Identifying Birds

[jeremiah_boucher1]

I had the unfortunate privelage of observing several (20-50) little yellow birds last evening at the local state park. Unfortunate because I did not have my camera with me! I was wondering if there are any web-sites that have pictures and information about various birds. Maybe by location, or type, or.....

 

<p>

 

I think they were yellow finches. South shore of Lake Erie in Ohio. Any thoughts?

[Rod Sorensen]

Your local book store should have 10 or 15 good books on bird identification and unlike the internet, you can carry a book with you in the field.

Rod

[chris_hansen]

Jeremiah,

Not to avoid your question but probably the fastest way to identify them would be to go to the public library and get a Peterson's Field Guide to Eastern Birds or a similar field guide. In instances like these a field guide is a lot faster to look through than a computer. I haven't even looked on the net but I'm sure there are tons of sites on the net about birding.Just type in the term birding or Audubon and I am sure you will find plenty. Also hook up with your local Audubon Chapter and go out on a field trip with some of them and you will pick up some invaluable tips on how to identify birds.

Best light to you

Chris

[mitch_mcconnell]

Jeremiah,

 

<p>

 

It is pretty likely that they were American Goldfinches. They

occur pretty commonly around the country, and would be likely

to be seen in larger groups. They are overall yellow, with

black and white wings and a black forehead.

 

<p>

 

Another clue would be if they were hanging around wild thistle.

 

<p>

 

Mitch

[darl_larkin]

Jeremiah,

 

<p>

 

Like the previous answers, I would suggest going to the library or buying a book on birds. The National Geographic book on birds is excellent. Also there are plenty of places to go on the web. For a general set of links, go here: http://www.ntic.qc.ca/~nellus/link_nam.html

You can also go here: http://www.birder.com

I hope that helps! :o)

[bob_royse]

Yeah, they were probably American Goldfinches. Yellow Warblers are also common nesters in willow thickets on the S shore of L.Erie, but wouldn't be seen in flocks.

 

<p>

 

There are countless books and tapes/CD's available to study the plumages and songs of birds. The #1 website for Ohio birding information is Vic Fazio's "Ohio Birder Resourses" :

 

<p>

 

http://www.bright.net/~vfazio/avesohio.htm

[jeremiah_boucher1]

If by thistle you mean prickly stuff with little purple flowers, then yes they were hanging out in the thistle. I wouldn't say they were in a flock though. Mostly in pairs, just lots of pairs.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the obvious. Sometimes I really do think I spend to much time looking for information rather than going to the library or book store and actually finding it.

[ydobon]

<P>I'm not a birder, so I'm just hazarding a guess that the National Audubon Society publishes a decent field guide on birds (actually a couple for North America). They don't sell directly from their web site (http://www.audubon.org), but at least you know what they offer.

 

<P>I'm sure your local retailer or favorite on-line bookstore would offer a selection of the Audubon publications in addition to the books mentioned by others.

[hans_buchholdt]

Jeremiah, you do need a birdbook....I suggest a Peterson's Guide.

 

<p>

 

On the web however, the site the really beats the band is the one at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center - North American Breeding Bird Survey. This is THE multi-year federal project on N. American birds - lots of unique and useful information there of use to the birding photographer.

 

<p>

 

www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/

 

<p>

 

Enjoy, Hans.

[dick_ginkowski]

You can get the Audubon field guides at Sam's Club.

[don_baccus]

This will probably come as a surprise to the non-birders like Sean, but the Audubon bird guide's not that great. May sound like heresy coming from a bird shooter from me, but the Audubon guide uses photos and in general I find well-executed paintings more suitable. The painter can emphasize those characteristics most useful for identification and which are always present. A photograph is of one bird in one plumage and in a sense gives too much of the wrong kind of detail.

 

<p>

 

For the beginning birder the Peterson's guides are very good. The best all-around book, covering the entire county, is IMO the National Geographic guide to North American Birds. There's another book coming out that rumor claims will be really hot, though, expected perhaps to unseat the Nat Geo guide.

[bob_royse]

My one stop bird book (I have 50 or 60) shopping place is from American Birding Association sales. They have an on line sales catalogue :

 

<p>

 

www.americanbirding.org/abasales/salescalal.htm

 

<p>

 

Incidentally, I feel that the Audubon field guides are a poor choice. No serious birder uses them. The National Geographic and Peterson's make a good starter set. Don't forget learning the songs as well. Peterson's "Birding by Ear" series make for a good introduction. Many of my best bird photographs were taken because I first heard the bird. I know some people can deal with without it, but I don't like venturing anywhere without being able to identify all the songs I hear. It's "birding", not "bird watching".

[dick_ginkowski]

I strongly disagree with the critics of the Audubon guides.

 

<p>

 

Perfect? No...but better than drawings. When I look at my slides, I see a photograph...not a painting. Enough said. The Peterson guides are interesting but they don't have photographs and, after all, that's what we're working with!

[jeremiah_boucher]

Thanks for the input. I just got home from the bookstore with the National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds. I chose this in the end, over the Peterson's guide because of the photos. Interesting...

Yes, those birds are American Goldfinch. I am planning to go back on the weekend with my tripod and a new lens. What would be the most useful for this application? A 200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter or the 300 f/4. About the same but I get two lenses if I get the 200. Is 200 sufficient or am I better off with 300 and adding the 1.4x tc later for a 420 f/5.6? Any comments at all on the 400 f/5.6 APO from sigma? thanks again.

[bobatkins]

This forum is full of comments on the matter of lenses, and the Sigma 400 is no exception. Try a search and read through the previous comments. I doubt there is any thing new to say that hasn't been said

before.

[bob_royse]

I screwed up the e-mail address mentioned above for ABA sales. The correct address is :

 

<p>

 

www.americanbirding.org/abasales/salecatal.htm

 

<p>

 

They offer the best variety of bird reference material. Conspicuously absent are the Audubon guides, and for a good reason. For Ohio, unfortunately, Bruce Peterjohn's "The Birds of Ohio" is also not listed, being currently out-of-print, and hopefully awaiting an update. This is a book to look for, though, being a great textbook for Ohio birds.

[ydobon]

<P>Well, I guess I am more disappointed than surprised to hear that several birders here have reservations about the Audubon guides, but that in itself is useful for the beginner birder to know.

 

<P>Considering who John Audubon was and what the Audubon Society is, one might logically conclude that the Audubon guides would be 1.) illustrated with drawings, and 2.) of good quality.

 

<P>I'm a bit more surprised to realize that this topic has never really been covered fully in this Q&A forum. Perhaps someone would like to write a book review of the National Geographic guide?

[don_baccus]

OK, here's my review of the Nat Geo bird guide:

 

<p>

 

It's the best all-around field guide for North American birds.

 

<p>

 

Pros:

 

<p>

 

1) covers all North American birds in one volume, the Peterson's guide comes in two volumes (East and West), and there's a lot of overlap in species. Yet you have to buy both if you travel both halves of NA.

 

<p>

 

2) has range maps on same page as descriptions and paintings

 

<p>

 

3) overall good quality paintings for identification

 

<p>

 

4) covers regional variations and subspecies, though not in great detail

 

<p>

 

5) new editions have improved some of the weak areas as well as addressing nomenclature changes. For instance, the second edition greatly improved the illustrations of our North American swallows.

 

<p>

 

Cons:

 

<p>

 

1) A bit large for the field, doesn't fit in most pants pockets.

 

<p>

 

2) Not as good a primer as the Peterson's guides, which clearly identifies the most important field marks in the paintings.

 

<p>

 

3) Though the paintings are overall very good, there are some areas that are weak. In my opinion, the weakest are those covering the desert southwest (different illustrators were used for different regions).

 

<p>

 

Field guides which deal with the full range of bird species in a region are by definition a compromise. As one gets deeper into the subject one will end up with a library of useful books.

 

<p>

 

For those who want one volume which covers non-ID bits for all North American birds, I recommend "The Birder's Handbook". This covers basic biological/ecological issues on a species basis, with simple keys to indicate what eggs look like, where they nest, time to hatching, time to fledging, timing of migration, food utilized, that kind of thing. These one-page sketches are interwoven with essays ranging from the eggshell thinning effects of DDT to evolutionary topics to things like the history and causes of the extirpation of the passenger pigeon.

[george_chambers]

No one book on birding is going to work to identify all the the species, even if each book has the same birds. There are just to many plummage variations in different regions. Even in the same region for that matter.

 

<p>

 

Take the House Finch. In west Texas, I haven't even seen one that looks like the one in the Nat Geo Field Guide. Maybe the Southwest illustrators? Same in Peterson's. Only the maps told me it probably wasn't the Purple Finch, but the range lines were very close. Cassin's finch? Finally positively identified it in All the Birds of N. America. If I hadn't had slides to look at, I'd still have to wonder what they were. Slightly different plummage on all of them. And each field guide has a different rendition of the same bird.

 

<p>

 

Don, decent review of the Nat Geo Guide, but could you tell us the name of this new book that is rumored to be better than the National Geographic Guide?

[bob_royse]

I agree with most of what Don said about the National Geographic guide. I'll try to add a few more comments. First I'd like I'd like to say that I never books with me. There's a lot to be said for spending time with the books and tapes at home. Start with the birds near where you live and then gradually widen your circle. Birding and nature photography go hand in hand for me and I can't imagine one without the other when venturing into "the wilds". Being aware of all the the birds and their songs can only inhance one's appreciation for the entire ecosystem (and the photographic possibilities there). Whether I take my big telephoto or macro/wide angles/short telephotos in the field, my binoculars are always around my neck.

 

<p>

 

National Geographic pros :

 

<p>

 

1- presents birds in phylogenetic order, basically the birder's alphabet.

 

<p>

 

2- good illustrations of most warbler plumages with accurate color.

 

<p>

 

3- almost as good coverage of shorebirds.

 

<p>

 

4- everything Don mentioned.

 

<p>

 

cons :

 

<p>

 

1- unconvincing sparrow drawings, but probably adequate enough for ID's.

 

<p>

 

2- incomplete raptor coverage, especially all plumages in flight, which is usually the best way to identify them.

 

<p>

 

3- VERY POOR coverage of gulls. More space needs to be dedicated to them at all ages and plumages in flight and at rest to be truly useful.

 

<p>

 

4- everything Don mentioned.

 

<p>

 

Drawings are advantageous over photographs simply because the bird can be presented in a manner that shows it's field characteristics to best advantage. Films and types of light, as we all know, can significantly change a bird's color and appearance. Photographic guides, such as those new ones for both shorebirds and gulls can be useful, though. As one starts to appreciate the various bird families, more dedicated and in-depth books are helpful.

[dan_smith]

If you don't know what it is here is a dodge that gets all the real birders out fast to ID your species. "I thinks I shot a Pygmy California Condor in the yellow arctic migration phase." They are so sure you are an idiot(as I am on much bird ID) that they can't help but laugh & help(Baccus does it for me now-he knows how hapless I am). Seriously, buy at least one field guide for the birds and another for plants. Learn your subject and it will help immensely with better photography. It also helps to have friends in Audubon and at various University departments. But the more you know the better off you will be.

[arthur_morris]

IMHO the NGS Field Guide is best BY FAR for experienced birders (one plus that nobody mentioned is that this guide covers many of the various pluamges of shorebirds, gulls, terns, etc. I disagree with my good friend Bob Royse as far as his criticism of the gull section in the Geo guide; I find it more than adequate and consult if often. If you are really nuts, you'll want a copy of the late Peter J. Grant's "Gulls; A Guide to Identification" to help you sort out your worn second summer Herring Gulls and your molting third winter Western

Gulls. (For more on the subject of photographing gulls, see my article in the next issue of Birder's World.)

 

<p>

 

For beginners, the geographcially appropriate Peterson Field Guide (East, West, or Texas) would be best.

 

<p>

 

Best and great birding,

Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

[bob_royse]

Released a few months ago is the third edition to the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America". If you're among the few who already don't own it, GET IT. It has improved illustrations, more accurate and easier-to-read maps, and the latest taxonomical decisions form the American Ornithological Union.

 

I don't understand why Arthur Morris doesn't recommend the P.J. Grant book, since a photograph of his on the the cover.