Handbook of Western Palearctic Birds: a quick review

In spite of having owned this book for just over a week, it is only in the last day or two that I have engaged in depth with it. First impressions, naturally, are that this is a very impressive and in-depth work, it looks great and the majority of images used range from very good to excellent, as one might expect in this day and age of quality digital cameras. The majority of taxa mentioned in the text are represented by at least one image, though some (including such a familiar bird to me as hibernicus Coal Tit) are merely described. That said, concentrating merely on the 'superficial' (not that I'd describe anything about this book as superficial), it would be possible to be 'blinded with science'.

     Despite all the nice images, however, a book such as this stands or falls on the quality of the information contained within. As is to be expected given the authors, ageing and sexing are dealt with thoroughly and authoritatively, complementing Svensson's Identification Guide to European Passerines. While I still mainly prefer good quality illustrations for a field guide than photos/digital images, though that gap is closing due to the greater availability of top class instructive pics, I do think that, to a non-ringer especially, the text in the Svensson ringer's guide can seem somewhat 'dry' without a series of images with which to compare what is being described, and, assuming few errors in ageing and sexing here, this is a useful resource. 

   Subspecies are dealt with admirably, as, despite the authors' thoughts on 'lumps' or 'splits', the more distinct taxa are all described and dealt with. Sure, it may seem a bit strange to maintain, say, macrorhyncha Crested Lark, balearica Spotted Flycatcher, polatzeki Blue Chaffinch and such in the face of more or less widely accepted splits, though at least all of these are described, represented by pics and the suggested taxonomic changes mentioned, even if the authors don't (yet) favour adopting them. It also seems interesting to see which taxa have been lumped as synonyms, and I'm not a taxonomist so I can't strongly argue that this taxon or that should be valid or invalid. I'm a bit surprised to see hibernans European Stonechat survive, given that rubicola still isn't on the British List despite birds fitting that phenotype sometimes breeding in SE England, but it is what it is. 

    The treatment of vocalisations is one area where this work seems a bit behind the times. I fully appreciate that the inclusion of copious sonograms would take up far too much space and the resulting work would likely have been over 3 or 4 volumes, but I don't know if it's just me who sees a total reliance on transcription of bird vocalisations as a little quaint in this day and age? For example, sonograms can prove very useful in the separation of Tree and Olive-backed Pipit, while acknowledging that there is variation within both species, yet this book states that 'whether the call of Olive-backed can be separated with confidence from that of Tree Pipit in W Europe is therefore debatable'. By ear alone, perhaps, but many birders now carry some sort of sound recording equipment, no matter how rudimentary.

   In most cases, the generally conservative taxonomy is at least valid, and may be as likely to represent the truth as a more 'progressive' approach (birder language for one that would give us more ticks, perhaps), but the situation with Common Crossbills intrigues me. Different call types within the species are referred to, and yet, as per the subspecies accounts and species map, all of the Common Crossbills in Britain (outside of the range of scotica) and Ireland belong to a single taxon, anglica. How this then matches with irruptions of birds with different call types, I don't know. Are such birds all nominate curvirostra? No mention is given of anglica sounding any different from curvirostra, and I always thought there were more than one call type within British breeding populations anyway. And, for scotica, it is stated that 'safe separation requires close views or handling to secure detailed measurements'...I'd argue that identification of scotica on field views alone, even if these are close, would be highly foolhardy. Indeed, can we even be sure that the birds labelled as scotica in the book actually belong to that taxon? They might do, but they also may not.

     Small errors such as the Ireland/Iceland Ruby-crowned Kinglet mix-up exist, but, in most cases, these don't really detract from the work as a whole. I'd argue that it doesn't really matter if the quoted records of extreme WP vagrants are slightly in error, though it is better to get these things right when possible also. A few odd statements in the book make me think that they perhaps survive from an earlier, less extensive, draft: for instance, in the 'taxonomic note' section on Richard's Pipit, the more modern tendency to split the former Anthus novaseelandiae into up to five species is mentioned, but the authors 'refrain from passing a judgement' partly because 'only richardi is of concern to the present work'. Yet, on the very next page, we have an account of African Pipit A.cinnamomeus, a species which hasn't occurred in the Western Palearctic sensu BWP, so I wonder if the original plan was to use more traditional boundaries to the region?

    As for maps, these seem more or less reliable, though, as pointed out by John Cantelo, the range map for Willow Tit in Britain is far too extensive. Similarly, I'd argue that the maps for Common Redstart, Twite and perhaps Tree Sparrow are somewhat too extensive for Ireland, though bird ranges are fluid and dynamic, and I'd argue that the various Atlas projects and species-specific surveys are far more likely to be accurate than anything in a handbook or field guide. Therefore, I'd largely give the book a pass in this respect.

   So, to sum up, I can see myself using this book a lot in years to come, especially if I travel within north Africa, the Levant or Arabia. If anything in it, apart from the inevitable typos, proves to be incorrect or ultimately unreliable, then the authors can't be blamed for not 'future-proofing' their work...I'd imagine that a lot of proposed splits, for which the authors state that little or no sound recordings are available, may prove to have somewhat distinctive vocalisations in due course, we just need people to gather the material. Also, given Svensson's own change of heart on some of these splits over time, anything in print now, whether mainly by him or Shirihai, is not irrevocably fixed in stone for all time. If new evidence comes to light, both men realise that formerly accepted assumptions must be challenged.