• 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.

Birds of Oman FG (1 Viewer)

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland
Supporter
Switzerland
The search engine did not produce any result for this book though I think I saw it mentioned here somewhere. Anyway, it seems the book is now either already out or will be within very few days. NHBS shows some sample pages.

As Oman seems to be one of the few relatively safe countries in the region, this book will likely be most welcome.
 
Last edited:
From what's possible to be seen in the amazon preview the book looks excellent, with top illustrations (it's really good to see more of John Gale's work, one of my favorite illustrators). However, I don't understand how come that, on the egrets plate, the flight feathers of both Little and Western Reef (flying) are shown overlapping the wrong way (as you'd see them from above); this is a relatively common mistake, but I fail to understand how it's still made by such top artists.
 
From what's possible to be seen in the amazon preview the book looks excellent, with top illustrations (it's really good to see more of John Gale's work, one of my favorite illustrators). However, I don't understand how come that, on the egrets plate, the flight feathers of both Little and Western Reef (flying) are shown overlapping the wrong way (as you'd see them from above); this is a relatively common mistake, but I fail to understand how it's still made by such top artists.

Amazon must generate random plates, I only see plates with Ducks?


A
 
Try this ...

Thanks. I think the "details" I mentioned in post #4 are clearly visible. I just think it's odd such mistakes can be made in the kind of meticulous work biological illustration usually is. In the same page, details such as length of gape line behind the eye (when comparing Great with Intermediate Egrets) are depicted, and one is left thinking about how accurately those finer key ID features are represented. The way the feathers overlap in a flying bird is by no means of any importance for identification to species level, it's just perhaps (for my taste) a somewhat unpleasant detail in this kind of work. And, perhaps because I have worked in a semi-professional way as an illustrator, it's the kind of mistake I find difficult to make.
In any case, I wouldn't like to over-emphasize what I wrote above regarding a field guide that seems to be up there with the best.
 
Excuse me jumping in! I believe Rafael is referring to the way the flight feathers are depicted in the flying birds. The appear as if the outer margin 'underlaps' the adjacent outer feather but in fact the inner (proximal) margin of the feather underlaps the adjacent inner feather. Er, that's as clear as mud isn't it. Any good close flight image will show it. The key thing is that if the 'artist' has got this detail wrong, just careless observation, then what else can be trusted? Rafael will no doubt correct me if I've got it wrong....
Cheers, Brian
 
Excuse me jumping in! I believe Rafael is referring to the way the flight feathers are depicted in the flying birds. The appear as if the outer margin 'underlaps' the adjacent outer feather but in fact the inner (proximal) margin of the feather underlaps the adjacent inner feather. Er, that's as clear as mud isn't it. Any good close flight image will show it. The key thing is that if the 'artist' has got this detail wrong, just careless observation, then what else can be trusted? Rafael will no doubt correct me if I've got it wrong....
Cheers, Brian
Yep, you're spot on, that's what I meant.
 
Excuse me jumping in! I believe Rafael is referring to the way the flight feathers are depicted in the flying birds. The appear as if the outer margin 'underlaps' the adjacent outer feather but in fact the inner (proximal) margin of the feather underlaps the adjacent inner feather. Er, that's as clear as mud isn't it. Any good close flight image will show it. The key thing is that if the 'artist' has got this detail wrong, just careless observation, then what else can be trusted? Rafael will no doubt correct me if I've got it wrong....
Cheers, Brian

To my eyes which are admittedly not the best, all I see is shading which may have the intention of showing feather groups clearly, no more than that?

I'm sure that JG is aware of the orientation of these feathers and that the impression of overlapping is just an unintended consequence of the shading and lines?

Maybe I'll see it better when I get the book.

A
 
Last edited:
I received my copy today, and I think if one already has Birds of the Middle East (2nd edition) by partly the same authors/illustrators, one can easily do without it. In many respects, this is simply a slimmed down version of the more comprehensive earlier FG. Though it is said to have been updated as well. At any rate, I think this is a very fine FG, and it will be a more compact book to take along for a visit to just Oman and nearby regions such as UAE. There is again a comparison plate for "Large White-headed Gulls", but it is covering three species only instead of the eight species covered in Birds of the Middle East. Nevertheless, it is in that context that the new book has some more detailed illustrations not found in the older book. Otherwise, I have so far only been able to find some slight modifications like on the belly of the Barn Owl (spots or no spots), and size differences as there are often less species per plate that can thus be shown a bit more enlarged.

As in the older volume, I am missing a Quick-find Index. In these times of constant sequence changes, such an index would seem mandatory for any new FG!! The Oman book retains the raptors as a unit, and thus falcons are not moved further back to the parrots. A most welcome decision. However, there are many other sequence shifts as a quick comparison of the contents pages up front shows. Examples are switches between Phasianidae and Anatidae, or between Caprimulgidae and Strigidae. There is a checklist at the end of the book that I feel is a bit problematical. For one, non-naturalized escapes are excluded. More importantly, however, the species sequence strictly follows the one adopted by the IOC, whereas the book does not. Thus some confusion will be inevitable. It might have helped to have the plate number given with the species names.

Finally, this book has the same good distribution maps as the earlier one, with just a reduced part of the range shown, of course. What is completely missing, however, is a map giving the names of the countries. Thus, one does not even see, which part of the map is actually Oman. Birds of the Middle East has at least such a map on the inside of the front cover. Fortunately, there is no shortage in the internet of suitable maps that one can copy and glue to an empty page such as the insides of the cover.

As a side remark, it is interesting to see that this book (the same Helm edition) is shown for a release date of 28 February 2018 on both the German and the US Amazon.

Edit: after some more in depth studying, I notice some more additional illustrations. Thus, there is now a depiction of the Eastern Cattle Egret in breeding plumage, and there is an additional illustration for the Kurdish (formerly Kurdistan) Wheatear, to just name two. But over all, there are very few such additions, I think.
 
Last edited:
The book includes Omani Owl which has now been discredited as a species and is included with Desert (Tawny) Owl which itself was formerly called Hume's Owl


A
 
The book includes Omani Owl which has now been discredited as a species and is included with Desert (Tawny) Owl which itself was formerly called Hume's Owl


A

Whatever pleases some specialists. It's definitely not helping the average birder for whom such FGs are actually produced, one would think. Hume's or Desert Owl now has a scientific name change as well in this book: Strix hadorami instead of butleri. Obviously in honor of Hadoram Shirihai. It was him who once showed us the species north of Eilat/Israel. I still recall that outing many decades ago. We were at a well known (at the time) Lichtenstein's Sandgrouse drinking place on the outskirts of Eilat. After the birds had gone, there was this fellow trying to find enough people to make it worthwhile for him to do the tour the next evening (of course with pretty steep fees ;) ). But it was definitely a most rewarding experience and so the costs were justified for us.

Omani Owl is in the Illustrated Checklist Vol 1. The two volumes are going to remain my "Bible" regarding birds. I definitely no longer need this name "terror" and confusion now. If I should ever get around to really count the number of species seen, that will be the base. Thus, it's quite OK for me to see they retained Omani Owl as a full species in the Oman FG. It's unlikely I will ever have a chance to add it to my life list anyway. The change to the hadorami name for the Hume's/Desert Owl is of greater (emotional) significance to me. Though I wonder why Hume and Butler lost in this strange game. Going by the rule of first accepted names, this change seems prone to be reverted at some point in the future. Oh well, some fellow will get another tick in his publication record then. It's all part of how this system works. Except for those directly involved, it is best not to take all this too seriously. For them, it may affect their salary and thus be of importance. There needs to be some measurement to determine the rank on the payroll. We just should not have to bear the consequences by suffering incessant confusion.
 
Last edited:
The bulk of the material for this book having been taken from a previous title as previously mentioned, you'd think that there would have been enough time to rectify the status of a single species prior to publication?


A
 
The bulk of the material for this book having been taken from a previous title as previously mentioned, you'd think that there would have been enough time to rectify the status of a single species prior to publication?


A

There is a cut-off date for such things. And if there was no obvious dispute prior to that date, then there will be no way to change it later. Might happen in a second edition. But by then maybe things will have been reverted again? Must not be easy for publishers anyway.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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