New edition of Fågelguiden (Collins Bird Guide). (1 Viewer)

[jurek]

But it does not feed on llamas...

 

[Butty]

avoid the mishmash

What does it matter? Taxonomy/nomenclature, taken as a whole, is - like Life - a mishmash anyway. A few minutes with a biro and you've got your own preferred system 👍🏻

 

[Dyrlege]

I had noticed that some of the texts appear unidiomatic, as if strictly translated from Swedish, and was disappointed to see Loon still used in preference to Diver. Since loon is a term of reproach or mild abuse, I’m surprised some hand-wringer hasn’t taken offence.

I think you need to add a y at the end, or Loons will still be non-offensive birds (unless you are a fish). In Norwegian the word reads LOM, possibly based on old Norse (very similar to old English) LOMR.

 

[david kelly]

I think you need to add a y at the end, or Loons will still be non-offensive birds (unless you are a fish). In Norwegian the word reads LOM, possibly based on old Norse (very similar to old English) LOMR.

In northern Scots dialects, such as Doric, loon means boy. Boys and girls is loons and quines. Here in East Lothian a loon is “nae quite the fu’ shilling’”. So yes it’s pejorative.

David

 

[Andy Adcock]

In northern Scots dialects, such as Doric, loon means boy. Boys and girls is loons and quines. Here in East Lothian a loon is “nae quite the fu’ shilling’”. So yes it’s pejorative.

David

I'm familiar, I watch 'Still Game', best thing on UK tv before we left but I digress.

 

[Andy Adcock]

To be fair, I have been doing a fair bit of research lately on bird taxonomy as it relates to the ABA area, and it seems very likely that Taiga and Tundra Bean goose SHOULD be lumped, with Middendorf's (spelling) perhaps being split off instead. Morphological variation seems minor and inconsistent between the two forms, and there is extensive gene flow.

But is it for authors to do that, shouldn't they apply a particular taxonomy and not impose their own views?

 

[Mysticete]

But is it for authors to do that, shouldn't they apply a particular taxonomy and not impose their own views?

I am of mixed opinion on this. On one hand I see why it is useful, but global checklists change faster than published books. I think its better for field guide authors, if there is evidence, to take a progressive view of taxonomy, rather than a conservative view that will be rendered obsolete in a few years. No matter what version you take, there will be discrepancies in what a field guide covers and what a checklist authority states. I think the other issue with this is, is there anymore a regional regularly updated checklist for the Western Palearctic. I gather, as someone on the other side of the pond, that Dutch birding is considered a bit too radical by some. AERC hasn't been updated since 2015 (or at least the online version has). And of course the BOU disbanded their taxonomic committee. You could follow IOC, but most global checklist committees don't act upon taxonomy unless a paper or book is published that suggests a change is needed. So you could get in a catch 22 situation where the stasis is enforced for a region because everyone follows a global checklist, and because of that there are less challenges to existing taxonomy in the checklist.

I think if each form is illustrated and mention is made that some authorities split them, its fine

 

[Butty]

shouldn't [field-guide authors] apply a particular taxonomy and not impose their own views?

There is no 'imposing'. There are no Rules. Go your own way and enjoy it. Your biro makes your rules!

 

[Mysticete]

I am of mixed opinion on this. On one hand I see why it is useful, but global checklists change faster than published books. I think its better for field guide authors, if there is evidence, to take a progressive view of taxonomy, rather than a conservative view that will be rendered obsolete in a few years. No matter what version you take, there will be discrepancies in what a field guide covers and what a checklist authority states. I think the other issue with this is, is there anymore a regional regularly updated checklist for the Western Palearctic. I gather, as someone on the other side of the pond, that Dutch birding is considered a bit too radical by some. AERC hasn't been updated since 2015 (or at least the online version has). And of course the BOU disbanded their taxonomic committee. You could follow IOC, but most global checklist committees don't act upon taxonomy unless a paper or book is published that suggests a change is needed. So you could get in a catch 22 situation where the stasis is enforced for a region because everyone follows a global checklist, and because of that there are less challenges to existing taxonomy in the checklist.

I think if each form is illustrated and mention is made that some authorities split them, its fine

With that caveat however, I do think some of the continued lumps, when contrasted with some of the accepted splits, is odd. I am not saying I approve of the taxonomy itself, just that I can see the merit of sometimes going your own way.

 

[Essex Tern]

Collins Bird Guide is a field tool, but also a work of someone’s art, therefore some expression of personal preference is totally acceptable in my opinion…..unless it professes to adhere to a strict authority……it doesn’t!

N.B. I have always loved the name Lammergeier, it is a beautiful sounding word.

 

[jurek]

Who knows, in a distant future, we may even have a book which lists several alternative names, and shows identification without taking a strong opinion whether it is a species or subspecies.

The more irrelevant and doubtful is a new proposal, the more the authors of a book or a paper show it as the only one and try to diminish and hide the alternative ones.

I would welcome e.g. a discussion of identifying Nelson's Gulls, which are interesting to see in winter in Europe, but are of course hybrids.

 

[pierluigivinci]

I live in Sicily, in my life I have seen and photographed a lot of peregrines, obviously those residents here are all brookei. I can assure you that the creature depicted on page 125 has nothing to do with them. The mustache is the same as that of the peregrinus and the reddish hues are barely seen only on certain occasions. I wonder what they based that image on but honestly it looks pretty fanciful. A part of this I like all new plates

 

[pierluigivinci]

This is a female peregrine photographed in southeast Sicily, the southernmost point of Europe, so is definitely a brookei. As you can see she looks nothing like the picture. The blood is from a pigeon she had just fed her chicks

 

[Butty]

obviously those residents [on Sicily] are all brookei. I can assure you that the creature depicted on page 125 has nothing to do with them.

Artists paint after extensive research from a wide variety of sources - and even birds of a given race show regional (as well as individual) variation - so... possibly birds on Sicily aren't typical of brookei? You would need to make a better case that the book is wrong.

 

[Mysticete]

Plus there has been a lot of release of Peregrines from different populations into different areas, resulting in birds whose traits don't necessarily align with the expected form for that area.

 

[kuzeycem]

I got my copy on Thursday and I have been occasionally reading it since; overall, there have been quite a few changes, and almost all of these have been for the better.
The taxonomy is painfully conservative and many taxa are still lumped, e.g. Cory/Scopoli's Shearwaters, W/E Black-eared Wheatears, etc. Splits include Yellow-billed Kite, West African Crested Tern, Arabian Lark, Basalt Wheatear, Eastern Stonechat (stejnegeri as a ssp), Balearic Warbler, Saharan Scrub Warbler etc.
Pacific Loon, Lesser Flamingo, Shikra, Greater Crested Tern, various vagrant swifts, Caspian Tit, Long-tailed Rosefinch, etc. have been elevated to the main section.
Over 50 plates are new in some ways. I was pleasantly surprised at some of the changes, it's almost like they've read my mind, e.g. I've always hated the Goldeneyes/Smew page so it was very nice to see it redone. The new illustrations are overall very good, a few seem odd to me though, for example, the "atypical" Thrush Nightingale looks a bit too atypical to my eyes! Raptors, terns, owls, bee-eaters, woodpeckers, chats, and tits look especially good.
Vagrant and introduced sp sections in the back have been partially illustrated by Hans Larsson. I normally very much enjoy his paintings however (a bit ironically) his gulls and South Polar Skua seem a bit "sketchy"/"unpolished" compared to the rest of the book. The skua especially looks rather bad, not just in a Collins standard but in a post-2000 field guide standard.
One small change I liked was the introduced forms of Pheasant being "thrown" in the back, with only the native form in the Caucasus remaining in the main section.
Long story short this is still THE field guide and this new edition certainly merits a purchase.

 

[John Cantelo]

Quibbles aside the new edition is an improvement but ....

I find it odd that given the English language version will be overwhelmingly purchased by Brits, the name 'loon' is used for 'diver'. None of the British birders I know ever call them loons and nor do any other popular UK publications. It's odd too that the name 'diver' is used, albeit in brackets, for some but not all of the tribe.

I also take the view that the determining factor as to whether or not species are covered in the main body of the work should be the likelihood of seeing them in the region. Hence relegating the most commonly seen form of Pheasant (and denying the species a map reflecting its actual status in the region) is a retrograde step. Similarly, the absence of Rose-ringed & Monk Parakeets from the main part of the book strikes me as odd given how widespread they now seem to be in Europe (also odd that the 'Rose-ringed' account doesn't note the common alternative name 'Ring-necked' - a recipe for confusion). Black-headed Weaver, Yellow-crowned Bishop (surely the more widely used name than Yellow-crowned Weaver) and Common Waxbill are not entirely or largely confined to Portugal (as the text suggests) but are now quite widely scattered in Spain. A pity too that females/juvs of the two 'weavers' are not illustrated.

 

[Mysticete]

Quibbles aside the new edition is an improvement but ....


I also take the view that the determining factor as to whether or not species are covered in the main body of the work should be the likelihood of seeing them in the region. Hence relegating the most commonly seen form of Pheasant (and denying the species a map reflecting its actual status in the region) is a retrograde step. Similarly, the absence of Rose-ringed & Monk Parakeets from the main part of the book strikes me as odd given how widespread they now seem to be in Europe (also odd that the 'Rose-ringed' account doesn't note the common alternative name 'Ring-necked' - a recipe for confusion. Black-headed Weaver, Yellow-crowned Bishop (surely the more widely used name than Yellow-crowned Weaver) and Common Waxbill are not entirely or largely confined to Portugal (as the text suggests) but are now quite widely scattered in Spain. A pity too that females/juvs of the two 'weavers' are not illustrated.

I agree. Guides shouldn't shuffle off established introduced species to appendices if they have fairly wide distributions. While experienced birders are not likely to be too confused, novice birders who are more likely to regularly consult a guide will be.

 

[T.O.]

I agree. Guides shouldn't shuffle off established introduced species to appendices if they have fairly wide distributions. While experienced birders are not likely to be too confused, novice birders who are more likely to regularly consult a guide will be.

That is my issue with a number of bird guides and identification books. Like it or not, but these introduced species are here to stay and far more likely to be encountered than a bobolink or Pechora pipit in Europe.... They are part of the local avifauna and keeping up to date with their spread/demise is important information, so it would be helpful if they get the same level of treatment as native species, otherwise enough people will be confused...

 

[pierluigivinci]

Plus there has been a lot of release of Peregrines from different populations into different areas, resulting in birds whose traits don't necessarily align with the expected form for that area.

Thrust me, that bird doesn't exists in Italy, and definitely isn't a brookei