Well, that's got me beat, I've only birded in 3. As far as the regional field guides are concerned, I've never had much trouble getting used to novel taxonomic sequences. On one or two occasions in the Neotropics, I was uncertain whether a local bird was conspecific with one I had seen elsewhere, but a few minutes on the internet generally sorted that out.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
A plea for a common sequence of birds in all future bird field guides (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Swissboy
- Start date
Well, that's got me beat, I've only birded in 3. As far as the regional field guides are concerned, I've never had much trouble getting used to novel taxonomic sequences. On one or two occasions in the Neotropics, I was uncertain whether a local bird was conspecific with one I had seen elsewhere, but a few minutes on the internet generally sorted that out.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Howell et al have proposed a workable arrangement for the subset of families on the ABA Checklist. But I think it could be more difficult to expand it to create a standard world list - eg, deciding the combined overall sequence for American, African, Asian, Australian... passerine families to reflect superficial similarities.
Even if the idea was adopted for all future field guides (although I'm 100% confident that it won't), don't forget that there is a life cycle of many years between updates for most field guides. It would take at least a decade (probably longer) for a standard non-taxonomic sequence to be agreed by all publishers and implemented for all regions. During that transition period, birders would have to contend with a range of field guides using radically different sequences.
A more realistic possibility is that just a few authors might decide to follow Howell et al's approach, resulting in even greater variation between field guides than exists now - worsening the problem you're trying to solve!
Last edited:
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I think that the title of Howell's paper - Taxonomy vs Utility - says it all. In trying to serve two masters, field guides sacrifice a degree of utility for an objective (taxonomic order) which is largely irrelevant to the key purpose of such guides. I suspect a large proportion, perhaps the majority, of users are not even aware of the rational behind the taxonomic rectitude beloved by many guides. The problem, of course, is how we can introduce an order that will have some authority and will carry sufficient respect to be used widely. Howell's suggested format is a good start and with the backing of the principal American and European ornithological organisations might become established. However, those organisations that carry sufficient weight are probably too wedded to forcing guides into a taxonomic straight jacket to have the necessary commitment to any such scheme,
I used to be on the taxonomy end of the spectrum. But I think it was because of the consistency more than anything. Some changes were easy to adjust to (i.e. ducks before loons), but some recent changes have bothered me (longspurs before wood-warblers). And the possibility of putting falcons with parrots in a field guide is, to me, crazy.
So I now agree that there needs to be a consistent, utilitarian sequence.
Yes, field guides are where most birders learn taxonomy. But I think they could still educate about taxonomy even when using a non-taxonomic sequence in the body of the guide. Most guides have small intros for families that could mention taxonomic placement, or there could be a tree/diagram in the front.
I have no idea if this will catch on, but I know there are some upcoming books that will be using the utilitarian sequence. I'm assuming that Crossley will be using the same sequence in his Western US guide. No idea about the UK/Ireland one. Howell and Michael O'brien (along with some others, I think) are working on a new NA field guide (illustrated by Ian Lewington) that will use the sequence that they proposed in that ABA article. Sibley, on his facebook page, mentioned that he's still not sure what he's going to do in his next edition.
So I now agree that there needs to be a consistent, utilitarian sequence.
Yes, field guides are where most birders learn taxonomy. But I think they could still educate about taxonomy even when using a non-taxonomic sequence in the body of the guide. Most guides have small intros for families that could mention taxonomic placement, or there could be a tree/diagram in the front.
I have no idea if this will catch on, but I know there are some upcoming books that will be using the utilitarian sequence. I'm assuming that Crossley will be using the same sequence in his Western US guide. No idea about the UK/Ireland one. Howell and Michael O'brien (along with some others, I think) are working on a new NA field guide (illustrated by Ian Lewington) that will use the sequence that they proposed in that ABA article. Sibley, on his facebook page, mentioned that he's still not sure what he's going to do in his next edition.
Mysticete
Well-known member
Multiple points to the above replies:
One, I don't think you will see any move by a major ornithological society (BOU, AOU, SACC) to sign onto a more utilitarian approach. One, they don't really have any authority anyway to create an agreement, and secondly, those committees are largely concerned with taxonomy. It would be against their best interests to argue that all of their work regarding checklist classification should just be ignored in popular press. I suppose an organization like ABA could try to create some sort of agreement, but it would probably carry no weight outside of North America, and I am really not aware of a relevant ABA like organization in the old world?
Secondly, I actually don't think some of these arrangements are so weird as people think. Having birded in parts of the US with both falcons and free-flying parrots, it's surprising how similar the two groups look in profile, for instance. Not that I am suggesting we start moving either of those groups around yet, since I would prefer to see a few more studies confirming those arrangements.
Finally, I am still confused on how some of this arrangement would go down, especially in areas outside the country. If I use the latest and most up to date arrangement, for say South America, I can place Seriemas before Falcons. If I use a utilitarian approach, where do I put them? near gamebirds? Screamers? Rails? Wading birds (they do have long legs!)
One, I don't think you will see any move by a major ornithological society (BOU, AOU, SACC) to sign onto a more utilitarian approach. One, they don't really have any authority anyway to create an agreement, and secondly, those committees are largely concerned with taxonomy. It would be against their best interests to argue that all of their work regarding checklist classification should just be ignored in popular press. I suppose an organization like ABA could try to create some sort of agreement, but it would probably carry no weight outside of North America, and I am really not aware of a relevant ABA like organization in the old world?
Secondly, I actually don't think some of these arrangements are so weird as people think. Having birded in parts of the US with both falcons and free-flying parrots, it's surprising how similar the two groups look in profile, for instance. Not that I am suggesting we start moving either of those groups around yet, since I would prefer to see a few more studies confirming those arrangements.
Finally, I am still confused on how some of this arrangement would go down, especially in areas outside the country. If I use the latest and most up to date arrangement, for say South America, I can place Seriemas before Falcons. If I use a utilitarian approach, where do I put them? near gamebirds? Screamers? Rails? Wading birds (they do have long legs!)
cuckooroller
Registered User
I have already adopted (in the interim) the higher avian phylogeny of the IOC (though even that is not up-to-date). I think what I will wind up doing is to wait for the Cracraft group to review all current information before putting the HM 4° Ed. to bed, and I will compare that with whatever the IOC/Boyd winds up with when Gill, et al finally publish their new volume. Between the two, even if there will still be a few loose ends, we should have a pretty good idea of the current understanding.
Last edited:
Same for me. At least it adds to the rest of the confusion when you try to quickly find that bird you just see.
Don't we have this situation now as well? With the difference that it's a permanent situation.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
The main headache at the moment is that some important guides still use the radical Sibley & Monroe sequence. But that's changing, eg, Grimmett et al 2011 (Indian Subcontinent). New field guides are increasingly following current mainstream taxonomic checklists.
I'm just alarmed to see birders trying so hard to dumb-down amateur ornithology, severing one of the most important links to the underlying science. It seems that in this lazy, impatient age, everything must be made simpler, quicker, easier - removing any need to invest time studying and learning (despite free access to resources unimaginable a few years ago). What you hail as an unqualified improvement would be seen as a huge backward step by many of us - as fugl suggested, reducing species to irrelevant unrelated 'ticks'. I worry that the next proposal will be to remove scientific names from field guides altogether (as unnecessary distracting clutter).
Last edited:
Let me tell you that I have a Ph.D. in biology and that I wrote my dissertation in field ornithology. Thus calling my plea unqualified seems to be a very personal viewpoint, to be polite. But I have a long-standing gripe about the dictatorship of systematics when it comes to field guides. The two things just do not have to be linked, though they may be. But not at the expense of the user. And, I'm repeating myself here, it's the constant reshuffling that makes the present approach so awkward for the average user in the field. As for scientific names, my gripe there is that they keep changing too often and thus make using them for international communication among birders in the field awkward as well. Yet, often when one does not know the other person's language well enough, these names can help. (Though the American pronunciation of them does not help either.) I'm very much for keeping such names as a back-up though. But the more changes there are, the more these names lose their utility in the FGs.
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Robert, I used the term 'unqualified' to mean 'without reservation' (ie, definite, unquestioned), not to suggest that you are personally unqualified to comment!
Unfortunately, it's easy for English to create misundertandings.
Last edited:
cuckooroller
Registered User
Robert,
We understood that the subject was not you, and in Richard's contextualization "unqualified" means without objective criteria on which to judge whatever the subject is proposing, as he puts it "without reservation". A semantical misunderstanding.
We understood that the subject was not you, and in Richard's contextualization "unqualified" means without objective criteria on which to judge whatever the subject is proposing, as he puts it "without reservation". A semantical misunderstanding.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I don’t think it helps the debate to use the mildly pejorative term ‘dumbing down’ for those of us who feel the primary objective for any sequence used in a field guide is to maximise its functionality. Such seems to be the state of flux in taxonomy these days, a well established order based on functional requirements, but backed by a clear appendix/foreword showing the order based on scientific principles allows the best of both worlds. A simple list showing taxonomic relationships can be easily updated and changed with each succeeding edition whereas even a minor reordering of text/plates may present considerable problems. Taxonomy is an interesting field, but that doesn’t mean it should be the only, or even most important, consideration in designing a field guide.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
The topic of field guide sequences has frequently arisen on this forum, with repeated agonising about the inconvenience caused by taxonomic changes. I'm sorry if my irritation sometimes shows, but the regular complainers often seem to take for granted that their ideas for an alternative approach would be universally welcomed.
This time, Robert has started a specific thread pleading for the adoption of a common, fixed sequence to be used in all future field guides. Three days ago, in the other thread, he suggested the adoption of the obsolete HBW sequence (Morony et al 1975) as a readily available standard. This has since morphed into support for the establishment of a Howell et al-style non-taxonomic world sequence.
But it's not clear who is expected to design and promote this new baseline. I suggest that Robert should take the world list of his choice, arrange the 200+ families into his preferred sequence, and publish it somewhere, or send it to Nat Geo, Princeton, Sibley, Helm, HarperCollins, New Holland etc etc for consideration. Otherwise, these posts serve no more purpose than complaining about the weather.
This time, Robert has started a specific thread pleading for the adoption of a common, fixed sequence to be used in all future field guides. Three days ago, in the other thread, he suggested the adoption of the obsolete HBW sequence (Morony et al 1975) as a readily available standard. This has since morphed into support for the establishment of a Howell et al-style non-taxonomic world sequence.
But it's not clear who is expected to design and promote this new baseline. I suggest that Robert should take the world list of his choice, arrange the 200+ families into his preferred sequence, and publish it somewhere, or send it to Nat Geo, Princeton, Sibley, Helm, HarperCollins, New Holland etc etc for consideration. Otherwise, these posts serve no more purpose than complaining about the weather.
Last edited:
That's how it often feels.
But I guess that's part of what forums are for as well. As for your suggestion of a proposal by myself, that would be even less helpful. That's why I had suggested a sequence that had at some point already found sufficient followers to have been used.BrightonBirder
Well-known member
I suppose that if you are having difficulty finding birds in your new field guide it may be because the guide is new to you and/or you are not famaliar with the birds themselves. A few days of study and I am willing to bet you will have the sequence down and be better prepared should you take that guide into the field. Next guide, same approach.
I cannot imagine that a valid complaint about an otherwise useful guide is that it varies in taxanomic arrangement as compared with other guides from a different region.
I cannot imagine that a valid complaint about an otherwise useful guide is that it varies in taxanomic arrangement as compared with other guides from a different region.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
An atypically dyspeptic response from a usually helpful and agreeable poster suggests that a nerve has been hit by this little debate. Apologies if I've had any part in upsetting you. I think one might equally complain that those insisting on a rigorous 'scientific' approach in this age of taxonomic instability seem to take for granted that their's is the only permissible view. Birding, as distinct from ornithology, doesn't 'belong' exclusively to science. I think that we all recognise that the lack of any authority able to impose a single view is a particular tumbling block to advancing the views championed by Howell et al. That doesn't mean that some sort of accomodation can't be reached. And if all threads and posts here had to serve some higher purpose then there'd be precious few posts here at all and certainly none of mine,
Mysticete
Well-known member
Ultimately I agree with the comparison of "complaining about the weather". The best way to argue for any new field guide approach is to vote with your pocketbook (or alternatively write your own guide and publish it...but might require a little bit of work). If the Howell Guide ultimately "dethrones" Sibley and Nat Geo here in the states, you probably will see more guides following this format.
Another possibility, is that with the increase in print on demands sales, field guides might start offering more flexibility, and perhaps someone will produce special versions available for download where a different sequence is needed (I do think we will start to see this option, with the growth of app guides, although maybe not for another decade).
Another possibility, is that with the increase in print on demands sales, field guides might start offering more flexibility, and perhaps someone will produce special versions available for download where a different sequence is needed (I do think we will start to see this option, with the growth of app guides, although maybe not for another decade).
Well, as Richard says there have been many threads on this subject over the years & the same points get made over & over again. Ditto with respect to proposals for standardization of English names, though there hasn't been a recent thread (just as well probably!) on this hotly debated topic. Me, I'm at the same far end of the spectrum on both these subjects. I'm a prehistorian by training & hate to see the historical dimension of anything downplayed, finding it particularly galling in the case of things of little or no practical importance like our hobby. It's probably a good idea to globally standardize weights & measurements and lose thereby all the fascinating history & quirkiness embodied in the old terminology, but for recreational birding? No, never!
Bird names have histories--often very interesting ones going back to the dawn of the language--& should be cosseted & preserved on that account. Taxonomy, on the other hand, doesn't just have a history but is historical at its core & is therefore doubly fascinating for people of an historical bent like myself. Thus, the passion with which many of us resist all forms of unnecessary rationalization & decomplexification (to put it non-pejoratively).
Thus ends my emotional outburst on the subject and as the poet says in my tagline: "Long live the weeds & the wilderness yet".
Bird names have histories--often very interesting ones going back to the dawn of the language--& should be cosseted & preserved on that account. Taxonomy, on the other hand, doesn't just have a history but is historical at its core & is therefore doubly fascinating for people of an historical bent like myself. Thus, the passion with which many of us resist all forms of unnecessary rationalization & decomplexification (to put it non-pejoratively).
Thus ends my emotional outburst on the subject and as the poet says in my tagline: "Long live the weeds & the wilderness yet".
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
I'm probably guilty of getting unnecessarily agitated by this subject, given that I'm essentially happy with the status quo! But I wish that the debate could move on from sporadic skirmishes over rival concepts, and instead focus upon a concrete proposal for an alternative field guide sequence.
At some stage, someone must grasp the nettle and propose a definitive, enduring, non-systematic world sequence (as Steve Howell & Co have already suggested for the ABA area). I don't think that it would be straightforward, but sequencing families by superficial similarity doesn't require any particular expertise – in fact, to avoid any preconceptions, it's probably better performed by someone with no interest in systematics. It might be desirable to sequence subfamilies independently in cases of highly variable large families (eg, Furnariidae). [Presumably, as with current practice, the sequence of species within families or subfamilies would be flexible in a field guide context.]
The resulting sequence could be presented on BirdForum for initial comment and review. After a period of iterative refinement, there could be an online poll to establish BF members' preference for the non-systematic sequence over the current taxonomic approach. If a majority supported the final sequence, then it would clearly be a credible proposition to put to the wider birding community and to ornithological publishers.
Any volunteers?
At some stage, someone must grasp the nettle and propose a definitive, enduring, non-systematic world sequence (as Steve Howell & Co have already suggested for the ABA area). I don't think that it would be straightforward, but sequencing families by superficial similarity doesn't require any particular expertise – in fact, to avoid any preconceptions, it's probably better performed by someone with no interest in systematics. It might be desirable to sequence subfamilies independently in cases of highly variable large families (eg, Furnariidae). [Presumably, as with current practice, the sequence of species within families or subfamilies would be flexible in a field guide context.]
The resulting sequence could be presented on BirdForum for initial comment and review. After a period of iterative refinement, there could be an online poll to establish BF members' preference for the non-systematic sequence over the current taxonomic approach. If a majority supported the final sequence, then it would clearly be a credible proposition to put to the wider birding community and to ornithological publishers.
Any volunteers?
Similar threads
