mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
It's known as the Wetmore order. Revised by Voous and others.
The BOU have lists to download here.
Not sure about the rest of the world though.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed Forum birdwatching 2008
- Thread starter Kotatsu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- birds birdwatching
It's known as the Wetmore order. Revised by Voous and others.
The BOU have lists to download here.
Not sure about the rest of the world though.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Ideally, I think we should follow Clements on this as well. Clements, in the edition I have, has not adopted the "Galleroanseres first" systematics, though... I don't know about the other systems proposed, but I believe there is some point to the Metaves-Neoaves-Coronaves division as well (I am using it in the papers on lice I am writing...), but I have only seen a handful of papers using this phylogeny, and I haven't seen any systematics, only trees... It does pose some interesting solutions and questions for bird systematics in general, though, and I'd be very interested to see a complete systematics/taxonomy using those trees as basis (though exactly what these trees show is perhaps best pursued elsewhere, if anyone is interested).
I would agree with the Wetmore order as listed on the AviBase site, though only to family level. I think it would be way too much work to adopt it to species-level. Below family level, I propose taxa should simply be listed in alphabetical order. If nothing else, it makes it a bit easier for people not used to the taxonomical order to find birds. Ideally, also, they should be ordered alphabetically by their scientific names. I still sometimes add "Common" to some species...
EDIT:
Addendum: as there are a lot of Incertae sedis in the AviBase list, I propose that these are placed in the families Clements place them. Otherwise, we'd risk having a lot of Incertae sedis grouped together even though they are not related. It not an ideal situation either way, but...
On the other hand, I suppose the vast majority of these Incertae sedis are rare and strange birds from Tropical America, which will likely never show up on this list... Nevertheless^^.
I would agree with the Wetmore order as listed on the AviBase site, though only to family level. I think it would be way too much work to adopt it to species-level. Below family level, I propose taxa should simply be listed in alphabetical order. If nothing else, it makes it a bit easier for people not used to the taxonomical order to find birds. Ideally, also, they should be ordered alphabetically by their scientific names. I still sometimes add "Common" to some species...
EDIT:
Addendum: as there are a lot of Incertae sedis in the AviBase list, I propose that these are placed in the families Clements place them. Otherwise, we'd risk having a lot of Incertae sedis grouped together even though they are not related. It not an ideal situation either way, but...
On the other hand, I suppose the vast majority of these Incertae sedis are rare and strange birds from Tropical America, which will likely never show up on this list... Nevertheless^^.
Last edited:
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Oh, sorry. I will explain, briefly.
Extant birds can be roughly divided into two groups: one which contains ostriches, kiwis, and other similar birds, and one which contains all the rest. It is this latter group that interests us at the moment.
Traditional systematics (1) placed the loons and grebes first among the "modern" birds, followed by albatrosses and relatives, other water-bound birds, then birds of prey, shore birds, and the land-bound birds, ending with the songbirds. Later studies (2) showed that the hens and relatives and the ducks and relatives formed a group which split off from the rest of the modern birds very early. This group is called the "Galloanseres", a combination of Galliformes (hens) and Anseriformes (ducks). This placement has been shown consistent in other studies as well.
More recent work has reshuffled the birds even more. Many orders of birds that were thought to form good natural groups were shown to be arbitrary constructs in these studies, and it was proposed that they were split up. For instance, falcons are unrelated to other birds of prey, and seem to have parrots and songbirds as their closest relatives. The buttonquails (small, crake-like birds) appear to be most closely related to gulls, auks and terns. Some groups of Ciconiiformes (storks and herons) and Gruiformes (cranes and rails) also hop around a bit, and the pelicans are no longer seen as related to the rest of the Pelecaniformes.
Even within the songbirds, there has been extensive reshuffling. I am not very well-read on this, as they are sort of out of my area, but I believe that both Old World warblers and thrushes are now considered to be constructs, and some members have been moved away. For instance, Old World redstarts, stonechats, wheatears, and allies are now placed among the Old World flycatchers, rather than the thrushes, and both the cisticoles and the goldcrests have left the warblers to form families of their own. The only other group I know that is relevant for our list (and I am handicapped by my European bias of bird knowledge) is the Bearded tit, which is placed in Paradoxornithiidae, a largely East Asian group containing the enigmatic Parrotbills, rather than the Timaliidae.
That is, of course, provided that these phylogenies are correct.
Be that as it may, these new systematics are provided largely by phylogeneticists, rather than taxonomists, and as far as I know, no complete systematics has been proposed with these changes included. The difference may seem esoteric, but is quite interesting, and also harmful. As genetic data becomes more and more widely available and easy to obtain, more and more systematic work is done shoddily by people who either don't know, or don't care, about proper revisions, checklists, and so on. Thus, there may be a lot of shuffling around of groups on various levels, but fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to take their responsibility and do the boring work of synonymising and systematizing. Instead, they hide behind "more data is needed" or the ghastliness that is sometimes proposed as an alternative to the ICZN or the still unborn PhyloCode (3).
There have been some famous systems of ordering birds, sometimes starting with the songbirds, sometimes with the loons. What Eric proposed was a system which acknowledges the placement of the ducks and hens at the beginning of the "modern" birds, but which has not yet, it seems, incorporated many of the other changes that have been proposed over the last few years. This is a sensible approach, naturally, until these recent findings have been corroborated with larger data sets, and until there actually is such a systematics.
This is important only on the taxonomic levels of order and family, though. So many groups are changing around below that level these days that a prudent approach would be to list genera and species alphabetically, or we'd have to change the list every week.
With regards to my EDIT:
A genus incerta sedis is one which the author feels cannot be accurately assigned to any existing family, nor in a family of its own. If you look at the songbird part of the AviBase page, you will find several such groups, which are unplaced for various reasons. These, however, may form distinct groups of their own. A genus incerta sedis may have several species, but they are not necessarily related to another unplaced genus. In Clements' list --- Birds of the World, A Checklist --- which we use as reference so far, does not contain genera incerta sedis; all species and genera have been assigned to a family. By adopting this scheme when the need arise, we avoid the risk of lumping together birds known not to be related in a single group unnecessarily. This, too, is of interest only for the systematics and taxonomy nerds, though.
---
(1) Note: Taxonomy is the field of deciding what things are called, systematics that of where they should be placed in relation to each other, and phylogenetics one of several ways to determine what the systematics should look like. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, which is wrong.
(2) I am not at work, and so don't have any references, but can look it up, if necessary.
(3) a. The PhyloCode is a more flexible system of systematics, which will no doubt eventually be incorporated into the Code I like some of its ideas, but find other reprehensible. For instance, some argue for the abandonment of the genus name as a functional unit, which seems preposterous to me. I could go on for ages, but it would likely bore everyone.
b. incidentally, this reluctance to actually follow through and rearrange the systematics and taxonomy after a phylogeny has been published is precisely why ecologists shouldn't do phylogenetics.
Extant birds can be roughly divided into two groups: one which contains ostriches, kiwis, and other similar birds, and one which contains all the rest. It is this latter group that interests us at the moment.
Traditional systematics (1) placed the loons and grebes first among the "modern" birds, followed by albatrosses and relatives, other water-bound birds, then birds of prey, shore birds, and the land-bound birds, ending with the songbirds. Later studies (2) showed that the hens and relatives and the ducks and relatives formed a group which split off from the rest of the modern birds very early. This group is called the "Galloanseres", a combination of Galliformes (hens) and Anseriformes (ducks). This placement has been shown consistent in other studies as well.
More recent work has reshuffled the birds even more. Many orders of birds that were thought to form good natural groups were shown to be arbitrary constructs in these studies, and it was proposed that they were split up. For instance, falcons are unrelated to other birds of prey, and seem to have parrots and songbirds as their closest relatives. The buttonquails (small, crake-like birds) appear to be most closely related to gulls, auks and terns. Some groups of Ciconiiformes (storks and herons) and Gruiformes (cranes and rails) also hop around a bit, and the pelicans are no longer seen as related to the rest of the Pelecaniformes.
Even within the songbirds, there has been extensive reshuffling. I am not very well-read on this, as they are sort of out of my area, but I believe that both Old World warblers and thrushes are now considered to be constructs, and some members have been moved away. For instance, Old World redstarts, stonechats, wheatears, and allies are now placed among the Old World flycatchers, rather than the thrushes, and both the cisticoles and the goldcrests have left the warblers to form families of their own. The only other group I know that is relevant for our list (and I am handicapped by my European bias of bird knowledge) is the Bearded tit, which is placed in Paradoxornithiidae, a largely East Asian group containing the enigmatic Parrotbills, rather than the Timaliidae.
That is, of course, provided that these phylogenies are correct.
Be that as it may, these new systematics are provided largely by phylogeneticists, rather than taxonomists, and as far as I know, no complete systematics has been proposed with these changes included. The difference may seem esoteric, but is quite interesting, and also harmful. As genetic data becomes more and more widely available and easy to obtain, more and more systematic work is done shoddily by people who either don't know, or don't care, about proper revisions, checklists, and so on. Thus, there may be a lot of shuffling around of groups on various levels, but fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to take their responsibility and do the boring work of synonymising and systematizing. Instead, they hide behind "more data is needed" or the ghastliness that is sometimes proposed as an alternative to the ICZN or the still unborn PhyloCode (3).
There have been some famous systems of ordering birds, sometimes starting with the songbirds, sometimes with the loons. What Eric proposed was a system which acknowledges the placement of the ducks and hens at the beginning of the "modern" birds, but which has not yet, it seems, incorporated many of the other changes that have been proposed over the last few years. This is a sensible approach, naturally, until these recent findings have been corroborated with larger data sets, and until there actually is such a systematics.
This is important only on the taxonomic levels of order and family, though. So many groups are changing around below that level these days that a prudent approach would be to list genera and species alphabetically, or we'd have to change the list every week.
With regards to my EDIT:
A genus incerta sedis is one which the author feels cannot be accurately assigned to any existing family, nor in a family of its own. If you look at the songbird part of the AviBase page, you will find several such groups, which are unplaced for various reasons. These, however, may form distinct groups of their own. A genus incerta sedis may have several species, but they are not necessarily related to another unplaced genus. In Clements' list --- Birds of the World, A Checklist --- which we use as reference so far, does not contain genera incerta sedis; all species and genera have been assigned to a family. By adopting this scheme when the need arise, we avoid the risk of lumping together birds known not to be related in a single group unnecessarily. This, too, is of interest only for the systematics and taxonomy nerds, though.
---
(1) Note: Taxonomy is the field of deciding what things are called, systematics that of where they should be placed in relation to each other, and phylogenetics one of several ways to determine what the systematics should look like. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, which is wrong.
(2) I am not at work, and so don't have any references, but can look it up, if necessary.
(3) a. The PhyloCode is a more flexible system of systematics, which will no doubt eventually be incorporated into the Code I like some of its ideas, but find other reprehensible. For instance, some argue for the abandonment of the genus name as a functional unit, which seems preposterous to me. I could go on for ages, but it would likely bore everyone.
b. incidentally, this reluctance to actually follow through and rearrange the systematics and taxonomy after a phylogeny has been published is precisely why ecologists shouldn't do phylogenetics.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Meh, maybe I just made it more convoluted with my explanation. If anyone wants to have some points clarified, I'd be happy to do so. Being a systematist and an aspiring taxonomist, I could go on for hours about it, though, so be warned^^.
I found that very helpful, thank you. Not sure I could digest a lot more but if it is important I will make a big effort. 
.
Otherwise I am happy if you experts adopt a system you are happy with and I will try to learn it over time as I see it used.
.Otherwise I am happy if you experts adopt a system you are happy with and I will try to learn it over time as I see it used.
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
I LOVE Kotatsu. Who else footnotes his posts on an internet forum? (And I'm not being sarcastic. Being precise, readable and understandable is much appreciated.)
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Thanks! I did understand that.
As long as I can tell what has already been spotted, I should be good.
mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
The big advantage of following the Wetmore/Voous order, especially in a field guide is that related birds will be next to each other. If you have them in alphabetical order this won't be the case.
So all the wheatears are together, as are all the leaf warblers etc, etc.
Makes it much easier to find a bird in any list or book.
So all the wheatears are together, as are all the leaf warblers etc, etc.
Makes it much easier to find a bird in any list or book.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
But that would still be true if they were listed alphabetically from genus level and downwards. All Phylloscopus would still be together, as would the[/i] Oenanthe[/i], Turdus, Muscicapa, and so on. In general, field guides do not list birds in any particular order, I feel. In the ~new book by Mullarney, Svensson and Zetterström (I don't know the English name of this book), for instance, pages 290-91 shows the striated Acrocephalus and Cisticolidae, pages 292-295 the Locustella and Cetti's Warbler, only to revert to non-striated Acrocephalus on pages 296-299. Catharus, Zoothera and Turdus are mixed in the same way. Then of course, they place priority in comparative pictures, so this is a more convenient way, I guess.
Nevertheless, using Wetmore/Voous for orders and families is easy, I guess. It is an hours work or so to assign to each family and each order on the Avibase page a number, and then arrange the taxa accordingly. Doing so at lower levels would take the rest of the year.
Nevertheless, using Wetmore/Voous for orders and families is easy, I guess. It is an hours work or so to assign to each family and each order on the Avibase page a number, and then arrange the taxa accordingly. Doing so at lower levels would take the rest of the year.
House Finch?
(BTW, I'm looking into buying a Pentax K10D in the near future ... anyone have one? This picture was taken with a Panasonic DMC-LC33 with Leica lens that I got in 2003, the lens being the selling point for me, but I think it's time for a REAL replacement for my old Pentax K1000) (I'm also looking into cleaning the window - that might help in the meantime!)
(BTW, I'm looking into buying a Pentax K10D in the near future ... anyone have one? This picture was taken with a Panasonic DMC-LC33 with Leica lens that I got in 2003, the lens being the selling point for me, but I think it's time for a REAL replacement for my old Pentax K1000) (I'm also looking into cleaning the window - that might help in the meantime!)
Last edited:
mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
I was making a general point about the utility of using a system such as Wetmore/Voous rather than asking for strict order down to species level on our lists.
I agree that family level will be sufficient and alphabetically by scientific name thereafter.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
I found that very helpful, thank you. Not sure I could digest a lot more but if it is important I will make a big effort.
Otherwise I am happy if you experts adopt a system you are happy with and I will try to learn it over time as I see it used.
Then I will devote some time next week to summarise a few recent papers on bird systematics. It will be focused, I believe, on non-songbirds, especially with regards to the larger picture (families, orders, and so on). I don't have very much material on songbirds, despite my supervisor working almost exclusively on them. It so happens that the groups he works with (Old World warblers, thrushes, Old World flycatchers, cisticoles, and so on) almost invariably have very few lice, and are thus not feasible study objects for a PhD.
Larus novaehollandiae?
Hehe, thank you^^
Thanks! I did understand that.
As long as I can tell what has already been spotted, I should be good.
It is good that people point out when they don't understand what is being talked about, especially when it comes to areas such as taxonomy and systematics which sometimes employ non-intuitive concepts and rules. I was at a conference on aquatic oligochaeta in Wuhan, China, in 2006, and was one of two people (the other being my then-supervisor) during a week of lectures that talked about systematics, phylogeny, and taxonomy. The great majority of the attendees were ecologists, toxicologists, and people of similar interests, and apart from our small delegation from Sweden, very few probably understood what we were talking about.
Indeed, ecologists and other biologists occasionally don't even understand why what we do is necessary. Yet without systematics, biology becomes untenable. How can you know which results of physiology are generally applicable without knowing how organisms are related? How can you preserve biodiversity unless you can determine which populations are different species?
There was a time when taxonomy was a more honourable endeavour, and a revision of a family could make your name famous throughout the academic world. When men with moustaches could get boatloads of money to set out and list and describe mites or sea spiders or scorpion flies or velvet worms or beard worms or soot mosses or parasitic copepods from every little rock in the ocean (1). When naming a species was a privilege, and having one named after you was an honour (2). That time has now sadly passed, and reiterations of the scientific conditions which caused it to appear in the first place are unlikely.
The rules which govern taxonomy are often straight-forward only to the initiated, and sadly, the taxonomists of the world are doing little to alleviate this and to explain to the rest of the biologists, let alone the general public, why our work is important. I am of course exaggerating when I say that without taxonomy and systematics, comparative biology is useless and impossible, but I am not exaggerating much.
Much of the taxonomists work is --- or should be --- done in dusty museums and private collections, of course. The caricature of the taxonomist as an elderly man with white beard sitting in his office looking at the genitals of minute Angolan parasitic wasps is often correct. But then again, I will be going to Swedish Lapland, sub-tropical Japan, and North-western Australia this year, and both Alaska, Delaware, Vancouver, and possibly Okinawa next year. And my beard is still red!
---
(1) Kellogg, one of USA's foremost experts on lice, for instance, published a series of papers entitled things like "Mallophaga from the Baja California", "Mallophaga from the Gulf of Mexico", and "Mallophaga from the Bahamas". Eisen, the famous German naturalist who travelled with the Vega (I believe) published lists of the earthworms of Diego Garzia, Kerguelen, Santa Maria, and Fernando Po. There are doubtlessly thousands of examples for all different groups of organisms.
(2) I note with some pleasure that the cartoonist Gary Larson seems to be quite proud of having the owl louse Strigiphilus garylarsoni named after him. It lives on the White-faced Owl Otus leucotis and was described by Clayton 1990.
Here's an Eastern Bluebird inspecting our vacant birdhouse, perhaps considering taking up residency (now that we got the wasps out), and in the next shot he seems to be mulling it over.
And I don't know what this one is ... maybe a House Sparrow?
And I don't know what this one is ... maybe a House Sparrow?
President Bush
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,506
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Ok, so I have been looking into Lilith's hawk today, and the most constructive conclusion I can come to is that I don't have any good books on North American birds (recommendations would be greatly appreciated) (1). I have essentially compared the National Geographic Society's "Field Guide to the Birds of North America" with Johnsgard's "Hawks, Eagles & Falcons of North America", cross-checking with pictures on www.mangoverde.com.
Be that as it may, I think Sharp-shinned can be ruled out entirely. I understand it to be a North American counterpart to the Sparrowhawk, and the bird in the picture fails in that comparison on several counts, most conspicuous of which are the legs, which seem to be far more of buzzard (Buteo) legs than sparrowhawk (Accipiter) legs.
"Eastern US" gives us the following plausible species (assuming it is not a vagrant or rare visitor):
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis
I was first a bit inclined towards the Goshawk, but the tail length is wrong, and the tail does not appear to be distinctly banded. Also, the chest is white, which rules out both Accipiter species. Red-shouldered Hawk would be smaller, and either have a spotted chest (immature) or red shoulders and white tail-bands (adult), which this individual doesn't have. The same goes for the Broad-winged Hawk.
This leaves us with only the Red-tailed Hawk. The individual in the picture does not have a red tail, however, but does that present a problem? It would, were this an adult bird. However, immature Red-tailed don't have red tails. They do have several characters which imply that your bird is a Red-tail, however: strong legs, white chest with black-spotted belly, shorter tail with less conspicuous banding, and so on.
Thus, I think mummymonkey was correct when he/she suggested Buteo jamaicensis. Indeed, look at the following pictures:
Immature Red-shoulder
Other immature Red-shoulder
Head of immature Red-shoulder
Does this look like your bird?
(This account may seem overly detailed and unnecessarily pedantic, but I have found that when being asked to identify a bird by someone who is not a birdwatcher, the thorough and, perhaps, over-cautious approach is usually the best. If nothing else, the post may serve as instruction to a possible methodology to find the correct species. It is always hard from photos, though, especially such muddled ones as these.
The ideal way to learn birds is, of course, to stay for a year or so at a banding station or bird observatory, where common and uncommon birds can be held in the hand for comparison, and where experts in comparative morphology and field studies can unload years of accumulated knowledge on the initiate. However, not everyone is as fortunate as I am, and the scheme is implausible for most people. The second best is, of course, to attend courses with local bird societies, or find a personal guide of some sort who is willing to help you.
The value of field experience cannot be overemphasised; observe common and uncommon birds for an extended period of time (ideally several years). Don't force yourself to identify everything at once. Start with common birds, and observe them over the year. Mark how they change their plumages, how their calls vary when they want to attract a mate, warn for a predator, and so on. Learning what the most common birds look and sound like is among the most important things to learn when you want to watch birds. I don't know how many times I put down my tripod and looked at yet another Meadow Pipit before I learned that that is the only bird behaving and sounding like that in Swedish fields. I no longer have to stand and listen for minutes just to arrive at the conclusion that this, too, was a Great Tit or a Robin or so. Excluding the common birds is of tremendous importance, since it will make it easier to recognise species you haven't seen or heard before, and to pick out specific species from a background of noise.
However, the single absolutely most important thing to learn in the history of everything at all times ever is that pictures in a field guide are consensus pictures of dozens of hundreds of birds. The birds do not look like that in the wild, and above all, birds are variable. Allow for more variation in your judgements, and 90% of all rare birds will disappear. Colour does vary over the year, not all individuals of a species sound the same, and so on. This is especially important when it comes to waders, gulls, terns, warblers, and so on. Photos are only of one bird, and drawings are not of any bird at all, but a consensus. Look at birds and learn how much they can vary, and you'll be a far better bird watcher than those who brag about having seen thousands of birds. As Lilith (and presumably others here) have only recently started with birdwatching, that is the single most important lesson I can distil from a lifetime of birdwatching (I started seriously when I was about nine, but had been a nature kid long before that, and already knew the most common birds and their sounds).
Phew. Now I go and teach people birds.
---
(1) Why do they seriously seem t believe that the more or less uniformly brown backs of birds of prey are more interesting to depict than the often more variable undersides? Is this a field guide for the exclusive use of helicopter pilots? Did the painter run out of colours when he did the Falconiformes, and had to moderate his palette?
In general, I find that non-Swedes who paint for field guides are crap. Look at Lars Jonson's excellent "Fåglar i Europa med Nordafrika och Mellersta Östern" (Birds of Europe with Northern Africa and the Middle East) or Lars Svensson and Dan Zetterström's divine "Fågelguiden" (Bird Guide; co-written by Killian Mullarney and Peter J. Grant, and available in English and German, at least).
Be that as it may, I think Sharp-shinned can be ruled out entirely. I understand it to be a North American counterpart to the Sparrowhawk, and the bird in the picture fails in that comparison on several counts, most conspicuous of which are the legs, which seem to be far more of buzzard (Buteo) legs than sparrowhawk (Accipiter) legs.
"Eastern US" gives us the following plausible species (assuming it is not a vagrant or rare visitor):
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis
I was first a bit inclined towards the Goshawk, but the tail length is wrong, and the tail does not appear to be distinctly banded. Also, the chest is white, which rules out both Accipiter species. Red-shouldered Hawk would be smaller, and either have a spotted chest (immature) or red shoulders and white tail-bands (adult), which this individual doesn't have. The same goes for the Broad-winged Hawk.
This leaves us with only the Red-tailed Hawk. The individual in the picture does not have a red tail, however, but does that present a problem? It would, were this an adult bird. However, immature Red-tailed don't have red tails. They do have several characters which imply that your bird is a Red-tail, however: strong legs, white chest with black-spotted belly, shorter tail with less conspicuous banding, and so on.
Thus, I think mummymonkey was correct when he/she suggested Buteo jamaicensis. Indeed, look at the following pictures:
Immature Red-shoulder
Other immature Red-shoulder
Head of immature Red-shoulder
Does this look like your bird?
(This account may seem overly detailed and unnecessarily pedantic, but I have found that when being asked to identify a bird by someone who is not a birdwatcher, the thorough and, perhaps, over-cautious approach is usually the best. If nothing else, the post may serve as instruction to a possible methodology to find the correct species. It is always hard from photos, though, especially such muddled ones as these.
The ideal way to learn birds is, of course, to stay for a year or so at a banding station or bird observatory, where common and uncommon birds can be held in the hand for comparison, and where experts in comparative morphology and field studies can unload years of accumulated knowledge on the initiate. However, not everyone is as fortunate as I am, and the scheme is implausible for most people. The second best is, of course, to attend courses with local bird societies, or find a personal guide of some sort who is willing to help you.
The value of field experience cannot be overemphasised; observe common and uncommon birds for an extended period of time (ideally several years). Don't force yourself to identify everything at once. Start with common birds, and observe them over the year. Mark how they change their plumages, how their calls vary when they want to attract a mate, warn for a predator, and so on. Learning what the most common birds look and sound like is among the most important things to learn when you want to watch birds. I don't know how many times I put down my tripod and looked at yet another Meadow Pipit before I learned that that is the only bird behaving and sounding like that in Swedish fields. I no longer have to stand and listen for minutes just to arrive at the conclusion that this, too, was a Great Tit or a Robin or so. Excluding the common birds is of tremendous importance, since it will make it easier to recognise species you haven't seen or heard before, and to pick out specific species from a background of noise.
However, the single absolutely most important thing to learn in the history of everything at all times ever is that pictures in a field guide are consensus pictures of dozens of hundreds of birds. The birds do not look like that in the wild, and above all, birds are variable. Allow for more variation in your judgements, and 90% of all rare birds will disappear. Colour does vary over the year, not all individuals of a species sound the same, and so on. This is especially important when it comes to waders, gulls, terns, warblers, and so on. Photos are only of one bird, and drawings are not of any bird at all, but a consensus. Look at birds and learn how much they can vary, and you'll be a far better bird watcher than those who brag about having seen thousands of birds. As Lilith (and presumably others here) have only recently started with birdwatching, that is the single most important lesson I can distil from a lifetime of birdwatching (I started seriously when I was about nine, but had been a nature kid long before that, and already knew the most common birds and their sounds).
Phew. Now I go and teach people birds.
---
(1) Why do they seriously seem t believe that the more or less uniformly brown backs of birds of prey are more interesting to depict than the often more variable undersides? Is this a field guide for the exclusive use of helicopter pilots? Did the painter run out of colours when he did the Falconiformes, and had to moderate his palette?
In general, I find that non-Swedes who paint for field guides are crap. Look at Lars Jonson's excellent "Fåglar i Europa med Nordafrika och Mellersta Östern" (Birds of Europe with Northern Africa and the Middle East) or Lars Svensson and Dan Zetterström's divine "Fågelguiden" (Bird Guide; co-written by Killian Mullarney and Peter J. Grant, and available in English and German, at least).
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Lilith: your unknown little bird is indeed a House Sparrow. I got a trap designed to catch that kind of bird today. It included instructions on how to kill them as humanely as possible. Are they really such a problem in the US?
Also: no new birds today, but indeed two new vertebrates!
Smooth Newt Triturus vulgaris
Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus
I also had some immature frogs, but I don't know of what species. If I were to guess, I'd guess Edible Frog Pelophylax esculetus, but I know no way to be sure; frogs is not my area.
Also: no new birds today, but indeed two new vertebrates!
Smooth Newt Triturus vulgaris
Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus
I also had some immature frogs, but I don't know of what species. If I were to guess, I'd guess Edible Frog Pelophylax esculetus, but I know no way to be sure; frogs is not my area.