What determines the order of species in a field guide (1 Viewer)

perseid28

Well-known member

• May 25, 2012

• #1

So I was reading through my North American field guides and started wondering what the reason is for putting bird families in the order that they are. For example, the 6th edition of the National Geographic field guide has the following order for the first several families of birds:

Ducks, Geese, and Swans
New World Quail
Curassows and Guans
Partridges, Grouse, Turkeys, and Old World Quail
Loons
Grebes

Why not put the Loons and Grebes right after the Ducks, Geese, and Swans? I'm assuming there is a good reason for this ordering, but a quick Google search turned up nothing useful. Anyone?

 

Mysticete

Well-known member

• May 25, 2012

• #2

Nat Geo follows AOU taxonomy, and so birds are arranged by their evolutionary relationships. Ducks and Grouse get placed at the front of the book because they are the earliest branch of birds to split off, or at least the earliest branch present in North America.

Whether or not it it useful is another story, and there are several threads on this debating the relative merits of different ways or organizing field guides

 

grebefeet9

elegant tern of phrase

• May 27, 2012

• #3

sibley's order goes: grebes, loons, procellariiformes, pelicaniformes, ducks/geese/swans, gamebirds, hawks, charadriiformes, landbirds. i think that has to do with taxonomy. all the birsd of north america guide goes by feeding habits and adaptations, grouping the passerines by bill shape and the other birds by structure and habits, ie. aerialists, swimmers, large, medium and small shorebirds. the inside front and back covers have a key and the page edges have colored bars. with some familiarity of that guide, one could narrow an unknown bird down to a few options in seconds.

 

perseid28

Well-known member

• Jun 12, 2012

• #4

Okay, this makes sense. So does this mean that Kingfishers are most closely related to Hummingbirds and Woodpeckers, since these are the families that they are placed in between in the Nat Geo guide? Or is this looking into things too far?

 

F

fugl

Well-known member

• Jun 12, 2012

• #5

perseid28 said:

Okay, this makes sense. So does this mean that Kingfishers are most closely related to Hummingbirds and Woodpeckers, since these are the families that they are placed in between in the Nat Geo guide? Or is this looking into things too far?

Click to expand...

Yes, or at least that was the thinking when the NG guide was published.

 

W

Welsh Peregrine

Well-known member

• Jun 12, 2012

• #6

And hummingbirds are related to swifts, but not closely to anything else, so there is really a gap between Kingfishers and Hummers.

 

John P

Usually on a different wavelength

• Jun 14, 2012

• #7

Voous: usually.

 

Mysticete

Well-known member

• Jun 14, 2012

• #8

True for the Old World, but not for the New World

 

Johann Sebastian Bach

Well-known member

• Jun 14, 2012

• #9

Whilst the logic of Voous and Sibley is clear, I think I'd prefer a more prosaic approach, based on "the average birder". This would place the most interesting birds at the front of the guide, leaving the dull ones at the back. In the UK, this would go:

Major rarities
Minor rarities
Raptors
Big bright birds (like hoopoe and woodpeckers)
Waders in summer plumage
Summer visitors
Colourful garden birds
Water birds (incl gulls and winter plumage waders)
Big boring birds (Crows and stuff)
LBJs

Peter

 

F

fugl

Well-known member

• Jun 14, 2012

• #10

Johann Sebastian Bach said:

Whilst the logic of Voous and Sibley is clear, I think I'd prefer a more prosaic approach, based on "the average birder". This would place the most interesting birds at the front of the guide, leaving the dull ones at the back. In the UK, this would go:

Major rarities
Minor rarities
Raptors
Big bright birds (like hoopoe and woodpeckers)
Waders in summer plumage
Summer visitors
Colourful garden birds
Water birds (incl gulls and winter plumage waders)
Big boring birds (Crows and stuff)
LBJs

Click to expand...

Looks like a winner to me (except I'd get rid of the LBJs & gulls entirely).