Why on earth would you want to re-order a FIELD guide to keep up with
taxonomic fashions?
Field guides are for birders who want information about the birds that
they come across in the field, not in museum collections. You put the
pelagic birds in a group, waders in a group, waterfowl in a group,
quail and button quail in a group ...
Regards, Laurie.
On 22/01/2008, at 4:39 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
With all these changes I'm beginning to understand why people gripe so
much about them - this is my first round of changes, I assume many of
you have seen many of them.
Can we expect future field guides to modify the order to match these
changes? If so, and assuming that DNA studies will result in more
changes than ever before, would it be a silly idea to suggest that
someone comes up with a separate stable taxonomy purely for
identification purposes? One where birds that look or act the same
are
left together despite the fact that we know they're really from
different families?
It would only be used for the ordering of species in field guides,
checklists, etc.
We have scientific and common names, why can't we have scientific and
common taxonomies?
Peter Shute
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
