Rare Birds of North America

I have spent the last few weeks looking through the new Rare Birds of North America. This is a stunning book. Not surprising, given the authors and artist. The text is masterful, the illustrations as good as anything yet produced for bird identification literature. It is essential for North American birders (and perhaps even for those south of the Mexican border), but should also be a key reference in the Western Palaearctic. I wish all new bird books were produced to this high standard - not just on the part of the authors, but also the publisher. An excellent reference that will not be out of place on the coffee table either! Great for armchair use too - as I have been finding as I lose myself in the book.

Rare Birds of North America
Steve N. G. Howell, Ian Lewington & Will Russell
Princeton University Press | 2014
448 pp. | 18 x 24.7 cm | 275 colour plates. 2 line drawings. 9 tables. 17 maps
Hardcover | £ 24.95 / $35.00 | ISBN: 9780691117966

>1 chrisharpe: you should add your comments as a review as well, not just in a thread (although we do appreciate your input here!!). :)

OK, will do fuzzi, although my comments in #1 aren't really detailed enough to be a review.

>3 chrisharpe: Oh I don't know, I've seen worse reviews.

>4 bernsad: agreed! A simple "it stinks" can be considered a review. ;)

Speaking of new bird books what are the thoughts on the new edition of Sibley.
I have to say I am disappointed. In general I think most of the format, text and taxanomical changes are good. I have seen some comments on the colors for the birds being off but I don't think it is much different than the comments about the first edition colors. They seemed to become acceptable with time and not a major problem.

What I think is the biggest mistake in the book is the change in the text font and color. The change to a very fine line, serfless (I think it is called serfless) font along with the change to a gray shade of ink instead of black I think is a huge mistake. A significant percent of birders (and a much larger percent of those with money) are, shall I say, more mature (read old like me), and find it much harder to read the new printing. This is especially true when trying to use the book outdoors, possibly in shade or poor lighting. It is bad enough that I am thinking keeping my first edition as the trip book and not replacing it with the new edition. I'll keep that for home reference. I really think the readablilty is a disastrous mistake.

The other issue I have is a shortcoming in the treatment of subspecies. I fully realize this is not a problem for most casual birders, but is for me. Subspecies are the basis for species splitting and lumping checklist changes by ABA and AOU. I have become interested in tracking subspecies that can be field differentiated. The sixth edition of Alderfer and Dunn's National Geographic Guide made a giant step forward in providing subspecies distribution on maps and the taxanomical names for them. I really think that edition raised the bar for field guides. I am surprised that Sibley did not respond and expand subspecies information in his guide. He does cover most of the variations in appearance and provides some of the 'group' names for subspecies but no taxanomical subspecies names are given at all and more importantly no mapping information. Again I realize this is an issue for me and therefore I don't consider it an issue for the general market.

I'd be interested in others birders/bookers views ............

bluejw

I've not read/used Sibley's. I'm still using my old tried-and-true Peterson's, a gift from my mother in the late 1980s.

I've used other guides including those that use photos, but still come back to RTP's illustrations for clarity.

FYI: it's "serif" for font/text with the little lines at the ends of each stroke, like Times New Roman. If there is no serif, it's called "sans serif" (information thanks to my graphic arts teachers!).

fuzzi, it looks as LT won't let me post a "review" as the book's not in my LT library.

bluejw, I haven't seen the new edition, but found the lack of scientific names for subspp in the first ed. to be confusing. I had assumed that this weakness would have been corrected in this edition. I can see font readability being a problem too - not for me of course, being immune to the ravages of time. Thanks for your comments - I was going to order the book without taking a look, but will hold off now. (PS. maybe move this to a dedicated Sibley thread?)

fuzzi - thanks for the 'serif' correction......it's been sometime since I've looked around in that part of my gray matter and my recall wasn't doing to well.......
I sometimes carry RTP also. I am a believer in art work vs photos. Though my favorite is NGM, I do use RTP somtimes also. As you say his illustrations convey clarity.

chris - It seems like Sibley intentionally tried to avoid using ssp names. He does a better job in this edition in using "Group" names and "groupish" names that I think he invents. Groups are not a strict taxanomical nameing level but an informal lumping of subspecies. On many species he does a nice job of presenting the variations between groups. But for many subspecies names would just make things a lot clearer. Take a look at the 6th edition of Nat Geo and the subspecies maps in the rear of the book. It really communicates. Do take a look at Sibley before you buy. There may be a good chance of an update coming in the future. It would be worth the wait. I would move my comments to a dedicated Sibley thread if one existed. I haven't found any.

On a happy note I got two rare birds (for Arizona) in the last 7 days. Last monday I got a Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Eurasian bird) and today I got a Magnolia Warbler (a US East coast bird).

>8 chrisharpe: I have done reviews on books that I did not own. I place them in a "Read but Unowned" collection.

>9 bluejw: you're quite welcome. It appears that I did learn something in Graphic Arts class!!

All North American birds are that bit rarer:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2019/sep/19/us-canada-bird-populati...

The US and Canada have lost more than one in four birds – a total of three billion – since 1970, culminating in what scientists who published a new study are calling a "widespread ecological crisis".