Coventional order of Bird Guides (1 Viewer)

Hi,

the conventional order of birds in bird guides is, afaik, based on the age of the order in which they belong. With the advent of genetics, there are new orders, families, genera, etc being made at a rapid rate and on a species basis, even more frequently.
Would it not be more sensible to group the orders by type (Waders, Bird of Prey, etc) rather than age of order or even alphabetically, particularly in the computer age where personal lists are often listed as date found or in spreadsheets with main criteria eg Common Name, Scientific Name, date first sighted, etc as field and so are adjustable depending which field you prioritise?

What do you think about the layout of bird guides and how would you change them?

Check this thread: A plea for a common sequence of birds in all future bird field guides.

Also: www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2867564&postcount=29.

Ah, many thanks Richard!

Alphabetical by English name?? Abbot's Tanager to Zululand Flycatcher . . . :eek!: :eek!:

Naaah, not really! :-O

Ultimately, does it matter?

The birds have to come in some order (as in sequence, rather than what comes between a class and a family). As long as all of the gulls, raptors, waders, herons etc are together, it doesnt make much of a difference which ones come first and which ones come last.

I wouldn't change the order that birds come in now - I've grown up with it (apart from the recent re-jigs at the front of the books re divers, wildfowl etc).

Fat Paul Scholes said:

I wouldn't change the order that birds come in now - I've grown up with it (apart from the recent re-jigs at the front of the books re divers, wildfowl etc).

Click to expand...

You might check where Falcons now occur in the IOC List and then borrow H&M4 Volume 1 to find other suggested major re-sequencings! Maybe this topic of FG sequencing has much mileage left in it....o
MJB

Interesting that, in the various threads, lots of folk are arguing for a standard order, but many folk have different ideas of what that order should be. So perhaps we need a variety (choice) of guides with different orders and we can take our pick. Alternatively, lets go electronic with the facility to order the species as you like.

I am seriously concerned that the taxonomists are going to take as down a route which will make field guides more difficult to use. If peregrine and bullfinch really are (relatively) closely related, do we really want them closer together in a guide ? I would not. I would prefer - as others have said - a guide to be based on functional classification. In the attic (while we renovate) I have a Book of British Birds (published by the AA IIRC) which deals with one habitat at a time. That has it's uses, and it's disadvantages when birds use many habitats. When I am trying to ID a bird I want a quick, intuitive way to find it, not need detailed knowledge of the accepted taxonomyas far as the publishers were concerned at the time of publishing. Classifying by food source might be good as birds that eat the same things tend to be in the same area and share many features that might make them less easy to separate.

Mike.

MJB said:

You might check where Falcons now occur in the IOC List and then borrow H&M4 Volume 1 to find other suggested major re-sequencings! Maybe this topic of FG sequencing has much mileage left in it....o
MJB

Click to expand...

It's a done deal in the new edition of the big Sibley: Woodpeckers--Falcons--Parrots--Passerines. Floats my boat. . ..

citrinella said:

Interesting that, in the various threads, lots of folk are arguing for a standard order, but many folk have different ideas of what that order should be. So perhaps we need a variety (choice) of guides with different orders and we can take our pick.

Click to expand...

As I commented before on the other thread...

Richard Klim said:

Perhaps field guides should be published in ring binders, Filofax-style – then everyone could rearrange the contents into their own preferred sequence. :smoke:

Click to expand...

MJB said:

You might check where Falcons now occur in the IOC List and then borrow H&M4 Volume 1 to find other suggested major re-sequencings! Maybe this topic of FG sequencing has much mileage left in it....o
MJB

Click to expand...

Yes - I'd forgotten about that, mainly because it hasn't made it's way into any of the field guides I own!

But still, the point remains. All the falcons will be with all of the other falcons. I'm not sure it matters a lot that they're all closer to the finches than they are to the other raptors.