I'm an old fart, I started when the only guide I knew of was Peterson's 1st
edition... it was great for a 10 yo. Now there is a huge selection of field
guides... and the internet!!! Cornell's BNA is incredible for reference.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Tom Crabtree <tc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michael,
You will get emails from people with a lot of different recommendations.
There isn’t a bad answer (except maybe the DK book). The new editions of
each guide provide improvements. Personally, I like the National
Geographic Guide (Sixth edition). To me it has better illustrations, more
complete text and more up-to-date range maps and is an easier size to carry
in the field. For what it’s worth, it is the #1 selling field guide at
Amazon (Sibley is #2). They even have a “Western” version that is even
more compact. A lot of people will recommend Sibley. The Stokes guide is
good if you prefer photos to drawings. The Crossley Eastern Guide is a
good reference for pictures, but the text is lacking and it is huge. The
good news is there is so much choice available now. When many of us
started there were only two choices, Peterson’s and Pough’s.
Tom Crabtree, Bend
*From:* obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Michael Medina
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:06 AM
*To:* OBOL
*Subject:* [obol] Field Guide Recommendations
Hopefully this doesn't spark a too heated debate.
I was looking to replace my first edition Sibley with a newer one (I'm
aware of the color corrections they did on the later printings). However
someone recently made a disparaging comment about Sibley which got me
wondering if it's worth replacing the first edition.
I've got an old library of Petersons from the 80s, NatGeo from the late
90s, Stokes from the late 90s, and maybe one other.
Is there newer versions of these that are better? Something new that I
should have?
Thanks
Michael Medina
Portland, OR
