<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: I'm buying my second copy now...
Review: ...to give as a gift, because I'm so pleased with it. Unlike some of the other reviewers, who seem to have a great deal of expertise and several bird books at-hand, I'm just a casual observer of the visitors to my backyard feeder. This is the first bird book (ahem, field guide) for me, and I don't see that I'll need to seek other titles any time soon. As with most Dorling-Kindersley publications, the photos are great (these show male, female, and juvenile examples), the layout is engaging, and the text is informative. One helpful feature for a novice like me: Next to a picture, there's often a notation of something like "often mistaken for.." so you can look up those other species to compare details. I'm not really interested in an encyclopedia about each bird; I just wanted a handy reference, and this book serves that purpose admirably.
Rating:
Summary: I'm buying my second copy now...
Review: ...to give as a gift, because I'm so pleased with it. Unlike some of the other reviewers, who seem to have a great deal of expertise and several bird books at-hand, I'm just a casual observer of the visitors to my backyard feeder. This is the first bird book (ahem, field guide) for me, and I don't see that I'll need to seek other titles any time soon. As with most Dorling-Kindersley publications, the photos are great (these show male, female, and juvenile examples), the layout is engaging, and the text is informative. One helpful feature for a novice like me: Next to a picture, there's often a notation of something like "often mistaken for.." so you can look up those other species to compare details. I'm not really interested in an encyclopedia about each bird; I just wanted a handy reference, and this book serves that purpose admirably.
Rating: 
Summary: to add to the first review
Review: I generally agree with the first review. A few additions I find the single page approach generally more useful.
The illustrations are larger than many other guides, and often include smaller pictures or drawings of female, juvenile, seasonal plumage, similar birds.
I agree that some pictures are photoshopped to enhance field marks. Generally this works, but attempts to add shadowing are sometimes misleading. For example, the great egret, a completely white bird shown from below in flight, appears to be mostly blue-gray due to heavihanded shadowing of underside. Another issue is that this is not really a Texas Guide except in the selection of birds to include, probably drawn from a larger database. Distribution maps are national. There is no indication of dates to observe in Texas, All large illustrations are male breeding plumage, even though many of the birds do not breed here and are seen only in winter plumage. One glaring ommission is the Savannah Sparrow, one of the most common winter sparrows in Texas. Appears as "similar bird" several times, but no page of its own.
Rating:
Summary: to add to the first review
Review: I generally agree with the first review. A few additions I find the single page approach generally more useful.
The illustrations are larger than many other guides, and often include smaller pictures or drawings of female, juvenile, seasonal plumage, similar birds.
I agree that some pictures are photoshopped to enhance field marks. Generally this works, but attempts to add shadowing are sometimes misleading. For example, the great egret, a completely white bird shown from below in flight, appears to be mostly blue-gray due to heavihanded shadowing of underside. Another issue is that this is not really a Texas Guide except in the selection of birds to include, probably drawn from a larger database. Distribution maps are national. There is no indication of dates to observe in Texas, All large illustrations are male breeding plumage, even though many of the birds do not breed here and are seen only in winter plumage. One glaring ommission is the Savannah Sparrow, one of the most common winter sparrows in Texas. Appears as "similar bird" several times, but no page of its own.
Rating: 
Summary: Not very pleased
Review: I purchased the Birds of Texas book, mainly because it had a fairly high rating when I was searching for a good Guide for Texas. The book uses real pictures of birds, as opposed to detailed drawings such as National Geographic's N. America birds and Sibley's Guide to Birds. The pictures and colors are absolutely horrible, and it is difficult to use when identifying birds in the field. Also, only having one bird on the page makes it difficult in identification, especially when trying to figure out what sparrow you've just seen. The maps, songs, and text descriptions of the birds are very good though, and it is nice having a place to note your date, time and location of seeing a particular species. If you're planning a trip to Texas, use the National Geographic guide. It, unlike the Smithsonian, gives multiple angles, and dead on visual descriptions. Also, although better used as a reference, and quite hefty to lug around, Sibley's is an excellent guide to have handy.
Rating:
Summary: It's New to Me, but I Like It...
Review: The first field guide I ever owned was Roger Tory Peterson's A Field Guide to the Birds of Texas. I was thrilled to own it since I was able to identify the birds I saw around me with its help. On the other hand, I was confounded by the archaic design of the book. I will cite the chief example: The textual description of a bird was separate, sometimes by many pages, from the corresponding illustration. This stimulated me to begin my search for the perfect field guide. My latest acquisition is this book. I will say right now I like it. I haven't stopped using my Sibley Guide, but I was slow to stop using my National Geographic Birds of North America when I first got my Sibley. Let me tell you why I like the Birds of Texas: The descriptions of the individual bird species. Oh, it has the usual introductory material and end matter, but none of that is really important to me in a field guide. It's all about the bird descriptions! Each species has its own page with a standardized layout. There is a header bar with the family, species, length and wingspan. There is also a footer bar with notes about plumage dimorphism, habitat (using symbols), migratory habits and weight. I am particularly pleased with an innovation in Birds of Texas: In the top right-hand corner of each page there is a small silhouette of the bird superimposed on an outline of this book giving a very useful size reference. (A "scale silhouette" according to the introductory material.) Of course I don't need this at the extremes, for example a Whooping Crane or a Ruby-throated Hummingbird, but I do find it helpful for shorebirds and passerines. In the main section there is a textual description that discusses the bird's appearance and habits. There are also specific "bullets" covering Song, Behavior, Breeding, Nesting, Population, Feeders (when appropriate) and Conservation. There is also a photographic illustration that is masked so that the bird is presented with minimal distraction from any background. The photos are all very sharp, and important identifying characteristics are flagged with notes. I suspect that some features that are important to identification have been "digitally tweaked" to emphasize them. The pictures present the bird as you are most likely to see it: perched, flying and sometimes both. If the bird's appearance varies by sex or season additional photos or paintings are included. I have to admit that I have a bias against photographic field guides (as opposed to painted field guides): I tend to think that birds must look exactly like a photograph while I can accept some variation from a painting. I know this is ... silly, but I'm not the only birder to have this bias. Having said this, I find that the masked presentation minimizes, but does not eliminate, my problem with this format. There is a small section, discussing similar species. There are notes about the similarities and differences, and there are photos or paintings of these species. Near the bottom of each species' page is another small section describing both graphically and in words the bird's flight pattern. I like this feature; I often rely on a bird's flight pattern to identity it. Opposite the flight pattern section is a range map which uses a color scheme that is consistent with both the National Geographic and Sibley guides. Just above the footer bar is the Nest Identification section which has symbols that show the size and typical location(s) of the species' nests. A short descriptive paragraph is also included. I really haven't found this useful (yet). Below the footer bar there is a place to record your sighting of the particular species. I have found quite a few things I like about Birds of Texas. They are: •The size: it is smaller than the Sibley guide. •The lack of backgrounds in the photos. •The field marks pointed out in the illustrations. •The scale silhouettes. •The flight pattern section. •The habitat symbols in the footer bar, although they are quite small and I haven't learned them all yet. On the other hand I have a few complaints. They are: •The weight: it weighs almost as much as the Sibley guide. •No way to get to a bird quickly: I haven't said anything about this, but I sure would like a thumb index or a blind index or a quick index or.... I feel this way about every field guide I own. Fortunately I have found downloadable quick indices for the National Geographic and Sibley guides, and I have created one for The Birds of Texas. •The size of some of the type and some of the symbols. I'm, ahem, middle-aged, and I need to use reading glasses to access some of the information. Of course, there's no way that the information could be enlarged without completely destroying the format of the book. Never mind! As I said earlier, I like this book. I do not think you would be disappointed owning it. I don't know right now if I'll replace Sibley in my birding bag with The Birds of Texas, but I keep it there now when I'm birding in my home state.
<< 1 >>
| 
