Birds of North America and Greenland (1 Viewer)

[jedigrant]

This guide, from Norman Arlott, is the latest entry in the Princeton Illustrated Checklists series. (It was also published in the UK as Collins Field Guides: Birds of North America.) It has some very good qualities: attractive illustrations (Arlott's own paintings), compact size, and great price. But I still can't see how it would be of use to birders here in North America. Many plumages are not illustrated (no immatures at all), identification information is very limited, and there are lots of errors.

The author clearly had a European audience in mind with this book. And I could see it being of use to visiting ecotourists and general wildlife enthusiasts, or birders who may never visit but want to know what our birds look like. Still, any serious visiting birder would do better with NatGeo or Sibley.

Here is my full review of Birds of North America and Greenland

 

[stonechat1]

[...]
The author clearly had a European audience in mind with this book.[...]
[...]

What verify your first claim? A few minor changes to write a bird´s name, like Grey vs. Gray?
I´m wondering that there are no imm. or flight drawings on the plates, at least on those plates one can see on the website (I don´t own this book).

More curios I´m how the same book with a different dust cover can be advertised with "Every species found in the area is illustrated in every plumage in which they can be seen in the wild???
Source: http://www.nhbs.com/collins_field_guide_birds_of_north_america_and_tefno_160906.html&tab_tag=desc

I use since I visit Canada almost regulary NatGeo and as Backup Sibley´s books. And sure I´ll not change that (my new NG arrives on monday )

 

[Richard Klim]

A recent very brief impression by Rick Wright on the ABA Blog.

 

[Swissboy]

.....there are lots of errors.

The author clearly had a European audience in mind with this book. ........Here is my full review of Birds of North America and Greenland

Starting with some issues you mention in your full review: I would not think that changing some spelling from "European" to "US" would be all that easy. Most likely, the main parts had been printed together. Or at least from unaltered originals so as to facilitate reruns. The same is usually true for other such books like Helm and Princeton editions. But then, grey or gray, who cares, when even US and Canada don't always agree. Same for color and colour, etc. Diver and Loon are more serious issues, but they have apparently been dealt with. And as long as I constantly find mix-ups between too and to, or there and their in so many native British/US contributions, I think those other differences are at least not irritating.

Names like Blackbird are a constant stumbling block, unfortunately.

But as for "lots of errors", I'd need some more examples to support this statement. There were lots in the original new Svensson edition, by the way.

I agree that any "serious" birder is better off with NG or Sibley, and thus I consider a North American edition superfluous. But for European visitors, this book has the advantage that, while not allowing a clear ID of all birds, it provides a quicker overview. The unfamiliar birder thus finds her/his way around more easily. And the illustrations I have seen so far are quite attractive. I'm sure many IDs with the more complete books would be just about equally uncertain. With the difference that the unfamiliar birder would THINK it was correct.

 

[Richard Klim]

I still wonder what HarperCollins/Princeton hope to achieve with these unnecessary lower-quality field guides that add nothing to existing literature? Here's a comment I made in January on another thread...

It's slightly ironic that while field guides for important uncovered areas are forced to borrow artwork from existing guides to other regions, HarperCollins seems to be set on a mission to duplicate coverage of already well-served areas. I'm particularly surprised by its recent commissioning of an illustrated checklist-style guide to the West Indies by Norman Arlott, which (from reviews) seems to add little (if anything) to Raffaele et al [and follows the ambitious 2-volume field guide to the Palearctic - of questionable utility: good luck to American birders trying to identify their first Phylloscs & Acros!]; but most surprisingly (for publication this spring) a new field guide to North America - what can Collins/Arlott possibly hope to contribute to this already overcrowded market?

How would European birders react if an American publisher/author/artist launched a rather third-rate guide to European birds?

In the UK, it isn't even being marketed as a budget option, despite being less than half the size of the NatGeo guide:

• Dunn & Alderfer (NatGeo), 576pp: RRP £18.99, Amazon UK £16.14
• Arlott (HarperCollins), 240pp: RRP £29.99(!), Amazon UK £25.49

Who does HarperCollins believe wants to pay for a more expensive but less detailed guide by someone with less experience of North American birds...?

 

[jedigrant]

What verify your first claim? A few minor changes to write a bird´s name, like Grey vs. Gray?
I´m wondering that there are no imm. or flight drawings on the plates, at least on those plates one can see on the website (I don´t own this book).

More curios I´m how the same book with a different dust cover can be advertised with "Every species found in the area is illustrated in every plumage in which they can be seen in the wild???
Source: http://www.nhbs.com/collins_field_guide_birds_of_north_america_and_tefno_160906.html&tab_tag=desc

It's not so much the minor changes like Grey vs Gray, but Diver vs Loon, Slavonian Grebe instead of Horned Grebe, and the other examples given in the review. I haven't noticed any case where the American name is used when there is a difference. It's not irrefutable proof, I grant you, but I think it's enough to support my statement.

I hadn't noticed that claim about the Collins version. It is definitely not so.

 

[jedigrant]

Swissboy:
The spelling differences aren't a stumbling block, and even with the other name differences the American name is included. I suppose it would be more of an annoyance than true issue for NA users. But I would think that a book published in NA for NA users would use the accepted AOU/ABA names. I don't know enough about the book publishing industry to know if making those changes would be too problematic or expensive.

As for the errors, here are the ones I found:

• Bald Eagle size given as 31-37cm. Um, no. 31-37 inches, maybe.
• Eastern Palm Warblers should be labeled breeding and non-breeding instead of male and female
• Alternate name of Slate-throated Redstart is given as <em>White</em>-throated Whitestart

Rick Wright found more than this, no doubt, including the wrong illustrations for the starling.

True, Svensson also had many errors. I think it's a testament to how great that guide is that all those errors didn't deter birders from getting it. But I don't think that's the case here, even though the illustrations are admittedly attractive.

 

[jedigrant]

I still wonder what HarperCollins/Princeton hope to achieve with these unnecessary lower-quality field guides that add nothing to existing literature?

I'm not fully sure of this myself. At least some of these are actually useful as field guides. I've used the West Indies guide and preferred taking it into the field than the Raffaele guide. BUT, it still doesn't completely replace/outdo Raffaele. Then there are the ones for South America which include a ton of birds in a very handy-sized guide. They could be very helpful, although I've yet to have the opportunity to find that out firsthand.

I'm beginning to think that the main purpose of this series may not be for use in the field, but to provide a cheap, handy method to see what any given bird may look like. For example, a birder in the UK that may not have plans to bird in NA, but is reading The Big Year and wants to know what the birds they're reading about looks like. They wouldn't need a full field guide like NatGeo or Sibley for that, so a cheaper option like this would work (I'm assuming it's cheaper there, it is cheaper than most other field guides here). The flaw in this argument is, of course, the internet. It's still much cheaper to do a Google image search

Edit: I didn't see the rest of your post, Richard! Wow, at those prices it's no contest. And I think you nailed it with your other observation

 

[Julian H]

As with any guides, mistakes will creep in, but I'm a bit concerned with the perpetuation of errors in this guide as egregious. I saw a copy and although some of the naming conventions wouldn't be what I would have used, what other labelling errors are noted?

The starling illustration, reported as erroneous, seems to be correct, despite Rick Wrights comments to the contrary and repeated by other reviewers.

A few errors are inevitable, but I would like to see the list that had apparently been found that put it above and beyond what is typically normal??

Sincerely,

Julian

 

[jedigrant]

The starling illustration, reported as erroneous, seems to be correct, despite Rick Wrights comments to the contrary and repeated by other reviewers.

I have to admit, the starling illustration did not jump out at me. But I have no experience with Spotless Starling. I assumed that Rick has the Arlott Palearctic guides and noticed that the Spotless Starling illustration from them was used here. I don't have those guides, however. Looking back, it does read like I'm passing on as fact what Rick first reported. To be fair, I have not confirmed it, but I would be really surprised if Rick would say that and not be totally sure about it.

 

[Julian H]

Grant,

No problems, I understand. I haven't seen the other guides, so it may be that an illustration used in another guide may have been involved. However, growing up in the UK for most of my life and seeing both species in Europe, the illustration seems perfectly fine for a fresh European Starling. Both species in fresh plumage are very similar and giving Arlott the benefit of the doubt, there seems to be some markings shown on his illustration (flanks and vent). Either way, it seems quite ambiguous.

Thanks for taking the time to post your review!

 

[puttgrass]

I haven't seen the book itself, and judging by online reviews, I won't buy it. Many of the illustrations I've seen online range from "off" to "very wrong"; Cory Gregory's review includes an owl plate which honestly had me scratching my head for a moment as to what was that thing to the right of the Great Grey owl. The colour and pattern of the Barred Owl as painted are basically right, but the shape is off, the head too large and square with eyes too far apart, and the bird as painted appears to be as large as or larger than Great Horned Owl, though the measurements given for those species in the text are in the correct range. The Mottled Owl on the plate looks closer to the correct proportions for Barred, and the correct size in relation to Great Horned and Great Grey. Was there a recent European bird field guide for which Arlott contributed art? The Long-eared Owl looks closer to A. o. otus than it does to our yellow-eyed North American races wilsonianus and tuftsi.

I do like the quirked eyebrow on the Northern Hawk-Owl.

 

[Richard Klim]

Was there a recent European bird field guide for which Arlott contributed art? The Long-eared Owl looks closer to A. o. otus than it does to our yellow-eyed North American races wilsonianus and tuftsi.

Yes - the 2-volume Arlott 2007/2009 (Birds of the Palearctic (Collins) / Birds of Europe, China, Russia & Japan (Princeton): Passerines / Non-Passerines).

But the Long-eared Owl seems to have been re-painted for the N American guide.

Incidentally, I assume that HarperCollins's apparent race to produce alternative field guides for all regions of the world (and therefore artwork for all bird species) partly reflects its ambitious plan to offer individually-customised field guides for any region...
CollinsBirds website:

Create your own book
Coming soon!
You will be able to create your own customised field guides. Decide what birds to include and we'll publish and deliver your custom-made book to your door.