Ornithology B/C

[Paradox21]

I use the Smithsonian and am very satisfied with it. It has a good deal of info in it without having to edit at all. That is not to say there isn't more information to be added, but there is reasonable amounts of space to add more info.

But the downside to the increased info is the decrease in pictures. You have to be able to identify a bird by sight. The book does give 1 picture (sometimes 2 or 3) of the bird to reaffirm your suspicion of what the bird is, but beyond that, you just have to know them.

And the Smithsonian is for sure allowed. I checked with NSO.

[junexia]

yay! finally someone who's using the same guide as me! i think the smithsonian is pretty good too.

[amerikestrel]

Personally, I think the Sibley guide is much better than both the Audubon and the Smithsonian.

[junexia]

i havent really taken a good look at the sibley so i wouldnt know, but its a bit too late anyway...seeing as how regionals is so close...

[soobsession]

i havent really taken a good look at the sibley so i wouldnt know, but its a bit too late anyway...seeing as how regionals is so close...

the sibley seems to be really good when it comes to IDing different plumages and things like that. However, it seems to lack a lto of content in some other areas... I think.... I just took a quick scan at it a couple months ago when deciding which field guide to buy.

[kjhsscioly]

would national geographic's "complete birds of north America" be allowed?

[Celeste]

i havent really taken a good look at the sibley so i wouldnt know, but its a bit too late anyway...seeing as how regionals is so close...

the sibley seems to be really good when it comes to IDing different plumages and things like that. However, it seems to lack a lto of content in some other areas... I think.... I just took a quick scan at it a couple months ago when deciding which field guide to buy.

Yeah, the Sibley is great for IDing, but there really isn't a ton of information about each individual bird in it. Being able to write in it totally makes up for this, though, and there's plenty of room to write in it.

[courage7856]

would national geographic's "complete birds of north America" be allowed?

I wouldn't think so, because I saw a quote that said:

Ornithologist and illustrator Alderfer is the general editor of this fine resource that, as he acknowledges, is too large to be a field guide.

And, according to SOINC:

01/07/2010 - 22:48 What is the definition of a field guide? May any published book be used?

A field guide is a book used to take in the 'field' used to identify various life forms. Portability is a consideration; a book that can not be conveniently carried/used in the field is not a field guide.

[amerikestrel]

would national geographic's "complete birds of north America" be allowed?

This can be rather controversial, as different people could have different definitions of 'field guide'. Some could argue that Audubon's "Encyclopedia of North American Birds" would qualify as a field guide, while others would only use the slimmest regional Peterson guides in the field. I would think that the judges would allow the NatGeo, since you could argue that it's portable enough to take into the field. However, I would discourage you from using it. Since it's so large, it may be difficult to find necessary information in a short amount of time. Plus, I'm sure it has hundreds of birds that are not on the list, which may make it harder to identify the ones that are.

[junexia]

how big exactly is the national geographic one?