It has become a universally accepted practice that the names of birds are shown as proper names to ensure clarity. In other words, did we see a common nighthawk or a Common Nighthawk? Was that a little egret that flew past or a Little Egret? I have checked the last six bird books that I have acquired and without exception this practice is followed - and in scores of books, over many years, before that. Why Marianne Taylor continues to defy what has become established style, is beyond logic. It is also somewhat puzzling to me that Princeton University Press does not adopt a uniform practice in its published works; sadly this is not the case.
Furthermore, it seems inexcusable, that in a book aimed at an audience with at least a minimal level of sophistication, that scientific names are not provided. Actually in the few cases where they are, on page 165, for example, the practice of italicizing scientific names, in use since the time of Linnaeus, is not used here, so instead of Dolichon urbicum we see Dolichon urbicum. Similarly on page 192 Aerodramus fuciphagus becomes Aerodramus fuciphagus. Shoddy and inexcusable. I know of biology professors who would rain terror on their students for such a gross misstep.
Another issue I have is that nowhere in the book does Taylor provide any link to sources. Where did she get her information? How do we validate it? Perhaps we could check the bibliography for further reading material, except there is no bibliography. Not a single reference for further study is listed.
I would take issue with some of her facts. Permit me to mention a couple. She states that "most hirundines use mud as a nest-building material." In fact 56% of hirundines use cavities or tunnels, eschewing mud entirely. Think of familiar New World species such as Tree Swallow, Purple Martin, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, Bank Swallow, Violet-green Swallow and so on. On page 32 Taylor states, "Cliff Swallows.....feed on flying insects, especially swarming kinds such as midges and mosquitoes." The literature is clear, (in numerous texts) that a Cliff Swallow's diet is comprised of around 27% beetles, 27% Hemipteran bugs, 14% Dipteran flies with Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera making up most of the balance.
I find it off-putting that some of Taylor's descriptions get to be downright anthropomorphic. She states that Black-necked Stilts have "ludicrously long" legs. Ludicrously? Really? How about "adaptive", or "commensurate with its lifestyle"?
On page 126 she states that Banded Stilts in Australia will fly up to 2,000 km to take advantage of lakes formed by unpredictable and sporadic storms. It would really enhance the text if she gave at least a few clues as to how the birds detect the presence of these ephemeral water sources at such great distance.
On page 133, speaking of creches, the claim is made that parents leave "once the chicks have grown too big to be eaten by any and all opportunistic hunters" (emphasis mine). What utter nonsense. In fact Taylor goes on in the next paragraph to postulate that "more chicks in a creche reduces the odds of each individual being the unlucky victim of a predator."
There appears to be some serious deficiencies in editing this book.
On page 89, "see page (**) should have had the asterisks replaced with the page number. Chapter 10 is entitled "Mobile Homes". I had a hard time coming to grips with what a mobile home implied, or whether it referred to different breeding and wintering quarters, rather than a nest. Unless I have missed something very obvious (and I have read the chapter three times) the entire text fails to elucidate it at all. I am left having no idea what was intended.
Furthermore, the picture opposite the title page of chapter 10 is of a murmuration of starlings, clearly unrelated, and I assume misplaced from the final chapter on Common Starling where murmurations are discussed. The chapter entitled "Fission and Fusion" speaks of wandering Bohemian Waxwings, unaccompanied by an illustration, yet a picture of a Bohemian Waxwing with an appropriate caption is stranded on the second page of the index (page 222), totally out of context and irrelevant in that location. I am quite sure it has been misplaced.
Does no one check these things before the book goes to print?
Let me finish with a word of praise! The pictures are very good and in a couple of cases excellent.
Sadly this is the best endorsement I can give to a book which I found in most other respects sorely lacking.
How Birds Live Together, Colonies and Communities in the Avian World - Princeton University Press
Marianne Taylor
Hardcover - US$29.95 - ISBN 9780691231907
224 pages - richly illustrated - 7 1/2 x 9 7/8 inches (18.75 x 24.69 cm)
Publication date: 10 May, 2022
That could be a difficult practice here in the UK where a Common Gull is not a common gull, if you get my meaning.
ReplyDeleteHari Om
ReplyDeleteAll the more puzzling when you consider this author has been an editor and claims to proofing and copy editing!!! She is not a naturalist or ornithologist, but a hobbyist albeit a 'serious one.' YAM xx
Pues gracias por la recomendación David. Opino como tú, porque a veces encontramos errores en temas que conocemos y que son verdaderos fallos que tendrían que corregir antes de editar.
ReplyDeleteBuen jueves.
Un abrazo.
I'm glad I stopped by today, David. Although I was only a teaching assistant when I was getting my final degree, I would never have allowed my freshman level students to omit footnotes, or a bibliography when they wrote their final reports.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not especially familiar with the style of which you speak, if it is common practice, then it should be followed. I applaud you for pointing out these faults that are common to biology students and teachers. I DO remember a few things from my undergrad classes and that is Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I also remember Felidae, Felis, Felis catus, because I am a cat lover! Thanks for this honest review of a book i will probably never want to read.
...perhaps Marianne Taylor wants or need to stand out. I know that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, but that cover is gorgeous!
ReplyDeleteI agree, Tom, the cover is gorgeous.
DeleteC'est dommage de ne pas trouver la qualité à laquelle on s'attend, ce livre ne semble pas très clair malgré de belles photos. Bonne soirée
ReplyDeleteDoes the average person look at a lake of a water fowl and ignore its declining populations. As I get older, the angrier I get.
ReplyDeleteSorry the book is disappointing
ReplyDeleteNo, just no. That really is indefensible. What was she thinking?
ReplyDeleteP.S. I like your new look!
It's a subject ripe for exploration. I'm sorry the book is so disappointing.
ReplyDeleteA tough review, but warranted.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that bird names are considered proper names. That is good to know. And I can't believe that a book from Princeton Press did not include scientific names. I would have thought a school of that caliber would have been more correct. And no bibliography. Wow, Happy Friday David. hugs-Erika
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame to have so many disappointing errors in such a nice looking book. I hope Marianne Taylor gets a chance to read your review and perhaps she'll leave a comment.... maybe!
ReplyDeleteOMG :-o I know the problem of correct names from botany. Correct notes, sources and the like are of course a must.
ReplyDeleteI know it was neither the author's nor your intention, but I couldn't help laughing - not a bad start to my day.
"Ludicrously long"... :-)))))))
Lisbeth
Well, at least the book cover looks really nice!
ReplyDeleteLove the cover.
ReplyDeleteNames should be correct, in the nursery industry there are several names for plants and so on..it seems only fitting it should be so with birds and consistent.
I got a feeling that you was not happy with this book, David. It was a great photo on the cover, but I guess you would rather have a better book.
ReplyDeleteHugs and kisses, Marit
Oh dear!!!! This relects on Princeton Press as much as it does on the author.
ReplyDeleteThe cover photo is beautiful, indeed. I’ve seen both capitalized and non-capitalized bird names used in literature. American Robin I suppose would be capitalized but not robin. Or, should it be American robin. Perhaps consistency is the key whichever way you choose.
ReplyDeleteIn current usage it should be American Robin. If one is speaking of robins in general, not using the specific name of the bird, it is not capitalized. For example, "Our familiar American Robin is not really a robin at all."
DeleteUna gran reseña nos presentas hoy querido amigo. La portada es preciosa sin embargo al parecer su interior deja mucho que desear. No entiendo como no comprueban bien antes de llevarlo a impresión. Eso deja mucho que desear.
ReplyDeleteUn gran abrazo amigo y compadre David.
It sounds like the editor didn't do a good job with this book.
ReplyDeleteThat an understatement, Bill!
DeleteHow did you force yourself to read the whole thing, given how poorly it was written? Hope the next book you find is an improvement.
ReplyDeleteSandy's Space
Good question! Once I have given the undertaking to PUP to do it, I feel that it is my obligation to do so.
DeleteI like your New Look! Photos look beautiful and text is easier to read. Well done.
ReplyDeleteI have been confused about when to capitalize bird names. Seems like different writers I read all do it differently. You made it clear to me what would truly be the clearest and I will be capitalizing from now on.
Bravo, Cynthia!
DeleteQuerido David después de leerte con atención llegó a la conclusión que el libro es como si lo escribiera yo que soy una enamorada de las aves, pero que de nombres se muy poco. Una pena. Muchas gracias por tu información siempre es interesante saber que vas ha comprar. Un fuerte abrazo para ti y para Miriam.
ReplyDeleteprobably an interesting book.
ReplyDeleteLove the new header image :)
The book has a beautiful cover even though the book is a disappointment. Enjoy your weekend.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the "work" some of our politicians provided: Go through Wikipedia, copy and paste here and there, without giving references, and that´s that.
ReplyDeleteHow embarrassing to get tracked down...
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteThe book cover is beautiful. I am sorry this book was such a disappointment. It is not often I see a bad book review from you. I have to admit, I tend to rush and not proofread what I have typed. I do feel writing a book, it should be edited and or proofread. Thank you for linking up and sharing your post. Take care, have a great weekend. PS, thank you for leaving me a comment.
Most of the time, Eileen, when I review books for Princeton University Press, I am impressed by them, and the scholarly nature of the contents, but every so often one seems to somehow bypass their standards, and this is the case here.
DeleteHi David - I so agree with you ... I get really upset when 'accepted norms' aren't followed, also spelling, grammar etc - more particularly when it's obviously wrong - my grammar is definitely not brilliant. Thanks for this post - I appreciate it ... all the best - Hilary
ReplyDeleteHello David, :=) Your review is seriously damming, but rightly so. The Princeton Press seem to be slipping in their high standards to publish a book with so many unfounded claims, and irresponsible errors by the author. The Black-necked Stilt's "ludicrously long legs" is an insult to an amazing bird.
ReplyDeleteI am now back blogging after being ill, and catching up with my blogging friends.
All the best
Hugs from Portugal.
Very strange that such a reputable press would allow so many errors! My faith in Univrsity Presses is shaken!
ReplyDeletebest… mae at maefood.blogspot.com
Thanks for share this blog with us ^^
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your honest review.
ReplyDeleteI did think the book cover was nice.
All the best Jan
Muy interesante reseña y por lo que veo con bastantes errores. Abrazos y besos para ti amigo David, también para Miriam.
ReplyDeleteAlways appreciate your honest review, David.
ReplyDelete