Morecombe field guide - one week in

["Mules, Michael" <>]

Hi all,

apologies for the length of this "review".  I kind of got carried away.

Well, I bought the Morecombe Field Guide last week, and gave it a quick run in the field on the weekend, as well as having a good look through it alongside the Simpson&Day (SD) and Pizzey&Knight (PK) field guides.

First impressions:  Very "busy" layout.  While the number of species per page is somewhat between those of PK and SD, the within-plate text makes for a cluttered look on the plates. 

My other first impression was that it was very heavy and large for a field guide.  In fact, it is the largest in terms of external dimensions, but its weight is approximately the same as PK.  SD is slightly lighter (and is even lighter in the field, if you take scissors to pages 289-418).  Of course, the Slater et al. wins by a country mile.

Illustrations:  Many people have commented on the illustrations, some adversely.  Personally, I think the illustrations are serviceable and of an adequate standard for a field guide.  Some are better than others, of course.  The best seem to capture the spirit of the bird, while a few (only a very few - I'm thinking mostly of the Feral Pigeon illustration) are only recognisable on second or third glance.  But overall, the illustrations serve their purpose - that of identifying the bird.  They are not up to the overall standard of PK's or SD's illustrations, but they aren't bad.

Layout:  I have already commented on the busyness of each plate of illustrations, due to in-plate text.  I think this is the field-guide's biggest weakness, as illustrations seem to be hidden by the surrounding words.  I've been birdwatching for years, and know roughly the bird I have seen (usually down to genus, but definitely down to family), and I can find my way directly to the area of the book that it would most likely be, and to the bird it most probably was.  But if I were a beginning birder, I think I would become horribly lost trying to find a strange bird by leafing through in the hopes of seeing something similar (Something which is comparatively easy to do with PK, Slater, and to a lesser extent, SD). 

The in-plate text is also the best feature, once the relevant illustrations have been found.  After having seen Purple-crowned Lorikeets for only the second time on the weekend, I used the Morcombe field-guide as a double-confirmation (never mind that they are the only small lorikeet with an orange-yellow ear and red underwings, I wanted to use it!).  The in-plate text made identification simple.  Later, using PK and SD, it seemed harder, particularly using SD to note the identifying features.  I guess having them shoved in your face by arrows and text really makes them stand out.

The maps, when compared to SD and PK, seem fine.  I am a little sceptical of the usefulness of different shades to show likelihood of occurrence, but I'm sure it will come in useful occasionally.

Features: Almost every species is shown in profile rest posture, and in flight, with both illustrations of a similar size.  Very useful.  In some instances (noteably Eastern Spinebill and Sunbird), they are drawn in flight, with the at-rest plumage (upperwing, back etc...) described only in text - not conducive to identification by someone relying on illustrations alone.

The Morcombe guide also has several species in less conventional poses in order to show identifying features.  Bronze-cuckoos are one example.  I saw both Shining and Horsefield's Bronze-cuckoos on the weekend, within an hour of each other, and the Morcombe guide had clear, easy-to separate illustrations (as does SD; PK not so much).

The egg/nest guide at the back seems to be a waste of space.  I find it highly unlikely that anyone could identify accurately any eggs they came across from the attendant illustrations. The egg pictures in Slater et al. are much more useful.  The nests are slightly better illustrated, and could probably be identified to family level.  Like the SD handbook section, the egg/nest guide could easily be removed if the weight of the book was a problem.

Most (if not all?) subspecies are separately illustrated.  Morecombe has not, for the most part, followed Schodde & Mason's Directory for passerine subspecies.  His splitting of the Striated Grasswren into two species (striatus and merrotsyi) is either in press, or has been recently published in the Australian Journal of Zoology.

Other stuff and recommendations:  I like the way Morecombe has grouped similar looking birds together (he is the only one of him, PK and SD to put Whistling Kite and Little Eagle on the one page!).  His illustrations are not works of art, but then again, this is a book of identification, not a wildlife exhibition. 

I think that the Morecombe field guide makes a very good second field guide, especially for all SD users, as it is has all the written information that SD is missing.  I would not reccomend it to any beginning birders though - it is too messy in its layout, and too demanding on the user to be of much use to them. 

I think I'll still use my PK most of the time and keep the Morcombe for a second opinion.

If you got this far, then thanks.

Cheers, Michael

Michael Mules
Curator, Science Program
Museum Victoria
Melbourne Museum, Carlton

Ph: 8341 7426

This e-mail is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential.  You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do so.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify by e-mail immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy any copy of this message.  Views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where specifically stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria.  Museum Victoria does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free from errors, virus or interference.e