Fieldguides - systematic order? (1 Viewer)

What's a fieldguide for? To help us identify in the field or educate on latest scientific opinions?

Out birding, we find a mystery bird - clearly a finch, so grab the fieldguide, open to near the back ('cos that's where they 'live'), flick through a few pages and, there, hopefully, is our bird smiling at us from the page.
Next a raptor, out comes the guide, open about a third of the way in and out pops our unfamiliar hawk.
Should be that easy, huh? No matter where in the world, we can usually put a bird immediately to a family, so then it's a case of trawling through a few pages til we find what it is. And most of us know the 'standard' order of the guides - divers at the beginning, finches and the like near the end. So fact one and fact two makes the process of identification a much quicker process.

Why then, do some authors insist of using new improved orders - I think particularly of the 'Birds of the Indian Subcontinent' which proved frustrating to virtually every birder I met whilst there last year. this was, for me, the biggest negative point to the book and would definately push me towards choosing an alternative if one appeared on the market.

The authors justify the 'improved' order on the grounds that DNA research, etc, indicates that the scientific blah blah blah...
Here I stop reading - isn't this supposed to be a guide to help us in the field? I'm quite happy to read about new research when sitting at home, but when in the middle of a fast-moving feeding flock, I want to be able to quickly open the guide to the correct place.

What's the general opinion on this? Most birders I met had made there own little supplement to the fieldguide - listing the families in 'traditional' order, then using it with the guide, but what a pa lar va! (if this last word is speltcorrectly!)

I was annoyed by the fifth edition of Simpson & Day (Australian field guide) earlier today for the same reasons. Some 'standard' order for fieldguides would help - and no, not a new standard, please!

Andy.

You could always use the index...?

Most UK field guides use Voous order (or something like it) but the BOU has adopted a new order with Swan, geese etc first. Then of course in the US books based on Sibley & Monroe are different again. S&M sometimes puts the same birds in different families from those used in WP.

Confused or what !

tom mckinney said:

You could always use the index...?

Click to expand...

Blimey, you could be onto something!

tom mckinney said:

You could always use the index...?

Click to expand...

Could do, and often had to, but (in my humble opinion) the process is simplier when a guide is user-friendly.

Anyhow, sometimes index not always clear - let's say I know it's a finch, but (am in a new country) so don't know the names of the finches - look under F for finch and, damn, it's not there. Maybe (if I was new to Europe) I would find my bird under B (for Brambling) or C (for Chaffinch), so now I look for the family index - scramble around the guide for a while and then I find it on page 8 or 16 or whereever, now I get to the relevant page ...and, well by now, my bird has probably had time to get to the next country!!!

robinm said:

Most UK field guides use Voous order (or something like it)
Confused or what !

Click to expand...

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the Voous order? Ta.

A very good point Jos. My opinion is though that I also like to know about the birds relationships (in the packed manner of families & orders). Field guides are scientific tools. Good that there's now so much diversity on guides - just pick your choice.

helenol said:

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the Voous order? Ta.

Click to expand...

Hi Helen,

Voous is (was?) a Dutch ornithologist who suggested an order that places closely related species next to each other with the most "primitive" first. Unfortunately, modern genetics has somewhat overtaken this, hence the changes by the BOU.

The AOU has also changed the order of the families in their latest bird check list revision. It has caused the same sort of confusion "on this side of the pond". One option is just to keep using your favorite guide until it finally falls apart. Then you can "bite the bullet" and "keep up with the Jones's" or get a new "old" field guide.

"You could always use the index...?"

Or you could go with the Audubon listing:-
Category
Long-legged Waders
Gull-like Birds
Upright-perching Waterbirds
Duck-like Birds
Sandpiper-like Birds
Chicken-like Marsh Birds
Upland Ground Birds
Owls
Hawk-like Birds (Yes we know. That's what some of them eat) Humour there!!
Pigeon-like Birds
Swallow-like Birds
Tree-clinging Birds
Perching Birds

Easier ??
What happens if a Pigeon decides to "Perch" on a branch in a "Tree"??
Where do we look for a comparitive idendification?? 3 options!!

Regards


Malky

field guides should use the best currently accepted sytematic order at the time if writing. This is what Tim Inskipp's Indian guide did and Craig Robson's too by adopting Sibley and Monroe.

if writers choose their own sequence it could get mightily confused. There ought to be a bit of scientific rigour to it.....and when you know the Sibley and Monroe sequence it becomes easy to find stuff - you just have to take time to learn it. And if we dont use the most accurate systematic order to date just wich one d you choose?

I find the idea of a standard BIRDER order for the birds an interesting one. In theory, we'd establish it now and stick to it even if there are revisions on the scientific side. Bird guides meant for birders would use this order, so that users (birders) could quickly find the group of birds they want to check. In practice, though, e.g. for the Neotropics, some bird guides tend to be for a wide audience that includes both birders and field ornithologists. I'm not sure the latter, and hence the authors, would go for this idea!

Its just what you're used to. Whilst field guides should proabably reflect recent scientific knowledge of both species relationships and taxonomy (e.g. new splits etc.) I still found the Indian fieldguide and the Robson south-east Asian one annoying to use
Woodpeckers at the front!!

This is what I wrote in BB when a letter on this subject came in. Not sure if it helps or not, but here goes....

The recent changes to the order of the British Birds list follow those recently adopted by BOURC on the recommendation of its Taxonomic Subcommittee. Avian classifications are and always have been, at least in modern times, intended to reflect ideas about the relationships between the birds in the list. If one were to draw an evolutionary tree of birds, those families that branch off earliest (i.e. are the most ancient) should be listed first. To do otherwise, e.g. to adopt a system that listed birds alphabetically, or maybe in order of size, would deprive ornithologists and birders of any context within which to make valid comparisons between species (or higher groups) of bird that are closely or distantly related. People who study birds would lose one of the principle frameworks within which we understand bird biology, which could lead to mistakes in important scientific or conservation work, the consequences of which might ultimately harm the birds themselves. Indeed, in the absence of a phylogenetic basis for bird lists, there may be no other acceptable scientific criteria by which to decide if any particular list was ‘the best’. Previously the British List was based entirely on Voous Order outlined in the ‘List of recent Holarctic bird species’. The fact that this order was widely accepted suggests that birders and ornithologists want a bird list that reflects the evolutionary relationships between birds. The stability that the Voous Order engendered, however, happened in spite of long-term and ongoing taxonomic research which demonstrates that some of the assumptions on which the Voous list were based are likely to be wrong.
Over 26 phylogenetic studies, many using DNA analysis, have been published in recent years that together form a large body of evidence showing that the order of birds in the British list did not properly reflect their evolution. The BOURC-TSC reviewed these papers and accepted the most likely hypotheses for bird evolution with the following key characters:
1) That the deepest branch point in the evolutionary tree of birds splits them into the Palaeognathae (tinamous and‘ratites’) and the Neognathae (all other birds).
2) That within the Neognathae, the deepest branch-point splits them into Galloanserae (see below) and Neoaves (all remaining birds)
3) The Galloanserae are composed of two ‘sister’ groups – Anseriformes (waterfowl) and Galliformes (turkeys, guineafowl, megapodes, grouse, pheasants etc.).
The British Birds Western Palearctic list (and indeed any World list) would therefore start with Palaeognathae as now. Because only Neognathae occur in Britain, the British list should start with the Galloanserae, as the deepest split from all other birds (Neoaves). Within the Galloanserae there are fewer species of Anseriformes than Galliformes, therefore Anseriformes are listed first in accordance with normal custom. The orders of families within these groups remains unchanged, so the British list now starts with Anatidae (swans, ducks, geese), followed by Tetraonidae and Phasianidae (grouse, pheasants, quail and partridges), followed by all remaining families as in the old order (divers, grebes etc.).

In fact, with 50-100 new phylogenetic studies of birds currently being published each year, many of them producing new molecular insights into avian relationships, no one would agree that the current order of the Western Palearctic list will ultimately shown to be correct; there are many more changes that could be proposed. Taxonomists would argue that taxonomy is a science and that they are primarily concerned with trying to get things right, rather than considering the needs of publishers, recorders and birders. Nevertheless, if instability per se has an adverse affect on ornithology (and I personally am not convinced it does), there is an argument that large scale changes to National and regional lists, if and when they are proposed, would have to be carefully managed by the appropriate Records Committees.

Tim Allwood said:

field guides should use the best currently accepted sytematic order at the time if writing.
...ought to be a bit of scientific rigour to it.....and when you know the Sibley and Monroe sequence it becomes easy to find stuff - you just have to take time to learn it.

Click to expand...

All very good til the scientists change their opinion again! Feel feel to include an appendix at the back outlining the latest taxonomic theory, but leave the rest of the guide in the accepted order so it serves its main purpose - an identification guide for field use

Jos Stratford said:

All very good til the scientists change their opinion again! Feel feel to include an appendix at the back outlining the latest taxonomic theory, but leave the rest of the guide in the accepted order so it serves its main purpose - an identification guide for field use

Click to expand...

Hi Jos

hope the planning is going ok for SL!

fair points but accepted order for many folks is S and M - been 14 years now!

As bedtime reading I've been slogging through a book (The Life of North American Birds or name close to that - sorry, it's at home and I'm not, so can't cite the author(s) either). The book gives a comprehensive report on the common aspects of life (feeding, nesting, migration, breeding, habitat, etc.) of bird families and then lists more detail (and differences) for each species (including the common vagrants). Each family is listed in the usual order of the field guides. Reading that book makes the use of taxonomic order make much more sense in understanding the different bird families, the niches they occupy, and their similarities.

At this point in time, taxonomy is undergoing a real revolution with the use of DNA comparison - it's good for science and for understanding critter relationships but it's hard on us who are reaching coothood (as in "old coots"). Things are bound to settle down into a standard order within a few years, if they haven't already (e.g., S & M order with no change for 14 years). Some species may jump around a bit but that should get sorted out soon, as well. In the meantime just think of it as one of those intellectual challenges that help stave off Alzheimers!
Barbara

Hi folks

I'm afraid S and M is changing.....sorry!

Joel Cracraft has proposed a new sequence going somewhat back towards Vouus. I think we at the OBC may be adopting it soon

Why then, do some authors insist of using new improved orders - I think particularly of the 'Birds of the Indian Subcontinent' which proved frustrating to virtually every birder I met whilst there last year. this was, for me, the biggest negative point to the book and would definately push me towards choosing an alternative if one appeared on the market.

The authors justify the 'improved' order on the grounds that DNA research, etc, indicates that the scientific blah blah blah...


The book 'Birds of the Indian Subcontinent' changed quiet a few of the common names of the bird and made a chaos.. with now people resortig to putting up checklists of bird and mentioning according to which book they were made.. I do not know if its scientific to change the common names of the bird.. but I do know that it is a way to sell a book .. The book is good in terms of plates though.. putting up as many morphs of the bird as possible..

Regards
Atanu