[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Audubon book mis-IDs



I have found the mis-ID that Tim Kalbach found. It is photo #590 -- the
Green Kingfisher is really an Amazon Kingfisher. I went thru the book
last night, starting from the back -- looking carefully at the s. TX
specialties as he suggested. When I looked at the Green Kingfisher, I
thought it looked too shimmering green. I've seen a few Amazon
Kingfishers in the Tropics, and thought that was what it was. I had to
look at a few other photo books to be sure. Green Kingfisher has a few
white spots on the wings; Amazon does not. The head shape also doesn't
look quite right for Green. Of course, you can't judge size from a
photo. Amazon is about the size of a Belted Kingfisher, whereas Green is
about the size of a bluebird.

I checked my e-mail this morning, and saw Tim's e-mail to me about the
mis-ID. Yes -- this was the error he had found. No, I didn't make up my
mind after I saw his e-mail to me. I found it last night, before I saw
his e-mail.

By the way, I think there might be a few more mis-IDs in the blackbirds.
Look at the two long-tailed grackles (plates 630-631). Boat-tailed males
have a rounded and "large" head. Great-tailed males have a small-looking
head and very flat forehead. I can't say if the two photos are reversed,
but Auudubon is certainly setting themselves up for a mis-ID, as the
photo #630 of "Boat-tailed" shows a male with a small head and low
forehead, and #631 has a very rounded, puffy head with a steep forehead.
The bird labelled as Boat-tailed does show a dark eye, which is usually
lacking in Great-tailed, and the bird labelled as Great-tailed had a
dull yellow eye, which both species may show. Maybe its the positioning
of the birds, but ...

One of the purposes of photos SHOULD be to illustrate the proper field
marks. A book should not use misleading photos. As abundant as both of
these grackles are, more typical photos could have been presented.

All in all, though, this is a very good book of photos. Lots of folks
complain about photo field guides, but they have their place. The main
problem I find with photo guides is lack of completeness. Books using
artwork (Nat. Geo, Peterson, Golden Guide) generally are complete -- all
species. I've yet to find a photo guide for North American birds that
has photos of everything. There are some cop-outs -- no Hoary Redpoll,
etc. in the Audubon East guide. Guides that have a complete photo set
are generally specialty guides -- such as Grant's excellent gull guide,
Clark and Wheeler's excellent hawk guide, etc.

I prefer looking at a SERIES of photos of a species rather than a series
of paintings, to help me ID a bird. If I have a mystery stint, for
example, I'd rather have one to several photo guides with several photos
of each plumage of the stints, than I would have a guide with paintings.
Ditto for a mystery gull -- a photo guide with lots of photos of all
plumages is generally better than one with paintings.

Last and not least, I enjoy looking at color photos of birds I have yet
to see. I am looking at THE BIRD in the photo, not an artist's
conception of the bird.

I prefer photo guide over artwork guides. But, photo guides tend not to
be complete, and photo guides always seem to have a few
mis-identifications popping up (plus always a few photos chocked full of
discussion -- is it, or isn't it -- e.g., the grackles in Audubon East)!

Harry LeGrand
--
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1615

Office: (919) 715-8687
Home: (919) 832-3202
FAX: (919) 715-3085
e-mail: harry.legrand@ncmail.net
http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/nhp/index.html