Handbook of Western Palearctic birds (1 Viewer)

[Welsh Peregrine]

Its in the write-up on Elusive Antpitta, as Chapman et al!

 

[John Cantelo]

An excellent short review may be found at https://notjustgulls.blogspot.com/2018/07/handbook-of-western-palearctic-birds.html

 

[Jim Martin]

First major review is in, from Dutch Birding:

https://www.dutchbirding.nl/recensies/1471/handbook_of_western_palearctic_birds


Jim

 

[McMadd]

I shall buy A New European Breeding Bird Atlas - EBBA2 instead of this

 

[pimpelmees]

I shall buy A New European Breeding Bird Atlas - EBBA2 instead of this

It is still a long way to go before this is a book...

 

[Melanie]

Interesting that the previous reference work Birds of the Western Palearctic by Stanley Cramp has not been mentioned in the reviews so far. Personally I think that Shirihai/Svensson have published a very good follow-up work in particular due to the fact that the original BWP is out of print.

 

[Jim Martin]

Review by Andy Stoddart:

https://www.rarebirdalert.co.uk/v2/...earctic-Birds-Passerines.aspx?s_id=1072111832

Jim

 

[Andy Adcock]

Seems to come out of it well, DIY taxonomy (de rigueur it seems these days) aside.


A

 

[Swissboy]

I would not mind DIY taxonomy in such books if the basic sequence remained the same. :eat:
At the very least, these attempts show that things can as well be viewed differently and that there is no absolute way to tell which sequence is the correct one. A major argument to untie FG-sequences from systematics as a science.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I would not mind DIY taxonomy in such books if the basic sequence remained the same. :eat:
At the very least, these attempts show that things can as well be viewed differently and that there is no absolute way to tell which sequence is the correct one. A major argument to untie FG-sequences from systematics as a science.

The problem Robert that is that every author these days, seems think it neccessary to produce a new order or nomenclature and impose their own splits.


A

 

[ambduck5]

Too many clever clogs playing God with systematics. Just stick with the tried and tested Voous order I say.

 

[njlarsen]

Too many clever clogs playing God with systematics. Just stick with the tried and tested Voous order I say.

Which is so far out of date that it hides rather then reveals the truth

Niels

 

[Swissboy]

Which is so far out of date that it hides rather then reveals the truth

Niels

But for FGs and similar-use sources it really would not matter. The "truth" one wants in such sources is info on identification and possibly "life history".

 

[njlarsen]

But for FGs and similar-use sources it really would not matter. The "truth" one wants in such sources is info on identification and possibly "life history".

I am guessing, but I believe there has been something like 20 percent more species added since that list. That was my message, more so than looking at the order. I did not see the prior message as limiting the usage to order. Maybe that was wrong relative to the intent of the person writing that post. if so, sorry.

Niels

 

[Jim Martin]

Review by Birdguides here:

https://www.birdguides.com/reviews/handbook-of-western-palearctic-birds-passerines/

 

[Nutcracker]

Seems to come out of it well, DIY taxonomy (de rigueur it seems these days) aside.

How many Eremophila spp.?

 

[Andy Adcock]

How many Eremophila spp.?

Back in Russia Nutty so can't help.

 

[Chris Bell]

An outstanding piece of work....

The female Red-throated Thrush listed as 'England' in presumably a labelling error...

 

[HH75]

How many Eremophila spp.?

Two species, listed as Horned Lark and Temminck's Lark, though with an acknowledgement that the authors 'prefer to await further data before a drastic split of Horned Lark is made'.

 

[Nutcracker]

Two species, listed as Horned Lark and Temminck's Lark, though with an acknowledgement that the authors 'prefer to await further data before a drastic split of Horned Lark is made'.

Thanks!