Moths

[Graham Saunders]

No, it looks like the CDs have gone. And the NZ Fauna series are certainly not field guides (but then I don't think NZ has quite got the hang of what field guides are; am I alone in thinking find Heather, Roberston and Onley isn't a field guide?) And Landcare Research's publishing wing, Manaaka Whenua Press, seem to publish only Field Guides to Australian Lepidoptera and Odonata (third page). Tsch! This is disappointing. I'll guess we'll just have to wait until the field guides to butterflies and macro moths by Bacon, Barnard, Saunders and Richard Lewington are published in a few years time. No doubt followed by the photographic guides by Bacon, Barnard, Saunders and Paul Harrison.

I guess that it is only to be expected that RJB Hoare, who wrote the NZ Fauna volume on Hierodoris, is a pom.

[Neil Fitzgerald]

Actually, MW Press doesn't even publish those Aussie guides; they distribute them for CSIRO
Does anyone know how those Ausie guides rate as field guides go? Or, what is an example of a good field guide?

[Graham Saunders]

Does anyone know how those Ausie guides rate as field guides go? Or, what is an example of a good field guide?

I was being a little bit facetious there Neil, but I guess there was some seriousness in the comment. Don't get me wrong, Heather, Roberston and Onley is a fine book, I own it, and would do so if there were what I would consider to be a field guide available. It's a weighty tome, packed with information... and therein lies the vreason I wouldn't class it as a field guide. As a guide, or 'bird book', it is arguably the book on New Zealand birds. It's roughly the same size and weight as Sibley, and that is 'The Guide to Birds of North America', correctly named in my opinion. For me, a field guide should be like the BBC's shipping forecast, only the relevant information, and given as succinctly as possible, as opposed to the dolled up lady or gent chatting with us about the weather on the television. I also think a decent field guide should be of a size to be able to take into the field. Heather, Roberston and Onley is one that stays on my shelf at home until I have reason to look soemthing up; one would need big pockets and a strong back to take that out. I also hold the opinion that good field guides should:

1. Have the illustrations on the same page as the words (who likes searching forwards and backwards to match the written with the drawn?)
2. Have appropriate and relevant illustrations, not pieces of art. They should be like photographs without the background and shadow.
3. Not give superfluous information. It's not relevant for identification to know that a rare passerine was seen three times in the 1890's, all on Tuesdays in places beginning with 'F'. Interesting though that is, that is for the reference books.
4. Be as small as possible, to make them portable and pocketable.
5. Be hardback, to avoid rapid deterioration.
6. Be economical with language to save space. They need not be written in correct flowing English; abbreviations and a 'bullet-point' style is entirely adequate.

The one that I think statisfies almost all of my criteria is 'The Shell Guide to Birds of Britain and Ireland' by Ferguson-Lees, Willis and Sharrock. It was first published in 1983, and reprinted in 1986, and cost £8.95. My copy is beginning to fall apart, but it still serves me well. The only downside are the pages on habitat at the beginning, but this may be because there are pages at the rear that needed to be matched. The printing produced illustrations that are slighgtly washed out in comparison to those in other books, and some did complain about them, but I got used to them very quickly. I'll lend you my copy if you remined me next time we bump into each other. Other field guides to British birds have been published since, but I think things have gone backwards; paperbacks with 'arty' illustrations.

Richard Lewington's field guide to British butterflies is fantastic (although paperback), and a good companion to Thomas and Lewington's larger work on British butterflies (the maps are more up to date in the former). The field guides to macro moths and odonata for which he did the illustrations are great too. (A reviewer once commented that any decent book on nature has the name Lewington on the cover; Richard does insects, his brother Ian does birds.) Sibley has nice illustrations, but not enough information. I think it's all in a companion volume.

[Graham Saunders]

Actually, MW Press doesn't even publish those Aussie guides; they distribute them for CSIRO

The seventh state already?

[Nick Allen]

Whoops missed the CD ref. The Photo CD is still mentioned in the website, with a long list of contents, and there is a way of downloading photos of type specimens (one by one) - and even comparing them (two by two). Trevor Crosby's contact details are also given as being in charge of it - it's in the NZ Arthropod Collection part of the website (research>biosystematics>invertebrate biosystematics>NZAC>lepidoptera project>photoCD images).

With a population a fraction of the size of the UK or America are people really surprised at a lack of choice in field guides in NZ? Where is the market for them - especially the more esoteric fauna/flora? The Hand Guide by Heather/Robertson and Onley fills the niche of a portable bird guide - well it's light enough, though one's pocket would certainly have to be large unless it is forcibly bent in half. Most people in NZ surely find moths just another insect that annoys them and deserves to be squished .

[Neil Fitzgerald]

Thanks Graham. I was thinking about the Australian insect guides by CSIRO because I can sometimes get a good deal on them and I'm interested in what a good field guide is from more of an international perspective. My web browser crashed and I think I left some out when retyping my post above. I'll see if I can track down a copy of those British books. Thanks.

[Graham Saunders]

With a population a fraction of the size of the UK or America are people really surprised at a lack of choice in field guides in NZ?

It's not that there's a lack of choice, it's that there's no choice at all! (For inescts at least). Birdwatchers eventually turn into butterfly spotters, then moth listers; if someone has the drive and time then there's a buck or two, and a name, to be made. NZ must have a plethora of endemic lepidoptera; there must be Pommie and Yankie entomologists itching to come here and tick them, if only there were a field guide. And there are sure to be ones new to science that are waiting to be discovered... Or is everyone too busy twitching.

[rbacon]

Thanks for that - the book works for me!!

Cheers

Richard

[rbacon]

I mentioned a publication called British Wildlife - it has many excellent features, not least that it covers ALL wildlife, no matter the number of legs, wings or leaves. Thus there is something for everyone, plus the usual book reviews etc. The real gems, however, are the ID keys to small groups that are published from time-to-time. Not just for insects, but plants and mammals have been covered.

I think that New Zealand could benefit from something similar. The UK Field Council also published a few AIDGAP volumes - Aids to the Identification of Difficult Animals and Plants - but those seem to have gone. Richmond's Naturalist Handbooks were excellent introductions to several insect groups and again New`Zealand would be a good place to have something similar.

The real problem would be that the number of people interested in them would not make them financially viable (a "British Wildlife" look-alike might be viable). So the on-line keys are probably the way to go. They will soon be viable in the field!

Cheers

Richard

[Graham Saunders]

Richard, I used to subscribe to Brit. Wild. before I moved here. I started getting it a decade or so ago when I had a bit of extra cash, and it was either that or British Birds, and the latter I don't find quite to my taste. You are right about the material covered, and it's not just Britain, it covers the British Isles, and sometimes further afield. I found the articles on nature reserves informative and very useful. It certainly encouraged me to look at more than merely birds. They also publish some field guides, such as Lewington's one of British Butterflies and the one of Odonata. It was also good for sourcing moth traps, bat detectors etc. On the downside I did find some of the news items a little bit lacking in scientific understanding. Would it work in NZ? I'd imagine the number of subscribers would be low; would it be financially viable?


By the way, you're not the chap who got sacked from Blue Peter for taking cocaine, are you?