Hey, Nikon fans (1 Viewer)

Curtis Croulet · Jun 21, 2005

Some of you were miffed when Living Bird put the Nikon LXL in the middle of the pile. Well, against Cornell's Ken Rosenberg you can put famous American birder Kenn Kaufman. In my latest Bird Watcher's Digest, the Nikon ads contain Kaufman's endorsement of the LXL (the second "L" is printed small and low, as though it were a subscript).

Serg · Jun 21, 2005

Curtis Croulet said:
Some of you were miffed when Living Bird put the Nikon LXL in the middle of the pile. Well, against Cornell's Ken Rosenberg you can put famous American birder Kenn Kaufman. In my latest Bird Watcher's Digest, the Nikon ads contain Kaufman's endorsement of the LXL (the second "L" is printed small and low, as though it were a subscript).

Too bad for Nikon, Mr. Kaufmann is my least favorite birding author. Simple reason is that he is a "splitter" whereas I tend to be a "lumper".

Curtis Croulet · Jun 21, 2005

Taxonomy in American bird guides and general birding books and articles usually follows the recommendations of the American Ornithologists' Union. Where has Kenn Kaufman not followed their recommendations?

Atomic Chicken · Jun 21, 2005

Uhhh.....

Mr. Kaufmann? American Ornithologists' Union? Cornell's Ken Rosenberg? Bird Watching Digest?

Who cares!!!!!!

My Nikons (and my Leicas, and my Swarovskis, and my Zeiss, etc.) simply look GREAT, what's the big fuss with the "names"? Find a binocular that works for you... watch the birds... be happy!

Best wishes,
Bawko

Serg · Jun 21, 2005

He has followed their reccomendations, but the AOU uses the old fashion morphological species concept more than the new molecular science that shows many groups of species to be more akin to subspecies. See Kaufmann's "Advanced Birding" for the type of silly nit-picking the splitters get to.

Curtis Croulet · Jun 21, 2005

Kaufman's Advanced Birding provides help for identifying similar-looking species. What page or pages, specifically, do you find objectionable?

Serg · Jun 21, 2005

DNA hybridization analysis has shown that "similar species" are often the same species.

Examples from the book. Western/Clarks Grebes, Ibises, "Thayer's Gull Complex," Sapsuckers. The majority if ecologists and biologists I work with have extensive genetic and molecular training and follow a stricter species concept than the AOU and would consider those "groups of species" to be subspecies or even only morphs.

It is easier for the layman to consider morphology, but the science has recently show that approach to be incomplete.

Lewie · Jun 21, 2005

Serg said:
DNA hybridization analysis has shown that "similar species" are often the same species.

Examples from the book. Western/Clarks Grebes, Ibises, "Thayer's Gull Complex," Sapsuckers. The majority if ecologists and biologists I work with have extensive genetic and molecular training and follow a stricter species concept than the AOU and would consider those "groups of species" to be subspecies or even only morphs.

It is easier for the layman to consider morphology, but the science has recently show that approach to be incomplete.

I am a litle confused. Concerning the Western and Clarks Grebe, I believe that National Geographic, Sibley, and Peterson consider them to be different species, unlike the Juncos or Yellow-rumbed warblers, in which there are many variations. I just go by what is in the books, and am not an expert in this area.

I just enjoy birdwatching, and I get great joy seeing common birds such as a chickadee or a cardinal. Though seeing a harlequin duck was special

Lew

Curtis Croulet · Jun 21, 2005

So your beef is with the AOU, not Kaufman, who in Advanced Birding was merely following the then-current AOU standard, as would have any other North American bird guide ca. 1990 (for example, the contemporaneous Peterson western guide). Also, the text notes that the examples you cite were in dispute, as indeed (AFAIK) they still are.

Serg · Jun 21, 2005

True, but he still wrote the book. I would have said no thank you, based on my disagreement with their concept of species. With no disrespect fo Mr. Kaufmann I disagree with their definition.

Leif · Jun 21, 2005

Serg said:
DNA hybridization analysis has shown that "similar species" are often the same species.

Examples from the book. Western/Clarks Grebes, Ibises, "Thayer's Gull Complex," Sapsuckers. The majority if ecologists and biologists I work with have extensive genetic and molecular training and follow a stricter species concept than the AOU and would consider those "groups of species" to be subspecies or even only morphs.

It is easier for the layman to consider morphology, but the science has recently show that approach to be incomplete.

Mycology is just as bad if not worse. I follow the lumpers on the grounds that I can't make head nor tail of the distinctions made by the splitters and anyway DNA analysis seems to be proving the lumpers right.

Leif

Curtis Croulet · Jun 21, 2005

Serg said:
True, but he still wrote the book. I would have said no thank you, based on my disagreement with their concept of species. With no disrespect fo Mr. Kaufmann I disagree with their definition.

Well, what was he supposed to do? I think you're being unfair to Kaufman (and I don't see how your complaint relates to Kaufman's endorsement of Nikon). The AOU recognized these species, they were shown in general field guides, and Kaufman was trying to help birders to distinguish them in the field. That's the point of the book. If RTP or anyone else had produced a book in 1990 for identifying particularly tough cases in the field, they would have followed the same taxonomy. The AOU list was and is intended to provide some stability and predictability to any discussion of North American birds. However, Kaufman did note lingering taxonomic disputes in the text. Any birders wishing to disregard the AOU list were and still are free to do so. Many western birders still talk about "Oregon Juncos" and "Western Flycatchers." Also, the kind of genetic analysis you admire was pretty much unknown in 1990. I'm sure we'll see considerable upheaval in the AOU list in the future. But I think many of these "species" will survive, extremely similar though they may appear. I can't comment with confidence on Clark's vs Western Grebes (I've seen few that I'd call Clark's), but -- for example -- Sharp-shinned and Cooper's Hawks (covered in Kaufman's book) are consistently distinguishable in the field by experienced birders. Allen's and Rufous Hummingbirds, the toughest challenge among the hummingbirds north of Mexico and covered in Kaufman's book, will also -- I'm confident -- survive any analysis.

Pileatus · Jun 21, 2005

Didn't Curtis start this thread with a notation that Ken endorses the new Nikon Premier LX's?

John

Curtis Croulet · Jun 21, 2005

John Traynor said:
Didn't Curtis start this thread with a notation that Ken endorses the new Nikon Premier LX's?

John

I guess we've seen the double-edged sword aspect of celebrity endorsements -- Kenn Kaufman being a birding "celebrity" in North America. Birders are supposed to say, "Hey, Kaufman likes Nikon, maybe I better take a look at them." Serg says (in essence), "Kaufman is a crappy scientist, and therefore his endorsement of Nikon is meaningless to me."

Serg · Jun 21, 2005

I don't call him crappy, I just say I disagree with him. It happens amongst scientists all the time.

Curtis Croulet · Jun 22, 2005

But your dispute, as presented here, is with the AOU, not Kaufman. He properly followed the AOU checklist, ca. 1990, for his book. Any other author would have done the same. And you're applying a 2005 view of taxonomy to 1990. Do you chew on Newton for not knowing about relativity?

Serg · Jun 22, 2005

I do not chew Newton, I just use newer findings. I meant not to rile you Curtis. You cought me after a plane ride home from debating such matters amongst diatom taxonomists. Apologies for any hard feelings.

BTW, I love Nikon, even though I was born a Deutschlander.

Curtis Croulet · Jun 22, 2005

Serg said:
I do not chew Newton, I just use newer findings. I meant not to rile you Curtis. You cought me after a plane ride home from debating such matters amongst diatom taxonomists. Apologies for any hard feelings.

BTW, I love Nikon, even though I was born a Deutschlander.

I'm sure that if 2005 research was available in 1990, Kaufman would have at least mentioned it. BTW, I've never met Kaufman, but I chatted (during a birdwalk) with a famous American ornithologist who knows Kenn, and she thought he had some rather, um, interesting and unusual views of many matters. But I think his 1990 book was pretty much in line with the AOU list of the time, and this was -- IMHO -- proper. I like his field guide, too. It's one of the few general bird guides to get even close to doing the hummingbirds right (Sibley is best; NGS is a disaster). During my aborted career as a herpetologist, many years ago, I considered myself basically a "lumper," but I think that's because most of the possible splitting had already been done. Where else to go but roll them back together? Recent DNA research has thrown the herp taxonomy (N.A. herps) that I knew and loved in the 1960s into turmoil.

Hey, Nikon fans (1 Viewer)

More options

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Serg

Guest

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Atomic Chicken

Registered with the D.O.E.

Serg

Guest

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Serg

Guest

Lewie

Well-known member

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Serg

Guest

Leif

Well-known member

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Serg

Guest

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Serg

Guest

Curtis Croulet

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread