|
Hello All,
Well I like it!
It must be said, though, I do have some reservations.
But that applies to all the so called 'Australian field guides'.
I say 'so called' because this pertains to the main criticism I have of
Michael Morcombe's book.
It is far to big to be called a 'field guide'!
As far as I'm concerned there has been only one publication since 1970 that
comes close to being able to be referred to as a 'field guide'
That was Peter Slater's 1986 attempt: "The Slater Field Guide to Australian
Birds".
All other books with the title 'Field Guide' have been, in my opinion,
closer to 'hand books' or 'coffee-table books'.
Their size and weight have meant that they are far to big and bulky,
containing far too much text, to be truly classified as 'field guides'.
In fact they are closer to reference books.
Other people must feel the same way as I do about this considering the
number of times I hear about people choosing Slater's (somewhat outdated) guide
when they have to travel light.
Peter, when are you going to bring out another 'updated' edition?
Your many fans are hoping and praying it will be soon.
Please save us from this onslaught of 'big books'.
Slater's [second] attempt at a field guide was a genuine attempt to provide
Australian birdwatchers with a book easily carried in the field with enough
information to help with the identification of birds on the spot.
More recent field guides have really moved away from this concept and have
entered the 'hand-book' realm, a book that is good to consult without dragging
out the precious HANZAB.
Incidentally, I also think that the title of 'handbook' for the set of
HANZAB volumes is erroneous.
HANZAB should be referred to as an 'encyclopaedia'.
Each volume is far to big to be read holding it in the hand.
But back to Michael Morcombe's field guide:
There has been some criticism of the illustrations.
In general, I find them quite pleasing.
They have a different 'style' to those in the other field guides probably
because a lot have been done from photographs and therefore depict poses not
normally seen in field guides.
Most field guides depict birds in what I consider 'unnatural' poses which
are designed to show the important diagnostic points.
Morcombe's illustrations [seem] to be designed to show more of the 'jizz'
of the bird.
As for Morcombe's skill as an artist, I would be very proud to be able to
'draw' as well as he does.
In fact, I think these illustrations are at least the equal of those in the
other Australian field guides that are currently available and far exceed those
of certain guides now out of print.
I would be so bold as to say that some of the illustrations in HANZAB are
only better in as much as they are bigger!
Perhaps some of the colours in the illustrations are not perfect.
I would concede that the blues in the parrots are a bit strong but I like
the wrens.
But does anyone remember the Pizzey and Doyle 'A Field Guide to the Birds
of Australia',1980?
Now that was a disaster (for the colours of the illustrations)!!
Even the beloved Slater Field Guide mentioned above had its problems with
colours; this mainly was a problem with backgrounds.
Quite frankly, the Simpson and Day 'Field Guide to the Birds of Australia'
(now in its sixth edition, showing its popularity) has some real problems with
colours, especially in the birds of prey.
An interesting exercise is to compare the Frank Knight illustrations in
'Pizzey and Knight' with his illustrations of the same birds in HANZAB.
In my editions of those publications the colours vary noticeably.
This is probably an indication of the difficulty there is in reproducing
accurate renditions of colours in these sorts of publications.
The maps have been criticised for their lack of size thus making
determination of boundaries for sub-species difficult.
In fact the maps are the same size as those in 'Slater' and 'Pizzey and
Knight' but bigger than those in 'Simpson and Day'
Perhaps if anyone wants such accuracy they should be using the new
'Directory of Australian Birds'?
The layout of Morcombe's book is a worthwhile 'experiment' in my
opinion.
It will appeal to some people but not to others.
In general terms, I like it.
In this book the appearance of the bird is not described on the 'text'
page. Instead, there are descriptive notes next to the illustration in the
relevant place.
This makes for a more 'cluttered' illustration page but, unfortunately,
hasn't reduced the amount of text on the 'text' page.
However, I feel there is some merit in having the notes right there while
actually looking at the illustration rather than having to go from one page to
the other when looking for key identification pointers.
Having the illustrations aligned with the text is a far better arrangement
than the confused and random system employed in 'Simpson and Day' and to a
lesser degree in 'Pizzey and knight'.
It appears that the species on a page are reproduced in scale.
Considering that most birdwatchers see very few nests, let alone eggs, it
is probably unnecessary to include a 67 page section on nests and eggs.
As to the accuracy or otherwise of the information in this book I am not
willing to comment.
Except to say that I would expect it is probably on a par with the other
field guides in general use.
After checking Zitting Cisticola in this and the other field guides I am
still unsure of the true nature of the plumage and would not feel confident in
identifying this bird without hearing the call.
Overall, I am happy to have this book in my collection and I am sure that I
will refer to it quite often.
It is no better or worse than the other field guides that are
available.
But it gives another perspective and this can often be a good thing.
I paid $29.95 at Angus and Robertson Book World.
$40 might be a bit too much for any Australian field guide.
Good birding,
| 