Dear all,
I have enjoyed following this thread for some time. I have kept quiet until now, mainly because like Killian I thought it beneficial with a free flow of proposals and ideas without interference by those involved in the book, but also since I though Killian, when he entered, handled the explanatory part excellently and needed no help.
I can confess to being a bit disappointed in myself for letting so many small but obvious typos and faults slip past my eyes and into the book. I promise to try to be more careful from now on. Perhaps we all three, Killian, Dan and I, were so deeply involved in the revision of plates, text and maps, concentrating on what we felt was new and important, that we failed a little with attention to what we regarded as details? Partly by shortage of time in the end. It is not a good excuse, we should have spotted many of the mistakes you have all helpfully listed. Anyway, thanks to your interest and time spent on this scrutiny, future printings will have less faults. Much appreciated.
I will say only a few things more. First two minor items. Minor, yes, but they illustrate how every little detail must be checked and still can go wrong or be misunderstood.
(1) Does Bee-eater breed in Denmark? There is indeed an orange spot on the map on N Sjaelland (the easternmost large Danish island), so its not just some printer's ink that is waltzing around. Facts are that a small colony bred on NW Sjaelland in 1998--2003. The species also bred elsewhere in Denmark in 2003 and in 2004 and 2008. On retrospect I think it was wrong of me to indicate breeding in Denmark as I did. Such pioneering colonies can be noted in many places and by a number of species which expand their range. The Danish attempted colonization did not really last or grow strong and should not have been shown on the map. The book states 'normal occurrence' as the meaning of the orange colour, and, although this is a borderline case, the criterion is not quite met with here. This assessment serves also as an answer to those who have pointed out that 'the Scottish breeding population' of Honey Buzzard has been overlooked. This said population seems to consist of 1 pair raising young and to this a few more pairs not successfully breeding. (The Welsh and N English breeders should have been indicated, though. And they will be! The map is already changed and will appear in hopefully improved state in next printing.) One pair can hardly be called a normal occurrence.
Related to the above is the fact that I managed to revise about ten more maps in time for this next printing. Among other things was the Icelandic breeding range of Water Rail in Iceland deleted; the species is apparently gone from Iceland now.
For future advice on the maps, which needless to say I welcome a lot, please understand that the maps were never meant to show other than main patterns and normal occurrence. Very new and small breeding populations must wait a little until entering the maps. Also, if you question the maps but are vague about it, putting question marks at the end of your complaints, etc., how can I know what to act upon? Try to be clear and limit advice to confirmed occurrences, and I will do my part in up-dating the maps when convenient.
(2) The term 'eye-bows' was proposed for this new edition by Dan to indicate NOT the eye-brows but the arch-shaped often pale feather-tracts which on owls run from side of forehead down in front of each eye and ending at gape. Since eye-brows (or supercilia) in birds just as in humans are located above the eyes, not in front of them, I thought Dan's idea was good. So it is a proposed new term in the English language, invented by a Swede! I worried a little about the possible misconception that it would appear as a typo only (not without reason, as we now know), but the very clever editor at HarperCollins ensured me that it would be OK, especially if put within citation marks (as it does appear in the book, you must admit).
The solution may be to try to fit in a head of an owl on the Bird topography page on the end papers where the term is clearly explained with a pointer. We shall see.
Finally, and sorry for so many words, still briefly also about English names. I am not prepared to here and now enter a discussion about these (but I am willing to discuss them some other time). I will only make the observation that while UK (and by all means Swedish, also) birders seem to tolerantly accept reshuffled taxonomy, new split species, new order and new scientific names to learn without an end, the learning of one new English name seems totally repulsing and is causing heated debates. What if you all took a more relaxed approach and tried to learn one or two 'forreign' or 'American' names as an experiment? Note that neither Killian nor I are insensitive to the complaints we hear and read, and indeed have reversed back to Slavonian Grebe, Pale and Yellow-throated Sparrows and Lapland Bunting in this edition. But somewhere along the path to more internationally agreed English names you may have to take a few English steps towards the other side, too, or? Think of it.
Thanks again to all who help making the book better.
Lars
