[CT Birds] Crossley ID Guide

Mark Szantyr birddog55 at charter.net
Thu Aug 18 09:23:33 EDT 2011

Several people have asked which European guides I use.  A short list
Beamon and Madge, Guide to Bird Identification
The Macmillan Birder's Guide to European and Middle Eastern Birds
The Macmillan Guide to Bird Identification
And the great Collins Bird Guide

Online resources are also great:
Birds of North America online,  bna.birds.cornell.edu

Also, the old school field guides like Pough, and the Bent series are
priceless for information.


Mark S. Szantyr
80 Bicknell Road #9
Ashford, Connecticut 06278

Birddog55 at charter.net

-----Original Message-----
From: ctbirds-bounces at lists.ctbirding.org
[mailto:ctbirds-bounces at lists.ctbirding.org] On Behalf Of Mark Szantyr
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:55 PM
To: Mark Szantyr
Cc: Bird List Serve
Subject: Re: [CT Birds] Crossley ID Guide

What I meant to say before the dog hit my hand was that I like the National
Geographic Guide very much as well. I am happy that it includes all the
species for NA,  I think the descriptions and text are good, and I think the
illustrations are very good in some cases and good in the rest.  So far, the
best field guides I have ever seen and use regularly here are European.

This was just a dog-punctuated, long-winded way of saying that the more
references you have, the better and don't trust any one of them to be
correct for 100% of your identification questions.


On Aug 17, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Mark Szantyr <birdinggeek at gmail.com> wrote:

> No one field guide does it all. Crossley offers a range of potential 
> views for the species included.  Contrary to what you opined, I 
> believe Sibley does an excellent job of portraying an accurate average 
> of what a species looks like and often captures important nuances of 
> ID in a very clear and direct way.  I lik
> Mark
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Robley Evans <rjeva at conncoll.edu> wrote:
>> It has been several weeks since a review of the Crossley ID Guide was 
>> posted here.  I want to note, however, that there is a review of the 
>> book in the August 5 "TLS" ("Times Literary Supplement") that makes 
>> an interesting point.  This reviewer contrasts it with the Sibley 
>> guide as being closer to what he (the reviewer) considers a valuable,
traditional kind of
>> representation.   He finds the Crossley too "theatrical" and perhaps
>> confusing.  The review reminded me of why I do not use the Sibley: I 
>> do not think the brilliant painted colors "authentic," and the poses 
>> seem as arbitrary as any in Petersen and followers.  Also, I rarely 
>> see birds in flight as painted for every bird; this detail seems to 
>> me a space-filler only.  The varied wings of the Crossley may make 
>> such detail worthwhile.  I continue to prefer the Smithsonian guide 
>> to all others: I find the photographs most faithful in color (the 
>> off-shoot guide to Florida birds not so; some truly bad pics there) 
>> and the juxtaposition of several photos of a bird on the page most
helpful.  Any comments?  Or has this topic been
>> worn-out?  Robley Evans   North Stonington
>> _______________________________________________
>> This list is provided by the Connecticut Ornithological Association (COA)
for the discussion of birds and birding in Connecticut.
>> For subscription information visit 
>> http://lists.ctbirding.org/mailman/listinfo/ctbirds_lists.ctbirding.o
>> rg

This list is provided by the Connecticut Ornithological Association (COA)
for the discussion of birds and birding in Connecticut.
For subscription information visit

More information about the CTBirds mailing list