The Shorebird guide, O'Brien, Crossley, Karlson (1 Viewer)

[nigelblake]

Got home from Scotland to the usual heap of post on the doormat, this time though there was a brown padded package that acted as a bit of a doorstop, inside was a copy of 'The Shorebird Guide' a photographic guide to the common and accidental waders that can be seen in the USA.

This is a sumptuous book that sets the standard for Shorebird fieldguides, if you take a look at it I guarantee you will buy it.
The images are superb, well reseached and selected with lots of comparison shots of similar species, some are in near identical poses.
Just take a look at the American Oystercatcher shot on page 67, (no its not one of mine, I wish it was!)

Well done to Richard Crossley, Michael O'Brien, and Kevin Karlson for this fine work.

 

[Pluvius]

Nigel I couldnt agree with you more; a lovely book. I have even put it as an amazon ad on my Bird Photographer Links Site http://peregrinesbirdphotographers.blogspot.com/. thinking I wonder how many people in UK have got this. A few days later you post this thread.

www.peregrinesbirdblog.blogspot.com

 

[Tero]

There was a slightly more expensive and more compact book a few years back*. It was not bad, but the pictures here are at least printed in better style and layout. This one has the maps on the same pages as the birds. The back section has text descriptions in Pete Dunne style.

So the publisher production is better and I believe even the organization is a little better. The pictures in flight show detail you would never see in a moving bird. This is about as well as you can do with photos. If there is still confusion, consult Sibley.

*Shorebirds of North America: The Photographic Guide (Paperback)
by Dennis Paulson , now cheaper, Google for prices

 

[Rick Wright Tucson]

Review

A brief, informal review of O'Brien et al. is now available at www.birdaz.com/blog.

Rick Wright
Tucson, Arizona

 

[jomo]

I absolutely LOVE this book. Thomas Allen & Son have recently begun distributing through Chapters, which has allowed me to get my hands on a number of excellent birding books that wouldn't ordinarily make it onto the shelves of these big box stores. I'd read quite a few reviews on this one and was delighted to find it locally -- a beautiful book, and the only one I've ever seen that's made shorebird ID practical and doable.

 

[streatham]

Thanks for the heads up Nigel and the review Rick - having bought the Paulson Guide and looked at the Taylor Guide and been not very impressed I had kind of given up and hadn't even bothered to look at this one - I will go do so now.

Luke

 

[LDueck]

A brief, informal review of O'Brien et al. is now available at www.birdaz.com/blog.

Rick Wright
Tucson, Arizona

Excellent review of an excellent book. I just received my copy a couple of days ago and have found the photos to be astounding. This is a photographic guide that truly meets, or even exceeds, the standards of the best guides illustrated with paintings. The sheer quantity of the photos, along with their evident high quality, gives one a complete picture of all the various plumages and postures that are found among shorebirds. This book looks to become the standard field guide for North American shorebirds.

The reviewer made a good catch in finding the mistake in the caption for photo 164.10. Another error occurs in the silhouettes on the inside back cover. Two silhouettes have page number 123 as the answer, which refers to the Ruddy Turnstone. The silhouette in the second row, third from the left, should have page 151 as the answer, which refers to the Western Sandpiper.

Other than these minor errors, it looks like this guide will be a great help in learning to ID some of the confusing shorebirds that have given me grief in the past. To my eye, none of the North American guides with paintings (with the exception of Sibley's) seemed to match up with what I saw when looking at the confusing peeps. This guide with its coverage of the different plumages and the molting stages between them should help to sort things out. Also of great help is its emphasis on general impressions of size and shape as being the first step in identifying a bird.

I look forward to using this book in the field.

Lowell

 

[Rick Wright Tucson]

Silhouette captions

I'd thought that these errata were already online somewhere, but just to complete the record here, the silhouettes on the back endpaper tagged

pg 70
pg 123
pg 179
pg 185 (the first one with this label)

are mislabeled.

Astonishing how few such lapsus there are in this incredibly rich book!

 

[LDueck]

Silhouette Captions Errata

I'd thought that these errata were already online somewhere, but just to complete the record here, the silhouettes on the back endpaper tagged

pg 70
pg 123
pg 179
pg 185 (the first one with this label)

are mislabeled.

Astonishing how few such lapsus there are in this incredibly rich book!

Good catch on the other mislabeled silhouettes. After spending time searching the web I couldn't find any errata posted anywhere, but I think I've been able to sort out the silhouettes.

The one labeled pg 70 should be pg 98, Wandering Tattler.
As stated in my previous post, the first one labeled pg 123 (2nd row, 3rd from left) should be pg 151, Western Sandpiper.
The one labeled pg 179 should be pg 207, Wilson's Snipe.
The first one labeled pg 185 (5th row, 3rd from left) should be pg 213, Wilson's Phalarope.
I believe these are the correct identifications, but would appreciate feedback confirming or contesting these corrections.

I discovered another mislabeled photo caption while viewing Richard Crossley's photo gallery at http://www.crossleybirds.com/gallery/albums.php
The photo of Sanderlings from the guide at 141.4 has a different caption in his gallery http://www.crossleybirds.com/gallery/Sanderling/131_3107
In his gallery, Crossley states that the juvenile is second from the right, therefore the caption in the guide should read "Juvenile (center right) and nonbreeding," as opposed to (center left). The bird second from the right does have the juvenile plumage with distinct black checkering in the upperparts.

I encourage you to take a look at Crossley's site. It is filled with amazing photos of a wide range of birds.

Lowell

 

[streatham]

Just got my copy of the book and have to endorse what everyone else seems to be saying here - I usually hate photo ID books but this one is amazing - it holds a wealth of invaluable information and the lay out of the book itself is so intuitive to use. I really can't recommend this book enough to people who are trying to get to grips with North American Shorebirds. Another bonus in my opinion is the phenomenally reasonable price of the book. Certainly worth adding to your collection if you are a UK birder and out to spot a few US rarities as well I would think.

One of the most amazing pics is of a Upland Sand taking meal worms from the hand somewhere in the UK - any UK birders know where that might be?

Luke

 

[Ppedro]

Just got my copy of the book and have to endorse what everyone else seems to be saying here - I usually hate photo ID books but this one is amazing - it holds a wealth of invaluable information and the lay out of the book itself is so intuitive to use. I really can't recommend this book enough to people who are trying to get to grips with North American Shorebirds. Another bonus in my opinion is the phenomenally reasonable price of the book. Certainly worth adding to your collection if you are a UK birder and out to spot a few US rarities as well I would think.

One of the most amazing pics is of a Upland Sand taking meal worms from the hand somewhere in the UK - any UK birders know where that might be?

Luke

Have not seen the book Luke but would imagine the Upland Sandpiper might well be a very tame bird that was on St. Mary's, Scillies, autumn 1983.
Met Richard Crossley at Charleton Marsh, Devon a couple of years ago armed with a mighty lens. In rainy weather, very early one morning, he layed down on the muddy ground photographing a flock of Dunlins. I guess thats the type of effort that produces a book as good as people say this one is.

Perry

 

[graeme782]

Having just got my copy i can confirm that it's an excellent book and worth two or three times more than i paid for it..

However, on the subject of mis labelled photo's, shouldn't the Surfbirds on 133:7 be non breeding adults. They have very dark crowns, cheeks and throats which are very unlike the striped markings you'd expect to see in breeding plumage. Also there is no trace of the rufous scapulars that ought to be present on a breeding bird. Although it does mention that this feature is very variable, it must surely be unlikely that none of the four shows any rufous. The Sibley also appears to back up my observations.

Perhaps somebody who's actually seen a Surfbird, and the book, might like to confirm that i'm right or explain to me why i'm talking b----cks. It's a fine book either way.

Cheers

Graeme.

 

[Chris Benesh]

However, on the subject of mis labelled photo's, shouldn't the Surfbirds on 133:7 be non breeding adults. They have very dark crowns, cheeks and throats which are very unlike the striped markings you'd expect to see in breeding plumage. Also there is no trace of the rufous scapulars that ought to be present on a breeding bird. Although it does mention that this feature is very variable, it must surely be unlikely that none of the four shows any rufous. The Sibley also appears to back up my observations.

Hi Graeme,

After reading your post, I thumbed back throught the shorebird guide to see what 133:7 was all about. It's a rather tricky shot indeed. After looking around at their other images, it makes me think that Surfbirds have rather wacky molt patterns.

But looking at 133:7, I first noted that the image was supposedly taken in July. Then I went back and read the text on Surfbird wing molt, which apparently takes place between July and September on the wintering grounds (which it could well be for the subject birds). However, there does not seem to be any evidence of wing molt in these birds, and I doubt they would have completed one by the purported date. Also, though they look dark to me too (perhaps because of the brighter ocean background), the heads look streaky to me, especially clear on the second from right hand bird. The streaking is particularly evident on the napes of these birds, whereas this area is more solidly dark on basic plumaged birds. There are a number of pale flecks to the areas corresponding to the scapulars, as one would expect in breeding plumage. The amount of rufous in the scapulars is quite variable, with some showing essentially none. My guess is by July, those would become quite worn and bleached out. Actually, there is quite a good comparative photo in the Shorebirds of North America, by Dennis Paulson (58.7, p.204). That July bird (also from California) shows more evident streaking in the head, but the rest of the upperparts fit nicely with 133:7 including lack of rufous, but some flecking to scapulars, and very plain wing coverts.

Compare with some of the images at this site:

http://www.roysephotos.com/Surfbird.html

So I would say that the birds in 133:7 are indeed in breeding plumage, albeit rather worn.

I'm sort of scratching my head over image 132:5. What is a Surfbird doing molting out of breeding plumage into basic plumage in April?

I agree with others in that this is a great work.

Chris

 

[graeme782]

Hi Chris and thanks for the reply.

I've often checked out Robert Royse's web site and am yet to find a bad photo, they're quite superb. Having looked at the Surfbirds on there they seem to be typical and what you'd expect for the time of year which leads us back to 133:7.

You're right, the second from right does have a bit of streaking to the head and the pale flecking to the scapulars is evident on them all. However, the mantle, coverts and scapulars still look far too dark, and why would the cheek, and especially the throat, show no streaking.

You also make an excellent point regarding 132:5. I hadn't noticed it and am now more confused than when i started.

All the best

Graeme.

 

[Chris Benesh]

Hi Chris and thanks for the reply.

I've often checked out Robert Royse's web site and am yet to find a bad photo, they're quite superb. Having looked at the Surfbirds on there they seem to be typical and what you'd expect for the time of year which leads us back to 133:7.

You're right, the second from right does have a bit of streaking to the head and the pale flecking to the scapulars is evident on them all. However, the mantle, coverts and scapulars still look far too dark, and why would the cheek, and especially the throat, show no streaking.

You also make an excellent point regarding 132:5. I hadn't noticed it and am now more confused than when i started.

All the best

Graeme.

Hi again Graeme,

I'm guessing that you may have a color reproduction issue here (with your copy being perhaps too dark), along with the fact that the image reproduction is just small. I took my copy of The Shorebird Guide, and made a high-res scan of the flight image. In that image, it is quite clear that the birds are indeed in breeding plumage. At the higher resolution, the patterned scapulars are very evident. Even in the book version, if you look at the second bird from the left, you can see the double pale spotted pattern of the breeding scapulars particularly at the base of the left wing (it's really obvious when blown up). Since it is copyrighted material, I cannot post it here, but I would be happy to send you a jpeg of the blown up image. If you're interested, just PM your email, and I'll fire it off to you (the close up of second bird from left is ~800k).

Best,

Chris