HBW Illustrated Checklist (1 Viewer)

[njlarsen]

Scythbill hasn't updated the IOC yet in some cases e.g Alpine Thrush et al.

How do I implement it when they change it Temmie, if I update it, will it automatically reset relevant (all) sightings or do I have to save my version somehow and re-import?

I'm very nervous of losing a whole 5 days work!


Andy

When there is a new version of the program with updated taxonomy (about once a year) you will see a message that the program is saving your database under another (backup) name before starting to make changes. So you will have the data available. It might be good for you to go into the scythebill folder every once in a while and manually copy all files to a different location too!

When Scythebill (the program) then updates, for each observation it looks at the country of that observation. If only one of the new forms are in that country, or if you already added subspecies information, that observation will be referred to one new species. For iffy observations it will ask you, or sometimes, you have to run the report called hybrids and sp. That sounds a lot more complicated than it actually is.

Niels

 

[Andy Adcock]

Many thanks Niels,
can the whole programme including entered data, be kept on an external drive?

Andy

 

[njlarsen]

I do not know about the program, but my data folder is in Dropbox meaning I can access it from both desktop and laptop. Program is installed both places.

Niels

 

[Andy Adcock]

Thanks Niels


Andy

 

[Swissboy]

That all sounds very interesting, but it is definitely far beyond of how much I want to manage my species counts. Except for Europe and North America I have never really been into counting all that much. And I don't think I'll start with that as a regular occupation. So at most, I'll try to enter what notes I have into the two concise volumes, and that will then be it. Splits are not what I'm after. It's shapes and colors and life history, so whether it's two or more species that show that or just ecotypes or subspecies, I don't care all that much. I have seen so many more species than I can remember anyway, so what's the point, just my personal way to deal with it. I'm presently preparing myself for a tour to Uganda. For that, I'm using my notes/books used on the three previous trips to Africa. And it's simply frightening to realize just how many species I have seen before on those trips and don't remember in the least bit. So why bother with all the warblers, cisticolas, doves and the like. Just knowing that I have seen them has a very limited appeal to me. It's the ones that I remember that count. So I'm happy to have seen at least one species of batis, but which one is not that critical. And I'm definitely looking forward to see batis species again, whether new ones or not. The same with many species groups. Of course there are some species groups that I'm a bit more into seeing new ones, like regarding bee-eaters. :eat:

 

[temmie]

I feel personally that keeping a list helps remembering what you saw, where you saw it and, last but not least, how it looked like.
In this way, you have a firmer grip on the species in a new destination, whether you saw them before or not...

 

[Swissboy]

I feel personally that keeping a list helps remembering what you saw, where you saw it and, last but not least, how it looked like.
In this way, you have a firmer grip on the species in a new destination, whether you saw them before or not...

Temmie, I fully agree. I AM keeping lists for all my trips. But I'm not constantly consulting and updating them at home. And of course I know how the birds look like when I'm back from the trip. But after a few years, my memory has filtered out a fair amount as obviously not so important. Thus, why memorize all the details of the many very similar looking species like in the cisticolas when I'm unlikely to need that info again for many years to come. But we all have our own priorities. Or as the saying goes. "Your Mileage May Vary".

 

[Andy Adcock]

I feel personally that keeping a list helps remembering what you saw, where you saw it and, last but not least, how it looked like.
In this way, you have a firmer grip on the species in a new destination, whether you saw them before or not...

Totally agree, epsecially if you have the patience to put a good amount of detail with your sightings.....I don't:-C
The big families are a pain, Bulbuls, Babblers, Sunbirds, Cisticolas, Tanagers etc, not many can remember what they've seen with certainty without a bit of help.

I also think that indepenent travel is far more beneficial in this regard. I went on a rare guided tour of Venezuela last year and apart from a few standout birds e.g Harpy Eagle and a couple of Antpittas, the rest is just a blur. This goes too for the country itself, if I looked at a map now, I wouldn't be able to tell you where we went simply because all the planning was done for us.

I'm taking 8 months now planning Costa Rica and already know more about it and it's birds through the process than I could tell you about Venezuela.


Andy

 

[temmie]

I totally agree with your last post, Andy. Especially about the independent vs. guided travel.
There is a way to remember as much from guided travel, i.e. prepare as well, but most people (including me) get lazy in their preparation by the idea of a guide showing you everything.

 

[Melanie]

I am curious when the first will got there copies of volume 2. I think I have to wait until late January or February. I am also curious on the German vernacular names of many newly split or newly described species. In contrast to many other countries (e.g. France or Netherlands) the D-OG (German Ornithologists' Society) has no current list of regularly updated vernacular names.

 

[Swissboy]

................ I am also curious on the German vernacular names of many newly split or newly described species. In contrast to many other countries (e.g. France or Netherlands) the D-OG (German Ornithologists' Society) has no current list of regularly updated vernacular names.

Except for European species and the ones potentially possible here, I consider German (and all non-FG) names simply ballast. Meaning, why have a German (or French or whatever) name when the field guides are all in English? It only means having to learn more names for the same species. Or else, not being able to communicate with others. I recall our chuckles one day in Thailand when we met a German fellow who wanted to know whether we had seen such-and-such species. (We were a group of Swiss German speaking birders.) None of us knew what species he was talking about and so he did not get his answer, of course. (He, apparently, had no knowledge of the corresponding English name.) The only thing we wondered was where he had gotten the German name of the species he was talking about. All the FGs for that area are in English (or some SE-Asian language at best).

The only justification for vernacular names in the various languages I can see for bird breeders/cage-fanciers but they hardly breed all the not so spectacular species.

 

[njlarsen]

For reasons unknown to me, it has become fashionable to make national lists of all birds of the world. For example, there is a "names" group under the Danish Ornithological Society, which produced this: http://www.dof.dk/images/grupper/navne/dokumenter/FUGLE_050710_DOF.pdf

Niels

 

[Melanie]

The only justification for vernacular names in the various languages I can see for bird breeders/cage-fanciers but they hardly breed all the not so spectacular species.

I am editor at the German Wikipedia. I think for bird names it is better to have a vernacular name than a Latin name. I have recently wrote the German Wikipedia articles to Zoothera salimalii and Locustella chengi and I have to wait on the HBW Checklist until I will know the German vernacular names of these two species.

 

[Swissboy]

I am editor at the German Wikipedia. I think for bird names it is better to have a vernacular name than a Latin name...............

I agree that this is a case where such names make sense to a certain degree. The problem still remains, however, that one creates some kind of insular name that is not really of much use otherwise. At the very least, scientific and hopefully English names should accompany such articles.

 

[Swissboy]

For reasons unknown to me, it has become fashionable to make national lists of all birds of the world. For example, there is a "names" group under the Danish Ornithological Society, which produced this: http://www.dof.dk/images/grupper/navne/dokumenter/FUGLE_050710_DOF.pdf

Niels

"Fashionable" is probably the best way to characterize such things. Many hobbies are only of use to those who delve into the particular one. In this case, I wonder whether some benefit comes from being able to list another paper in their curriculum? Nothing scientific, but a longer list nevertheless. Possibly, one could split it into at least passerines and non-passerines, to make two papers out of it. :-O

 

[Swissboy]

In Stock Now!

The second volume is now available for pre-order for 175 euros. This volume will be 1012 pages with over 12.000 illustrations. The pre-order is available until December 15th and after that the book will cost 225 euros... Publication date is set at December 2016, but with Lynx there is possibly some delays

http://www.lynxeds.com/product/hbw-and-birdlife-international-illustrated-checklist-birds-world-0

Lynx now lists the book as being in stock!

 

[Maffong]

BLI in Facebook:

Volume 2 of the Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World goes on sale tomorrow, and we got our copy a day early! All the world's 10,000+ bird species, together for the first time! �� �� ���� �� ��

Order your copy here, using discount code ADBL1: http://www.lynxeds.com/product/hbw-and-birdlife-international-illustrated-checklist-birds-world-0

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

The only justification for vernacular names in the various languages I can see for bird breeders/cage-fanciers but they hardly breed all the not so spectacular species.

Have to disagree here. As a birder I would bever use the Swedish names while birding in e.g. South America or Africa. But the translated vernacular names in different languages aren't primarily aimed for world birders, or scientists. They are however very useful for articles in the popular press aimed at the broaded public or for translators translating tv series, magazines or books. Just the other day I watched a nature series from the tropics on tv were the translators had used the Swedish bird names for the birds, but for some of the mammals and reptiles they used scientific names, which doesn't say anything for a layman. And in other cases they do their own translations, which sometimes are, hm lets say less successfull... So I would argue that correct vernacular name lists are actually very useful in the right context |=)|

Cheers!
Markus

 

[Andy Adcock]

Just the other day I watched a nature series from the tropics on tv were the translators had used the Swedish bird names for the birds, but for some of the mammals and reptiles they used scientific names, which doesn't say anything for a layman. And in other cases they do their own translations, which sometimes are, hm lets say less successfull... So I would argue that correct vernacular name lists are actually very useful in the right context |=)|

Cheers!
Markus

Do Swedish names exist for those particular mammals?

Here in Russia we have introduced Muskrat, there is no Russian name so they are referred to by the first part of their scientific name 'Ondatra'.


A

 

[Swissboy]

...........translators had used the Swedish bird names for the birds, but for some of the mammals and reptiles they used scientific names, which doesn't say anything for a layman. And in other cases they do their own translations, which sometimes are, hm lets say less successfull... So I would argue that correct vernacular name lists are actually very useful in the right context |=)|

Cheers!
Markus

The problem with these vernacular names in the various languages: they often create the mere illusion of meaning something, but they don't really mean more to the layman than the scientific or English name. It might be different if there were places one can look up the species behind such a vernacular name. And I agree that individual creations are not helpful in such cases. If the names are descriptive, they might at least provide some additional idea about a species. But in such cases, it would make sense to use straight translations so that a Palm Lorikeet becomes a Palmenlori in German. But what is one to do with a Schönsittich (meaning beautiful parrot) when the other languages say Turquoise Parrot (and corresponding translations in French and Spanish) to just pick two examples? Türkissittich would be the obvious choice in German if one wants to provide a helpful name.