BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="csanchez7" data-source="post: 1396129" data-attributes="member: 64151">Unfortunately, many younger birders DO NOT feel more comfortable with the older taxonomic ordering. I far prefer the taxonomic ordering in my National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America than Sibley's. Not putting the waterfowl and gamebowl together in the front does not make sense to me. I love my Birds of Europe by Killian Mullarney/Lars Svensson, but it does take a little bit more page flipping for me to find the bird I want to read up on. I think your conservative approach would simply cause more confusion. Why would we keep an older approach to scientific order when everything we read about them says otherwise? I guess this implies a certain sense of interest in the actual birds other than just 'ticking' them. Irregardless, I think this is just nitpicking, and I am pretty flexible no matter how the birds are organized. I even got used to Birds of India by Grimmett -- pigeons, owls, and woodpeckers well ahead of herons, grebes, and raptors!Carlos</blockquote>