Field Guides

[semillama]

So, what are people's favorite field guides? There's quite a few out there.

Me, I was a Peterson guide person for quite a while, until I picked up a Sibley's. Now the Sibley's guide (I use the Eastern region for the field and keep the bulkier one for the whole of North America as a home reference) is my main one. I like it for the clarity and detail of the images, the reference markers for field marks, and the range maps. And it's better than Peterson for rarities and hybrids. Peterson's has been regulated to my field pack for work, with a small pair of crappy binocs.

I've also had the Audubon field guides with the photographs in the front and species description in the back, and arranged by bird type and plumage color. Not very practical for the serious birder, but pretty good for feeder watching.

I also just picked up a National Geographic field guide (4th ed.). I was recommended to this book as it is compact but covers pretty much all of NA, and has the most rarities in it. My complaint with the guide, though, is the lack of reference marks for field marks on the images and I feel that the range maps are inferior to Sibley.

I flipped through the Smithsonian guide at the bookstore the other day. While I didn't sit down with it and compare to other fieldguides, it does seem to have a lot going for it, such as flight patterns for each species and high quality photographs. It's too big to fit in your back pocket though. Has anyone used this guide? It looks really good, but I'm loathe to give up my Sibley's as a main guide. I really think that the flight pattern thing in the guide could be really handy in the field for helping id birds, though.

[amazona]

1. because of where I live

...I can't use a Western/Eastern guide. In Louisiana we need the entire North American guide because we do get the occasional western birds.

Because I am small and not very strong, when I am walking any distance, this means Kaufmann plus the scratchpad or camera to make notes. Later I go back to Sibley and National Geo. for needed detail. If it's birding by car, of course I can carry all three, but Sibley often gets first look.

I'd say most birders I know prefer National Geo. but it isn't quite as small as Kaufmann for carrying yet the plates are not as large for viewing as Sibley.

Even if it's a bad picture, if you have a digital camera with 10x optical zoom to capture a few pix of an unknown species, you can blow it up on the computer monitor and have a chance to figure it out later. I do this more often with butterflies though.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[blindpig]

2. Silbey's

Never thought it would happen, I weaned on Peterson's, still got my old green cloth hardback. It is essentially an improved on the Peterson's system which I swear by. I particularly like the seasonal range maps. Still use Peterson for home reference along with the Audubon 3-vol Master Set.

[primavera]

3. National Geographic

Not as detailed as Sibleys but frankly a hell of a lot easier to use. It's not just the more compact size that makes Nat Geo more field-friendly, but Sibleys I think contains too much information. And as taxonomist, Sibley's always trying to establish the existence of new species and goes on and on about light phases and dark morphs when all I really want to know is what species it is I'm looking at. With Sibleys, he makes identifications so much more complicated, inviting you to wonder whether it really was species X or the hybridized decendant of the dark morph Austin form of species Y and the light phase juvenile New Zealand migrant form of species Z. To hell with it, species X is bloody good enough, leave me alone!

[semillama]

4. I have to give a lot of credit to Sibley's

It answered a question for me at one of the local metro parks - what the hell sort of ducks are these with the greenish heads and dark bodies?

Peterson's let me down, but Sibley's had it as the Mallard X Black Duck cross, so there was my answer.

It also helped me convince some folks there that the Greylag Goose that hangs out there is NOT a White-Fronted goose.

That said, I think the National Geographic is the guide I will pack with me when I travel. It IS darn nice to have a continent-wide guide that fits in the back pocket.

I think I'm going to go to B&N tonight and check out that Smithsonian Guide again. It's tempting...so big though. It's as thick as the Sibley Guide to Birds and it's still split into east and west regions, but I think that's because each species gets a page. I'm thinking it might come in most handy for shorebirds and pelagics, and just your general what-just-flew-across-the-field-and-disappeared? birds.

[LuLu550]

5. My problem is,

I knew where to find everything in the Peterson's and I don't with anything else. Like shopping in a supermarket you aren't familiar with, LOL!

[semillama]

6. i had that problem too

at first. I have little sticky tags in my sibleys for quick reference.

It's gotten so I can't even stand looking at peterson's anymore - it seems drab and unfocused to me.

I guess a lot depends on the level of birdwatching you do.

[Freebird12004]

7. Sibley's Field Guide was our textbook

in a class that I took on "Museum Bird Study". It is the most comprehensive book around.