I have waited until I can look at the book in more detail, before adding my thoughts to the forum. This was eagerly awaited and beyond the WOW that is the most immediate response to the volumes there are a number of aspects that do need comment. Some of which will be in follow up posts.
These include;
- Area covered
- Taxonomy
- Species covered
- Species accounts
- Production values
The first one I will attempt to cover is the first - Area covered.
Pre-publication, the big discussion point was the inclusion of Iran and to a lesser extent the inclusion of the Arabian peninsular.
In terms of the former I have no issue. The division between Western and Eastern Palearctic is purely an arbitrary concept IMO. The adoption of the high point of the Urals ( at approx 60 degrees E) is well recognised and the fact that the Iran/Pakistan border also runs on the same degree of longitude means that simply put it follows a similar line and makes sense to me. However I dont understand the rational of heading westwards of the division line off the southern point of the Urals and through the Caspian sea. It looks clumsy and I am not sure the rational for it.
The Arabian Peninsular is dominated by the Palearctic biome - particularly at the north and certainly part of it is consistent with its inclusion. The problem becomes with the inclusion of the Afro-Tropical zones of Yemen and parts of Oman and Saudi Arabia. From a country sense it perhaps makes sense, but saying these are part of the WP is a step too far for me.
Back on the main part of Africa this is another location where biome boundary is confused with political boundary. In the Maghreb, it follows political boundaries rather than extending to the recognised biome boundary. Note should be made of Gebel Elba (disputed between Sudan and Egypt) that is excluded from the WP defined area but included here for some reason (and bringing Rosy-patched Shrike with it).
These boundaries are however consistent with the (historic) approach adopted in Birds of the Middle East and North Africa (Hollom, Porter etc) who didn't pretend it was limited to the WP.
I dont believe any species are lost by the definition - are there really any species in the "gap" between the political and biome border? However some come in that are not really WP species - is this a problem?
These include;
- Area covered
- Taxonomy
- Species covered
- Species accounts
- Production values
The first one I will attempt to cover is the first - Area covered.
Pre-publication, the big discussion point was the inclusion of Iran and to a lesser extent the inclusion of the Arabian peninsular.
In terms of the former I have no issue. The division between Western and Eastern Palearctic is purely an arbitrary concept IMO. The adoption of the high point of the Urals ( at approx 60 degrees E) is well recognised and the fact that the Iran/Pakistan border also runs on the same degree of longitude means that simply put it follows a similar line and makes sense to me. However I dont understand the rational of heading westwards of the division line off the southern point of the Urals and through the Caspian sea. It looks clumsy and I am not sure the rational for it.
The Arabian Peninsular is dominated by the Palearctic biome - particularly at the north and certainly part of it is consistent with its inclusion. The problem becomes with the inclusion of the Afro-Tropical zones of Yemen and parts of Oman and Saudi Arabia. From a country sense it perhaps makes sense, but saying these are part of the WP is a step too far for me.
Back on the main part of Africa this is another location where biome boundary is confused with political boundary. In the Maghreb, it follows political boundaries rather than extending to the recognised biome boundary. Note should be made of Gebel Elba (disputed between Sudan and Egypt) that is excluded from the WP defined area but included here for some reason (and bringing Rosy-patched Shrike with it).
These boundaries are however consistent with the (historic) approach adopted in Birds of the Middle East and North Africa (Hollom, Porter etc) who didn't pretend it was limited to the WP.
I dont believe any species are lost by the definition - are there really any species in the "gap" between the political and biome border? However some come in that are not really WP species - is this a problem?
Last edited: