Collins Bird Guide - errata and queries (1 Viewer)

[birdboybowley]

Looked in Sussex Stationers the other day and they have the amended softback edition for £11

 

[Swissboy]

A wee bit of criticism:

I am missing in many cases sketches of the underwings of birds in flight.
Doesn't help ID-ing a bird when you only have a flight shot from below

I just tried to find ANY flight picture for the Mandarin Duck. A friend said he'd seen a female fly by, so I tried to look it up to recognize it later. But nothing. Well, it's an introduced species. But my search also found one more good reason not to neglect the species. I quote from BWP Concise Edition, Vol 1 p 204: "Deforestation and disturbance over much of natural range give special value to establishment of feral colonies in England." I assume establishment in other parts of Europe would count as well.

But aside from such special reasons, it is really a disservice to any nature lover, whether birder or otherwise, not to give sufficient info on introduced but now reasonably established species, like not showing their present full range (e.g. Ruddy Shelduck). I repeat myself here, but it's just so blatantly wrong not wanting to accept the facts that some species are now also part of the fauna (or flora when it comes to plants). Maybe, some of the introductions are extremely unwelcome, but it does not change the fact that we may encounter them. Not providing the info then follows the proverbial and most unfortunate ostrich attitude, sticking one's head in the sand and thinking the problem will go away.

 

[jurek]

Indeed, in Netherlands too, many introduced species are FAR easier to see than many native birds.

For example, there is a feral breeding population of estimated 200 pairs of Lesser Canada Goose - just as Collins murmurs that occassional vagrants might be possible.

 

[Upland Birder]

We had a count of 160 Mandarin Ducks last winter on a secluded lake in woodland here in North Staffordshire. I wonder what the count will be next winter?

Dean:t:

 

[NicoleB]

I think introduced species are important to a bird book. They need to be counted, or not? To see how wide spread they are.

I was looking yesterday for the Common Myna. With local birders by now registered as a very common resident, the Collins still has it as an introduced species from Isreal (in 1993?
- it is now 2010?!)

 

[Malloot]

We started an errata topic om a dutch forum for the dutch version of the Collins Bird Guide and I know where the bird topography pages are form the english version.

We have four of the same topography pages in the Dutch version.

 

[Jane Turner]

Perhaps a small change on the ID criteria for Red-necked Stint

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=185345

 

[Nutcracker]

p. 188. Caspian Gull: the area mapped for migration (pale yellow) in Britain extends too far north by about 400 km (shows it extending as far as Firth of Forth as a regular visitor, but it is only a very rare vagrant in NE England and Scotland). Needs about 2 mm of yellow on the map removing.

p. 191. Great Black-backed Gull: breeds on the Farne Islands (NE England), needs an additional purple dot there.

p. 200. Roseate Tern: needs an inset map and/or a text mention of the Azores as a breeding area.

 

[BirdingRob]

There has been major under-reporting of northern Libya by bird watchers over a generation which is reflected in Collin's maps - however the authors cannot map something no one has told them know about! (the south is not covered by the book's maps).

There are at least 20 species missing from the maps completely which occur here and not uncommonly (eg great egret, cattle egret, white stork). The maps for about 50 more species are very inaccurate (eg hoopoe is resident everywhere not passage, black wheatear is a hill bird and not on the north west plain, moussiers redstart is here in winter etc, etc).

Having said all this it is the best guide in terms of ID that exists. I take it everywhere and my hardback copy has nearly fallen apart through use.

I understand the authors are very aware of the Libyan data black-hole. It had been suggested to me that the Libyan maps should be updated at the next edition. I didn't know until I read this thread that changes can be made on a semi-continuous basis?

We don't have a formal rarities committee in Libya though the Environment Ministry has commissioned an up to date checklist which is being produced as I write. I understand a checklist with species, their geography and times of year of presence is used in some developing countries (in a birding sense) as a formal mechanism for "official distributions"

I used to record any deviation from Collin's maps on my blog but I stopped recently because there were so many and I am a fan of the book not a detractor. I was worried my support for the book was coming across as that!

 

[firstreesjohn]

Does anyone know when this superb guide will become available as an app ? And at a 'sensible' price ?

I am mindful of how much my Sibley cost (£18).

I understand there may be some issues with the calls/songs side of things, but wouldn't it be possible to release for sale the text and illustrations of the eGuide (??) and, later, add the bird sounds as an upgrade ? Possibly, all purchasers would need to be given a one-off, bar-coded voucher (or some such), as proof of purchase.

 

[Nutcracker]

Scientific name of Azure-winged Magpie needs updating to Cyanopica cooki, following split from Asian Cyanopica cyanus.

 

[Richard Klim]

Iberian Azure-winged Magpie

Scientific name of Azure-winged Magpie needs updating to Cyanopica cooki, following split from Asian Cyanopica cyanus.

Well, the taxonomy follows 'author's preference' rather than any particular authority.

C cooki is split by IOC, HBW and Dutch Birding;
but not by BirdLife International, Cornell/Clements, AERC, SEO, SPEA, SOF or BB.

Richard

 

[MJB]

Well, the taxonomy follows 'author's preference' rather than any particular authority.

By any assessment, that decision was at the very least, odd, because no reviewer or researcher can cite which authority CBG2 follows, but what was even more disappointing was that there was no mention of which taxonomic approaches were followed by which author!
For example, in: Robb, M and K Mullarney. 2008. Petrels night and day - A Sound Approach guide (The Sound Approach. Poole, UK), published some time before CBG2, there are numerous well-argued cases (currently under examination by IOC) advanced for changing the status of several taxa, yet the position adopted by the much later CBG2 was much more conservative. That in itself is not a particular problem, but what is a problem is that there was no reason given anywhere in it to say why it was more conservative; after all KM was a co-author for the CBG, but clearly 'author's preference' was not followed here, unless, of course there were other reasons not referred to in CBG2 itself.

It's entirely possible that more data were awaited or required in each case, but why not say so? It's a puzzle, because I have the highest possible regard for those who compiled CBG2.

C cooki is split by IOC, HBW and Dutch Birding;
but not by BirdLife International, Cornell/Clements, AERC, SEO, SPEA, SOF or BB. Richard

I've read papers that dealt with cooki and I'm unsure in this case why its elevation isn't accepted universally. I may be wrong, but hasn't more than one DNA technique been applied? Also, haven't there been other, non-avian fauna that have been found to correlate in terms of separation time between eastern and western relatives? I didn't copy the papers at the time, and so I'm prepared to stand corrected!
MJB

 

[Swissboy]

As someone who deplores the present splitting-mania, I'm quite happy overall with the approach the authors took. In particular, this book is to serve for ID purposes in the field. And there is no way that taxonomics gets in the way for those who are happy that they can now count two different species of an essentially similar looking bird. The geographic location is sufficiently clear to determine which species it was in the case of the Azure-winged Magpie.

I'm much more irritated by cases where one loses the overview because of name changes like the one mentioned in post #11 here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=179356

 

[Richard Klim]

Taxonomy

Well, the taxonomy follows 'author's preference' rather than any particular authority.

By any assessment, that decision was at the very least, odd, because no reviewer or researcher can cite which authority CBG2 follows, but what was even more disappointing was that there was no mention of which taxonomic approaches were followed by which author!
For example, in: Robb, M and K Mullarney. 2008. Petrels night and day - A Sound Approach guide (The Sound Approach. Poole, UK), published some time before CBG2, there are numerous well-argued cases (currently under examination by IOC) advanced for changing the status of several taxa, yet the position adopted by the much later CBG2 was much more conservative. That in itself is not a particular problem, but what is a problem is that there was no reason given anywhere in it to say why it was more conservative; after all KM was a co-author for the CBG, but clearly 'author's preference' was not followed here, unless, of course there were other reasons not referred to in CBG2 itself.

But Mike, the lead author (text and maps) is Lars Svensson: a leading figure in Palearctic taxonomy - a member of both the SOF Taxonomic Committee and the BOURC Taxonomic Sub-Committee, and participant in the AERC Taxonomic Advisory Committee. So I suspect that Lars was largely responsible for the taxonomy followed [it's significant that the introduction refers to author's (rather than authors') preference ].

As with Svensson et al 2009, Killian produced (outstanding!) artwork for Robb, Mullarney & The Sound Approach 2008. But in the latter case, the text (and therefore presumably the taxonomic treatment, but I may be wrong...?) was the responsibility of Magnus Robb & The Sound Approach.

I've read papers that dealt with cooki and I'm unsure in this case why its elevation isn't accepted universally.

Here's the comment in AERC TAC's Taxonomic Recommendations (Dec 2003), which didn't accept the split:

"Cooper & Voous (1999) and Fok et al. (2002) showed that the Iberian Azure-winged Magpie C. cooki should be treated as a distinct species. P.-A. Crochet, however, commented: 'The split of cooki from cyanus rests almost entirely on the genetic divergence (6% for control region, which is probably equivalent to about 2% for cytochrome b, at least according to the authors' estimates). In the absence of any other information, this genetic distance is not really conclusive. Are the plumage differences really consistent? Any difference in vocalisation? This is really a borderline case. May be better to wait until more information is available?'"​

Richard

 

[MJB]

But Mike, the lead author (text and maps) is Lars Svensson: a leading figure in Palearctic taxonomy - a member of both the SOF Taxonomic Committee and the BOURC Taxonomic Sub-Committee, and participant in the AERC Taxonomic Advisory Committee. So I suspect that Lars was largely responsible for the taxonomy followed [it's significant that the introduction refers to author's (rather than authors') preference.

Richard, I could well be wrong in my reading of the CBG2 preliminary material, but to me it appears to omit, or avoid mentioning what would be a helpful and useful summary of their overall taxonomic approach. Perhaps it's just my frustration coming through!

I have good personal reasons to express my amazement at, and admiration of, the extent of Lars Svensson's achievements and to be grateful to him for tackling so many aspects of conservation as well as bird knowledge.

I well know Lars' deserved eminence and completely accept that it is likely that he came to reasoned decisions in CNG2, but IMHO, there should have been a short summary paragraph to say why.

The book is registered (ISBN etc to meet legal requirements) and sold as being written by more than one author. That makes "author's preference" plain wrong, only "authors' preference" being possible; perhaps another minor glitch to add to Steve's painstaking collection.

As with Svensson et al 2009, Killian produced (outstanding!) artwork for Robb, Mullarney & The Sound Approach 2008. But in the latter case, the text (and therefore presumably the taxonomic treatment, but I may be wrong...?) was the responsibility of Magnus Robb & The Sound Approach.

I'm not going to guess at any presumed division of responsibilities, but that publication appears seamless in its concept and presentation, rather suggesting a common acceptance and understanding. It also actually makes the taxonomic case very clearly.

Here's the comment in AERC TAC's Taxonomic Recommendations (Dec 2003), which didn't accept the split:

"Cooper & Voous (1999) and Fok et al. (2002) showed that the Iberian Azure-winged Magpie C. cooki should be treated as a distinct species. P.-A. Crochet, however, commented: 'The split of cooki from cyanus rests almost entirely on the genetic divergence (6% for control region, which is probably equivalent to about 2% for cytochrome b, at least according to the authors' estimates). In the absence of any other information, this genetic distance is not really conclusive. Are the plumage differences really consistent? Any difference in vocalisation? This is really a borderline case. May be better to wait until more information is available?'"​

Richard

Thanks for the 2002 paper, which I remember reading some time ago. I agree that caution is merited when only mtDNA results' interpretation infers separation.

However, I seem to remember more recent work involving nuclear DNA, but I can't dig that out of the memory. Perhaps David Parkin knows of more recent developments? After all, IOC, to whom he is an advisor, presumably didn't jump in on just mtDNA indications? (Full IOC advisory team at present: Per Alstrom Rauri Bowie, Jon Fjeldsa, Phil Gregory, Leo Joseph, Adolfo Navarro-Siguenza, David Parkin, Alan Peterson, Douglas Pratt, Pamela Rasmussen, Frank Rheindt, Robert Ridgely, Peter Ryan, Dick Schodde and Minturn Wright.)
MJB

 

[Brian Stone]

Spotted another minor error while perusing the index the other day and I can't find it mentioned on this thread.

Nightjar, (European) Caprimulgus europaeus does not appear in the index.

It's of little consequence as all the other nightjars are there, along with the family, and they are all on the same page but it is missing (from the 2nd revision that I have in front of me at the moment).

 

[dantheman]

Similarly, cannot see Little Egret, Egretta garzetta in the index of what I take to be the corrected 2nd edition I have before me ...

Apologies if it is on this thread already.

 

[khustochka]

In the errata documents I see a notice that Linnet's year-round range should be expanded to Poland and Goldfinch's - to Estonia. I must admit the same regarding Ukraine (and probably some parts of Russia) for Linnet, Goldfinch and Hawfinch.

 

[RE Birder]

Apologies if this has been mentioned previously in the thread.
Will the forthcoming large format edition be rectified?