|
31 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
It's New to Me, but I Like It..., October 22, 2002
The first field guide I ever owned was Roger Tory Peterson's A Field Guide to the Birds of Texas. I was thrilled to own it since I was able to identify the birds I saw around me with its help. On the other hand, I was confounded by the archaic design of the book. I will cite the chief example: The textual description of a bird was separate, sometimes by many pages, from the corresponding illustration. This stimulated me to begin my search for the perfect field guide.My latest acquisition is this book. I will say right now I like it. I haven't stopped using my Sibley Guide, but I was slow to stop using my National Geographic Birds of North America when I first got my Sibley. Let me tell you why I like the Birds of Texas: The descriptions of the individual bird species. Oh, it has the usual introductory material and end matter, but none of that is really important to me in a field guide. It's all about the bird descriptions! Each species has its own page with a standardized layout. There is a header bar with the family, species, length and wingspan. There is also a footer bar with notes about plumage dimorphism, habitat (using symbols), migratory habits and weight. I am particularly pleased with an innovation in Birds of Texas: In the top right-hand corner of each page there is a small silhouette of the bird superimposed on an outline of this book giving a very useful size reference. (A "scale silhouette" according to the introductory material.) Of course I don't need this at the extremes, for example a Whooping Crane or a Ruby-throated Hummingbird, but I do find it helpful for shorebirds and passerines. In the main section there is a textual description that discusses the bird's appearance and habits. There are also specific "bullets" covering Song, Behavior, Breeding, Nesting, Population, Feeders (when appropriate) and Conservation. There is also a photographic illustration that is masked so that the bird is presented with minimal distraction from any background. The photos are all very sharp, and important identifying characteristics are flagged with notes. I suspect that some features that are important to identification have been "digitally tweaked" to emphasize them. The pictures present the bird as you are most likely to see it: perched, flying and sometimes both. If the bird's appearance varies by sex or season additional photos or paintings are included. I have to admit that I have a bias against photographic field guides (as opposed to painted field guides): I tend to think that birds must look exactly like a photograph while I can accept some variation from a painting. I know this is ... silly, but I'm not the only birder to have this bias. Having said this, I find that the masked presentation minimizes, but does not eliminate, my problem with this format. There is a small section, discussing similar species. There are notes about the similarities and differences, and there are photos or paintings of these species. Near the bottom of each species' page is another small section describing both graphically and in words the bird's flight pattern. I like this feature; I often rely on a bird's flight pattern to identity it. Opposite the flight pattern section is a range map which uses a color scheme that is consistent with both the National Geographic and Sibley guides. Just above the footer bar is the Nest Identification section which has symbols that show the size and typical location(s) of the species' nests. A short descriptive paragraph is also included. I really haven't found this useful (yet). Below the footer bar there is a place to record your sighting of the particular species. I have found quite a few things I like about Birds of Texas. They are: *The size: it is smaller than the Sibley guide. *The lack of backgrounds in the photos. *The field marks pointed out in the illustrations. *The scale silhouettes. *The flight pattern section. *The habitat symbols in the footer bar, although they are quite small and I haven't learned them all yet. On the other hand I have a few complaints. They are: *The weight: it weighs almost as much as the Sibley guide. *No way to get to a bird quickly: I haven't said anything about this, but I sure would like a thumb index or a blind index or a quick index or.... I feel this way about every field guide I own. Fortunately I have found downloadable quick indices for the National Geographic and Sibley guides, and I have created one for The Birds of Texas. *The size of some of the type and some of the symbols. I'm, ahem, middle-aged, and I need to use reading glasses to access some of the information. Of course, there's no way that the information could be enlarged without completely destroying the format of the book. Never mind! As I said earlier, I like this book. I do not think you would be disappointed owning it. I don't know right now if I'll replace Sibley in my birding bag with The Birds of Texas, but I keep it there now when I'm birding in my home state.
|
by Bill Fennimore
by John L. Tveten
by Jonathan Alderfer
by Geyata Ajilvsgi
