-
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.
HBW 14 announced (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Swissboy
- Start date
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
Melanie
Well-known member
Can you give a review of this book? And a second question: Is there anything state about Hypositta perdita? (e.g. in Hypositta corallirostris or in the main text of the Vanga family)
I did about a week ago.
o
Last edited:
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
In the H. corallirostris account :
Two juvenile specimens found in 1996 in museum drawer in Germany, and originating from primary forest near Eminiminy (N of Tôlanoro), in SE Madagascar, are plain olive-brown with blackish forehead, and similar to present species in size and loose plumage structure, but with much longer tarsus and significantly shorter toes ; described as a new species, "H. perdita", but could be aberrant examples of present species or some other species, although no further individuals seen and impossible to assess whether they do represent a valid taxon (different species or race).
Melanie
Well-known member
Thanks for the new information. Well, I've tried to contact Dr. Stefan Peters who described this taxon to asked him whether there was ever a DNA analysis of the two juvenile specimens but unfortunately his old email-address is no longer valid.
Why don't you ask here whether someone has it and can mail it to you via PM!
Or, maybe, the Senckenberg Museum (found via google entering stefan peters: http://www.senckenberg.de/root/index.php?page_id=533) has a contact address if he is no longer there.
Last edited:
Got my copy today
My copy of this fabulous series arrived today. It is one more stunning volume, and together with volume 10 it has nominally the highest number of pages (896). Actually, the last three pages of the present volume are empty. So the number 896 is somewhat of a joke! Not that I would prefer quantity over quality; but here, both seem to be ideally combined. I particularly love the large number of great photos. Of course, I have not had time yet to go into the text much. Mostly, I checked for printing errors or missing pages, just in case (and before I discard the voluminous wrapping). This provided a good opportunity to get a first optical impression. And impressed I am! Sure, there are some minor things that could have been done better on a few plates. But, overall, I very much like most of them.
To start the nit-picking: I think the weakest plate are the oxpeckers by H. Burn. There are a couple more plates by her, among them #40 that I don't particularly like. But there are several by her, that I do like a lot. It's certainly not that I would not like her style, it's more how much time she spent doing a plate, I think. Looking at Chris Rose's plates for a comparison, it's clear why he spent four months on them, as Hidde mentioned in post #2.
To my taste, many corvids look a bit too purplish on the plates by D. Quinn, and the legs of the two choughs on plate 36 are a bit too pale. I presume that's because skins were used extensively?
On plate 34, the tail of the magpie, but only ssp pica, looks a bit short. Seems like B. Small had to make sure the tail would still fit onto the page.
The only typo I stumbled over by accident: on the list of plates plate 37 should read page 624 instead of 654.
But, once again, this is all minor stuff as far as I'm concerned.
And I can't see how anyone could want such a book only in electronic form. At the very least, the monitor would have to have a 22" diagonal, thus far from what today's mobile kindle types offer. But then, I admit to be a bibliophile. If it were merely for the information, I'd agree that an electronic version would be much more easily updated.
My copy of this fabulous series arrived today. It is one more stunning volume, and together with volume 10 it has nominally the highest number of pages (896). Actually, the last three pages of the present volume are empty. So the number 896 is somewhat of a joke! Not that I would prefer quantity over quality; but here, both seem to be ideally combined. I particularly love the large number of great photos. Of course, I have not had time yet to go into the text much. Mostly, I checked for printing errors or missing pages, just in case (and before I discard the voluminous wrapping). This provided a good opportunity to get a first optical impression. And impressed I am! Sure, there are some minor things that could have been done better on a few plates. But, overall, I very much like most of them.
To start the nit-picking: I think the weakest plate are the oxpeckers by H. Burn. There are a couple more plates by her, among them #40 that I don't particularly like. But there are several by her, that I do like a lot. It's certainly not that I would not like her style, it's more how much time she spent doing a plate, I think. Looking at Chris Rose's plates for a comparison, it's clear why he spent four months on them, as Hidde mentioned in post #2.
To my taste, many corvids look a bit too purplish on the plates by D. Quinn, and the legs of the two choughs on plate 36 are a bit too pale. I presume that's because skins were used extensively?
On plate 34, the tail of the magpie, but only ssp pica, looks a bit short. Seems like B. Small had to make sure the tail would still fit onto the page.
The only typo I stumbled over by accident: on the list of plates plate 37 should read page 624 instead of 654.
But, once again, this is all minor stuff as far as I'm concerned.
And I can't see how anyone could want such a book only in electronic form. At the very least, the monitor would have to have a 22" diagonal, thus far from what today's mobile kindle types offer. But then, I admit to be a bibliophile. If it were merely for the information, I'd agree that an electronic version would be much more easily updated.
Last edited:
Bulo Burti is mentioned as a variant "liberatus" under the species Somali Boubou. But it does have its own picture on the plate next to the "typical" bird. And there is a not very good photo on page 54.
Last edited:
hemileucus is treated as a race of insularis. Whereby they say that this and others form a superspecies with motitensis.
In addition I quote: "race hemileucus may represent a full species, apparently genetically divergent from nominate......" and later "further study required".
Both male and female "ssp hemileucus" are depicted on the plate together with "ssp insularis".
Last edited:
Yes, the text to the photo says "no more than 200 individuals, and possibly as few as 30". So it's like shooting Whooping Cranes in the second half of the last century. If anyone whould have done that then on purpose, he would have ended up in jail.
Last edited:
You haven't had the problem of a book going to the Dominican Republic instead of to your island (Dominica), and arrive in a state where it has obviously been rained on more than once before it got to you (happens to about half the mail I receive). The alternative is getting it sent to someone you know and putting it in your suitcase traveling back; with the weight of these volumes I would have to make several overseas trips only to handle the books. Finally, I don't have the shelf space. Yes they probably are beautiful, but a really good electronic version for a PC (not a b&w kindle) would be easier to get here and use.
Niels
Melanie
Well-known member
I think it could be the same photo as the one which was published in the "Rare Birds Year Book 2008" by Erik Hirschfeld. AFAIK it is the only known photo of the Bulo Burti Boubou and it was taken by E. F. G. Smith in 1989.
Yes, these are conditions where an electronic version would definitely be preferable. But you'd need a fast connection too.
The shelf space is another problem. So far I have managed to clear out some other books that I rarely or never use.
I realized that I also thought you lived in the Dominican Republic though I had always wondered about the town's name that did not quite fit. Had to check the map in my Birds of the West Indies FG first to locate Dominica. It's definitely an unfortunate similarity of names. But then, there is often even a confusion of Switzerland and Sweden, at least in the US. But I've had mail going to Sweden first, though only once or twice. It might help if you added "Lesser Antilles" to your Dominica address.
Last edited:
(rant mode on) Unfortunately, the average postal worker might not know the meaning of Lesser Antilles. The other alternative is to use Commonwealth of Dominica, which is a more complete version of the name for here; most address databases do not allow enough letters to do that. I have seen envelopes sent from Denmark where someone scratched out Commonwealth and "corrected" it to Republic; I have heard one of my colleagues from the US talk about one visit to the post office there, where the person at the desk started "correcting" the address in front of her. A couple of years ago, I tried to arrange car rental online, but the address field for credit card could not accept Dominica, only DR; several phone calls later, it turned out that their computer system could not be overridden to accept Dominica. (rant mode off)
:-O I also had to look up where Dominica was on the map when I saw the add for the position I have now :-O
Cheers
Niels
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
Don't worry Niels, took me ages to see Dominica too - thought you were 20mins down the road from me in our Portsmouth!!
That happened to me when I was told Seattle was an option where I could go for my studies in 1968. At least I knew it was in the US.
Rasmus Boegh
BF member
... interestingly, my opinion is the direct opposite. Possible just a matter of taste. I've always preferred illustrations that resemble the species as accurately as possible over more artistic illustrations, but don't know if this is what resulted in our very different judgements. Regardless, even the "worst" plate in HBW vol. 14 is pretty excellent. And, just for the record, while the colours of pl. 26 (listed as pl. 25 on the HBW site) still are slightly on the pale side as mentioned in my earlier post #8, the colours of the actual plate appear quite different – and indeed far better – than the colours of the sample scan on HBW's site. Note to self: Careful when judging colour hues of sample scans rather than the plate in the book itself...
Last edited:
Must really be a matter of taste. Though, by your description we actually should have the same favorites, as I also think I prefer those that are as accurate as possible. I do like some artistic renditions at times, but certainly not in a handbook or FG. The only thing artistic that I like in those cases is how birds are arranged. And I prefer having them sit or stand on some kind of small part instead of having their claws in the air so to speak.
As for the oxpeckers, I think they are too pale on the back and head to begin with. They are more vivid in the photos, and that is how I remember them. Though, one has to be careful with photos as they are usually underexposed. That is considered to be more professional, but it's actually to make sure the whites are not washed out. That's why one finds so many unnatural rather dark purplish-blue skies in photos. This volume has its share of examples too, e.g. page 157, or 318/319.
You are right, there is a striking difference between what had been published as a sample of plate 26 and what is now found in the book. They called it #25 though. I had stored that sample so I can now compare it easily. Edit: The plate is actually still on the Lynx website, and still with the wrong number.
Last edited:
Similar threads
