said:

And you contradict yourself here, because earlier you were saying it was Svensson that all ringers should adhere too. But BTO do not collaborate with or publish Svensson, and Svensson does not work for BTO. He's not even part of the UK ringing scheme. They are independent.

Click to expand...

Working together or independent is totally irrelevant. Any scientific protocol will draw on independent sources, not be entirely based on the workers own efforts. Why should any set of workers choose to ignore all the other good science in the literature that could underpin their own work ?

As it happens, the BTO have been requesting help from ringers (through their own Ringers' forum) in a collaboration with Svenson to develop and publish a new edition of his guide.

AlfArbuthnot said:

So we clearly have two separate sources here, publishing independently and perhaps even contradictory information. You cannot point to anything from the BTO which says that ringers should only use BTO or Svensson sources. I think what you are confusing it with is general advice to rely mostly on peer-reviewed, tested and published methods, and not make things up yourself with no evidence (avoid hunches and guesses).

Click to expand...

See above.

AlfArbuthnot said:

Analysts already know that the BTO database is full of variation. You can take account of that, and interpret the results with the caveat that it's been collected by hundreds of people of varying skill over decades. Twas always thus.

Click to expand...

"Take account of that" ? Yes - by widening the confidence limits around any result from any analysis, i.e. reducing the reliability of the results. That is precisely what I am saying about methodology, saying that we should be striving to standardize methodology so that analysts generate more reliable results. "Take account of that" can only mean accept that the data are poorer than they might have been, there is no way they can fudge the results to "what they would have been if the data were much better".

AlfArbuthnot said:

I don't quite understand why you think BTO tells ringers how to age e.g. a Blackcap. They never have. They just cite which references are useful, and the most useful one (but not the only) probably being Svensson. But where do you think Svensson gets his information? Look in the back, it is sourced from all the other journals and publications that you're saying we should ignore!

Click to expand...

Until they are accepted as part of the protocol of the scheme, yes, so that the data collected are consistent. Also, some of these newly published studies are later contradicted, found not to be reliable, or only to work in certain populations. It pays the BTO to wait until the methods have been validated before they accept them into the Ringing scheme protocol. Many of us have come across little things in Svenson we do not believe lead to correct ageing (but they are the correct way of coding age according to the protocol), such variations are common.

AlfArbuthnot said:

In an odd way, you're the one who is making up these artificial rules that you say are skewing the BTO database. You're skewing your data collection for the past 20 years by ignoring any developments since Svensson 1992, whereas nobody else is, and the BTO has never told them they should (so far as I know - can you disprove that?). So any analyst who knows the field would be expecting a development in methods, whereas your data will now be the error!

Click to expand...

Read the manual

Mike.

citrinella said:

From Redfern, C.P.F. & Clark, J.A. (2001) Ringers, Manual. BTO, Thetford, p.205 :
"Ringers should master the various techniques and the terminology used in Svensson’s Identification Guide to European Passerines, Baker’s Identification Guide to European Non-passerines (BTO Guide 24), Prater et al’s Guide to the Identification and Ageing of Holarctic Waders (BTO Guide 17) Jenni & Winkler’s Moult and Ageing of European Passerines and Ginn & Melville’s Moult in Birds (BTO Guide 19) as a part of their training (see Chapter 4). Other useful works are Busse’s Key to sexing and ageing of European passerines, and Pyle et al’s Identification Guide to North American Passerines. Ringers should always use the latest editions of recommended guides because details change as knowledge increases. In addition, new techniques for ageing and sexing are regularly published in Ringers’ Bulletin and Ringing & Migration."

I have only been referring to Svenson as that was what the OP originally discussed. For all these recommended sources, the latest editions are old, but the instructions are clear that we must use them (latest editions), so for updates we must rely on what is published in Ringers Bulletin.


This is a scientific study run by the BTO. The BTO defines the protocols for that study regardless of what else is published. The idea of scientific observation (data collection) is that it should be consistent, reliable and repeatable, so having a defined set of protocols is essential and it is essential that all observers do their best to adhere to those protocols.


Working together or independent is totally irrelevant. Any scientific protocol will draw on independent sources, not be entirely based on the workers own efforts. Why should any set of workers choose to ignore all the other good science in the literature that could underpin their own work ?

As it happens, the BTO have been requesting help from ringers (through their own Ringers' forum) in a collaboration with Svenson to develop and publish a new edition of his guide.


See above.


"Take account of that" ? Yes - by widening the confidence limits around any result from any analysis, i.e. reducing the reliability of the results. That is precisely what I am saying about methodology, saying that we should be striving to standardize methodology so that analysts generate more reliable results. "Take account of that" can only mean accept that the data are poorer than they might have been, there is no way they can fudge the results to "what they would have been if the data were much better".


Until they are accepted as part of the protocol of the scheme, yes, so that the data collected are consistent. Also, some of these newly published studies are later contradicted, found not to be reliable, or only to work in certain populations. It pays the BTO to wait until the methods have been validated before they accept them into the Ringing scheme protocol. Many of us have come across little things in Svenson we do not believe lead to correct ageing (but they are the correct way of coding age according to the protocol), such variations are common.


Read the manual

Mike.

Click to expand...

You have completely changed your tune to match what I was saying! In your first post you said very clearly "If you are ringing in the UK, you should use Svenson. The only variations accepted should be those published officially by the BTO."

Whereas here you have given a whole list of sources, most of which are not published "officially" (what's an 'unofficial' publication, by the way?) by BTO! Which is exactly what I was saying - BTO have never said "just use Svensson and our updates in Ringers Bulletin", they have pointed ringers to the full source of peer-reviewed guides, which is exactly what I was picking you up on. Svensson and BTO publications are not 'the last word', even for the BTO. So a French ringing guide would easily fall into this category, even if not specifically mentioned in the text you quoted, the spirit is clearly there (after listing British, Swedish and American ringing guides).

"Why should any set of workers choose to ignore all the other good science in the literature that could underpin their own work ?"

This was one of my central points to your original post. I'm glad you now agree on that also!

On another technical point, the Ringing Scheme is not 'a scientific study run by the BTO', it is a data gathering exercise where data is donated to the BTO. Anyone can request/buy the data and analyse it however they wish, according to their own standards. BTO generally are not the ones the who do the studying (that requires different funding).
If you've ever looked at the ringing database you'll know that consistency, reliability and repeatability is not something that can be taken for granted, even within the same ringing group. People just have different abilities in measuring, ageing, and entering data. Even if they are all using Svensson, they will still interpret things differently and come to different conclusions.

I think to sum up, we can both agree that ringers should only follow 'good' guides, i.e. that from peer-reviewed and published sources, and not just something they read on a blog or dream up between net rounds. But to restrict yourself to Svensson and 'BTO updates', as your first post suggested, is not compulsory - there are lots of other accepted sources.

AlfArbuthnot said:

You have completely changed your tune to match what I was saying! In your first post you said very clearly "If you are ringing in the UK, you should use Svenson. The only variations accepted should be those published officially by the BTO."

Whereas here you have given a whole list of sources, most of which are not published "officially" (what's an 'unofficial' publication, by the way?) by BTO! Which is exactly what I was saying - BTO have never said "just use Svensson and our updates in Ringers Bulletin", they have pointed ringers to the full source of peer-reviewed guides, which is exactly what I was picking you up on. Svensson and BTO publications are not 'the last word', even for the BTO. So a French ringing guide would easily fall into this category, even if not specifically mentioned in the text you quoted, the spirit is clearly there (after listing British, Swedish and American ringing guides).

"Why should any set of workers choose to ignore all the other good science in the literature that could underpin their own work ?"

This was one of my central points to your original post. I'm glad you now agree on that also!

On another technical point, the Ringing Scheme is not 'a scientific study run by the BTO', it is a data gathering exercise where data is donated to the BTO. Anyone can request/buy the data and analyse it however they wish, according to their own standards. BTO generally are not the ones the who do the studying (that requires different funding).
If you've ever looked at the ringing database you'll know that consistency, reliability and repeatability is not something that can be taken for granted, even within the same ringing group. People just have different abilities in measuring, ageing, and entering data. Even if they are all using Svensson, they will still interpret things differently and come to different conclusions.

I think to sum up, we can both agree that ringers should only follow 'good' guides, i.e. that from peer-reviewed and published sources, and not just something they read on a blog or dream up between net rounds. But to restrict yourself to Svensson and 'BTO updates', as your first post suggested, is not compulsory - there are lots of other accepted sources.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand I think. As I said in my last post, the exclusive reference to Svenson was in the context of the original post. These are the sources approved in the BTO Ringers' manual - which is the protocol for the ringing scheme. Updates to the protocol are defined as published in the Ringers' Bulletin. So, NO, a French guide, or any other source, is not accepted until it has been approved by BTO.

On what basis do you suggest BTO "do not generally" do the analyses ? While other groups may use the data under certain circumstances, I can't think of any publication I have seen where a BTO representative of some kind was not an author. I guess there may be a few, but how do you justify saying "do not generally" ?

The ringing scheme is licensed by the government Joint Nature Conservation Council (a collaboration between the Country Agencies of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) as a scientific data collection exercise to be overseen by the BTO exclusively. Ringers MUST obtain a license from the BTO under that general government license. Ringers MUST submit their data to the BTO as a mandatory condition of their license. Failing to obtain a license and comply with the terms of the license is a CRIMINAL offence. The only voluntary aspects are whether a ringer chooses to become a ringer or not, and that there is no remuneration for being a ringer per se (though a very few ringers do have paid positions).

Mike.

citrinella said:

You misunderstand I think. As I said in my last post, the exclusive reference to Svenson was in the context of the original post.

Click to expand...

Sorry to pick you up again, but the original post didn't mention Svensson at all - you did.

citrinella said:

So, NO, a French guide, or any other source, is not accepted until it has been approved by BTO.

Click to expand...

I really think you're over-interpretting the manual. The BTO doesn't 'approve' new publications with a rubber stamp. It's not The Army. The manual seems to me to be a guide in this context. If you remember that the guides mentioned in the manual largely draw their information from the various other peer-reviewed sources, then that is a validation of those sources, is it not? So if, for example, Pyle (cited by BTO) mentions a technique from Journal of Field Ornithology that is subsequently updated in JFO but is not picked up in Ringing News (because of space, copyright, or anything else), it would be ludicrous for ringers to ignore the update just because BTO either has not seen it, or not had space/inclination to publish it. In fact, something from JFO would be more reliable than something on ageing from Ringing News (which is not peer-reviewed, and publishes a mix of amateur and professional articles that can often be opinion or debate and not 'science') or one of the 'forum' pieces from Ringing & Migration (which appear to be not fully tested).

BTO doesn't seem to scour the journals looking for updates to approve, as I think you might imagine. The way that things get in Ringing News and Ringing & Migration is if the author CHOOSES to send it there. BTO does not commission them, or demand all fresh knowledge gets in. It is not a central conduit through which all kosher techniques flow. In fact, there is an incentive against submitting to R&M and RN, because they are not ISI publications. So a researcher might instead send to JFO. If you see p. 204 of the manual, 11.1.2 part 2, it says that data submission must conform the "minimum standards set out in this chapter". The bit you quoted then follows. That, to me, suggests that if superior standards are set out elsewhere then ringers should use them.

citrinella said:

On what basis do you suggest BTO "do not generally" do the analyses ?

Click to expand...

On the basis that if you look at the ringing reports, and the bit where it shows publications that used ringing data in the last year, most are not by BTO, and many do not even feature BTO.

citrinella said:

While other groups may use the data under certain circumstances, I can't think of any publication I have seen where a BTO representative of some kind was not an author. I guess there may be a few, but how do you justify saying "do not generally" ?

Click to expand...

Look at p.146-7 of the last Ringing & Migration and count the number of BTO payroll lead authors. Now, when BTO supply ringing data they often get a co-authorship for the extraction, even though they don't actually do the analysis or take any further part in the study. That is how a BTO author ended up with his named attached to CP Bell's flawed paper on sparrowhawks and sparrows, without any real control. Even bearing that in mind, count the publications in R&M where there is not a single BTO author. There's quite a lot - I make it about 20% in total for any BTO author (lead or co). Only about 10% have a BTO lead author - where BTO definitely carried out the analysis.

Jamie Dunning said:

Good evening all.

I have heard that there is an alternative to the green identification guide to european passerines although it is in french? does anyone know what this is called?
if not, is there a better guide available?

Cheers

J

Click to expand...

Hi Jamie,

I think the book you are referring to is the one mentioned in the link (http://www.guidebaguage.sitew.fr/#Accueil.A) commonly just called "Demongin" by French ringers. Previous version of this guide were simply photocopied pages of a translated version of Svensson with updates but the new guide goes a bit further incorporating much recent material from numerous sources including recent splits etc. (such as Iberian Chiffchaff and Yellow-legged Gull) and published in a slightly bigger than A5 format. Useful too that both passerines and non-passerines are included in the same volume so just one book needed if you're ringing Snipe, Kestrel and Reed Bunting for example !
The illustration are a mixture of drawings and photoshopped images (in B&W). I have all the usual references (Svensson, Baker et al, Prater et al.) but given the fact that this book has all those plus more, updated to 2012, this is now the "must have" guide for ringers here.

Hope this helps,

Eugene