• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Your most anticipated futures books (1 Viewer)

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Right now the book I am most anticipating is the new version of the Peterson Field Guide to North America. It will be the first field guide (that I am aware of), post ABA area change, to incorporate Hawaii. So it will be nice to have everything in one book.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
Right now the book I am most anticipating is the new version of the Peterson Field Guide to North America. It will be the first field guide (that I am aware of), post ABA area change, to incorporate Hawaii. So it will be nice to have everything in one book.

I personally see little sense in covering such a disjunct and uniquely avian area in a the same volume as the rest of the continent.

It's North American only in a political sense and at 2471 miles from California, it's 2/3 the distance away as the UK!

It's like including the birds of Gibraltar in a UK field guide.
 

Stonefaction

Stuck in Dundee.....
Scotland
It's like including the birds of Gibraltar in a UK field guide.

So little different to the most often recommended book for British birders - "The Collins Bird Guide" then? Granted it isn't strictly a UK field guide but the coverage of Gibraltar is in there for those who might decide they prefer to have it in one book. I'm unlikely to ever need to refer to most of the species featured in the book having no urge to travel to Europe but for convenience sake it is better to have the coverage and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
So little different to the most often recommended book for British birders - "The Collins Bird Guide" then? Granted it isn't strictly a UK field guide but the coverage of Gibraltar is in there for those who might decide they prefer to have it in one book. I'm unlikely to ever need to refer to most of the species featured in the book having no urge to travel to Europe but for convenience sake it is better to have the coverage and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Completely different, no comparison, Hawaii is nowhere near NA whereas Gibraltar is in Europe, the geographical scope of 'Collins'.

It's worse than a UK guide with Gibraltar in it, it's almost like including the Falklands!
 

Stonefaction

Stuck in Dundee.....
Scotland
I knew you'd disagree and you didn't disappoint, Andy.
Hawai'i counts on ABA lists though - so despite the physical distance from the rest of North America it does make sense for North American birders to have it in one book that North American birders will use - especially NA year-listers. Like I said about Collins coverage, better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
I knew you'd disagree and you didn't disappoint, Andy.
Hawai'i counts on ABA lists though - so despite the physical distance from the rest of North America it does make sense for North American birders to have it in one book that North American birders will use - especially NA year-listers. Like I said about Collins coverage, better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

You knew my opinion from my original post so it was you who disagreed with me, I just reaffirmed.

AFAIK, this will be the only bird guide which includes an overseas territory? I know it's a bona fide state but it's still an overseas territory.
 
Last edited:

gdhunter

Well-known member
Hawai'i counts on ABA lists though - so despite the physical distance from the rest of North America it does make sense for North American birders to have it in one book that North American birders will use - especially NA year-listers.

So ABA's rather dubious decision to incorporate Hawaii within its definition of the ABA area is sufficient reason for the Peterson series to follow suit? For a relatively small subset of "NA year-listers" who might include Hawaii in their efforts? Making the guide less useful for those of us not birding Hawaii (superfluous coverage).

Haven't even found a reference to this presumably forthcoming title.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
So ABA's rather dubious decision to incorporate Hawaii within its definition of the ABA area is sufficient reason for the Peterson series to follow suit? For a relatively small subset of "NA year-listers" who might include Hawaii in their efforts? Making the guide less useful for those of us not birding Hawaii (superfluous coverage).

Haven't even found a reference to this presumably forthcoming title.

Totally agree, Hawaii is patently NOT part of NA, this book would be better titled 'Birds of the ABA region'.
 

Stonefaction

Stuck in Dundee.....
Scotland
this book would be better titled 'Birds of the ABA region'.

Maybe so. The person who brought it to our collective attention is looking forward to it regardless of what it is called - and regardless what either of us think. I'm unlikely to buy it as I already have a few North American field guides that I will likely never use where they were designed to be used, and you're obviously unlikely to buy it as you think it is a bad idea. The publishers obviously think there's a market for it.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
So ABA's rather dubious decision to incorporate Hawaii within its definition of the ABA area is sufficient reason for the Peterson series to follow suit? For a relatively small subset of "NA year-listers" who might include Hawaii in their efforts? Making the guide less useful for those of us not birding Hawaii (superfluous coverage).

Haven't even found a reference to this presumably forthcoming title.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peterson-F...s=9781328771445&qid=1580933780&s=books&sr=1-1

' About this book

For decades, the Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America has been a popular and trusted guide for birders of all levels, thanks to its famous system of identification and unparalleled illustrations. Now that the American Birding Association has expanded its species Checklist to include Hawaii, the Peterson Guide is the first edition to include the wonderful and exotic species of our fiftieth state. In addition, the text and range maps have been updated, and much of the art has been touched up to reflect current knowledge.'
 
Last edited:

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Totally agree, Hawaii is patently NOT part of NA, this book would be better titled 'Birds of the ABA region'.

Biogeographic studies actually have been consistently linking Hawaii to North America for some time now. That last big attempt to redefine biogeographic provinces recovered Hawaii as within North America. In fact, the only native birds of non NA origins are the monarchs (South Pacific) and the Honeycreepers (North Asian). Every other bird group that has made it to the island (and the sole native mammal) have North American ancestors.
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
So ABA's rather dubious decision to incorporate Hawaii within its definition of the ABA area is sufficient reason for the Peterson series to follow suit? For a relatively small subset of "NA year-listers" who might include Hawaii in their efforts? Making the guide less useful for those of us not birding Hawaii (superfluous coverage).

Haven't even found a reference to this presumably forthcoming title.

It should be noted that Hawaii was included in the earlier editions. Presumably the creation of the ABA area caused it to be jettisoned in the first place.

Why bother including all of those Asian strays? Most birders are never going to visit Gambell or the Pribiloffs, so clearly a waste of space.

Hell why bother including Alaska at all? Most of that state, including the places with most of the specialities, are more difficult and expensive than most of Hawaii. A trip to Attu nowadays costs more than hitting up Oahu, Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui. And how well you do is ENTIRELY dependent on weather conditions. Wrong direction of wind and zero chance at Asian vagrants. At least I know the Nene and I'iwi are actually going to be present if I target them.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
It should be noted that Hawaii was included in the earlier editions. Presumably the creation of the ABA area caused it to be jettisoned in the first place.

Why bother including all of those Asian strays? Most birders are never going to visit Gambell or the Pribiloffs, so clearly a waste of space.

Hell why bother including Alaska at all? Most of that state, including the places with most of the specialities, are more difficult and expensive than most of Hawaii. A trip to Attu nowadays costs more than hitting up Oahu, Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui. And how well you do is ENTIRELY dependent on weather conditions. Wrong direction of wind and zero chance at Asian vagrants. At least I know the Nene and I'iwi are actually going to be present if I target them.

Because it is at least a contiguous part of the continent.

Regarding the extreme rarities, the European 'Collins' guide that we all use, has two pages dedicated to North American passerines. I suppose it depends on the frequncy of those rarities as to how useful they might be. We have a few places like the Scilly Isles and Shetland, where those pages could be useful but we're at a slightly smaller scale here.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
Biogeographic studies actually have been consistently linking Hawaii to North America for some time now. That last big attempt to redefine biogeographic provinces recovered Hawaii as within North America. In fact, the only native birds of non NA origins are the monarchs (South Pacific) and the Honeycreepers (North Asian). Every other bird group that has made it to the island (and the sole native mammal) have North American ancestors.

Can you tell me on what basis, I'm genuinely curious?
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Can you tell me on what basis, I'm genuinely curious?

https://science.sciencemag.org/cont...3JySRoT-PCFYvdR5bnKrqbWbVKBTxRhL-mLH1bI-F6IcR

The authors looked at distributions, phylogenetic relationships, and phylogenetic uniqueness of all terrestrial mammals, amphibians and birds (separately and together), at the global level. It's not specifically about Hawaii but obviously includes that island chain

It's actually a pretty cool paper, and some of the findings shouldn't be that big of a surprise (e.g. Madagascar being it's own province)
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Because it is at least a contiguous part of the continent.

Regarding the extreme rarities, the European 'Collins' guide that we all use, has two pages dedicated to North American passerines. I suppose it depends on the frequncy of those rarities as to how useful they might be. We have a few places like the Scilly Isles and Shetland, where those pages could be useful but we're at a slightly smaller scale here.

From a logisitical perspective, the majority of the Alaskan specialities are on parts of the Alaska or islands that have no vehicle access, so they might as well be not contiguous.

I mean I just did a quick and dirty price check...for me, the cost of flying to Alaska and flying to Hawaii are about the same. So I think criticism of things about cost are really just arguments for doing a lower 48 list.
 

gdhunter

Well-known member
I mean I just did a quick and dirty price check...for me, the cost of flying to Alaska and flying to Hawaii are about the same. So I think criticism of things about cost are really just arguments for doing a lower 48 list.

I don't recall much (if any) mention of travel cost in the critiques. It remains (in my opinion) a stretch to characterize Hawaii as a part of North America. I have no such qualms about Alaska; its inclusion is self-evident.

The book will likely land on my shelf someday, but almost surely not in my field pouch.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top