Species order in Field Guides

Subject: Species order in Field Guides
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 15:17:05 +1000 (EST)
Simon Bennett wrote
>It seems to be a tradition in ornithology that checklists try to reflect
>relationships between families and species. I don't think ornithologists
>will come at an alphabetical listing; although mammal, reptile and frog
>people and botanists are more than happy with that approach.  

As an amateur frogger, I am unimpressed by the logic of alphabetical
listing of species within a genus.  It may make a tidy checklist, but it 
makes untidy field guides.  As an example, the closely related Banjo frog
species Limnodynastes dumerili, L. interioris and L. terraereginae are all
separated from each other in field guides that follow such a listing.
Alphabetical listings are fine for a bookshelf reference but make lousy
field guides.

Rob McNaught 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Species order in Field Guides, RMN <=

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU