Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America
By Charlie • August 27, 2008 • 22 comments
As most birders will undoubtedly be aware this month is the centenary of Roger Tory Peterson’s birth. Given that RTP (I can’t bring myself to casually call such a legend ‘Roger’, and using ‘Peterson’ sounds a bit brusque and disrespectful somehow - like calling The Queen ‘Windsor’) is indisputably one of the most important naturalists ever born, a plethora of books are being published to mark the occasion. One book however, the new Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America (hereafter known as ‘Peterson’) is undoubtedly the most eagerly-anticipated. Biographies can be compelling, sometimes deeply thought-provoking, very occasionally life-changing, but they’re not useful in the field - and it’s into the field that most birders will want to be able to take a copy of ‘Peterson’.
Or will they? I would guess that’s the question the staff at Houghton Mifflin have had to think long and hard about when they decided to produce this book, because the alternative - in business terms - is relying on the purchasing-power of a generation of birders who grew up with well-thumbed and well-loved copies of the original Peterson Field Guides and who may consider buying a new and revised version for sentimental reasons. It’s a bit of a gamble really: birding may be one of the western world’s fastest-growing hobbies, but I’m willing to bet that many of this new generation of birders know very little of the Great Man, and will be buying books based purely on whether it’s better or worse than the one next to it on the bookstore shelf. RTP’s place in history will never be in doubt, but whether his guide-books - which when they first came out brought radically new concepts in design and identification to the general public - has been supplanted by something better or more modern is a more moot point.
So how does the 2008 version of ‘Peterson’ compare with today’s competition?
Let’s be clear about this from the start: this book has a fantastic pedigree. Peterson was a great artist and superb field birder with an almost lyrical way of describing birds. You knew from the text and the care he took in his painting that he not only loved, but was profoundly impacted by nature. He was also determined, possibly compelled to convey his passion to as many people as possible. The highly respected Houghton Mifflin has assembled a talented and equally well-regarded group of birders (including Paul Lehman, Bill Thompson III, Michael DiGiorgio, Jeff Gordon) to update the text and maps and, in their words, create “a historic collaboration among renowned birding experts and artists to preserve and enhance the Peterson legacy”. On paper (see what I just did there, folks?) this should be a landmark book and one that every birder should want to have in his or her library…
And yet…and yet, and I say this with reluctance, it somehow doesn’t quite ‘do it’ for me. It’s beautifully put together (Houghton Mifflin don’t produce flimsy or cheap products), the reproduction of the Plates is sharp and well-saturated, and the whole looks clean and feels solid (very solid - this volume is only marginally smaller than the hugely popular Sibley Guide to Birds, and far heavier than the new Smithsonian Field Guide to the Birds of North America.) However, with no disrespect whatsoever intended towards RTP, the guides that birders use have changed hugely since the 1930s when some of the plates and maps that RTP painted for his original books were first sketched out.
Most of the plates in the guide are RTP’s originals, albeit digitally enhanced. Many of them are of course excellent. Indeed, some will be indelibly stamped on generations of birders. I well remember being hypnotized by the almost liquid eyes of RTP’s iconic Great Horned Owl the first time I saw it, but I also remember the peculiar way the Elf Owl had been twisted so that both the pattern of the face and the mantle were visible at the same time: both are still here, and both are still striking though for diffrerent reasons. I also remember wondering if when I first saw a Ruby or Golden-crowned Kinglet they’d really look like RTP portrayed them, all exposed crowns, eye-stripes and supercilia (page 309): I’ve seen hundreds now, and I just don’t think they do. I’ve also seen my fair share of Red-throated Pipits, and I’m still willing to bet money that RTP hadn’t seen a live specimen when he painted the bird which now appears on page 324.
It’s not that the paintings are ‘bad’, just that some of them are starting to look overly-stylized. Compare them with the illustrations in say the Collins European Bird Guide and it’s obvious how much illustrative style has changed to reflect how much more knowledge birders now have about the birds they seek out. Speaking of which, the much-lauded Peterson Identification System was novel and unique when RTP first drew lines across his Plates to point out key features, but seems dated now. The Sibley Guide to Birds includes pretty much the same arrows but also inserts text to identify what makes each mark distinctive. It’s a small distinction, but an important one.
While we’re still imagining what could have been, the range maps are also problematic. The ranges of hundreds of birds have changed since the middle of the last century, mostly contracting sadly, and the jacket blurb makes much of the extensively updated maps in this new guide. Paul Lehman, who provided the new maps, must be spending every waking hour working on them these days as he’s definitely the choice of ‘go-to guy’ when publishers need accurate and up-to-date range maps and I’m sure the breeding ranges in the new ‘Peterson’ will be as good as any you could find anywhere: but why aren’t migration ranges shown? I was in California recently with my good buddy Jack Cole and we saw hundreds of Red-necked Phalaropes in the marshes of San Francisco Bay. If we’d been new birders using ‘Peterson’ we may well have ended up thinking that we’d stumbled on a huge flock of vagrants, because to be honest it’s difficult to quickly work out that Red-necked Phalaropes are regular and common migrants all along the coast. Given that I often use range maps to narrow down the choice of species when I find something ‘tricky’ in a country I don’t visit very often, I’m surprised that the update sticks so faithfully to the style RTP originally used.
This is not to say that the new Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America is lacking in innovative and welcome features. All birders will appreciate thoughtful details like the one-page index and enclosed checklist. The suite of accompanying video “podcasts” by Bill Thompson III and Jeff Gordon are informative and entertaining as well. Beginning birdwatchers will get quite a bit out of those educational videos along with the many touches throughout the guide, from the patient introduction to the charming silhouette plates, designed to make every reader a better birder. The revised text and the newly-painted plates of species found in North America since ‘Peterson’ was first published are of a very high standard too, though I wonder why rarities are put in a section on their own.
This review may seem unduly negative, but it’s not intended to be. This is a valuable and important book, but perhaps the problem is that we birders are now so spoiled that we want miracles from new field guides. There’s only so often that miracles can happen. It’s worth remembering too that when RTP originally wrote his guide, he also set the height of the bar. That bar has been raised many times since - and you need look no further than Sibley to see how far things have moved on.
A comparison with the lauded Sibley Guide may not seem fair but it is entirely warranted. It is evident from the design of this new Peterson guide that it was intended to go head-to-head with Sibley as the new “birding bible”. In retrospect, that may turn out to be a regrettable choice. The fact is that while both books are outstanding resources, truly best-of-breed, one feels far more contemporary than the other. Compared to Sibley’s clean lines and sleek design, Peterson already feels a little dated, and belonging to an earlier period in birding history. Its value is indisputable but it is not the “Sibley killer” it might have been.
I’ve a feeling though, that in a nutshell, describing the new Peterson as “belonging to an earlier period in birding history” is probably how it should be both appreciated and valued. Roger Tory Peterson changed the relationship between nature and people forever. He instigated the field-guide revolution, taught us all that rather than just being hundreds of inseparable lookalikes birds could be sorted and identified, and gave everyone a way to learn about the birds they shared their neighborhoods with. His status as the father of modern birding, which is to say any bird watching not done on the other end of a gun, is assured and he will hopefully never be relegated from the podium he is deservedly placed upon. As a ‘legacy’ this book is hugely important and worth bringing to the market. Houghton Mifflin should be congratulated for the superb job they’ve done bringing RTP back into the public domain. However, whilst its very reasonable cover price certainly shouldn’t deter any potential purchaser, as a new guide to be used IN the field, the Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America will perhaps struggle a little to compete on the bookshelf (or in the backpack) with existing guides. Beginning birdwatchers may perhaps find it more accessible than Sibley. Serious birders will probably want it as well for both scientific and sentimental reasons. It is unlikely, however, to replace whichever guide is your current favorite.
One last thought involves the implications of these new revisions for Peterson’s Field Guides to the Birds of North America both Eastern and Western. There doesn’t seem to be an undisputed champion among regional North American field guides yet. With the aforementioned improvements, the next versions of the Peterson guides could be the best…
• Looking for a good book or field guide? We've got some suggestions... •
Hey…maybe Santa will bring me one!
I agree completely with your review. I was disappointed when I looked through it and realized it was still the same guide, good but no longer the best. In fact, I sometimes feel that the number of guides being put out is actually detrimental, as new birders have no idea which one they should pick. New bird books should not be published unless they actually have something new to offer. I used a bird guide with photos, (wrongly assuming that was the most accurate depiction of birds) until I looked through Sibley’s and realized the difference.
A very good review, Charlie; your use of the words “sentimental” and “legacy” is very much on target: it’s less a book than souvenir….
Rick
I think one thing to keep in mind is that Peterson’s Guide was not designed for birders of your skill level. It was designed so that people who have not been birding for umpteen years (yes that is a number), could go out with his book and be able to resonably ID a bird they were looking at. Sure sibley’s can do that too, after you clear through 100 pages of 3rd year Gulls in worn plumage… (I exaggerate)
Sibley’s is an excellent reference though I don’t personally like his colors. Sibley’s also has a lot of ‘fluff’, plates that interest the hard core birder (like you and me) but would confuse the heck out of a beginer. For most bird books, range maps are outdated before the book is printed as new breeding bird survey’s are done and birds are found (or not found) in different places.
I don’t thik you could fairly review this book honestly as you already have a pre-concieved notion of what makes a “good” field guide. That notion is based on your experience and where you are at this moment, take a look at the book again and try and view it through the eyes of someone who knows nothing about birds, birding or field guides.
Yes I understand you know the Ruby crest on a Ruby-Crowned Kinglet isn’t visable about 97% of the time, but if it inspires someone new to go out and try and find out for themselves, isn’t that a good thing? Field Guides are not only tools used by birders, they are propogranda and advertisement for the sport. If looking in Peterson’s and seeing the Great-Horned Owl pictures inspires someone to pick up binoculars and head on outside, that book holds more value to me than all the pretty pictures Sibley could draw in his lifetime. Peterson’s Guide have inspired Millions of people to start bird watching, Sibley doesn’t have that reputation yet.
Charlie, your review and your reviewers make excellent points. Those of us who have been around the block several times tend to expect a new field guide to be better than the last one we purchased, and the Peterson’s does not live up to those expectations. For the beginner it is excellent, but then so is the pocked-sized Golden Birds of North America. At one point in time it was my bible. But to really honor the greatness of RTP, (which you have so eloquently memorialized) one would have thought that this new guide would knock the socks off Sibley and all the other predecessors. Unfortunately, there is just too much of same old, same old.
Regarding the confusion for the new birder as to which field guide to purchase, my recommendation would be Kaufmann, because it is a true “field” guide, one you can put in a pocket without making your pants lopsided from its weight. It’s also not overburdened with plates and descriptions of rarities that the average birder will not encounter. I suspect it will not be long before some publication like Birdwatcher’s Digest will do a review of field guides for the beginner and the advanced birder, much like they do periodic optics reviews.
Hi Will
I appreciate you taking time to write such a long comment, but I want to respond to your saying that you don’t think that I “could fairly review this book honestly” because I’m a skilled birder and because I have “a pre-conceived notion of of what makes a “good” field guide”.
Firstly, I assure you that “honest” is precisely what I always try to be. Given that Houghton Mifflin sent me this book for free (and other books as well) it would have been easy to just say how much I liked it and skipped around the problems that I honestly saw. I won’t do that because that’s not morally acceptable and not what I (or Mike or Corey) would do.
Secondly, I wonder whether new birders are as naive as you seem to suggest. Reviews are opinions, nothing more, and surely everyone reading one knows that? Most people reading a review also try to find out about the author - my details and birding experiences are all over 10,000 Birds - and surely a novice would want to get an opinion from someone who has been birding a long time and has read and owned a wide selection of field-guides rather than someone clueless. Whether having knowledge of many books leads me to a “pre-concieved” idea of what I want from a new book is an interesting suggestion - but I genuinely think all it does is enable me to make honest and fair comparisons. I understand what you’re saying, Will, but I truly believe that if anyone actually reads a review I write (and I thank them if they do) they do so because they expect me to use the experience I have and because they know I’m at a certain “skill-level”.
Lastly, I wonder whether thinking that a kinglet looks the way it’s presented in Peterson is not more confusing than inspiring to a new birder? It’s hard enough to ID a kinglet zipping around in a tree without expecting to see a bird flashing a bright crown, when what you really get is a small, almost featureless warbler/vireo/kinglet lookalike. I’ve used guides in the past that made me doubt identification after identification and I wasn’t inspired by them in the least. To be honest I don’t find Sibley’s pictures “pretty” at all (Peterson’s are prettier) but they’re accurate and I can recognise birds with them. That’s what I want from a field-guide - nothing more, nothing less…
Wrote Will: “I don’t think you could fairly review this book honestly, as you already have a pre-concieved notion of what makes a ‘good’ field guide. That notion is based on your experience….”
Eh? I’d never solicit (or read) a review from someone who didn’t have a firm idea already of what makes a good book, and who didn’t base that idea on experience.
r
Charlie:
I found your review of the new Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America to be both interesting and thought-provoking. As one member of the team who worked on the new Peterson, I feel it’s important to offer a correction to one point you make.
The new RTP guide was never intended as a direct competitor to the Sibley guide in terms of target audience. Peterson’s own bird guides have always been aimed at beginning to intermediate bird watchers. The Sibley guide seems to be aimed at intermediate bird watchers and above. That may seem a gross generalization to some, but that’s how those of us who worked on this latest RTP guide approached it.
True, the size of the new Peterson is similar to the size of the “big” Sibley, but that was to give the artwork, text, and maps the space they needed.
Saying that the RTP guide was created as a “Sibley killer” is simply inaccurate. It was created as the new Peterson, not the next Sibley.
I always enjoy your posts here, Charlie.
I think Bill hit the point I was trying to make in better words!
I read your review of the book as not what it is, but what it isn’t and that is not the next best thing.
Charlie, you stated yourself that the bar had been set high by Peterson and raised many times since then, perhaps you set the bar even higher to review this book? If you set the bar high enough, it would never have a chance and rightly or wrongly, that is what I got form your review. This review was doomed from the start.
The thing I object to most in your review, and maybe this comes across as more negative than you intended, is that Peterson’s is dated. That I simply believe is not true. Bird Identification has improved greatly since the 1st Peterson came out to be sure, but that was because of that book. Reading through Peterson, I find nothing objectionable or out of place in the field today. Moving the rarities to a seperate section I think is helpful, as it prevents confusion with novice birders, but again what you view as negative is your opinion (granted) but others may find useful, and you do try and steer your review back that way.
For field guides it all boils down to personal taste, some like one guide, some like another and we can argue till we are blue in the face and still not agree on which is better. At least we can agree on that!
Bill, I have to take responsibility for some of the statements you take objection to. I collaborated with Charlie on this review and put the words “Sibley killer” in his mouth, so to speak. If the new Peterson guide looked any more like the Sibley guide, Sibley himself might have grounds for a lawsuit! Holding the two in hand, it’s hard to believe that the new guide wasn’t intended specifically to be compared with and compete directly with Sibley. If that wasn’t the intention, the design team might want to reconvene - I really think that in a smaller (say 20% or so) book, the comparison wouldn’t be so natural and the artwork would actually be more impressive. Plus, the book would have greater portability than Sibley.
This isn’t meant to diminish the outstanding work that you, Jeff, and the rest of the team did in packaging Peterson for a new generation. It’s simply that, while I agree that this guide may be the ideal resource for beginners, it hasn’t been presented that way.
Will, I should also acknowledge that Charlie actually toned down my original description when using the term “dated” - he might not want to collaborate with me on reviews ever again! My exact words were “feels like an artifact of the 20th century.” Again, this wasn’t meant to denigrate the Great Man. If you read my reviews of All Things Reconsidered and Birdwatcher: The Life of Roger Tory Peterson, you’ll see how deeply I revere Peterson. His place in the pantheon is unassailable. But while I can’t speak for Charlie on this, my feeling is that based on that provenance and considering the dream team involved in this project, the bar can not be set high enough. We respect all of the principals involved as well as our readers (even you!) to call it as we see it.
Charlie,
For what it’s worth, your review resonates with me precisely because of your experience, and a mixed review particularly so.
As for Peterson’s guides, I was never a big fan even as a beginner, I preferred Robbin’s Golden guide. There was always something that bugged me about RTP’s guides that I wasn’t able to put my finger on until I got some years under my belt.
Perhaps this is heresy to say, but I never particularly found his illustrations that lifelike. Especially the raptors, which I think are especially bad, but also the warblers. Both of these groups have a paint-by-numbers style, as if the field marks are painted on a basic “warbler” or “hawk” template that doesn’t take into account the differences in body type and general impression that are such an important part of field birding today. Maybe it’s because that just wasn’t as well-developed a part of birding then as it was today or because Sibley and the new Smithsonian guide cover that stuff so very well, I dunno, but it bugged and it’s why I preferred other guides. As Will said, it’s personal taste I guess.
Even though the podcasts are intriguing, in light of this review, and my own feelings towards the Peterson guide (and because I already have a 4th edition that’s just fine), I probably won’t pick this one up. Now if they could just get those podcasts on iTunes or something…
@ Mike and Charlie: I know you guys respect RTP, I never doubted that at all.
@ Nate: Wow. Is body shape really that important to a beginer bird watcher? The Peterson guide is designed to be used by and friendly to the widest possible audience. While body shape is important in todays birding culture, I still don’t think its a skill that the casual birder uses and thus is not needed in a general field guide.
As for the paint by numbers reference, you and I don’t see eye to eye there, but again to each his own.
@Will - I think it’s important enough that Peterson himself lists it up in the front of his “How to Identify Birds” Section in the beginning of the book. And there’s also his famous Roadside Silhouettes page.
I just never felt his drawings were that good. Raptors in particular, but the less said about his pelagics the better as well. His system is excellent, but in practice it leaves some to be desired. But that’s just one birder’s opinion, and the fact that the field guide itself never resonated with me isn’t an indictment of RTP’s life, work, and impact at all.
A lot about being an experienced birder (and I have a long way to go still) is using as many reference books as possible. There are good and bad things about all the guides and the odds of there being a “perfect field guide” is nil.
This was a well done review but as stated by others, the new Peterson is more than just another field guide, but a marketing tool to inspire new birders. Thus, the Peterson, like the cover full of flickers, is meant to be a trigger.
One other thing, most advanced birders (that I’ve birded with) seldom even use field guides (in the field).
Hi
I have to say I’m a little confused by the idea that this new Peterson is a marketing tool to inspire new birders. Where does it claim that? It’s a marketing tool - but for Houghton Mifflin and the Peterson Estate (and absolutely nothing wrong with that). Every new field-guide brought out is intended to be sold, is an item for sale to the market - if it then inspires new birders that’s great. If a book specifically states that eg all profits will go to conservation I’ll jump for joy, but the primary reason for publication of the huge majority of books is to at least recoup costs and then to make profits for the authors/artists/publishers involved (again nothing wrong with that most people would say). There seems to be a feeling that a reviewer (in this case me) should be ‘nice’ about the book because it somehow has the entirely altruistic aim of inspiring novices. I don’t agree, sorry. RTP may well have intended to inspire novices (I don’t know I’m not an expert on him and of course never asked him), but that was a long time ago, and there are any number of books more deliberately aimed at beginners now: if you want a book that actually sets out to inspire novice birders (IMHO) then Bill Thomson’s own “The Young Birder’s Guide” (again a Houghton Mifflin product) is surely nearer the mark?
I’m not suggesting for a second that there was any cynical motives behind bringing this new book to co-incide with an RTP anniversary (if I were HMifflin I’d have done precisely the same), but I also don’t think that the publishers chose the date because a new generation of birders desperately need RTP to inspire them still and this book seemed the best way to get to them.
Am I wrong? Maybe the next commenter will tell me that’s exactly what went through the minds of all involved, but I hope they have proof rather than supposition to back their claim.
Let me state once again though before I get flamed, RTP was a genius and an inspiration, I like Houghton Mifflin, I even like this book, but I just don’t think it offers quite enough to keep up with the rest of the pack.
Incidentally, to address a point Birdfreak made about advanced birders not using field-guides in the field: I hear this a lot, but I know a lot of ‘advanced’ birders around the world and I know that a lot of them SAY they don’t carry a field-guide when what they mean is that they leave it in the car to check on later. I actually think that the more advanced you get the more you realise there is to get wrong and can remember how many mistakes you’ve made in the past. The best birders in the world on their home-patch may not need a filed-guide, but the rest of us do, and I have no problem admitting it (especially when I’m somewhere where I’m not totally familiar with the local birds).
*hands Charlie a flame retardent suit*
So now this book was released with the sole purpose of making a buck?
I know what you are saying, this book in your (valid/learned/respected) opinion, doesn’t have enough umph to be the end all field guide. However I got the impression from your review that it wasn’t worth getting and I disagree with that. I have my reasons for liking it, you have yours for not.
About the “advanced” birders not using field guides (and I shoulda explained this in the first place) I meant IN THE FIELD. And I was referring to the “main” guides, i.e. those that were being discussed. The idea of being an “advanced” birder (totally subjective) depends on a lot of things, but a “good” or “great” birder in a new area would of course use a field guide, just not one of the “basic” field guides.
The Young Birder Field Guide is a good book too, if you don’t ever hope on identifying many warblers, thrushes, flycatchers, etc. The kids I deal with on a regular basis felt short-changed in that area (but that’s a whole ‘nother topic).
Indeed, all books are made to be marketed (sold) but each one is usually made for a different target audience. H-M hasn’t stated exactly their market but this is just what I perceived from the book. The very fact that they are using the name of someone that is no longer with us physically is part of the whole “marketing” method.
So, I still am keeping with my comment above. When a new(er) birder picks up Sibley they have a greater chance of being overwhelmed or confused; Peterson not-so-much. Kaufman is another example of a guide more geared for making it easier for new birders.
Final thought: The Peterson Guide is worthy of owning regardless of your skill.
Will: It’s worth getting, I just don’t think it’s the best around.
BF: It’s worth owning, I just don’t think it’s the best around.
Everyone, it’s worth buying, I just don’t think it’s the best around.
By the way, a friend of mine is preparing a North American field-guide that is going to be sensational…hopefully I’ll be able to tell you more later…
[...] 10,000 Birds [...]
[...] a person’s centennial, even a posthumous one, would be easier. The long-awaited newly revised Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America is released to the avid masses almost 100 years to the day after the Great Man himself was born and [...]
[...] Giveaway By Mike • September 10, 2008 • No comments yet So you want a free copy of the Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America, don’t you? Of course you do. The question is how you can get one. Well, thanks to our [...]
[...] Thanks to the good, generous folks at Houghton Mifflin, we had two copies of the exciting new Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America to give away. There was an easy way and a hard way to win. We already announced the winner for the [...]